Dr Wiener continued: "In a large number of modern secular democracies, there's been a trend that folk are identifying themselves as non-affiliated with religion; in the Netherlands the number was 40%, and the highest we saw was in the Czech Republic, where the number was 60%."

Czech Republic, ho! I am looking into job opportunities there right now.

Something about that article strikes me as way too simplistic.

For instance, are they talking about Big-R religion or about individual religious groups? How does the country selection (US is not in that group for example) affect conclusions? The languages example (as they present it) doesn't demonstrate extinction, it demonstrates regionalization.

Also, I question the numbers they inply at least in terms Canada. (StatsCan) The number of non-affiliated is increasing here but non-affiliated, non-practicing, and non-religious are very different concepts... ask the Easter/Christmas Catholics.

Personally I think expecting the demise of Big-R Religion based on the number of asses in pews in secular countries is a bit optimistic. I think the number of asses in pews is a better indicator of the future of particular religious groups than of religion as a whole.

The orignial research might give a better picture.

That said, I'm an Atheist who deconverted from Christianity and who approves of further secularization of her country.

As for your poll... Why did you chose to use only one preferred social media? I use multiple on a regular basis and for different purposes.

Aside... When I left christianity I missed having the social network and social structure that church provided. I found the period of time where I was trying to figure out where I wanted to be very lonely and isolated. I lost a community.

I read the discussion on FB. Long discussion, but narrow, not broad. Singular viewpoint.

But I have my own concerns about the study, not that it isn't meaningful, but that it means what the article thinks it does.

I perceive a human need that (part of) religion addresses. When that need isn't met, it leaves a population subject to some sort of revival effort, normally much longer on enthusiasm than thought. Like a teenage crush. Such a population is particularly subject to abusive manipulation. It will be interesting to see how these societies that are increasingly identifying as secular evolve.



Edited at 2011-03-22 08:22 pm (UTC)

Holy schnikies, I had to leave your FB thread before I had an aneurysm. "A world without birth control would be awesome!" Really? You would force women whom I know personally to risk death should they become pregnant? You would deny the ability of women whom I know personally to regulate their hormonal issues through use of birth control? Man, I don't know how you're keeping your temper, because I lost mine already. And let's not even mention the back-pedaling about "the fires of hell."

These days I find religion and naturalism in less and less conflict. After all, I believe in the Ubiquitous Cuttlefish and the Great Cosmic Squid. I mean, not really, but really. I don't need reality as a reason to devote everyday rituals to imaginary apotheosised personifications. Mollusca are awesome, and this is enough reason to have a religion—even one that covers an entire culture (cf. Shintoism, which loses very little when combined with naturalism).

And who doesn't want four cosmic hugs at all times?! From a mollusc!!

Goodness, you're on a role with the interesting posts this morning!

I found the conclusions in the article a little misleading. A lot of religions have gone 'extinct' over the ages, but religion itself has not (for better or for worse) gone extinct. It's hard for me to believe that will be any different now.

Also, while I need to see the parameters of the models to understand the conclusions, it seems to me that the numbers while indicating a decline don't really herald extinction -- usually the numbers have to be pushed a lot lower before anything is in danger of being 'snuffed out'.

But I do think it's very true that religion is expected to carry a 'social benefit' for the participants, and if that benefit isn't there folks will spend their time elsewhere.

Maybe Facebook is the new religion...Internet the new god...iPhones the new angels of mercy...

(Oh, and about the Dinos, they aren't actually extinct -- we just call them 'birds' now.)

That study leaves a LOT to be desired. People are not identifying themselves as captial R religious. The word religion implies heavily that you follow one of the big institutional faiths in my opinion, so mostly that study just leaves me curious for further information.

I point this out as I consider myself spiritual and on a spiritual path but I don't identify that as religion nor do I want to.

I am all for the extinction of the major religions which are in my not so humble opinion, very anti women.

Down with the Holy man!

I'm wondering whether this is something of a red herring.

I would love to know how the researchers define religion and where they stand on "religion" as opposed to "faith" or "spirituality." If they're talking about traditional, congregation-based group ritual, I'm surprised that it's only nine countries that are facing extinction of that form. It's inefficient, it's messy and it's hard to reconcile with most peoples' lives. It's not something that's useful the way it used to be, much in the same way that being a Mason or an Elk was sixty years ago.


Faith, though, seems to be a more fundamental part of how people function as people, and that's the point of frustration for those of us who can't comprehend belief structures in anything more than an abstract way. Plenty of people say "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" or "I'm not religious, but I have strong personal beliefs." In my eyes, they're saying "I'm not a baseball player, but I own a uniform, a ball and a bat and play pick-up games of 'hit the ball and run to bases while trying not to get tagged out' on a regular basis. But I'm not a baseball player, because I haven't been signed."

I'd bet that plenty of the people polled have a passable batting average, even if they don't have a uniform.

Ultimately, is it "religion" or "faith" that's more influential at a macro level? I'm not sure.

Came across this from Ms_danson's blog.

Concerning the BBC article, I would recommend highly the book Sacred and Secular by Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart. It basically goes a lot deeper, sociologically and statistically, than this article into why some societies tend to religion while others tend to secularism. Its basic argument is that people tend to be religious when they have a lot of uncertainty about their existence; this is why the poor are generally more religious than the rich, so countries with large social divides tend to be stronger bastions of religion than countries with general equality (that explains why the United States is an anomaly among the wealthy nations of the world in having religion as so powerful a force in society).

Note that most of the countries listed in the article - Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland - are highly developed, very relatively wealthy in the world, and generally strongly favour social equality and social welfare programs (can't speak for the current state of the Czech Republic, or Switzerland's health care system). Being poor in most of these countries, though uncomfortable, is not the huge and frightening burden it would be in a country like, er, Libya. Nor is it as culturally acceptable for the rich to flaunt stretch Hummers as it is in some other states.

The article's writers seriously skewed their sample, I would say. Religion may get extinct? In those cherry-picked countries, maybe. Globally - you have to end poverty first.