Live data from Hacker News

Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

axios.com

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a "good person?" And do you really think people who believe in God are just listening to "fairy tails (sic)" so they can be face the reality of death? Is that really the best portrayal of Christians you can come up with?

Not OP, but yes, I think that any consumer of organized religion is doing it because fairy tales are easier than life and death is scary. That is all it really is, right?

IMO, that's the most insidious aspect of organized religion. Rather than acknowledging death as an engineering problem to be solved and overcome, it teaches people to embrace death and conditions followers to not even consider fighting back.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference in politics is interesting too - in the USA politicians have to be shown to be religious - people discuss the possibility that Bernie Sanders' might be atheist like its a potential major scandal. In the UK its the exact opposite, we don't want our leaders to be religious. Its ok for them to go to a big church service or lay a wreath or something but if they start talking about their 'faith' (as Tony Bl…

If you're running for major office in the US, announcing your fealty to God is a kind of real-world implementation of Pascal's wager. That is, if you are openly atheist you will earn the condemnation of a large cohort of believers, and lose many votes. But if you're religious, only a small few atheists will write you off as a candidate. So it's always to your political advantage to claim religious adherence, even if…

real-world implementation of Pascal's wager

Indeed, well put

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#354
post #80
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sports, online forums, student fraternities, social clubs of every variety, etc. There are many ways to get active in society that don't involve beliefs in higher beings.

Few of these instill purpose and influence behavior of a person in the same way that religion does. You might disagree, but I would argue that the virtues extolled by the vast majority of religious organizations are good ideals to be striving for and wonder what is going to replace this?

You mean self-righteousness and a superiority complex. The person who lives a decent life because it is right for everyone is morally superior to someone who lives a decent life because he fears of being cast into a lake of fire.

And even then, Christians murder more people in the US than anyone, per-capita or otherwise.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#355
I am agnostic, but, I don’t necessarily see this as a good thing.

I was raised Jewish and as a kid we would go to the reform synagogue on and off throughout the year. My parents are completely secular (atheist and agnostic), and yet that did not stop my mom from becoming President of the local reform synagogue, so at least for a period it was a big part of my life.

The main benefit of the synagogue, and I assume it is the same one you get from being involved in your local church, is the community that is built around it.

When someone was sick, someone died or someone needed help, people from the community were always the first ones to help. They would took care of the poor, help the weak and also the elderly. They would lead food drives and volunteer efforts.

I have yet to find any community that is as strong and as helpful as the one that was built around the local synagogue. There is something unique about places of warship that drives people to be more generous and helping. My only assumption is the communities they build are passed down from generation to generation with their own traditions which makes them stronger.

As an adult, I don’t go to synagogue at all. The weird thing is I miss it even though I hated it as a kid.

One last thing. I see a lot of hatred for religion in the comments and as of late in general. Please don’t hate! Understand that extreme anti-religion is no better and no less dangerous than people that take religion to the extreme. Yes, religion has caused or been excuse for a lot of bad and intolerant behavior. You aren’t going to end intolerance by being intolerant yourself. Assume best attentions, judge people by how they act and help through education to change their misconceptions.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t care about it’s positive influence on other people? I understand feeling like you are enlightened and psychologically adjusted such that you don’t need anything beyond science and your own intellect, but surely you see the positive effects it has on other people, and cultures? Do you really think a world without black churches is a better world?

My black kids are doing just fine without a church and I've got to wonder why you think they need one.

That’s a crazy leap to make from my statement which was that killing off black churches would not make the world better. That is the key counter factual for those who claim religion has no benefit to society, or even stronger claims that it retards our moral progress. I think the evidence is clear if you’re honest about the data. Faith helps people with life’s difficulties. I’m certainly not saying any one group needs faith more than any other group. No Christian person will ever make such a claim which is antithetical to the core premise of Christianity, universal brotherhood.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#357
post #330

Having the Church community while growing up was great. But the fact that admission to this community required total philosophical adherence is just bizarre. Frankly, growing up in the church left me with a broken moral code. It was only once I left it in my teens and had to work things out for myself that I feel like I could properly ground myself ethically. Having a moral system imposed on you can do that.

You'll have a broken moral system imposed on you either way then, if not by a church than by the shifting values of politics and society. You'll never derive an absolute moral code by yourself, you are forced to accept the changing values of society or risk being ostracized. Most people just allow their morals to shift with society rather than dig in their heels or try to develop an absolute moral code.

> You'll have a broken moral system imposed on you either way

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how moral systems work, one that is perpetuated by the church.

In Christianity, there is a specific "source" of morality, one that's (supposedly) infallible and unquestionable. This leads to problems when the infallible-unquestionable source of morality endorses things like slavery [1]: if it's unquestionable and infallible, how can your moral system be adapted to address this shortcoming? (This is usually handwaved away by theists by saying something like "oh that's the old covenant", or "that was a different god", which uses strange internal doctrinal shenanigans to somehow justify this supreme perfect being's obvious moral shortcommings, and looks to everyone outside the religion like someone just playing the cup game.)

Outside of religion, there is no single "source" of morality. There's a codified system of laws that our societies adhere to, certainly, but there's plenty of examples of how the laws do not codify morality (e.g. I am not required to be even a minimally-decent Samaritan to anyone I encounter on the street). Morality instead is something that an individual has to build for themselves, as a framework for decisionmaking in the wider world: how do you choose between your available actions? what are your guiding principals?

Some decide that, for various reasons, they cannot support industrial animal agriculture, and turn vegan. Some decide they fundamentally disagree with the structure of our police forces. Some turn pacifist--but all come to these conclusions through their reasoning. They absolutely can (and do) borrow reasoning from other sources, but it's impossible for it to be 'imposed' on them because there is no 'higher power' that has the absolute moral right.

This is something that's frustrated me when trying to engage with religious people on other moral issues; a few months ago I was talking to my mom about the concept of wealth redistribution, as to me it seemed incredibly immoral that people like Jeff Bezos can have an insane amount of wealth while we still have children in our schools who can't afford lunch or library books or are even homeless. My mother (Christian) couldn't get around the idea that she had no right to impose her perceived morality on another: that it would be wrong to support laws requiring the redistribution of wealth. She had similar issues with LGBT rights: she could see the harm caused to LGBT people, and did not want to participate in that harm, but struggled to support them because she felt like codifying moral support for something, which she didn't have the power to do.

This removal of one's own ability to develop and test morals is part of what disturbs me greatly about the church. It makes it very difficult to demonstrate when people make mistakes, how they have harmed other people, and how they might go about avoiding that in the future.

[1]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&versi...

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My own experience being raised mainline Protestant was a bit different which might be illustrative: My parents were not at all devout, but still took wisdom and moral lessons from the Bible, especially from the teachings of Jesus. At the same time the preachers in town leaned right in their beliefs and focused on reading and interpreting more obscure passages. This resulted in a modest ongoing tension about what exac…

This demonstrates the big flaw of Christianity. Even thought there are millions of sincere, loving and friendly Christians around the world, the whole thing is based around a book that espouses views that are exactly what you call fundamentalism. Sooner or later someone will be confronted with the fundamentalist ideas about women, non-christians, and sexual diversity (for example), and start spreading the hate ideas…

Are there clear examples of that in the Bible (New Testament) or is it just how people interpret it?

Edit. I’m not challenging or arguing any point. I was genuinely curious.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#359

So many of the comments here are affirming what I have long observed: much anti-religious sentiment (“much”, not “all”!) is actually a reaction to fundamentalism, which is the bad theology of scriptural literalism, which brings heresies like hating LGBT, insisting the Bible is also a science textbook, superstitious views of certain Middle Eastern lands, and more. Growing up as a mainline Protestant, I thankfully didn…

Unfortunately, you are the exception. I grew up in a church household and family. It is sad that so many people see the bible as a weapon to enforce their point of view instead of a manual to direct their own life. It is crazy the amount of hate that my "christian" family members post on FB.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#360

So many of the comments here are affirming what I have long observed: much anti-religious sentiment (“much”, not “all”!) is actually a reaction to fundamentalism, which is the bad theology of scriptural literalism, which brings heresies like hating LGBT, insisting the Bible is also a science textbook, superstitious views of certain Middle Eastern lands, and more. Growing up as a mainline Protestant, I thankfully didn…

After being raised in a non-Fundamentalist denomination I'd say the progressive ones are more insidious and no less harmful. Their foundations are all the same text, no matter how literal or figurative they interpret it. IME they usually also teach the same bad ways of thinking: emotion over logic, testimony over hard evidence, authority beyond your understanding, etc.

I've seen the churches you talk about, and I would almost call them "progressive-fundamentalist". The hallmark of fundamentalism isn't really adhering strictly to the text (after all, the text is so multifaceted that there's not even just one definition of "strict adherence", despite what they would tell you). The defining trait is turning the text into a battle-cry instead of an invitation for contemplation and love and self- and community-work. Progressives are just as likely to do this as conservatives.
Post reply on HN