Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811

Post by andagainagain »

chmod600 wrote: post #781
rmah wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that quote, Wallace is just morphing, conflating, and fudging the definition of the word "worship". He says people "worship" (with a variety of subtly different meanings) a variety of things and then, implies that because we can use the same word, "worship", to describe those activities, they are equivalent. I despise this rhetorical technique. I find it both insulting, intellectually dishonest and useless.

It is not logically rigorous, but it illustrates a point. Can you expand on why the distinction you are drawing is important?

Trying to steel man David Foster Wallace here, I would say his point is that, if you define "religion" instead as a sort of personal philosophy, then we all have one. And because we all have a philosophy of some sort, we all have desires, rules, and some sort of ethical principles, we don't have atheists.

The point he has relies on a faulty premise. When people talk about religion and atheism, they aren't using the definition of Wallace. They're using the strict definition - non-theist. Not a theist. They don't believe in god. they are saying absolutely nothing about the rest of their philosophy.

He RELIES on changing the definition of religion into something it very clearly isn't. And he does this in order to provide evidence that people, who obviously exist, must not according to his definition. It's like saying "Homosexuality doesn't exist, because all homosexuality is is is rejecting the beauty of certain genders. But we all recognize the beauty of our mothers and brothers and fellow humans, and the grace they give and the home they provide. No human would be human without loving thy neighbor".

It's insulting. And other than that, it has absolutely no value, intellectually, morally, or otherwise.

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

#813

Post by CivBase »

whiddershins wrote: post #89

In my opinion the main problem for religion right now is the failure to explain their arguments at the highest intellectual level, publicly, consistently. Once I was exposed to better theology and philosophy of Christianity I was blown away. Edward Feser’s ‘The Last Superstition’ helped open this up. I have no idea why the level of discourse is on average so primitive, I think church leaders have been systematically…

> I have no idea why the level of discourse is on average so primitive, I think church leaders have been systematically underestimating the populace.

They're not underestimating the populace. They're catering to them in a desperate attempt to stay economically viable. The big beautiful building, supporting staff, production equipment, etc doesn't pay for itself.

Many churches are operated as businesses - ones which have realized that the easiest, most profitable mode of operation is to refrain from teaching/challenging your supporters as much as possible. Mix in a sense of tradition, some political activism, and a touch of self-righteousness and you've got yourself a recipe for a successful organization. At least until your congregation passes away and their children realize they have no use for you.

There are still a few churches out there which use the hellfire-and-brimstone approach, but it's not very effective on Gen X and younger. Nowadays, I'm certain it drives more people away from Christianity than it brings in.

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

#814

Post by mcavoybn »

andagainagain wrote: post #800
mcavoybn wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the degree of your outrage, I think something other than "rhetorical technique" has triggered you here. Then again, maybe you are just really really opinionated about "rhetorical techniques" and following strict definitions of words? In that case, you must despise the vast majority of stories and literature because of their metaphors, parables, and subtly different meanings...

This is obviously incorrect. If someone is making an argument then there is a higher bar of what word usage means than stories about santa clause. And using words like "religion" with completely different, fuzzier, less meaningful definitions in order to make a point that doesn't address the topic of religion being discussed is in fact worthless at best. Manipulative and dishonest at worst.

It's up to the reader to decide what is worthwhile for them.

Also, whether that quote is relevant or not is not what is being argued. The original dispute (on a surface level) was about a "rhetorical technique". Now you say it is manipulative and dishonest, which is a completely different thing and obviously false.

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

#815

Post by petre »

methodin wrote: post #785
petre wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't understand why some people have to turn to atheism when not participating in organised religion is quite easy enough. This is what the article implies, church membership as opposed to faith. Why even bother to deny something that others believe without proof and needlessly argue about it? Maybe it makes them happy, more secure. Vocal atheists usually annoy me more than christian evanghelists, mostly be…

Because the U.S. still has not even come close to mastering the separation of church and state which means depending on where you live it will confront you frequently whether you like or not. Burying your head in the sand does nothing if you believe the premise of that separation is virtuous. I am not atheist myself but I have yet to see anyone I know be vocal about their atheism, yet I know many that are vocal about…

Most of the ones I've met acted pretty much like Dawkins and got all worked up by their beliefs, mocked churchgoers and called them names. Maybe it preocupies them a great deal but I did not care to hear any of it, nor asked about it, it was them who sought to share their opinion on the matter.

I also live in a country where the separation between state and church is also not clear enough. The church is quite openly corrupt and gets laughed at by my generation and is becoming less relevant every year.

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

#816

Post by aftergibson »

chmod600 wrote: post #797
xtracto wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was "in touch" with religion for 12 years (my parents sent me to a very catholic school even though both are atheists) My experience was seeing huge amounts of falsehood and hypocrisy as religious people followed and repeated all the rituals of the mass but in the day to day life they just did not care about others and pretty much ignored what their religion taught them. Thank God after those 12 years I saw everyth…

It depends on the religion. Some are just better at applying religious teachings to lifestyle than others. In my opinion, Catholicism (for all it's good qualities) is too theoretical and abstract. It's easy to walk out of church without any real takaways that you might apply to your ordinary life.

Catholicism is so mired in needless hierarchy and ceremony that it severely inhibits any genuine value it might provide.

It hit home as a teenager during Easter Sunday mass. A priest enters the church, wearing his extra religious garb, a crucifix is carried behind him. The procession take several steps, the worshippers then kneel down and immediately stand back up. Several more steps, then kneeling and standing. Then several more steps, then kneeling and standing.

The third time I stood up I felt like it was outside my body looking at myself. Following the crowd with absolutely no idea why or the meaning behind it. To me, I looked like an idiot. My father was religious his entire life, so afterwards I asked him what the ceremony represented, he had no idea. I went to church less and less after that.

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

#817

Post by ed25519FUUU »

soared wrote: post #281
snicker7 wrote: post #210

Speaking as a person of faith, religion has been largely obsoleted by social media and political tribalism. Most people get their moral compass from Instagram or Twitter or whatever. Celebrities, op-end writers, talk show hosts, and corporations have become the bishops of the new American moral universe.

I don’t think anyone is getting their morals from Instagram.

Find the influencers of our generation and you'll find the moral role models.

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

#818

Post by Kinrany »

temp8964 wrote: post #722
rmah wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that quote, Wallace is just morphing, conflating, and fudging the definition of the word "worship". He says people "worship" (with a variety of subtly different meanings) a variety of things and then, implies that because we can use the same word, "worship", to describe those activities, they are equivalent. I despise this rhetorical technique. I find it both insulting, intellectually dishonest and useless.

Unless you can elaborate and distinguish different kinds of "worship", your accusation is overblown. Maybe he used this word simply because it was the best choice available to capture and communicate the underlined meaning?

1. To believe in something unobservable by conventional means.

2. To value something over anything else.

The word "atheist" clearly implies the first, and he never explains what meaning of the word "atheist" he uses in his "there are no atheists". So this is either a rhetorical trick, or a tautology that defines "atheist" as, roughly, "someone who doesn't value anything that much", but never goes anywhere with this definition.

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

#819

Post by ed25519FUUU »

danbruc wrote: post #15
datavirtue wrote: post #5

The spread of information has allowed people to form their own moralistic code and spiritual journey that doesn't rely on having an institutional infrastructure. They are choosing religions that reject elite priesthoods, a trend now going back for thousands of years starting with Zarathustra. I consider this progress.

They are choosing religions that reject elite priesthoods [...] They choose no religion.

Actually they're choosing Islam, which is now by far the fastest growing religion in the world: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/06/why-muslims...

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

#820

Post by asdff »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #46

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.

We were only briefly religious growing up to satisfy some elders in the family, but in truth the community around our church was no stronger or any different than any other family based community we were in while growing up. You could have a just as strong of a family community with your kid in rec league sports, for example, because ultimately people just want to have a good time and you don't need a belief system for that when a plate of food will do.
Post reply on HN