The Death/Loss Of Religion In America (2 Viewers)

[perryjanie]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

It's understandable to grapple with questions of faith and evangelism, especially in a time when beliefs and values are often deeply scrutinized. As a person of faith myself, I can relate to the complexity of navigating these discussions.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This is not completely related, but I thought it was good.

It's from a church not too far from me in Asheville, NC. Like any group of humans, they surely don't get everything just right. But I think they're doing a good job of demonstrating what a church and our faith can look like. It's stuff like this that helps me answer "no" to the question asked in the OP about is the loss of religion a good thing.

It's 12 minutes but a good illustration I think. https://vimeo.com/916744235

 

[Jayrod]

This is not completely related, but I thought it was good.

It's from a church not too far from me in Asheville, NC. Like any group of humans, they surely don't get everything just right. But I think they're doing a good job of demonstrating what a church and our faith can look like. It's stuff like this that helps me answer "no" to the question asked in the OP about is the loss of religion a good thing.

It's 12 minutes but a good illustration I think. https://vimeo.com/916744235

That's beautiful. Christ and then the early church truly went to the lost and hurting everywhere and that should be the pattern for the modern church. Every city needs a church like this. Here in Springfield, MO there is Freedom City Church, which seems to be very similar to House of Mercy. The church I attend has helped Freedom City because we recognize they will reach people that will never set foot in our church. Freedom City's pastor, John Alarid, is a former drug addict and convict and knows how to reach them effectively and provide what they need. I believe their doors are open 24/7 and they provide emergency drug treatment and assist with food/shelter needs.

My family has done some volunteering with the homeless shelters and food pantries, but I often feel a pull to do more. Finding the resources (time/money) to personally invest is never easy with all of the selfish and "normal" every day things going on, but it is what we are called to be as Christians. Christians forget about the sheep and the goats parable too often.

 

[Jayrod]

I remember a conversation I got into very early in my time on this board. I had indicated that while Christianity was diminishing in the Western World, it was flourishing in places like Southeast Asia and Africa and someone asked me why that was the case.

I told them it was because those people had basic needs that weren't being met and Christianity gives hope to them. There is an actual spiritual danger that comes in being self-sufficient in that we think we don't need God. The US is the most comfortable nation in the history of the world and it shows in our churches and approach to Jesus' teachings in general.

I love to go on foreign mission trips, but admittedly it is for selfish reasons. First, I just love to travel and see the world, but also I always get more out of seeing how people live in 3rd world parts of the world that don't have anywhere close to the comforts of first world nations. It provides appreciation, but also resets my mindset to what is important in life. It isn't the next movie, ball game or smart phone coming out, but the next human being I meet and their spiritual state that matters.

 

[The Commish]

"Religion" is a pretty loaded term to those of faith....at least in my circle. I practice my "faith" not my "religion". "Religion" in my world is all the "stuff" man has lumped on top of the core teachings in the Bible. It's the catechisms. It's the formal professions of faith. It's the formal confessions of sin. It's the ceremonies etc. It's all the "stuff" that man does for others to show they are believers in Christ.

So, I'd likely answer this question with a resounding "YES!!!!!!" but I'm rather confident that's not what rock was asking. I went with "neutral".

 

[The Commish]

This is not completely related, but I thought it was good.

It's from a church not too far from me in Asheville, NC. Like any group of humans, they surely don't get everything just right. But I think they're doing a good job of demonstrating what a church and our faith can look like. It's stuff like this that helps me answer "no" to the question asked in the OP about is the loss of religion a good thing.

It's 12 minutes but a good illustration I think. https://vimeo.com/916744235

My mom went here for some time and I know Chad pretty well. He "gets it" when it comes to focus and purpose.

 

[Joe Bryant]

"Religion" is a pretty loaded term to those of faith....at least in my circle. I practice my "faith" not my "religion". "Religion" in my world is all the "stuff" man has lumped on top of the core teachings in the Bible. It's the catechisms. It's the formal professions of faith. It's the formal confessions of sin. It's the ceremonies etc. It's all the "stuff" that man does for others to show they are believers in Christ.

So, I'd likely answer this question with a resounding "YES!!!!!!" but I'm rather confident that's not what rock was asking. I went with "neutral".

Yes. The differentiation between "religion" and "faith" is sort of inside language from church people.

I realize most people outside church don't see them as different.

Given that most of us are in the US, I understood this question to mean for most, "Is the loss of Christianity, Islam and other faiths a good, neutral or bad thing?"

The fact that's how it's understood is a bummer. The voting results are a bummer in my opinion too. But that's where we are. And for people of faith, we are mostly the reason people vote the way they do.

 

[rockaction]

Given that most of us are in the US, I understood this question to mean for most, "Is the loss of Christianity, Islam and other faiths a good, neutral or bad thing?"

Yeah, that's what I meant. But, contrary to what The Commish assumes, I did mean the catechisms and ceremonies that go along with faith that only religion provides. I was talking about the whole thing. That's because of the socialization process that those extras require adults and children to be a part of.

Part of this question was to ask people to consider religion and the outward practices of faith as something that builds social capital and provides a common moral baseline from which to then act. Ceremonies and sacraments are very much a part of that. Going out into the community and having a common purpose or having to be social is a big part of ceremonial or sacramental requirements that build community ties.

It's really de Tocqueville and others who talked about this. It was revived as a concept not too long ago. Francis Fukuyama, in 1997, wrote about the loss of trust in America and predicted it would get worse as we lost our social capital, which we were rapidly doing then. The decline in religious practices has exacerbated that. We are now a really low-trust society. Matt Yglesias will touch on this every so often. Our plummeting rates of religious practices are showing up everywhere, if you ask me.

As for the distinction between faith and religion, that's fine. They seem distinct. Faith can be had if the right person sits alone and thinks about teachings he or she believe in. It doesn't provide the socialization process that adhering to a structured and formal religion does.

 

[The Commish]

Given that most of us are in the US, I understood this question to mean for most, "Is the loss of Christianity, Islam and other faiths a good, neutral or bad thing?"

Yeah, that's what I meant. But, contrary to what The Commish assumes, I did mean the catechisms and ceremonies that go along with faith that only religion provides. I was talking about the whole thing. That's because of the socialization process that those extras require adults and children to be a part of.

Part of this question was to ask people to consider religion and the outward practices of faith as something that builds social capital and provides a common moral baseline from which to then act. Ceremonies and sacraments are very much a part of that. Going out into the community and having a common purpose or having to be social is a big part of ceremonial or sacramental requirements that build community ties.

It's really de Tocqueville and others who talked about this. It was revived as a concept not too long ago. Francis Fukuyama, in 1997, wrote about the loss of trust in America and predicted it would get worse as we lost our social capital, which we were rapidly doing then. The decline in religious practices has exacerbated that. We are now a really low-trust society. Matt Yglesias will touch on this every so often. Our plummeting rates of religious practices are showing up everywhere, if you ask me.

As for the distinction between faith and religion, that's fine. They seem distinct. Faith can be had if the right person sits alone and thinks about teachings he or she believe in. It doesn't provide the socialization process that adhering to a structured and formal religion does.

In the minds of many of us, this is clearly "either/or" and NOT "both/and" though....that was my point. They aren't to be lumped together as a "whole".

In an attempt to answer your question in a different way. "Religion" for many of us is that point where all the ceremony and social parts get in the way of the practice of faith. The social aspects SHOULD be a result of that practice that occurs naturally as a result and not the motivating factor. When those aspects become the driver the unequivocal answer to the question you ask is a "yes" for me.

 

[dgreen]

As for the distinction between faith and religion, that's fine. They seem distinct. Faith can be had if the right person sits alone and thinks about teachings he or she believe in. It doesn't provide the socialization process that adhering to a structured and formal religion does.

I think this is one of the big harms of Western Christianity. We overvalue the mind and believing the right things. Faith should never be viewed as just a mental assent. Faith is actionable. The ceremony and social aspects that @The Commish puts in the "religion" category should point people towards a stronger actionable faith. To his point, when they don't do that and they point people towards thinking all they have to do is hold a particular mental belief or recite a particular creed or perform a particular sacrament as an end in themselves, religion has lost its connection with faith and the heart of the God it claims to be following.

In a recent Bible study in my church, the word "orthopraxy" came up and most of the room were unfamiliar with what it means. Some thought the word was made up on the spot by the one who had said it. Everyone was familiar with "orthodoxy" and believing the right thing, but very few had even heard "orthopraxy" and doing the right thing. It was a glaring example to me of how we have failed to properly define faith and what it means to love God.

It stinks that "religion" and "faith" and actionably loving one another have all been separated in the minds of so many.

 

[rockaction]

I think this is one of the big harms of Western Christianity. We overvalue the mind and believing the right things. Faith should never be viewed as just a mental assent. Faith is actionable. The ceremony and social aspects that @The Commish puts in the "religion" category should point people towards a stronger actionable faith

Thanks for explaining that to me. I was getting at that in my post, but didn't want to get bogged down in an argument about it so I conceded to The Commish's view of that dichotomy. I was a confirmed Catholic, so my understanding is that the ceremonies and sacraments are very much part of the faith element of The Church.

But I'm also no expert, so I didn't want to push it. It sounded like a Protestant concept to me, but that's a whole different ball of wax I don't want to open both because I'm a little ignorant when it comes to religion and faith and also because I don't want the discussion to descend or fragment into anything that has to do with different faiths within Christianity. I'm looking at everything from a bird's eye view, i.e., how the declining rates of religious identification and practice affect society.

 

[AAABatteries]

Given that most of us are in the US, I understood this question to mean for most, "Is the loss of Christianity, Islam and other faiths a good, neutral or bad thing?"

The fact that's how it's understood is a bummer. The voting results are a bummer in my opinion too. But that's where we are. And for people of faith, we are mostly the reason people vote the way they do.

I said it somewhere up thread but one of the problems Christianity has is the question is so broad that it gets lumped in with all other religions and cults, etc. Plus - the misguided things people do in the name of Christianity. It’s a complex question to answer in the context presented.

And that’s not a knock on Rock - it’s a good thought exercise.

 

[Jayrod]

The separation of being a "person of faith" from being a part of the church is a problem. Paul writes extensively about the body of believers and how we are meant to complement one another with our variation of gifts and abilities. In Hebrews, the author says, " And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." (Hebrews 10:24-25)

Half-heartedness, incomplete understanding and isolationism can cause a lot of problems among Christians and stains the world's view of Jesus and the church.
"So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:16)

Saying "I'm spiritual but not religious" and "you don't have to go to church to be a Christian" are based on incomplete theology and are spiritual dangerous platitudes. We (as the church body) are not created to exist and live in isolation.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Plus - the misguided things people do in the name of Christianity.

I realize it's human nature to focus on what we don't like. But I'll admit frustration over the seeming fixation on a small number of things that are outrageous and not representative of many for people, possibly sincerely, to paint the whole group with that brush. While other things like the House Of Mercy folks and a prison ministry seem to be overlooked.

And I know that's just me whining. But it's a frustration.

It's also a frustration that some of my Christian friends are pretty defensive about it. I tell them often it doesn't matter if something is a fair representation or we're guilty by association, the reality is most people have a negative opinion of us as evidenced by the poll here. We have to understand that's the landscape. And navigate thoughtfully understanding the preconceived opinion.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think this is one of the big harms of Western Christianity. We overvalue the mind and believing the right things. Faith should never be viewed as just a mental assent. Faith is actionable. The ceremony and social aspects that @The Commish puts in the "religion" category should point people towards a stronger actionable faith

Thanks for explaining that to me. I was getting at that in my post, but didn't want to get bogged down in an argument about it so I conceded to The Commish's view of that dichotomy. I was a confirmed Catholic, so my understanding is that the ceremonies and sacraments are very much part of the faith element of The Church.

But I'm also no expert, so I didn't want to push it. It sounded like a Protestant concept to me, but that's a whole different ball of wax I don't want to open both because I'm a little ignorant when it comes to religion and faith and also because I don't want the discussion to descend or fragment into anything that has to do with different faiths within Christianity. I'm looking at everything from a bird's eye view, i.e., how the declining rates of religious identification and practice affect society.

If we were having this conversation just as a group of Christians, we would be having a debate about faith vs. works, the relative importance of the Bible, reason, and tradition as ways of knowing, etc.

But as others have noted, that's all inside-baseball stuff. In normal English to a normal audience, "religion" means "Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Etc." not "the institutional trappings of faith." That's obviously what Joe meant. And non-Christians don't care where assorted Christians come down on salvation through grace.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Saying "I'm spiritual but not religious" and "you don't have to go to church to be a Christian" are based on incomplete theology and are spiritual dangerous platitudes. We (as the church body) are not created to exist and live in isolation.

Okay, I know I just said that this is off-topic and boring to non-believers, but what the heck. Your post struck a chord with me because I've always been the type of person who is subject to the criticism that I over-intellectualize my own faith. I've known that about myself for decades. And I'm also highly introverted. When my wife and I go to church, I tend to not talk to people, I do the standard "Midwestern guy in church" thing where I just stand there silently while everybody else sings hymns, I leave when the service is over, etc. In other words, I'm the kind of guy who would have felt like he could get along just fine apart from the church.

This is one topic where my experience with the pandemic definitely changed my mind. For the first six months or so, I didn't really care that my church was closed - it was fine. But then six months became a year, and even after vaccines were available our services were still very weird, to the point where even my wife just got mad every time we went. The lack of regular connection to other believers was not good for me, and I'm a lot happier now that we're in a more vibrant congregation. I still don't sing though - we all have our lines that we won't cross.

 

[tri-man 47]

This is not completely related, but I thought it was good.

It's from a church not too far from me in Asheville, NC. Like any group of humans, they surely don't get everything just right. But I think they're doing a good job of demonstrating what a church and our faith can look like. It's stuff like this that helps me answer "no" to the question asked in the OP about is the loss of religion a good thing.

It's 12 minutes but a good illustration I think. https://vimeo.com/916744235

My first response is what @Jayrod said - that was beautiful. Our pastor's sermon a couple days ago started off with words similar to the opening of the video: "Church" is not a place or a building. It is, as he stated, a movement of people. And I'll echo what the video stated about the marginalized. A church community - a movement of people - is stronger when we recognize that we all marginalized and in need of God's grace.

Jayrod mentions mission work and serving others, which is a significant focus of the church my wife and I joined last year (a large-ish Presbyterian church in the Chicago suburbs). A current four-part sermon series is on joy. One of the sermons focused on the joy of giving to/helping others. Referring to the video again, it talks about vulnerability, and that's a part of it ...being vulnerable enough to open ourselves to others and to God.

Thanks for sharing the video!

 

[tri-man 47]

Saying "I'm spiritual but not religious" and "you don't have to go to church to be a Christian" are based on incomplete theology and are spiritual dangerous platitudes. We (as the church body) are not created to exist and live in isolation.

Okay, I know I just said that this is off-topic and boring to non-believers, but what the heck. Your post struck a chord with me because I've always been the type of person who is subject to the criticism that I over-intellectualize my own faith. I've known that about myself for decades. And I'm also highly introverted. When my wife and I go to church, I tend to not talk to people, I do the standard "Midwestern guy in church" thing where I just stand there silently while everybody else sings hymns, I leave when the service is over, etc. In other words, I'm the kind of guy who would have felt like he could get along just fine apart from the church.

This is one topic where my experience with the pandemic definitely changed my mind. For the first six months or so, I didn't really care that my church was closed - it was fine. But then six months became a year, and even after vaccines were available our services were still very weird, to the point where even my wife just got mad every time we went. The lack of regular connection to other believers was not good for me, and I'm a lot happier now that we're in a more vibrant congregation. I still don't sing though - we all have our lines that we won't cross.

One option is to just read the words instead of singing them. I've found that when I do that I actually focus better on the words and message, rather struggling to reach notes outside my range (my own focus is on stumbling through the bass line, which is about a half-octave lower).

 

[Scoresman]

When I was a kid in Catholic school, we would change the lyrics to the songs to be dirty. I remember one specific song called "Though the Mountains May Fall" and we changed it to be about poop and would sing it in church.

You can tell religion really stuck with me.

 

[dgreen]

When I was a kid in Catholic school, we would change the lyrics to the songs to be dirty. I remember one specific song called "Though the Mountains May Fall" and we changed it to be about poop and would sing it in church.

You can tell religion really stuck with me.

We added the words "in bed" to the end of every song title to try to find the funniest one.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Saying "I'm spiritual but not religious" and "you don't have to go to church to be a Christian" are based on incomplete theology and are spiritual dangerous platitudes. We (as the church body) are not created to exist and live in isolation.

Okay, I know I just said that this is off-topic and boring to non-believers, but what the heck. Your post struck a chord with me because I've always been the type of person who is subject to the criticism that I over-intellectualize my own faith. I've known that about myself for decades. And I'm also highly introverted. When my wife and I go to church, I tend to not talk to people, I do the standard "Midwestern guy in church" thing where I just stand there silently while everybody else sings hymns, I leave when the service is over, etc. In other words, I'm the kind of guy who would have felt like he could get along just fine apart from the church.

This is one topic where my experience with the pandemic definitely changed my mind. For the first six months or so, I didn't really care that my church was closed - it was fine. But then six months became a year, and even after vaccines were available our services were still very weird, to the point where even my wife just got mad every time we went. The lack of regular connection to other believers was not good for me, and I'm a lot happier now that we're in a more vibrant congregation. I still don't sing though - we all have our lines that we won't cross.

One option is to just read the words instead of singing them. I've found that when I do that I actually focus better on the words and message, rather struggling to reach notes outside my range (my own focus is on stumbling through the bass line, which is about a half-octave lower).

Oh, I used to do this all the time. And the thing is, the old hymns are actually pretty interesting to read, because they shoe-horn a lot of theology in there. For example, "O Come All Ye Faithful" includes the delicious line "son of the father, begotten not created" just to hammer home a rather obscure point about the doctrine of the trinity. I choose that example because it's one that everybody will know, but our Methodist hymnal was filled to the brim with hymns like because of Wesley.

But our current church does praise music, which to my ear is basically just "God is cool" repeated verbatim 27 times to a very simple electric guitar chord.

 

[The Commish]

I think this is one of the big harms of Western Christianity. We overvalue the mind and believing the right things. Faith should never be viewed as just a mental assent. Faith is actionable. The ceremony and social aspects that @The Commish puts in the "religion" category should point people towards a stronger actionable faith

Thanks for explaining that to me. I was getting at that in my post, but didn't want to get bogged down in an argument about it so I conceded to The Commish's view of that dichotomy. I was a confirmed Catholic, so my understanding is that the ceremonies and sacraments are very much part of the faith element of The Church.

But I'm also no expert, so I didn't want to push it. It sounded like a Protestant concept to me, but that's a whole different ball of wax I don't want to open both because I'm a little ignorant when it comes to religion and faith and also because I don't want the discussion to descend or fragment into anything that has to do with different faiths within Christianity. I'm looking at everything from a bird's eye view, i.e., how the declining rates of religious identification and practice affect society.

dgreen said it clearer than I did.....my only point was when the "fruit" of our faith becomes a "checklist" instead, there's a large problem. Taking the time to explain your background helps me understand where you're coming from. Totally see why my comments might have been strange...no offense intended

 

[rockaction]

Totally see why my comments might have been strange...no offense intended

They weren't really too strange. I was just trying to understand your argument and where it might be coming from. I just don't remember approaching religion with the sort of intellectual firepower that you all are using. I still have no idea what IK or dgreen are referring to, and I've read their posts several times. I just chalk it up to my own ignorance and lack of knowledge about the subject of Christianity.

I was sort of raised to fall in line a bit as a Catholic. We tend to take pronouncements, edicts, tradition, dogma, and ceremony very seriously. The Pope really sets the agenda for the Catholic Church and the laity tends to follow without too much questioning. They're expected to. The academic work is done by the priests and the hierarchy above them. You do go to Saturday school and learn about the themes and topics, but there's no real intellectual questioning, dissent, or examination most times. Especially as kids. Therefore, I don't really know much about anything. I stopped going to church as soon as I left for college, which I assume is when the adult questions about faith and that which pertains to it come into play because they mean more. I was clock-watching to find out when I could leave to go home—not thinking about deeper meaning in my religious practices.

And there was no offense taken, GB. None at all.

 

[dgreen]

Saying "I'm spiritual but not religious" and "you don't have to go to church to be a Christian" are based on incomplete theology and are spiritual dangerous platitudes. We (as the church body) are not created to exist and live in isolation.

Okay, I know I just said that this is off-topic and boring to non-believers, but what the heck. Your post struck a chord with me because I've always been the type of person who is subject to the criticism that I over-intellectualize my own faith. I've known that about myself for decades. And I'm also highly introverted. When my wife and I go to church, I tend to not talk to people, I do the standard "Midwestern guy in church" thing where I just stand there silently while everybody else sings hymns, I leave when the service is over, etc. In other words, I'm the kind of guy who would have felt like he could get along just fine apart from the church.

This is one topic where my experience with the pandemic definitely changed my mind. For the first six months or so, I didn't really care that my church was closed - it was fine. But then six months became a year, and even after vaccines were available our services were still very weird, to the point where even my wife just got mad every time we went. The lack of regular connection to other believers was not good for me, and I'm a lot happier now that we're in a more vibrant congregation. I still don't sing though - we all have our lines that we won't cross.

One option is to just read the words instead of singing them. I've found that when I do that I actually focus better on the words and message, rather struggling to reach notes outside my range (my own focus is on stumbling through the bass line, which is about a half-octave lower).

Oh, I used to do this all the time. And the thing is, the old hymns are actually pretty interesting to read, because they shoe-horn a lot of theology in there. For example, "O Come All Ye Faithful" includes the delicious line "son of the father, begotten not created" just to hammer home a rather obscure point about the doctrine of the trinity. I choose that example because it's one that everybody will know, but our Methodist hymnal was filled to the brim with hymns like because of Wesley.

But our current church does praise music, which to my ear is basically just "God is cool" repeated verbatim 27 times to a very simple electric guitar chord.

Yeah, song lyrics are interesting to meditate on. Quite a few people treat them as inspired text, but I increasingly come across lyrics that I currently think are bad theology. And it's painful sometimes because I think about how much I've always loved that hymn and now I struggle to sing the words.

 

[dgreen]

Totally see why my comments might have been strange...no offense intended

They weren't really too strange. I was just trying to understand your argument and where it might be coming from. I just don't remember approaching religion with the sort of intellectual firepower that you all are using. I still have no idea what IK or dgreen are referring to, and I've read their posts several times. I just chalk it up to my own ignorance and lack of knowledge about the subject of Christianity.

I was sort of raised to fall in line a bit as a Catholic. We tend to take pronouncements, edicts, tradition, dogma, and ceremony very seriously. The Pope really sets the agenda for the Catholic Church and the laity tends to follow without too much questioning. They're expected to. The academic work is done by the priests and the hierarchy above them. You do go to Saturday school and learn about the themes and topics, but there's no real intellectual questioning, dissent, or examination most times. Especially as kids. Therefore, I don't really know much about anything. I stopped going to church as soon as I left for college, which I assume is when the adult questions about faith and that which pertains to it come into play because they mean more. I was clock-watching to find out when I could leave to go home—not thinking about deeper meaning in my religious practices.

And there was no offense taken, GB. None at all.

Ha, when I read your posts I usually think, "I have no idea what rock is talking about! That dude is way too smart for me." So I'm flattered to have stumped you! If there's something specific you want me to clarify, let me know. If not, no biggie.

 

[Jayrod]

Saying "I'm spiritual but not religious" and "you don't have to go to church to be a Christian" are based on incomplete theology and are spiritual dangerous platitudes. We (as the church body) are not created to exist and live in isolation.

Okay, I know I just said that this is off-topic and boring to non-believers, but what the heck. Your post struck a chord with me because I've always been the type of person who is subject to the criticism that I over-intellectualize my own faith. I've known that about myself for decades. And I'm also highly introverted. When my wife and I go to church, I tend to not talk to people, I do the standard "Midwestern guy in church" thing where I just stand there silently while everybody else sings hymns, I leave when the service is over, etc. In other words, I'm the kind of guy who would have felt like he could get along just fine apart from the church.

This is one topic where my experience with the pandemic definitely changed my mind. For the first six months or so, I didn't really care that my church was closed - it was fine. But then six months became a year, and even after vaccines were available our services were still very weird, to the point where even my wife just got mad every time we went. The lack of regular connection to other believers was not good for me, and I'm a lot happier now that we're in a more vibrant congregation. I still don't sing though - we all have our lines that we won't cross.

Part of what the isolationist mentality misses (and a huge part of being Christian) is that it isn't about you. How can you support the body of believers and use your gifts for others if you are never with them? We are to be a part of a church, not so much for ourselves, but for what we can do for others.

 

[rockaction]

So I'm flattered to have stumped you! If there's something specific you want me to clarify, let me know. If not, no biggie.

Heh. No sweat. I think it was what you were talking about where faith becomes actionable—I think I got a bit lost.

This part.

Faith should never be viewed as just a mental assent. Faith is actionable. The ceremony and social aspects that @The Commish puts in the "religion" category should point people towards a stronger actionable faith. To his point, when they don't do that and they point people towards thinking all they have to do is hold a particular mental belief or recite a particular creed or perform a particular sacrament as an end in themselves, religion has lost its connection with faith and the heart of the God it claims to be following.

I'm having trouble re-summarizing what you mean here by the words in the boldface font, especially how ceremony and social aspects could point people towards a "stronger, actionable faith." I don't think I follow.

I think I might get the latter, non-bolded statement. I think you're saying that when religion doesn't point to an "actionable faith," yet points people inward, or makes recitation of creed or performance of sacraments perfunctory and rote, it is a failure of that religion. If the church-goer is self-satisfied at having merely performed or recited their obligation to the church to satisfy a requirement, then the religion has failed that person.

Does that sound right? Feel free to tell me honestly.

 

[dgreen]

So I'm flattered to have stumped you! If there's something specific you want me to clarify, let me know. If not, no biggie.

Heh. No sweat. I think it was what you were talking about where faith becomes actionable—I think I got a bit lost.

This part.

Faith should never be viewed as just a mental assent. Faith is actionable. The ceremony and social aspects that @The Commish puts in the "religion" category should point people towards a stronger actionable faith. To his point, when they don't do that and they point people towards thinking all they have to do is hold a particular mental belief or recite a particular creed or perform a particular sacrament as an end in themselves, religion has lost its connection with faith and the heart of the God it claims to be following.

I'm having trouble re-summarizing what you mean here by the words in the boldface font, especially how ceremony and social aspects could point people towards a "stronger, actionable faith." I don't think I follow.

I think I might get the latter, non-bolded statement. I think you're saying that when religion doesn't point to an "actionable faith," yet points people inward, or makes recitation of creed or performance of sacraments perfunctory and rote, it is a failure of that religion. If the church-goer is self-satisfied at having merely performed or recited their obligation to the church to satisfy a requirement, then the religion has failed that person.

Does that sound right? Feel free to tell me honestly.

In the bold, I'm trying to say that my assumption is all of these religious ceremonies and rituals were likely originally intended for a particular purpose and not and end in and of themselves. Everything that's done probably has a deep story behind it that was designed for a deeper meaning. I believe the meaning is to call us to action, but we probably fail to focus on that too often.

I'll use an example from my own church tradition. We take communion (Lord's Supper, eucharist, whatever you want to call it) every Sunday. Someone always gets up and says a few words with the intention of focusing our minds on what we are about to do. It's fairly often that someone will quote Jesus when he said at the Last Supper, "Do this in remembrance of me." Then the person will talk about how we are supposed to remember the sacrifice Jesus made for us on the cross and celebrate the victory of the resurrection. In the minds of many, we should be thinking about that while we take the bread and wine. However, to me, that falls short. First of all, Jesus said this before he died so I think we should also be remembering the acts of his life and his teachings. More importantly, I just don't think "remember" simply means to keep an idea in your mind. When God remembered Noah, he sent a wind over the water to rescue him. When God remembered Rachel, he opened her womb. Remembering, in the Bible, involves taking an action. That's the point of remembering. The Israelites were told to remember that they were once slaves in Egypt and because of that they were to care for the foreigner in their land. They were also told to remember the sabbath, which obviously includes an active rest from certain activities. From my amateur POV, the Hebrew mindset and language cared about action. They weren't focused on just an intellectual remembering. The same goes for words like love and faith and even knowledge (notice how the Bible says things like "Adam knew his wife, Eve...). They are all action words.

So, I think we can easily miss the call to action when participating in the Lord's Supper. We should be remembering Jesus so that we can then respond as his disciples, which is to act as he acts. Participating in this ritual should be pushing us towards that stronger actionable faith. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Psychopav]

When I was a kid in Catholic school, we would change the lyrics to the songs to be dirty. I remember one specific song called "Though the Mountains May Fall" and we changed it to be about poop and would sing it in church.

You can tell religion really stuck with me.

Every so often we have a hymn that uses the word "trod", and I always rhyme it with "you're such a stupid clod". I also sing "he rules the world with an iron first..." in 'joy to the world". And when they send the kids out for children's liturgy of the word, I always sing (quietly) "get out children, get out get out. Get out children and don't come back".

I'm 52. Lol

 

[rockaction]

In the bold, I'm trying to say that my assumption is all of these religious ceremonies and rituals were likely originally intended for a particular purpose and not and end in and of themselves. Everything that's done probably has a deep story behind it that was designed for a deeper meaning. I believe the meaning is to call us to action, but we probably fail to focus on that too often.

Hey dgreen, thanks for the explanation. I think I get what you're saying. The sacraments, in my understanding, are not ends in and of themselves, which you posit. There is a deeper reason and a deeper meaning behind the sacraments. That sounds right. I do not know nor can I judge whether that is to call us to action, but your argument seems logical and reasoned, so I have no reason to doubt it, really.

But, to wit, the sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church. I am looking at the reasoning behind it, and at almost every turn it has been explained pretty much this way: Because Jesus administered the sacrament on earth and decreed that it should be done, therefore we do it. You'll feel better afterwards and it will help you avoid sin in the future. There isn't really an action that we are pointed to in the Catholic Church. It is posited that we understand Jesus better and are able to live in accordance with dogma.

Therefore, I think when I'm talking about the Catholic Church, some consideration has to be taken that it might be different than a Protestant denomination. Of course, I could be missing the action that the Catholic Church is calling me to, but I'm not sure about that. It seems like the process gets one squarer with Jesus and that it cleanses one's conscience after with hopes that it will lead to a more aligned life with Christ in the future because of the sacrament. But that seems to be where it stops.

 

[AAABatteries]

Plus - the misguided things people do in the name of Christianity.

I realize it's human nature to focus on what we don't like. But I'll admit frustration over the seeming fixation on a small number of things that are outrageous and not representative of many for people, possibly sincerely, to paint the whole group with that brush. While other things like the House Of Mercy folks and a prison ministry seem to be overlooked.

And I know that's just me whining. But it's a frustration.

It's also a frustration that some of my Christian friends are pretty defensive about it. I tell them often it doesn't matter if something is a fair representation or we're guilty by association, the reality is most people have a negative opinion of us as evidenced by the poll here. We have to understand that's the landscape. And navigate thoughtfully understanding the preconceived opinion.

Like with every aspect of our society - the negative gets reported 10x (100x??) more often than the positive. It is frustrating. I’ve suggested someone start a positive news only channel. Doubt it would make it.

 

[The Commish]

Totally see why my comments might have been strange...no offense intended

They weren't really too strange. I was just trying to understand your argument and where it might be coming from. I just don't remember approaching religion with the sort of intellectual firepower that you all are using. I still have no idea what IK or dgreen are referring to, and I've read their posts several times. I just chalk it up to my own ignorance and lack of knowledge about the subject of Christianity.

I was sort of raised to fall in line a bit as a Catholic. We tend to take pronouncements, edicts, tradition, dogma, and ceremony very seriously. The Pope really sets the agenda for the Catholic Church and the laity tends to follow without too much questioning. They're expected to. The academic work is done by the priests and the hierarchy above them. You do go to Saturday school and learn about the themes and topics, but there's no real intellectual questioning, dissent, or examination most times. Especially as kids. Therefore, I don't really know much about anything. I stopped going to church as soon as I left for college, which I assume is when the adult questions about faith and that which pertains to it come into play because they mean more. I was clock-watching to find out when I could leave to go home—not thinking about deeper meaning in my religious practices.

And there was no offense taken, GB. None at all.

Whether you know it or not, the bold pretty much sums up the stuff I'm talking about REALLY well. When one observes the sacrament of Baptism because "that's what I'm supposed to do" that's moved into the "checklist" world I was talking about before. When you do things "because I was told to" instead of "because this is a way to further my relationship with God" that's when you're flipping to that "checklist" world. I had no more epiphany-esque point beyond that.

 

[Chaos34]

I sometimes tell the story of how I avoided Catholicism. It's kind of fitting for this place. I am the youngest of six. Mom was an active Catholic. Dad was a scientist and agnostic. They never fought over their differences until me. Dad was fine with mom raising his children in the church. He was raised Methodist and knew the bible better than any Catholic in town; better than anyone I ever knew until I started attending church in the 90s.

When I was a wee lad, Sunday mornings were a challenge for mom. Getting five kids ready for church. I was the 6th, deemed too young to go, and allowed to stay home with dad. Well, dad had his own kind of church in the fall and winter on Sundays: The NFL. When I turned 5 it was time to start catechism and be prepared for 1st holy communion. It was also football season. Cowboys were being televised. My hero Bob Hayes was setting records. I protested. Mom and dad had a little argument. I stepped in with a 5 year old's agnosticism learned from dad. Basic stuff like I didn't think everyone who doesn't believe burns in hell. Dad raised one eyebrow at his little prodigee and said, this one's mine. The youngest is always the spoiled one.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Totally see why my comments might have been strange...no offense intended

They weren't really too strange. I was just trying to understand your argument and where it might be coming from. I just don't remember approaching religion with the sort of intellectual firepower that you all are using. I still have no idea what IK or dgreen are referring to, and I've read their posts several times. I just chalk it up to my own ignorance and lack of knowledge about the subject of Christianity.

I was sort of raised to fall in line a bit as a Catholic. We tend to take pronouncements, edicts, tradition, dogma, and ceremony very seriously. The Pope really sets the agenda for the Catholic Church and the laity tends to follow without too much questioning. They're expected to. The academic work is done by the priests and the hierarchy above them. You do go to Saturday school and learn about the themes and topics, but there's no real intellectual questioning, dissent, or examination most times. Especially as kids. Therefore, I don't really know much about anything. I stopped going to church as soon as I left for college, which I assume is when the adult questions about faith and that which pertains to it come into play because they mean more. I was clock-watching to find out when I could leave to go home—not thinking about deeper meaning in my religious practices.

And there was no offense taken, GB. None at all.

Whether you know it or not, the bold pretty much sums up the stuff I'm talking about REALLY well. When one observes the sacrament of Baptism because "that's what I'm supposed to do" that's moved into the "checklist" world I was talking about before. When you do things "because I was told to" instead of "because this is a way to further my relationship with God" that's when you're flipping to that "checklist" world. I had no more epiphany-esque point beyond that.

Yeah, but . . . think about your relationship with your wife. You love her, but I'll bet it ebbs and flows a bit. Sometimes she's great, and you'll do stuff for her just to express how much you're into her. But at other times, you might have other things on your mind and she's kind of a distraction. Heck, you might even be mad at her about something or another. But you still empty the dishwasher because you know it's something you ought to do. A box-checking exercise, if you will, that you do even though your heart's not really in it at that particular moment.

How is what you're describing any different? Lots of us occasionally have to drag ourselves into church when we'd rather be watching the ever-exciting London game. That's just part of being a normal human. Nothing to be proud of, but nothing to feel bad about either.

 

[The Commish]

Totally see why my comments might have been strange...no offense intended

They weren't really too strange. I was just trying to understand your argument and where it might be coming from. I just don't remember approaching religion with the sort of intellectual firepower that you all are using. I still have no idea what IK or dgreen are referring to, and I've read their posts several times. I just chalk it up to my own ignorance and lack of knowledge about the subject of Christianity.

I was sort of raised to fall in line a bit as a Catholic. We tend to take pronouncements, edicts, tradition, dogma, and ceremony very seriously. The Pope really sets the agenda for the Catholic Church and the laity tends to follow without too much questioning. They're expected to. The academic work is done by the priests and the hierarchy above them. You do go to Saturday school and learn about the themes and topics, but there's no real intellectual questioning, dissent, or examination most times. Especially as kids. Therefore, I don't really know much about anything. I stopped going to church as soon as I left for college, which I assume is when the adult questions about faith and that which pertains to it come into play because they mean more. I was clock-watching to find out when I could leave to go home—not thinking about deeper meaning in my religious practices.

And there was no offense taken, GB. None at all.

Whether you know it or not, the bold pretty much sums up the stuff I'm talking about REALLY well. When one observes the sacrament of Baptism because "that's what I'm supposed to do" that's moved into the "checklist" world I was talking about before. When you do things "because I was told to" instead of "because this is a way to further my relationship with God" that's when you're flipping to that "checklist" world. I had no more epiphany-esque point beyond that.

Yeah, but . . . think about your relationship with your wife. You love her, but I'll bet it ebbs and flows a bit. Sometimes she's great, and you'll do stuff for her just to express how much you're into her. But at other times, you might have other things on your mind and she's kind of a distraction. Heck, you might even be mad at her about something or another. But you still empty the dishwasher because you know it's something you ought to do. A box-checking exercise, if you will, that you do even though your heart's not really in it at that particular moment.

How is what you're describing any different? Lots of us occasionally have to drag ourselves into church when we'd rather be watching the ever-exciting London game. That's just part of being a normal human. Nothing to be proud of, but nothing to feel bad about either.

The bold is how it's different. We're talking about two completely different situations....sorry for not articulating my thoughts better. What rock is professing is starkly different (IMO) than having a bad day, not feeling it and doing it anyway. It's purely going through the motions because someone told you to and you don't even understand why you're doing it in the first place.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I sometimes tell the story of how I avoided Catholicism. It's kind of fitting for this place. I am the youngest of six. Mom was an active Catholic. Dad was a scientist and agnostic. They never fought over their differences until me. Dad was fine with mom raising his children in the church. He was raised Methodist and knew the bible better than any Catholic in town; better than anyone I ever knew until I started attending church in the 90s.

When I was a wee lad, Sunday mornings were a challenge for mom. Getting five kids ready for church. I was the 6th, deemed too young to go, and allowed to stay home with dad. Well, dad had his own kind of church in the fall and winter on Sundays: The NFL. When I turned 5 it was time to start catechism and be prepared for 1st holy communion. It was also football season. Cowboys were being televised. My hero Bob Hayes was setting records. I protested. Mom and dad had a little argument. I stepped in with a 5 year old's agnosticism learned from dad. Basic stuff like I didn't think everyone who doesn't believe burns in hell. Dad raised one eyebrow at his little prodigee and said, this one's mine. The youngest is always the spoiled one.

Understood and thanks for sharing. You're not alone. Plenty of people would prefer to worship the NFL or a host of other things. It's something I find challenging too.

 

[BlackCrowes]

I sometimes tell the story of how I avoided Catholicism. It's kind of fitting for this place. I am the youngest of six. Mom was an active Catholic. Dad was a scientist and agnostic. They never fought over their differences until me. Dad was fine with mom raising his children in the church. He was raised Methodist and knew the bible better than any Catholic in town; better than anyone I ever knew until I started attending church in the 90s.

When I was a wee lad, Sunday mornings were a challenge for mom. Getting five kids ready for church. I was the 6th, deemed too young to go, and allowed to stay home with dad. Well, dad had his own kind of church in the fall and winter on Sundays: The NFL. When I turned 5 it was time to start catechism and be prepared for 1st holy communion. It was also football season. Cowboys were being televised. My hero Bob Hayes was setting records. I protested. Mom and dad had a little argument. I stepped in with a 5 year old's agnosticism learned from dad. Basic stuff like I didn't think everyone who doesn't believe burns in hell. Dad raised one eyebrow at his little prodigee and said, this one's mine. The youngest is always the spoiled one.

just like Lisa Simpson. Great episode. Could you pick winners?

 

[dgreen]

In the bold, I'm trying to say that my assumption is all of these religious ceremonies and rituals were likely originally intended for a particular purpose and not and end in and of themselves. Everything that's done probably has a deep story behind it that was designed for a deeper meaning. I believe the meaning is to call us to action, but we probably fail to focus on that too often.

Hey dgreen, thanks for the explanation. I think I get what you're saying. The sacraments, in my understanding, are not ends in and of themselves, which you posit. There is a deeper reason and a deeper meaning behind the sacraments. That sounds right. I do not know nor can I judge whether that is to call us to action, but your argument seems logical and reasoned, so I have no reason to doubt it, really.

But, to wit, the sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church. I am looking at the reasoning behind it, and at almost every turn it has been explained pretty much this way: Because Jesus administered the sacrament on earth and decreed that it should be done, therefore we do it. You'll feel better afterwards and it will help you avoid sin in the future. There isn't really an action that we are pointed to in the Catholic Church. It is posited that we understand Jesus better and are able to live in accordance with dogma.

Therefore, I think when I'm talking about the Catholic Church, some consideration has to be taken that it might be different that a Protestant denomination. Of course, I could be missing the action that the Catholic Church is calling me to, but I'm not sure about that. It seems like the process gets one squarer with Jesus and that it cleanses one's conscience after with hopes that it will lead to a more aligned life with Christ in the future because of the sacrament. But that seems to be where it stops.

Thanks for that perspective. I think the bold above gets at what I was trying to say.

I've always been in a non-denominational church, so I am very unfamiliar with "high church" sacraments. I guess I don't have a huge problem with making it about drawing closer to God, but I just don't think the actionable response should be ignored. When one is near God, they should act in accordance with his will/laws/commandments. I do think in order to live in accordance with a king's will, one has to understand what the king wants from them. And I think the Bible clearly lays out that God is looking for his people to act. So I think all of that fits in my mind.

 

[SuperFantasyFootballGuy]

The less religious people have become, the crazier the world has become, maybe there's no correlation but if I know the average person, many of them need a good reason to be a good person.


Even if it's all fugazi, if religion was stopping people from stealing, committing adultery, and killing then the decline of religion is a bad thing.



Some people don't have that internal moral compass and some of us only have that moral compass because our previous generations built a society with these principles engrained and/or our parents instilled the values of those religions onto us.



I'll take the pretty lie of God if it keeps society from acting like animals, because otherwise that's all we are, animals, and the less of God there is, the more people seem to be acting like them.

 

[BlackCrowes]

The less religious people have become, the crazier the world has become, maybe there's no correlation but if I know the average person, many of them need a good reason to be a good person.


Even if it's all fugazi, if religion was stopping people from stealing, committing adultery, and killing then the decline of religion is a bad thing.



Some people don't have that internal moral compass and some of us only have that moral compass because our previous generations built a society with these principles engrained and/or our parents instilled the values of those religions onto us.



I'll take the pretty lie of God if it keeps society from acting like animals, because otherwise that's all we are, animals, and the less of God there is, the more people seem to be acting like them.

Not aware of any data that confirms that. Plenty that shows the opposite though.

 

[SuperFantasyFootballGuy]

The less religious people have become, the crazier the world has become, maybe there's no correlation but if I know the average person, many of them need a good reason to be a good person.


Even if it's all fugazi, if religion was stopping people from stealing, committing adultery, and killing then the decline of religion is a bad thing.



Some people don't have that internal moral compass and some of us only have that moral compass because our previous generations built a society with these principles engrained and/or our parents instilled the values of those religions onto us.



I'll take the pretty lie of God if it keeps society from acting like animals, because otherwise that's all we are, animals, and the less of God there is, the more people seem to be acting like them.

Not aware of any data that confirms that. Plenty that shows the opposite though.

I'd love to see that data.

 

[BlackCrowes]

The less religious people have become, the crazier the world has become, maybe there's no correlation but if I know the average person, many of them need a good reason to be a good person.


Even if it's all fugazi, if religion was stopping people from stealing, committing adultery, and killing then the decline of religion is a bad thing.



Some people don't have that internal moral compass and some of us only have that moral compass because our previous generations built a society with these principles engrained and/or our parents instilled the values of those religions onto us.



I'll take the pretty lie of God if it keeps society from acting like animals, because otherwise that's all we are, animals, and the less of God there is, the more people seem to be acting like them.

Not aware of any data that confirms that. Plenty that shows the opposite though.

I'd love to see that data.

Read Pinker

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The less religious people have become, the crazier the world has become, maybe there's no correlation but if I know the average person, many of them need a good reason to be a good person.


Even if it's all fugazi, if religion was stopping people from stealing, committing adultery, and killing then the decline of religion is a bad thing.



Some people don't have that internal moral compass and some of us only have that moral compass because our previous generations built a society with these principles engrained and/or our parents instilled the values of those religions onto us.



I'll take the pretty lie of God if it keeps society from acting like animals, because otherwise that's all we are, animals, and the less of God there is, the more people seem to be acting like them.

Not aware of any data that confirms that. Plenty that shows the opposite though.

Come on, man. I'm open to the suggestion that this is just the poct hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but people have obviously become somewhat less religious and somewhat more crazy over the last ~20 years. No data you can possibly produce is going to convince us that water isn't actually wet. Look around.

 

[BlackCrowes]

The less religious people have become, the crazier the world has become, maybe there's no correlation but if I know the average person, many of them need a good reason to be a good person.


Even if it's all fugazi, if religion was stopping people from stealing, committing adultery, and killing then the decline of religion is a bad thing.



Some people don't have that internal moral compass and some of us only have that moral compass because our previous generations built a society with these principles engrained and/or our parents instilled the values of those religions onto us.



I'll take the pretty lie of God if it keeps society from acting like animals, because otherwise that's all we are, animals, and the less of God there is, the more people seem to be acting like them.

Not aware of any data that confirms that. Plenty that shows the opposite though.

Come on, man. I'm open to the suggestion that this is just the poct hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but people have obviously become somewhat less religious and somewhat more crazy over the last ~20 years. No data you can possibly produce is going to convince us that water isn't actually wet. Look around.

What metric are you using for ‘crazy’? Violent crime has and continues to trend down

 

[Sleestak]

The less religious people have become, the crazier the world has become,

Based on my observation of current public affairs, I wouldn't say that religion immunizes people or the world from the cray-cray.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The less religious people have become, the crazier the world has become, maybe there's no correlation but if I know the average person, many of them need a good reason to be a good person.


Even if it's all fugazi, if religion was stopping people from stealing, committing adultery, and killing then the decline of religion is a bad thing.



Some people don't have that internal moral compass and some of us only have that moral compass because our previous generations built a society with these principles engrained and/or our parents instilled the values of those religions onto us.



I'll take the pretty lie of God if it keeps society from acting like animals, because otherwise that's all we are, animals, and the less of God there is, the more people seem to be acting like them.

Not aware of any data that confirms that. Plenty that shows the opposite though.

Come on, man. I'm open to the suggestion that this is just the poct hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but people have obviously become somewhat less religious and somewhat more crazy over the last ~20 years. No data you can possibly produce is going to convince us that water isn't actually wet. Look around.

What metric are you using for ‘crazy’? Violent crime has and continues to trend down

I'm using the metric of looking around and asking myself if what I see resembles a healthy society on a positive trajectory.

This is a difficult topic to debate, so I'm not going to bother to try. If you think our society is doing well at the moment, fine. We view reality very, very differently though.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The less religious people have become, the crazier the world has become,

Based on my observation of current public affairs, I wouldn't say that religion immunizes people or the world from the cray-cray.

Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

Ask yourself whether our public affairs are broadly in better shape or worse shape than they were a few decades ago. If you can say with a straight face that things are still working about as well as they were in, say, the 1990s, cool. Good for you, and I'm glad things are going well in your world.

 

[BlackCrowes]

The less religious people have become, the crazier the world has become, maybe there's no correlation but if I know the average person, many of them need a good reason to be a good person.


Even if it's all fugazi, if religion was stopping people from stealing, committing adultery, and killing then the decline of religion is a bad thing.



Some people don't have that internal moral compass and some of us only have that moral compass because our previous generations built a society with these principles engrained and/or our parents instilled the values of those religions onto us.



I'll take the pretty lie of God if it keeps society from acting like animals, because otherwise that's all we are, animals, and the less of God there is, the more people seem to be acting like them.

Not aware of any data that confirms that. Plenty that shows the opposite though.

Come on, man. I'm open to the suggestion that this is just the poct hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but people have obviously become somewhat less religious and somewhat more crazy over the last ~20 years. No data you can possibly produce is going to convince us that water isn't actually wet. Look around.

What metric are you using for ‘crazy’? Violent crime has and continues to trend down

I'm using the metric of looking around and asking myself if what I see resembles a healthy society on a positive trajectory.

This is a difficult topic to debate, so I'm not going to bother to try. If you think our society is doing well at the moment, fine. We view reality very, very differently though.

It’s definitely not doing fine, it’s a trainwreck. Always has been, probably always will be. Can’t get around human nature. I’m looking at long-term trends over large samples of people. If you’re looking at (for example) Florida over the last 20 years, I whole-heartedly agree it appears ‘crazier’.

I’m not making any causal linkages by the way to religion or lack thereof, just saying over time that human suffering, crime, war, etc. is slowly decreasing.

Perhaps you guys are looking more at mental health. That’s tougher to quantify.

 

[Joe Schmo]

I do not see the link between societal ills and lack of religious participation outside of perhaps correlation. As a whole, I don't know that I've encountered a difference in religious and non-religious people as pertains to how they treat people, appreciate life, approach issues or interact with others. I can never tell if I'm dealing with a devout or an agnostic unless I'm told.

 

[Sleestak]

Perhaps you guys are looking more at mental health. That’s tougher to quantify.

Could be some (unintentional) backwards reasoning. Starting with a preferred or intuited conclusion, and then working backwards to find amenable facts.