Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Nuns got nothing on the nonesFollow

#1 May 19 2015 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Pew recently came out with with their latest survey on religious demographics with the United States, and it's significant in many ways. First, it's a follow up from the earlier 2007 survey and as such it's possible to glimpse at potential trends. Second it contains far more participants and is overall more reliable than the earlier survey.

As for the results, the one I am seeing most discussed in the continuing rise of the "nones", those who do not claim any particular religious affiliation. This is a broad descriptor, and includes atheist, agnostics, and those who describe themselves as spiritual but not with no belonging to a specific faith, among others. This I somewhat expected. What is even more interesting is that even within the subgroup of the nones, those self-describing as atheists show an increase proportion from the earlier 2007 survey. As expected, nones skew younger, but they are also getting younger compared to the 2007 survey. The survey makes a distinction between mainline and Evangelical Christianity, and shows both groups declining (though mainline Christians have shrunk faster than Evangelicals).

With only two surveys, it's not a flawed point to say trends may easily reverse, and Christians are still very much a super majority of the population.

As for commentary, most I've seen has been backslapping atheists asserting many religious groups shot themselves in the foot aligning strong against certain social issues. On the other side I've seen a lot of denialism ranging from nothing is wrong with churches as they are today to good ridddance, let only the true scotsmen remain.
#2 May 19 2015 at 8:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
I believe Churches are becoming less of a social hub for a large segment of the population.

Based on their stats, it's not as if people are losing their religion, rather, a higher percentage of the younger people never accepted one (36% under 24 and 34% 25-33 Unaffiliated).

These are probably the people who would have otherwise been token churchgoers, who did not believe but went to church out of social convention. The stigma of being non-religious, (as has the stigma of some non-mainline sexualities) in many places, has been reduced to an acceptable level.

Large losses have been made by mainline Catholicism. Some of that is driven by immigration affecting the largest group the most, but I wonder if the various scandals that the church has faced has disrupted their membership as well.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#3 May 20 2015 at 6:09 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
I'll toss in that globally, Pew projects the religiously unaffiliated to decline as a percentage of the population.
Quote:
I wonder if the various scandals that the church has faced has disrupted their membership as well

I doubt it played any large part. I think a more important part is that there are higher costs of leaving Evangelical denominations than Catholic.
#4 May 20 2015 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
In 2011 something like 170,000 people in England said they were Jedis.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 May 20 2015 at 1:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
I think a large portion of people identifying as religious in general are actually not but are expected to be and as such identify themselves as being part of [insert peers' deity of choice].

"Well, I used to go to a catholic church with my family so I guess I'm catholic..."
#6 May 20 2015 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
I think a large portion of people identifying as religious in general are actually not but are expected to be and as such identify themselves as being part of [insert peers' deity of choice].

"Well, I used to go to a catholic church with my family so I guess I'm catholic..."


I'd assume that has always been the case, and a good portion of the shift to "nones" is that fewer people will continue to identify with a religion they don't actively participate in today than in the past.

I also find it interesting that there always seems to be a rebellion aspect to this. Children of active religious parents will often seek to distance themselves from religion when they become young adults. Ironically, I've seen a number of cases of the reverse. Parents who are not active in a religion, but whose children will join a church group as a social thing. Usually, these are the non-denominational type churches, so not super "organized" in that sense. I'm not sure if those teens and/or young adults would self identify as "religious" in a survey like this though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 May 20 2015 at 6:08 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
gbaji wrote:
I also find it interesting that there always seems to be a rebellion aspect to this.

I don't think that perspective makes sense unless you consider it abnormal for children to deviate from their parents. Children aren't clones, and so why should it be considered rebellious to deviate from their parent's religious beliefs any more than their parent's career path, political beliefs, hobbies, or preferred brand of car?
#8 May 20 2015 at 10:09 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I also find it interesting that there always seems to be a rebellion aspect to this.

I don't think that perspective makes sense unless you consider it abnormal for children to deviate from their parents. Children aren't clones, and so why should it be considered rebellious to deviate from their parent's religious beliefs any more than their parent's career path, political beliefs, hobbies, or preferred brand of car?
gbaji finds Earth hoo-man social interaction confusing.Smiley: schooled
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#9 May 21 2015 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Arguably parents are more likely to press their religious beliefs on their children and not their careers, hobbies, cars, and such. I wouldn't say always but I wouldn't dismiss a rebellious aspect for it either, at least during the younger years.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 May 21 2015 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I also find it interesting that there always seems to be a rebellion aspect to this.

I don't think that perspective makes sense unless you consider it abnormal for children to deviate from their parents.


I don't consider it abnormal for children to deviate from their parents. Hence, why I said "there always seems to be a rebellion aspect to this".

Quote:
Children aren't clones, and so why should it be considered rebellious to deviate from their parent's religious beliefs any more than their parent's career path, political beliefs, hobbies, or preferred brand of car?


Um... Because if they're doing it precisely to be "different" than their parents, then that's what I meant by "rebellious". What did you think I meant?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 May 21 2015 at 4:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Arguably parents are more likely to press their religious beliefs on their children and not their careers, hobbies, cars, and such. I wouldn't say always but I wouldn't dismiss a rebellious aspect for it either, at least during the younger years.


Lol. I'd make an exception for the hardcore Ford vs Chevy guys though. There's some scariness going on with those people!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 May 21 2015 at 6:11 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... Because if they're doing it precisely to be "different" than their parents, then that's what I meant by "rebellious". What did you think I meant?

I see nothing in the data to support that. There is actually a good piece of evidence to suggest the idea that children are making religious choices to be more like their parents rather than less so. See the affiliation percentages in chapter 1 and compare those to the retention rates on page 40 of the report. Hindus make up 0.7% of the U.S. population. If children were totally free agents making completely independent decisions from their parents, you'd expect to see only 0.7% of Hindu children growing up to be Hindu (and then 0.7% of the rest of the population would convert to Hinduism). Hindu retention rates are 80%, meaning 50% of the people who grew up Hindu remain Hindu. Every religious group is overrepresented by those who grew up in the faith. Converts are a minority when they should be a majority if children were free agents.
gbaji wrote:
I don't consider it abnormal for children to deviate from their parents. Hence, why I said "there always seems to be a rebellion aspect to this".

I'm going to choose to believe I have misunderstood you, so please clarify. "Always" means that it necessarily follows. "Seems" means that it has the appearance of.

I don't see a child choosing a different faith than their parents to necessarily appearing to be rebelling.

If your parents like chocolate ice cream and you like vanilla, wouldn't it be strange to say there must be a hint of rebellion in that choice?
#13 May 21 2015 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I don't consider it abnormal for children to deviate from their parents

It's pretty abnormal. The normal case is for children to retain the religion they are raised in. Were this not the case, we'd see wild generational swings in belief or denomination, but nothing like that has taken place. There's no 'pendulum swing' in religious belief, just a steady decline in belief in organized religion in first world countries. That could change and become a steady increase in belief, I don't think it's some linear trend, but 'kids rebel against their parents beliefs' isn't something that applies here.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#14 May 21 2015 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... Because if they're doing it precisely to be "different" than their parents, then that's what I meant by "rebellious". What did you think I meant?

I see nothing in the data to support that. There is actually a good piece of evidence to suggest the idea that children are making religious choices to be more like their parents rather than less so. See the affiliation percentages in chapter 1 and compare those to the retention rates on page 40 of the report. Hindus make up 0.7% of the U.S. population. If children were totally free agents making completely independent decisions from their parents, you'd expect to see only 0.7% of Hindu children growing up to be Hindu (and then 0.7% of the rest of the population would convert to Hinduism). Hindu retention rates are 80%, meaning 50% of the people who grew up Hindu remain Hindu. Every religious group is overrepresented by those who grew up in the faith. Converts are a minority when they should be a majority if children were free agents.
gbaji wrote:
I don't consider it abnormal for children to deviate from their parents. Hence, why I said "there always seems to be a rebellion aspect to this".

I'm going to choose to believe I have misunderstood you, so please clarify. "Always" means that it necessarily follows. "Seems" means that it has the appearance of.

I don't see a child choosing a different faith than their parents to necessarily appearing to be rebelling.

If your parents like chocolate ice cream and you like vanilla, wouldn't it be strange to say there must be a hint of rebellion in that choice?


I think there was a misunderstanding. I'm talking about when a child chooses to do something differently than his or her parents, that decision often derives from some desire to rebel against the parents in some way. I did not make any statement about the rate at which this occurs within the population as a whole. I'm only making an observation about the motivations for this when it happens.

So yes, there "always seems" to be a rebellion aspect to this (this being "choosing to do something in opposition to your parents"). I didn't think I was saying anything that controversial.

Edited, May 21st 2015 5:32pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 May 21 2015 at 6:36 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's pretty abnormal.

If you want to argue my word choice wasn't optimal, I'll accept that, but I think it's pretty clear from the preceding post I realize what is typical.
Gbaji wrote:
that decision often derives from some desire to rebel against the parents in some way

I haven't seen data to support that. If you have some data to support that, I'd be glad to see it.

Making difference choices than your parents is not rebellion. Making different choices than your parents, because of your experience with those decisions is not rebellion. Rebellion is opposing their control, not their choices.

Edited, May 21st 2015 7:44pm by Allegory
#16 May 21 2015 at 6:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I don't consider it abnormal for children to deviate from their parents

It's pretty abnormal. The normal case is for children to retain the religion they are raised in.


I was speaking about general deviation on all manner of things, not just religion. Like I said above, I think Allegory and I got our wires crossed during that part of the conversation. I assumed he was speaking in general, but he may not have been. To me, it's obvious that children rarely do exactly what their parents do, or even what their parents want them to do. Certainly, we don't live in a society like much of western history, were children almost always retained the same religion, professions, social activities (and social status) of their parents.

Quote:
Were this not the case, we'd see wild generational swings in belief or denomination, but nothing like that has taken place. There's no 'pendulum swing' in religious belief, just a steady decline in belief in organized religion in first world countries. That could change and become a steady increase in belief, I don't think it's some linear trend, but 'kids rebel against their parents beliefs' isn't something that applies here.


Yes. But I think that this is an increase in the overall rate at which children deviate (in any way) from their parents. So when we look just at religion, we're starting from a very high rate of active participation, so the overwhelming majority deviation is lower or no participation. My second point was that this deviation is just that: deviation. So among the population that is deviating with regard to religion (which is still a minority as you correctly pointed out), we can expect to see pendulum swings. Obviously, we're still also seeing a rate of deviation increase in the population as a whole, so the overall rate of active participation in religion is going to continue to decrease, but what I've observed is that a decent percentage of the teen children today raised by parents who as teens deviated from their parents with regard to religion 20-30 years ago, are now deviating from those parents and going out and joining church groups and otherwise participating in religious based activities despite their parents not doing so and not teaching them to do so (and even in some cases, actively disdaining the idea of participation in religion of any type).

It's a subset of a subset though. How much of a factor this plays out over time is pretty hard to say. I just see this as a natural result of socio-economic changes over time that make it possible for children to be significantly different than their parents. It's pretty natural for this to creep into more than just jobs and social circles, and affect religious choices as well. I don't necessarily buy into the conclusion that this means that our society is getting "less religious", so much as "more free to choose". I was kinda tweaking the atheist assumption that religion only survives if successive generations are indoctrinated into the faith, and that given a free choice, no one would choose religion. I know a number of teens who prove this to be wrong. I was countering the kind of cheering you see in atheist circles over data like this, as though they actually believe that the rate of religion in society will just continue to drop until it reaches zero and then finally we'll live in some kind of society based on reason rather than superstitious beliefs in men in the clouds.

I suspect it'll drop to some level and then stabilize there, with some percentage of each generation leaving and some percentage joining. Don't know where that number will be, but it certainly isn't going to be zero.

Edited, May 21st 2015 5:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 May 21 2015 at 7:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Allegory wrote:

Gbaji wrote:
that decision often derives from some desire to rebel against the parents in some way

I haven't seen data to support that. If you have some data to support that, I'd be glad to see it.

Making difference choices than your parents is not rebellion. Making different choices than your parents, because of your experience with those decisions is not rebellion. Rebellion is opposing their control, not their choices.


Ok. But now you're just quibbling over word use. If parental "control" includes "guide their children into making choices the parent thinks are best", then the child making different choices is "rebelling", right? You're making an incredibly tiny distinction here. I mean, it could also be "guide them by example", right? At what point do we conclude that the actions of parents aren't going to influence their children?

If the child is making a choice specifically to be different than their parents, I'm calling that "rebellion". Maybe that's not some textbook definition you want us to use, but that's the concept I'm talking about. I don't really care what we call it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 May 21 2015 at 10:22 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Ok. But now you're just quibbling over word use. If parental "control" includes "guide their children into making choices the parent thinks are best", then the child making different choices is "rebelling", right?

Yes and tautologies are still tautologies. Also, still rhetorically useless.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 May 22 2015 at 7:17 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I don't really care what we call it.
For someone who pretends to know what's best for the country you certainly have an aversion to the language.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#20 May 22 2015 at 7:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji's whole schtick is to define a word inaccurately, fight tooth and claw about it for two pages and then say that no one cares what you call it.

It literally makes me want to end out taking a long rifle to the middle class.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 May 22 2015 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I just like how he jumps from "original (but not really original) intent is paramount!" to "eh, it doesn't matter" at the drop of a hat.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#22 May 22 2015 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji's whole schtick is to define a word inaccurately, fight tooth and claw about it for two pages and then say that no one cares what you call it.

It literally makes me want to end out taking a long rifle to the middle class.


I think he calls that hockey
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#23 May 22 2015 at 5:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji's whole schtick is to define a word inaccurately, fight tooth and claw about it for two pages and then say that no one cares what you call it.


I didn't define a word at all. I used a word in a sentence, in which the context and meaning of the word was very clear. Not sure what the problem is here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 May 22 2015 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Ok. But now you're just quibbling over word use. If parental "control" includes "guide their children into making choices the parent thinks are best", then the child making different choices is "rebelling", right?

Yes and tautologies are still tautologies. Also, still rhetorically useless.


Yes. Which is why I don't obsess over word use, and prefer to actually read the context and understand the idea the other person is presenting. That's what really matters.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 May 26 2015 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which is why I don't obsess over word use,
You're just not even trying anymore. I mean, I understand. Forums are pretty much dead, but damn.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 307 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (307)