Losing Their Religion
This is surprising. According to a recent poll, over half of the British people say they have no religion. Here's the breakdown:
Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?
50.7 No religion
9.3 Christian - no denomination
8.6 Roman Catholic
20.0 Church of England/Anglican
0.5 Baptist
1.3 Methodist
2.2 Presbyterian/Church of Scotland
0.4 Other Christian
0.9 Hindu
0.4 Jewish
2.4 Islam/Muslim
0.8 Sikh
0.2 Buddhist
0.3 Other non-Christian
0.0 Free Presbyterian
0.0 Brethren
0.2 United Reform Church (URC)/Congregational
1.2 Other Protestant
0.1 (Don't know)
I'm guessing, based on other information, this poll is wrong--that the non-religious are not yet a majority. Still, there's no question the trend is moving strongly in that direction. And I don't think this trend is confined to Britain.
I'm not sure what factors lead to this, but it's interesting to contemplate. How will the world be a different place if the West becomes, essentially, non-religious. (Or Europe does, but not America.) Outside the lack of attendance at church, would anyone notice? Will people act differently, or do they act just as they want, regardless of what religion they follow? Would it allow for other religions to move into the vacuum? Would it be a major turning point in civilization (good or bad), or would it just be a minor moment of evolution?
posted by LAGuy @ 12:11 AM
4 Comments:
What will it be like- not very different I'd guess except a noticeable lack of annoyances/distractions. Kind of like recovering from an injury using a crutch and then finding you don't need the crutch any more.
Excellent post - I wasn't aware of this poll, and I have many of the same questions you pose.
Did you read the recent (12/19/10) Ricky Gervais article in the Wall Street Journal about why he is an atheist...
WSJ Article: "Why I'm An Atheist" by Ricky Gervais
...and if so, what did you think about it?
I just read the piece. I think it's pretty good, even if it doesn't break much new ground. Gervais makes the point (which I guess can't be made enough) that just because religion and science are two different paths to understanding doesn't mean they're equally valid paths.
The column led to thousands of comments--the most I've ever seen for a Wall Street Journal essay. The few I skimmed were mostly positive, mixed with those that either made accusations against science or not great arguments (sometimes threats) in favor of religion. He also did a follow-up column where he answered some questions people raised.
The piece still leaves the question open that even if religious faith is based on false beliefs created by humans (and, at the very least, a lot of it has to be), is it better that people are fooled? It's hard to believe that would be a good thing, but at least as far back as Plato, we've had philosophers suggest that we need fake gods who threaten the masses into good behavior.
I agree the article probably didn't break any new ground, but at this point, is there any real new ground to break?
Further:
- I thought the article was very well-written, which is to say, plainly and rationally.
- I was particulary impressed that someone in Ricky Gervais's position - namely, a celebrity presumably reliant on the good opinion of the general public - would take such a risk, especially in today's bipolar cultural climate.
- 6000+ comments!
I was also impressed with the follow-up, to the point where I began asking myself if perhaps Mr. Gervais had some help in very carefully forming his responses.
As to needing fake gods to fool the masses into good behavior, we have politicians for that.
Post a Comment
<< Home