Is Europe on its way to a major religious resurgence?

[Steph]

It's a sad fact that the more well-off people are the less they need God. So basically the more prosperous a country becomes the less religious it's likely to become. That holds especially true for Christianity which praises poverty and piety.

So, the strong influence of religion in the US is because the US economy is one of the weakest in the world? Interesting concept

 

[Plotinus]

There's an awful lot of poverty in the US too, of course.

However, I'm not convinced by the supposed link between wealth and lack of religion; just look at the success of the "prosperity gospel". Certainly evangelicalism, by far the most prominent form of Christianity today in the west, is closely associated with the wealthier middle classes. Look in the car park of any major evangelical church and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Traitorfish]

People, young people especially, just don't want to be bothered with it's morals and limitations on life, so they instead subscribe to the idea that it's all false (makes their lives easier you know?

Yeah, sure, the only possible reason that people could even think of abandoning the invisible sky wizard is laziness. Forget free thought, forget a rational evaluation, it's all down to laziness. Let us shake our heads and sigh at the decadence of the world, for we are the saved, and we are wise.

Really, take a step back and approach this rationally. I'm sure some people don't bother with religion because they can't be bothered, but that doesn't make them bad. If you don't see something as a valid use of your time, what morale obligation do they have to become involved with such activities? I don't feel that counting the legs on a caterpillar would be a valid use of my time, but that doesn't mean my refusal to do so constitutes a morale lapse. Whether I have an advanced philosophical objection or would simply rather be doing something else, it's up to me.
It always baffles me how "believers" (or "followers" or whatever you want to call yourself) cling to this strange notion that belief in God is the default state of the human mind, and only through some sort of deliberate (and, of course, morally repugnant) effort can it be abandoned.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No, there are in fact an awful lot of people who aren't religious, because they don't like the idea that it limits what they can do. I have met many such people. They aren't necessarily atheists, but they are not religious.

And if human history has told us anything, belief in God is the default state.

 

[Plotinus]

I have to say I have never in my life met anyone like that, although I've no doubt that they exist. Every atheist I've ever known, including myself, seems to reject theism because they believe that, as a matter of fact, it is untrue, not because they fear the consquences of believing it or of its truth. Personally I don't understand the kind of people who believe things (or don't believe things) on the basis of what they would like to be true; I have an even harder time understanding those people who use preference as a form of argument (such as: it'd be terrible if God didn't exist, so he does), but that's a different issue. I'd also say that if you look at human history, the default state would be belief in the supernatural, not in God specifically. Over history there have certainly been more monotheists than atheists, but they are both small minorities among humanity in general. If you're going to take the most common historical belief system as the "default" then it'd have to be some kind of shamanism or polytheism. From an epistemological point of view I think it's pretty clear that some kind of agnosticism is the default state, and any positive claim in either direction bears the burden of proof, but that's also another matter.

This is on-topic, however, since it illustrates a not-often-recognised dividing line between (some) religious people and (some) non-religious people. The former assume that those who are not religious choose not to be religious because they don't like religion, or they can't face its truth, or something along those lines: they regard it rather like someone who rejects overtures of friendship. Many non-religious people, however, see it simply as a matter of intellectual assent - whether you think that, as a matter of fact, God exists (or whatever) or not. In other words, the religious group are thinking in personal terms (it is a matter of one's personal attitude towards God) while the others are thinking in propositional terms (it is a matter of one's assent or otherwise towards a truth claim). This means there is a major failure to understand each other right from the start, before the issues are even discussed, which means that the issues don't get discussed properly. And this means that even a claim such as "most Europeans today are not religious" will mean completely different things to different people, before they even begin to consider whether it is true. To some people it will mean that most Europeans have chosen to turn their backs on God (perhaps because they don't want to acknowledge him), while to others it will mean that most Europeans consider the factual claims made by religion to be false (perhaps because they don't think that they stand up in the face of the evidence). And those are completely different things. The difficulty in a debate such as this is to get people even to formulate the questions in the same terms, before you can persuade them to agree on the same answers. And that is one reason why there seems to be such a lack of mutual understanding in threads such as this one.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yes, like I said, from a historical perspective, but when I said "God" I didn't mean specifically monotheism, but religion in general.

 

[Plotinus]

But you shouldn't confuse "God" with "religion"; that's a terribly parochial western perspective. There are many religious people who don't believe in God and many people who believe in God who aren't religious. You have to be careful about your terms in a discussion like this because there is so much misunderstanding as there is. Saying "God" when you mean "religion" is like saying "monarchy" when you mean "government".

 

[C~G]

I haven't read the whole thread but I have to comment this.

I think that God invented our world in a very clever way - those conformists have no children or not too many, so they will die.
Followers have children, so they will not die - simple like an evolution - the better will survive.

There's also the quality over quantity approach to the child raising.

You're just assuming that having strategy of larger birth rate is better compared to strategy of getting only couple of children that are more likely to be more succesful and follow in the footsteps of their parents.

And when we are talking about meme of religion that has lost quite of lot power recently, the whole idea of higher birth rate being deciding factor is badly flawed.

There are other factors to be considered. Such as education, secularism of the governments and the effect of science and also popular culture into cultural evolution etc.

In some places of Europe whether you are religious or not, doesn't hardly even matter unless you're nutjob about it. The religion has become just a bad habit (no offence that's the way it just is) or traditional ritual followed because of felt responsiblity to do so without real piety, zeal or decide it to take any further than that.

And if human history has told us anything, belief in God is the default state.

Yes, conforming into the society's pressure to belief it is the default state has been the way.
Now that people are more free to choose, the default state IMO be that there's no need to believe into God.

Especially considering christianity that seems to put lot of effort towards convincing it's about "free will" isn't it what it's about?

Religious people should have more effort to put forward message and show that it's positive to choose God and their religion rather than message of negativity and disdain of not choosing them.
Moral pressure just makes people nowadays take steps away from the church not towards it since it has no real meaning to the people it used to have.

People, young people especially, just don't want to be bothered with it's morals and limitations on life, so they instead subscribe to the idea that it's all false (makes their lives easier you know? That's what I used to do before my own personal resurgence).

Actually it's quite the opposite.
People who choose not to be religious sees the limitations of life (one life without the possibility of after life) more clearly than religious people. Morals come naturally to people after this understanding. If you lose this chance, you lose everything, so choose wisely.
So it's time to ask yourself, what do you believe in?

If you felt your own life being empty, short and without morals without religion, don't think rest of the people think so.

I do predict though that with the massive Islamic immigration going on in Europe, if it gets out of hand there will be a minor resurgence to sort of counteract the Islamic influence. Europe has traditionally been Christian and I don't think a heavy Islamic influence will be much appreciated.

You think non-religious people like Islam more than Christianity?
Probably there would be also countermovement against religion in general in such case.

 

[LordRahl]

"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child." - Robert A. Heinlein

Very true.

 

[Mott1]

Plotinus: You make an excellent point which many people never seem to consider. Words have meaning and at the same time words can be decieving, especially in context to religions and the concept of God. Words can have different meanings to different people, yet many consider this notion as trivial semantics and irrelevant to discussion.

While I agree with most of what you said, I think you give the secular thinker too much credit. It is clear to me that very few secular thinkers deliberate the matter of religions and God on an intellectual platform. Like those who are religious, most non-religious people view the matter based on personal experience, they are rigidly bound to their own philosophies as much as the religious are attached to theirs. It is this emotional attachment that limits reason. The religious find validation in their spiritual experiences whereas most non-religious people are persuaded by earthly or temporal experiences.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

As for my part, I was somewhat sloppy in my word choice. When I said "God", I meant one of the two specific definitions I give that word (ie, any sort of spiritual force or entity; the other one being God as I view Him specifically) and forgot that others wouldn't be familiar with the terminology.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

I do predict though that with the massive Islamic immigration going on in Europe, if it gets out of hand there will be a minor resurgence to sort of counteract the Islamic influence. Europe has traditionally been Christian and I don't think a heavy Islamic influence will be much appreciated.

Why do you assume that just because the Islamic inluence within Europe will rise that a resurgence in Christianity would occur? Especially in those who hold no faith in it?
It's far more likely that tensions would grow and a few more race riots would pop up.

 

[Mott1]

Why do you assume that just because the Islamic inluence within Europe will rise that a resurgence in Christianity would occur? Especially in those who hold no faith in it?
It's far more likely that tensions would grow and a few more race riots would pop up.

Race riots?

 

[Traitorfish]

I have to say I have never in my life met anyone like that, although I've no doubt that they exist. Every atheist I've ever known, including myself, seems to reject theism because they believe that, as a matter of fact, it is untrue, not because they fear the consquences of believing it or of its truth. Personally I don't understand the kind of people who believe things (or don't believe things) on the basis of what they would like to be true; I have an even harder time understanding those people who use preference as a form of argument (such as: it'd be terrible if God didn't exist, so he does), but that's a different issue. I'd also say that if you look at human history, the default state would be belief in the supernatural, not in God specifically. Over history there have certainly been more monotheists than atheists, but they are both small minorities among humanity in general. If you're going to take the most common historical belief system as the "default" then it'd have to be some kind of shamanism or polytheism. From an epistemological point of view I think it's pretty clear that some kind of agnosticism is the default state, and any positive claim in either direction bears the burden of proof, but that's also another matter.

Well said. I suppose I should also acknowledge that you're probably correct about the human tendency towards some form of supernatural belief, although even then I'd be reluctant to equate that with a "default" belief so much as a tendency. After all, people are not born with any form of supernatural beliefs pre-installed, we just have an (admittedly rather strong) tendency to pick them up as we go.Of course, equally, you could argue that atheism- a conscious and deliberate rejection of the idea of God- is just as unnatural as theism, as it requires a certain level of commitment to a view that, again, a person is not born with.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, "naturalness" or otherwise has got nothing to do with correctness; it may be true (as I think it is) that human beings have a strong tendency to believe in the supernatural, but that isn't the slightest reason to suppose that the supernatural is real, any more than the natural human tendency to want to rob, rape, and kill is reason for supposing those actions to be morally acceptable. However, it is vaguely relevant to the topic of this thread, if only because it suggests that religion will never die out (in my view, those who hope for some kind of happy atheist future where religion has been eradicated or at least massively curtailed are utterly deluded). Whether that makes a religious "resurgence" likely, at least in the near future, though, is another matter.

 

[Holycannoli]

Why do you assume that just because the Islamic inluence within Europe will rise that a resurgence in Christianity would occur? Especially in those who hold no faith in it?
It's far more likely that tensions would grow and a few more race riots would pop up.

What I mean is with Islam will come a wholly foreign culture. This is a big 'IF' btw. I'm saying IF it continues and spreads there will probably be a backlash, Christian and Jewish leaders will rise up and there will be a resurgence. Not a violent resurgence, just a resurgence of Christian and Jewish faith (mostly Christian).

It's because Islam is not just a religion, it's an entire culture whose ways are at odds with most of Europe's ways.

Actually it's quite the opposite.
People who choose not to be religious sees the limitations of life (one life without the possibility of after life) more clearly than religious people. Morals come naturally to people after this understanding. If you lose this chance, you lose everything, so choose wisely.
So it's time to ask yourself, what do you believe in?

If you felt your own life being empty, short and without morals without religion, don't think rest of the people think so.

No. From what I've seen people who choose not to be religious do not want to be bothered with all the limitations on life that being religious preaches. They want to be free to have abortions, promiscuous sex, pursue great wealth, remain selfish, not have to go to church or temple on weekends, divorce freely, have affairs etc. These people see religion as a burden and cannot understand why God commands us to live with these rules. It's easier and more earthly rewarding to live a non-religious life. I hear it all the time: "I'm not religious because I don't want to put up with those stupid rules" or "I'm not religious because they don't accept my lifestyle"

You cannot deny God simply because it would be an inconvenience to you. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Holycannoli]

So, the strong influence of religion in the US is because the US economy is one of the weakest in the world? Interesting concept

It's only a strong influence due to certain people in power. If other people were put into those same positions of power there'd be no religious influence at all. There are people who can't wait to get in those positions of power to stamp out every last bit of religious influence in the country. They're already trying to (and succeeding at) removing "In God We Trust" from our currency. To me, that's the same trend I mentioned-the US is becoming less religious as it prospers and adapts a hedonistic culture. There are those trying to stop that loss but it's a battle that will continue to be waged.

It's a fact that the more rural and/or less wealthy areas of the US have a greater religious presence than the wealthier areas. Wealthy people don't want to be bothered with it for the most part. There are always exceptions btw.

The more you covet worldy possessions and worldly pleasures the less you look to God. That's a fact.

 

[Plotinus]

It's only a strong influence due to certain people in power. If other people were put into those same positions of power there'd be no religious influence at all.

I don't think that's true at all. First, "influence" is not confined to political influence; even if all American politicians were not religious, most Americans are religious, and that is the main thing. Second, because most Americans are religious, politicians are not free to say and do whatever they like on the subject. How many American politicians say they are not Christians? Can you imagine someone being elected president after saying he doesn't believe in God? In a democracy (or something roughly like it) the attitudes of politicians inevitably reflect those of the voters. If religion has a strong influence in America, it's because, overall, Americans want it to do so. You can't change that simply by replacing a few suits at the top. And that is one reason why America does not provide a useful parallel to Europe on this matter.

Note that you shouldn't confuse the "religious right" with religious influence in politics. The rise of the "religious right" is a recent phenomenon - which occurred primarily under Reagan - where for a variety of not-well-understood reasons one form of Christianity - and not necessarily even the predominant one within the country - came to political prominence. The "religious right" is thought to consist of a relatively small number of hardcore activists and a large number of mainly passive supporters; it is thus a minority interest, though one that in the last couple of decades has had a disproportionate amount of influence. The important thing to recognise is that this is just one manifestation of the role of religion in American politics. Even those who hate the "religious right" are likely to have their own preferred brand of religious politics. The classic example is Clinton's speeches after the Lewinsky scandal, in which he talked about repentance, turning back to God, and all the rest of it. That's a politician talking like a minister, not in a "religious right" sort of way, but in a more traditional, almost Puritan sort of way. Never forget that, every November, Americans celebrate the fact that their country was founded by hardline Puritans. That's an influence that goes far deeper than anything Pat Robertson can come up with.

The more you covet worldy possessions and worldly pleasures the less you look to God. That's a fact.

Do you have any statistical evidence for this, or is just an assumption? It's certainly not borne out by the points I made before about the prosperity gospel. The biggest churches in the world (the "megachurches", mostly in North America and Asia) have congregations that are almost entirely upper middle class, and they handle staggeringly large sums of money.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

Do you have any statistical evidence for this, or is just an assumption? It's certainly not borne out by the points I made before about the prosperity gospel.

Yes but its logic, if you have things to surround you and make you "happy" and coontent with all things why on earth would you look to a god, unless you were completely unhappy with it.

The biggest churches in the world (the "megachurches", mostly in North America and Asia) have congregations that are almost entirely upper middle class, and they handle staggeringly large sums of money.

Those are what you call hypocrites.

 

[DBear]

religion, like nature, abhors a vacuum.