Miles
Were you once religious, but no longer are? Or were you once non-religious, but are now religious?
It would be interesting to know the trend on this forum.
I recall reading that in at least the UK (I think), children raised in a religious family had about 50% probability of being non-religious as an adult. Whereas children raised in a non-religious family has 2% probability of being religious as an adult. I would assume the stats are pretty similar in comparable societies, but data for any and all countries would be interesting.
܁
Re: Were you once religious, but no longer are? Or were you once non-religious, but are now religious?
I was raised in the UK in an extremely religious family (and extended family), but have been an atheist since my early 20s. So I fall into your statistic. Religiosity varies a lot of course though, I imagine that stat encompasses a lot of families who would consider themselves religious to some degree, but for whom it is not a very central part of their life. In my own experience at least, a much greater proportion than 50% of people I knew raised in that kind of hyper-religious culture still remain so. Probably closer to 80-90%, and I suspect on the higher range of that.
Last edited by Søren; October 16, 2023 at 05:53 PM.
𐤇𐤂𐤁
Re: Were you once religious, but no longer are? Or were you once non-religious, but are now religious?
There is a whole body of academic literature on this topic. Religious retention in Western countries varies significantly based on the characteristics of the religion/denomination. The stricter the religion/denomination, the higher the retention rate. Liberal denominations/movements have much lower retention rates.
There is also a genetic factor to religiosity. In Western countries, the heritability of adult religiosity appears to be about 45%, meaning 45% of the variation in adult religiosity is explained by genetics. However, the specifics of said religiosity is assumed to be explained by upbringing/enculturation, as one might expect.
However, I suspect that there is some degree of genetic influence on the nature of religiosity. An anecdotal example of what I mean: I know a woman who was raised from infancy by adoptive parents. Her adoptive parents are liberal Protestant Christians. The type who may have some supernatural beliefs, but are generally rationalists in their understanding of the material world, and tend to be more interested in the community aspects of Church than the dogma. In contrast, the adoptive daughter became an Evangelical Christian, despite growing up in rather irreligious north Seattle. She believes in faith healings, speaking in tongues, etc. When she met her biological mother, she discovered that her biological mother was a hippie woman who disliked Christianity but who was into all sorts of alternative forms of spirituality, such as tarot cards, seances, communing with crystals, etc.
It also seems that some self-professed irreligious people adhere to other ideologies with religious fervor, which ties into the rather controversial issues of defining religion. In Western countries, the colloquial understanding of what constitutes a religion naturally tends to be rather Christian-centric.
Originally Posted by Enros
Triggering
Re: Were you once religious, but no longer are? Or were you once non-religious, but are now religious?
I have no doubt in this based on myself and my son. I was raised Catholic in Catholic school with a mother who tried to pretend to be a good Catholic at least to project that to her children. We did Sunday mass every week, my mother tried to teach the whole thing to me. I believed and when I realized my parents were not strongly convicted I started going to morning mass on my own. In Church at 8 years old, one weekday morning, where there would be 3 old ladies and myself in Church I realized none of it made sense. I vaguely remember that day (I was 8 after all) but its never changed, despite at some level wishing I could believe since it would be nice to have that as a anchor point in life.
My son is very much like me, he has my gifts and curses. Dysgraphia (but without the ADHD I have) and a natural speed reader but horrible handwriting and spelling due to it. We didn't raise him religiously but we didn't push it away either. At 7 he was with a friend at a outside event, and the other kid was being raised Christian (no idea the denomination ) and my son later asked me about his friend who was saying how god made the stars and trees and whatnot and what I thought about that. I asked him "well what do you think?" He said "I don't think that's true, it doesn't make any sense."
I would call this genetic in that there was no push away, it wasn't based peer pressure or anyone's opinion, it was just a natural reaction to the idea.
I don't think its as much genetic atheism per say but more of a generically programed way of thinking. Interesting we both went the same way by not making this a point of contention, just keeping our heads down, not trying to convince other people they were wrong on it, and staying out of any fanatics ire. Had this been 1304 instead we wouldn't have ended up on any stakes.
I'm more interested in the average person who does believe but acts if they don't believe. I'll never understand how someone can honestly believe in God (of the vengeful type in the Abrahamic religions) who are willing to live in sin and not follow the tenants.
If I thought that was honestly real I'd have joined the monastery that tried to recruit me when I was 16 (I said I was good at keeping my head down).
Last edited by Phier; October 17, 2023 at 11:15 AM.
"When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."
My shameful truth.
Re: Were you once religious, but no longer are? Or were you once non-religious, but are now religious?
Kinda weird stories in comparison I keep reading.
Was never taught that God literally created the stars and whatsoever, it was fairly adapted to "well, big bang had to start with something,as opposite to nothing" and plenty of biology classes with pro-evolutionary viewpoints. Guess they were comfortable with the fact creator of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic Priest.
This led me to follow up darwinism/evolutionary worldview at same time as christianism.
Biology being among favorite subjects, I did find faults in christianism but to this day unanswered questions in darwinism aswell.
So seems that the typical is to debate if the earth is 6000 years old or if it's darwinism. It's our natural tendency to polarize our views, I guess.
Also noticed plenty take evolution as the Panaceia for all our existencial doubts.
Then Darwinism instead of being a new Scientific Theory becomes the New Prophet and Evolution its Disciples. Similiar dynamics.
More people are starting to realize that not as many follow Science as previously thought, they follow a different kind of "science" where the scientists are the new Clergy.
Some people are insecure in existencial questions after all, and will exagerate on what a certain theory can deliver to their doubts.
Kinda sad to see a theory which is supposed to be questioned anytime and put it to the test anytime to maintain it's "scientific" status; be transformed in some Prophetic signal instead but with scientific aesthethics. Same social dynamics.
Sorry in advance for being this blunt, but of course it won't make any sense for you and your little fella. Couldn't be any other way.
He's being taught Christianity extremely simplified for kids and as time passes he becomes less of a kid, so the very simplified content can't match his newfound cognitive abilities, so to say. Some mature faster than others. Same applies for a kid at 8 reaching pre-puberty and in body and brain. Christianity for adults is a completly different league and typically ignored.
Mathematics for kids will be insufficient for solving problems that requires integral calculus. If a person doesn't learn the later, of course "mathematics for kids" models easily break when confronted with empirical reality, and many for the rest of their lives spend it believing that mathematics only makes their personal life harder, not more simple. Difference being, people openly admitting such kinda signals that they may have not been good with numbers and not good to say it.
Last edited by fkizz; October 17, 2023 at 04:01 PM. Reason: typos
It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
-George Orwell
Triggering
Re: Were you once religious, but no longer are? Or were you once non-religious, but are now religious?
I'm over 50, several degrees, pursued this as a topic much of my life and it still doesn't make any sense.
I'm not a strong atheist, I have no idea so can not dismiss the idea of something beyond, I can only say there is nothing I see that indicates a God outside of awe, and I can definitely say there is nothing that makes me believe in a God like described in the bible or a immortal soul.
"When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."
My shameful truth.
܁
Re: Were you once religious, but no longer are? Or were you once non-religious, but are now religious?
Scientific knowledge does not form some kind of indivisible set of beliefs, of the kind that at least the more robust forms of Christianity/Islam etc. have. If I was presented with compelling evidence that humanity was installed here several millennia ago by an extraterrestrial species of flying dolphin, or emerged from some unknown dimension of reality, that would certainly be surprising, but I could update the rest of my beliefs accordingly. This is an essential difference between scientific understanding and (many) religious beliefs. It doesn't mean that the latter are necessarily wrong, or even that the two are always incompatible, but they are clearly different types of systems.
Certainly if there is a God they have not made their existence as apparent as most religious adherents believe, and there is a certain irony in the fact that so many faiths (and some secular ideologies too) tend towards thinking that their version is not only true, but obviously and unequivocally so.
Re: Were you once religious, but no longer are? Or were you once non-religious, but are now religious?
Well those are more issues on Nature of God (or Divine) rather than existance of it. If those issues aren't separate it's no good.
If let's say, an imperfect ocasionally evil God exists it's still existance of God regardless. If an indifferent God exists there's still existance of God and so on. You seem to be more in this league than in the first.
I respect your positions in these metaphysical/religious things and probably they should stay the same, if it's meant to be that way.
Still I should also say at least that belief and experience are different things, albeit cousins. Many started to believe via some (typically beneficial) experience first, belief after. It's simply ages old custom to say "belief" first. and some trends stay.
It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
-George Orwell
Triggering
Re: Were you once religious, but no longer are? Or were you once non-religious, but are now religious?
The God of Spinoza would fall under this, and while I have seen no proof, I can give credence to the possibility based on what exists.
But lets say this God in fact exists, it still wouldn't make me religious. There would be no religion. No dogma or creed.
"When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."
My shameful truth.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
