Religion and Social Networking

Mar 22, 2011 14:22

Over on Facebook, I got myself involved in a debate on religion. I know, I know; I should know better. But it's fun, y'know? Anyhow, what prompted the debate was this article on the BBC about how relgions go extinct. Good stuff.
Read more... )

religion, polls

Leave a comment

Comments 53

clevermanka March 22 2011, 19:43:47 UTC
Dr Wiener continued: "In a large number of modern secular democracies, there's been a trend that folk are identifying themselves as non-affiliated with religion; in the Netherlands the number was 40%, and the highest we saw was in the Czech Republic, where the number was 60%."

Czech Republic, ho! I am looking into job opportunities there right now.

Reply

mckitterick March 22 2011, 20:02:53 UTC
Hahahaha!

Reply

holyoutlaw March 22 2011, 21:37:30 UTC
I had a similar reaction. Pretty geography, mild climate, rational population? I'm so there!

Reply


m_danson March 22 2011, 19:56:34 UTC
Something about that article strikes me as way too simplistic.

For instance, are they talking about Big-R religion or about individual religious groups? How does the country selection (US is not in that group for example) affect conclusions? The languages example (as they present it) doesn't demonstrate extinction, it demonstrates regionalization.

Also, I question the numbers they inply at least in terms Canada. (StatsCan) The number of non-affiliated is increasing here but non-affiliated, non-practicing, and non-religious are very different concepts... ask the Easter/Christmas Catholics ( ... )

Reply

mckitterick March 22 2011, 20:05:59 UTC
I hear you, though what I got out of it was that belonging to a larger group aids one's social standing, serving utility in that way. So big-R religions provide greater whuffie to members. If people don't get that, they're more likely to defect.

Oh, and the reason I worded it the way I did was that I'm curious about an observation I made about FBers vs. LJers.

Reply

m_danson March 23 2011, 17:30:48 UTC
I agree that not getting the benefits will make some people more likely to defect, but what is meant by defecting? Becoming atheists? Switching churches? Not going to church yourself, but sending your kids? Pursuing personal spirituality?

Cool. I hope you will explain your results and observations here.

Reply

piezocuttlefish March 23 2011, 12:36:43 UTC
Wait. I think you may have just called a group of physicist hobbyists doing simulations on a subject way, way out of their area of expertise [reductivist].

Hmm.

Reporting on the findings of a collection of hobbyists does seem a bit sensationalist, no?

Reply


countrycousin March 22 2011, 20:21:29 UTC
I read the discussion on FB. Long discussion, but narrow, not broad. Singular viewpoint.

But I have my own concerns about the study, not that it isn't meaningful, but that it means what the article thinks it does.

I perceive a human need that (part of) religion addresses. When that need isn't met, it leaves a population subject to some sort of revival effort, normally much longer on enthusiasm than thought. Like a teenage crush. Such a population is particularly subject to abusive manipulation. It will be interesting to see how these societies that are increasingly identifying as secular evolve.

Reply

mckitterick March 22 2011, 20:39:39 UTC
Interesting point - the experiment is now underway, all we need to do is observe it!

Reply


weaselmom March 22 2011, 20:59:15 UTC
Holy schnikies, I had to leave your FB thread before I had an aneurysm. "A world without birth control would be awesome!" Really? You would force women whom I know personally to risk death should they become pregnant? You would deny the ability of women whom I know personally to regulate their hormonal issues through use of birth control? Man, I don't know how you're keeping your temper, because I lost mine already. And let's not even mention the back-pedaling about "the fires of hell."

Reply

mckitterick March 22 2011, 21:27:31 UTC
Anyone who begins a discussion with "You're going to burn for eternity in the fiery pits o' Hell!" isn't a rational being, so I didn't see any need to poke the crazy more than I did. I'm surprised that so few people jumped in and called him on his statements.

Your icon FTW.

Reply

weaselmom March 22 2011, 22:32:56 UTC
If ever there was a guy who needed to have every woman he meets go all Lysistrata on his ass... Was he actually claiming to be an old friend of yours?

I was tempted to whisper "What about the dinosaurs?" but lo, the crazy was indeed strong in that one.

Reply

mckitterick March 22 2011, 23:05:03 UTC
He went to school in Ortonville, too, and got out of there a year after I did. Honestly, though, I can't recall our interactions. Was he on the debate team, maybe? Hm.

Oooh, dinos! I'm tempted to drop that one in there....

Reply


piezocuttlefish March 23 2011, 12:41:58 UTC
These days I find religion and naturalism in less and less conflict. After all, I believe in the Ubiquitous Cuttlefish and the Great Cosmic Squid. I mean, not really, but really. I don't need reality as a reason to devote everyday rituals to imaginary apotheosised personifications. Mollusca are awesome, and this is enough reason to have a religion-even one that covers an entire culture (cf. Shintoism, which loses very little when combined with naturalism).

And who doesn't want four cosmic hugs at all times?! From a mollusc!!

Reply

mckitterick March 23 2011, 16:50:34 UTC
:-D

Reply


Leave a comment

Up