You may google the research that reveals about 20% of young persons who are “observant,” meaning they attend a church or other religious event on a weekly basis, are actually atheists.
In most religions, the congregation typically recites a phrase like “glory be to God” “all glory to God” or some similar phrase.
my 80 year old neighbor attends a church in brooklyn heights. anyway, i asked him whether he also recites such a phrase, and he said yes. i then asked him what it meant to him, and he said: “not much.” he said he cannot imagine God needs glory, and cannot imagine why he would offer glory to God, as he doesn’t believe in a personal God.
i told this story to an observant Jew, who acknowledged he does not believe in God. He suggested this was so common among the observant, that there’s a saying: “Moishe goes to temple to talk to God, and I go to temple to talk to Moishe.”
Since beliefs are private, can we assume the person worshipping next to us is actually “worshipping”? Should we? Are we wrong to?
How many of the “observant” are not actually the “faithful”?
If they have no “faith” in God, why do they participate in the ritual?
At its fundamental core, I believe religion gives people comfort and hope, and something greater than themselves to believe in. Most people of faith that I know are wonderful, caring and giving.
Similarly, most atheists I know are wonderful, caring and giving. I suspect that those who attend weekly services do so out of a desire to maintain symbiotic connections with their local community.
I might be mistaken, but I believe that an atheist stands to lose stature in the community by revealing the lack of belief. Atheism is a bit like homosexuality, as regards the closet.
I think it indicates that just as Jews, Christians, and Muslims respectively define those words differently, so do atheists.
I personally am a strict constructionist when it comes to atheism and would have thought that it is a word less open to multiple and varying interpretations. But it turns out I’d be wrong.
I’m disappointed that it doesn’t say how many atheist Americans are dogmatic about religion. I don’t need any more atheists trying to tell me what I believe.
I also wonder about the 2% disparity between “religious” Americans who agree that “many religions can lead to eternal life” and those who agree that “there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion”. Does this mean more people are tolerant of other religions than members of their own?
Good point. I guess I assumed that eternal “life” doesn’t include hell, but who knows, maybe it could. I know I would have a very hard time with that survey, simply because I would want semantic clarification for a lot of words. It makes me wonder if the results of the survey are even meaningful.
It’s smart for atheists and gays to stay in the closet
At least in small town USA.There is no logical reason to lump atheists and gays together, except that in small towns, they are both wise to stay in the closet.
Everyone wants friends in a small town. Not much going on. Church is really cool because it is a center of social activity in many places. Why would you want to cut yourself off from that ? Join the church and go to the dance. In this circumstance, atheism has a pass. There is no genie hovering over me while I play social games. It is not sinful for an atheist to pray in public.
IMHO, many great priests are atheists, dedicated to show biz and profits, empire building.
Wow, I was just thinking about that today, before finally getting around to looking at this thread.
My thought process went as follows:
I wonder if many people go to church simply for the social aspect. Maybe if there were more secular “clubs” available to choose from, fewer people would attend church. These organizations would have to be extremely easy going. Like church, you could just show up and be accepted and welcomed as a friend and as a fellow member.
You wouldn’t have to buy a canoe and join a canoe club. You wouldn’t have to learn to unicycle and join a unicycle club. You wouldn’t even have to have any special interests, talents, or equipment. Just show up and socialize and then go home. You wouldn’t even have to socialize if you didn’t want to. Just show up and sit there. That way, shy people would have no anxiety about going there the first time. No obligations, commitments, or expectations. And unlike going to, say, a bar, going to these organizations would be socially encouraged.
Do such easy-going, socially-encouraged, “no barriers to entry”, “don’t have to do anything” social organizations exist? As a way to connect to random people in your local community or to people in a wider geographical area by common interest?
Perhaps a book club at your local library? But then you would have to read books and participate. That’s work. Even if you get cake and coffee afterwards. What organization rivals church with regard to not having to do anything but show up now and then? If the answer is “there are none”, then that fact, combined with Billy’s findings, perhaps give a clue as to why religion won’t seem to go away. (with apologies to… well, you know who you are)
I haven’t gone to any church events in many years.
Key West is a tourist oriented island, where going to bars is socially encouraged. There are lots of party’s here.
In the past I have lived in really small towns, like less then 1000 people, with the next place to far away. No internet, cable tv, or even vhs tapes.
In those days, it sounds hard and unreally boring, but I was young and good looking.
And the best place to look was often at the church "pot luck " dinner. There would be some hall somewhere and folks would all bring a pot of their favorite home cooked something. People ate and talked and really didn’t discuss religion anyway.
Some times there would be pretty girls there. Or beer. Seriously, Christianity isn’t all bad. At a certain point it is wise to separate barbecue from philosophic ideals and realize that there is nothing else going on in town.
I think, Dave, you’re onto something, but it is only part of the story, a story that is complex.
I am, in some ways, a microcosm of the entire story.
I am a member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation. I attend services for a number of reasons.
Having been a member for almost 10 years, first among those reasons now probably is the social aspect.
But I started attending and would not have otherwise, because the basic, fundamental principles of UU are in keeping with my own. I am a UU because UU and I are in accord.
But, and here is where it gets dicey, personal, and somewhat confessional, unlike a club that you propose, a religious community also offers, as a fundamental part of its existence, the opportunity to be associated with good works. To be associated with those works both in by actually participating in those works and purely vicariously. The latter bit, of course, means that, for example, while I am a member of and associated with a congregation that now generates half its power needs through solar panels, I, in fact, had absolutely nothing to do with making this happen. Except perhaps voting with the congregation to approve it.
I am in a position to say that I am involved in some of the good works of my congregation, though to a lesser extent than many. But I also must admit that I am made to feel good vicariously about many of the good works my community does that I have nothing to do with.
And, of course, there are those who attend services and that’s it; they don’t volunteer or otherwise actively participate in the good works of the congregation. But, I do know from experience, that they do enjoy and at least, within their hearts, benefit from their association with a place that does the kind of good works they believe in.
I think that any kind of community that is to be well attended and lasting must offer its participants/members the opportunity to feel good about themselves in some meaningful way beyond mere social activity.
Interesting perspective, Raphael. You are right. The total picture is complex. I wonder if organized religion consciously knows about what elements encourage membership, or whether they just evolved into it (or just got lucky). That’s not a cynical or anti-religious remark – all organizations need to promote membership to ensure their survival.
I hadn’t really thought much about the “doing good” factor and the good feeling of being associated with that type of organization. And then there’s the more basic “it simply feels good to belong to something” factor. The fact that we live more and more isolated lives (the town square is gone and many of us don’t even know our neighbors) might also help promote membership.
I still wonder if non-religious organizations of some sort could rise up to compete with the church. In designing such an organization, what elements could be borrowed from organized religion to promote and sustain membership?
Well, aren’t there such organizations? The Shriners, the VFW, Elks, Moose, the DAR? All are places where the membership share something in common and all promote good works.
Interestingly, and this is a general and not terribly original observation, all are on the conservative side politically and socially and all promote good works. Notwithstanding the conservative and libertarian philosophy of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency, it seems very much like altruism is a force that makes people feel good, self-fulfilled, and purposeful. These organizations recognize that.
And isn’t it ironic that liberals, who are philosophically the opposite, don’t have similarly organized groups - none that come to mind anyway - and lag significantly behind conservatives and the religious in terms of philanthropy.
