[Ibon]

How do folks see this trend? Positive? Negative? Indifferent?

I was reading how millennials are very skeptical of institutions in general whether they be religious, corporate, government, etc. So we have a generation emerging that appears to be far more wary of institutions.

The Islamic fundamentalists may be partly to blame for this growing secular trend for they have exposed the depths of irrationality that can happen with religious belief. It probably has not helped evangelicals who believe in the literal truth of the bible when they look at what happens when Islamic fundamentalists do the same with their Koran. After all, millennials have grown up post 911 with all the ME wars and have witnessed the depth of religious hatred between Sunni and Shias and between and among the 3 main Abrahamic religions.

It would make sense that witnessing all this religious hatred would only encourage secular trends.

Any millennials out there who care to comment?

https://usatcollege.files.wordpress.com ... png?w=1000

[Tanada]

I think this may be a bit over representation. Go to any religious gathering for the last 30 years and you will see pretty much the same demographic breakdown. Put another way, elderly folks tend to be more faithful as they approach end of life while teenagers and 20 somethings tend to believe they are indestructible, have the world by the tail and feel as if they will live forever.

[SeaGypsy]

Sunday morning here, my Filipina wife & kids head off to their 3 hour bible based ear bashing & pretentiousness she calls Baptist Pentecostal Church, which is followed by a nosh up & chin wag she enjoys most. The kids gang up & have their own fun. When I occasionally attend, I am often the only Anglo ish person there, mostly Pinoy. Of the 20-30 who attend, only two are teens, early 20's.
This afternoon we will all attend a gathering & feast at a Hindu temple, about 90% Indian ethnic, & a very broad age spread.
The area we are living is full blown melting pot multicultural. Many Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. What I'm seeing generally is secularity quite firmly taking over with Anglos in general, with churches struggling to adapt to increasingly sceptical communities, perhaps also with the deepening of science into our real position in the Universe becoming really fascinating & fulfilling over recent decades.

As I get older I more see religion as a cultural phenomenon. As the recent thread about apocalyptic peakers goes into, via the internet, new communities & cultures are forming. These new communities & cultures are rapidly supplanting the traditional position of religious institutions. Seemingly this mass cultural transfer is affecting western Anglos more than other communities, & very significantly younger people very used to communicating this way.

[dolanbaker]

I suspect that for many people, attending a church or other religious place of worship is a means to an end, by which I mean that the after-service meet up is often the only time they get to meet up with some of their friends.

Younger people have got used to using social media so can avoid the whole church bit.

[Oneaboveall]

This was just published by the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/n ... kids-study

Children from religious families are less kind and more punitive than those from non-religious households, according to a new study.

Academics from seven universities across the world studied Christian, Muslim and non-religious children to test the relationship between religion and morality.

They found that religious belief is a negative influence on children’s altruism.

“Overall, our findings ... contradict the commonsense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind towards others,” said the authors of The Negative Association Between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism Across the World, published this week in Current Biology.

“More generally, they call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that secularisation of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness – in fact, it will do just the opposite.”

[Tanada]

This was just published by the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/n ... kids-study

Children from religious families are less kind and more punitive than those from non-religious households, according to a new study.

Academics from seven universities across the world studied Christian, Muslim and non-religious children to test the relationship between religion and morality.

They found that religious belief is a negative influence on children’s altruism.

“Overall, our findings ... contradict the commonsense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind towards others,” said the authors of The Negative Association Between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism Across the World, published this week in Current Biology.

“More generally, they call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that secularisation of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness – in fact, it will do just the opposite.”

Lumping all religions together is like lumping all Caucasians or all Africans together. Its just groupism with a different choice used to separate the groups and doesn't really tell you anything.

[sjn]

It's long been my opinion that dogmatic religious morality, as a received memetic construct actually subverts the individuals own innate moral compass. Since we are social creatures, we have evolved complex mental processes (or instincts) which emphasise behaviours which benefit the social group. Some individuals express this far more strongly than others, but in order to prevent cognitive dissonance those who receive pre-chewed ideas about what constitutes morality suppress this mechanism.

[ROCKMAN]

"...the individuals own innate moral compass." Hmm...I need to keep a look out for them compasses...I'm not sure I've every seen one. Seems like all the right/wrong judgments I've seen were based on what someone told that person was right/wrong.

[Pops]

It's long been my opinion that dogmatic religious morality, as a received memetic construct actually subverts the individuals own innate moral compass.

Yep.
Jesus died for your sins. Whosoever believeth...
Convenient.

The favorite saying of one of my most religious acquaintances was
"better to ask forgiveness than ask permission."

[GoghGoner]

"...the individuals own innate moral compass." Hmm...I need to keep a look out for them compasses...I'm not sure I've every seen one. Seems like all the right/wrong judgments I've seen were based on what someone told that person was right/wrong.

Children under the age of two show sympathy for others without any instruction to do so. Nature and nurture work hand-in-hand. So both extremes of innate values and behaviorism are too simple in the real world.

[GoghGoner]

Some individuals express this far more strongly than others, but in order to prevent cognitive dissonance those who receive pre-chewed ideas about what constitutes morality suppress this mechanism.

Not sure any science is behind your statements. Of course, I have no idea what an innate moral compass is either. Religion obviously does not lead to more criminal behavior, if that is what you are suggesting. My guess is that forming religious groups benefits the human species and that is why we evolved to form such groups.

The results of the meta-analysis show that religious beliefs and behaviors exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals' criminal behavior.

[PrestonSturges]

With the rise of social media, closeted gay men no longer need to go to their supposedly 100%-not-gay fundie church to meet other closeted gay men.

[sjn]

Some individuals express this far more strongly than others, but in order to prevent cognitive dissonance those who receive pre-chewed ideas about what constitutes morality suppress this mechanism.

Not sure any science is behind your statements. Of course, I have no idea what an innate moral compass is either. Religion obviously does not lead to more criminal behavior, if that is what you are suggesting. My guess is that forming religious groups benefits the human species and that is why we evolved to form such groups.

There is science, but only so far as synthesis from various sources I've read over the years. If I was writing a paper I'd supply citations! Religious groups are probably more a cultural quirk than a biological imperative, absolutely my opinion of course! A spiritual or emotional connection to the universe, on the other hand, is something that's very much a part of our make-up, and likely something we even share with the other sentient creatures of this world.

The results of the meta-analysis show that religious beliefs and behaviors exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals' criminal behavior.

Fear is a pretty effective behaviour modifier. It would have been interesting if they'd looked into why members of each group chose to avoid or partake in a life of crime.

[Ibon]

The favorite saying of one of my most religious acquaintances was
"better to ask forgiveness than ask permission."

It rolls off the tongue a lot nicer in Spanish; "Mejor pedir perdon que permiso". It is often a very useful strategy actually.

[ralfy]

My understanding is that the human mind dwells on both the rational and irrational, and that the latter can even be seen outside religion (e.g., the view that money is wealth, egalitarianism, faith in science and technology). In addition, the main driver of major events throughout the twentieth century and the following might have been secular in nature, e.g., ethnic strife, nationalism, realpolitik, etc.

[Ibon]

In relationship to human overshoot and the environmental problems modern humans have created with overpopulation and over consumption we have to recognize that neither religious beliefs nor secular materialism has contributed much of anything to date in the way of mitigation. In fact both have promoted indirectly and directly the conditions that have lead to human overshoot. Religions have an inherent weakness in looking at resolving big systemic problems by leaving them in gods hands. Same goes for breeding. Secular materialism on the other hand has stripped any sense of the sacred out of our relationship with our biosphere seeing resources as just material to exploit.

Millennials and the generations to follow will be the ones that will confront the consequences of these failures. Surely a sense of the sacred directed toward that which nourishes us, our mother earth, would be a positive evolution in religious belief. This could form the bedrock on which secular materialism can then go about self regulating itself. Actually the polarization between religion and secular thought could thus be somewhat integrated.

If we could wave a magic wand and wipe out all religious dogma and start from scratch it would be an easier task. But this luxury we don't have. We are stuck with these dysfunctional legacy religions and all we have done is add a layer of dysfunctional secular materialism. That is where we are today.

[sjn]

Ibon, I couldn't agree more.

[ralfy]

I think secular materialism is not a layer but the basis of modern human societies.