So, having impressed on MB that "call and reevaluate" is often a good idea when faced with a raise - even when the raise is coming from a theist - I feel it's time to pull the old check-shove for bastard-equity and meta.

Studies show that atheism in the general population is on the rise. Studies also show that among leading scientists - in the US and among natural scientists in any case -, atheism prevails. These facts are often taken that religions are having a plausibility-problem.

It seems to me that there's a pretty obvious advocatus diaboli kind of discussion to be had here and, meh - why not have it. So here it goes...

All the fanfare is highly premature. When thinking about Zumby's poll, I realized that the few issues I have about my own faith are the problem of Gods trinity and Christs hypostatic union. To many atheists, "hypostatic union" is not even an expression they understand. To many theists and atheists alike, trying to grasp the extensive discussion these two questions have received over a 2000 year history - for a long time by the brightest minds of their time - is well beyond that what they are willing (and sometimes capable) of investing in a debate. Hence, all of that will just be noise flying by them. Hence, they'll be giving up way too early, and will likely come away with the impression of either "I'll just believe my pastor." or "This is all just absurd crap." If the "I'll just believe my pastor"-guy then faces a "this is all bull"-guy, the "lol crazy-talk"-guy will be even further convinced that there is no reasonable explanation to be hand. Obviously, that is not at all necessarily true as there are issus that aren't possible to "dumb down".

This forum is evidence enough of simplistic arguments of the sort "The bible contains factual errors - hence Christianity is fake." (and simplistic arguments to counter that). Fact is, most of present societies discourses and problem-solving mechanisms are a pathetic mixture of radically reducing complexity and kicking various cans down the road. An argument that takes longer than a commercial won't be heard in public political discourse, unilaterally viability takes precedence over truth and it's difficult to even make time to be able to actually think problems through.

Science is making great advances, for sure, however science is a process of eliminating falsehoods, not securing truth. Eliminating falsehoods is easy: just make some experiment and see if stuff turns out the way it should. Truth is hard.

So, to sum up this little piece of polemic "in your face": Atheism is on the rise! Sure, in a society in which Lady Gaga goes for art I would expect nothing different. But scientists too! Ya, scientific research is founded on a methodology of systematically excluding dead ends. In doing so, science gradually comes closer to "truth", yet strategically it isn't primarily concerned about truth itself. Leading scientists, of course, will have that methodology down good and well and, since they're leading scientists, they have every reason to believe that their approach is not only working but "right". Added with the general societal proclivity for short cuts, easy outs and simple truths, that fact in itself does not mean that the rise of atheism is actually just the result of a furhter dumbing down of society. In fact, the fact that the studies were undertaken only among natural scientists may underscore this point. One could legitimately wonder how the results would look if one included the humanities.

There - now hit me.

Before I start, is this a parody thread?

Parody of what?

And since that is my honest answer, I suspect the follow-up answer will be "No." If what you're really asking is "Are you ****** serious!?" then the answer is "I don't believe I'm wrong in what I'm arguing, but I wouldn't dream of claiming I'm right in the conclusions I'm drawing."

The question was genuine.

So you are unaware that you have 'dumbed-down' the argument you wish to refute, thereby undermining your entire argument?

No, I am very much aware of that. I merely wished to keep the opener to a length that is somewhat similar to one page. And of the people I expect meaningful responses from, I assumed not much more than a few pointers were needed to sketch out the lines along which I intend to argue.

Ok, can you try and present your argument as a set of premises and a conclusion, because you jump all over the place in the OP. I don't mind if it's inductive/deductive/abductive whatever, just present a simple train of thought.

I can try but I'll fail. Part of the point is that I would agree that there's a meaningful correlation between the rise of atheism in modern societies and religions having a plausibility problem, but would challenge that this is indicative of anything as there are differing ways to explain that correlation.

But let's give it a try:

Argument for corellation between rise of atheism and religions plausibility problem as, in it's very shortest form, exhibited here and the post preceeding it.

Post 304 roughly: ((If there is no religion -> no way to found morality in religious beliefs.)^(Need for morality -> Need for alternative way of founding morality))-> (Much debate -> increase in intelligence -> non-religious people will end up smarter).

Post 305 roughly: (Most Scientists = Atheist)^(All Scientists = smart) -> (Atheism = smart)

No doubt there are more elaborate ways to argue this.

My point: Neither is a valid argument (duh!), as they are premised on the belief that the unquestionable advances societies underwent and continue to undergo will be beneficial and inductive to intelligent debate and prolongued and intense intellectual discourse. A starkly different account of society could be given that doesn't deny it's unquestionable advances, yet simply maintains that the current intellectual climate is as much subject to "evolutionary pressure" as anything else and isn't as fertile for intense theological debate. Hence, a plausibility problem that is not result of implausibility but lack of effort.

Ok, I'm aware that my question is simplistic (and possibly unrelated....) but if I'm ever going to take it to the next level then I have to start somewhere.

I've read the August global poll that produced the 'Atheism is on the rise' stat and a couple of things jumped out at me. Primarily were the apparent corellations between education and religiosity (less educated = more religious) and wealth and religiosity (less money = more religious). since the two can be connected by education, then it's reasonable to suggest that they're both saying the same thing.

So is the 'problem' caused by 'lady gaga' syndrome or is better standards of education and access to information in Western countries which I'm also supposing lead to more questioning minds that might reject religious doctrines (specifically in western countries like Germany, Canada, France, the USA since that's where the biggest drops seem to be) possibly the cause rather then progress in science solely?

nvm

It's certainly relevant info. So studies show: Higher education ~ higher probability of atheism. And even the very few votes so far in zumby's poll have "no evidence" and "science explains better" very far on top.

My counter is aiming to undercut that by saying: Sure, we're more educated. But it's a certain kind of education - much more emphasis on natural sciences and the type of facts-based thinking that enables us to achieve in our modern world. In Goethe's time "educated" would mean you've read all the greek masters, can play at least one instrument to a reasonable degree of perfection, are fluid in latin, hebrew and french and spend hours and hours writing long letters (which, btw, is a freaking art in itself) to your friends and colleagues discussing problems.

In short: "Education" meant something vastly different back then and emphasized different skills. This thread is simply a sort friendly polemic riposte that says: Sure, in this intellectual environment, theology must seem unconvincing.

Edit: Just to clarify - by the above I'm not saying: Let's go back to the times of Schiller. I'm drawing attention to the fact "more educated" is itself a description that is shaped by societal conventions.

Shorter: theism requires an epistemology that is out of fashion.

So theism needs to take tips from Lady Gaga? I was wondering where Freteloo was going with that, thanks

Lady Gaga Explains Theodicy: Can't read God's, can't read God's, no you can't read God's poker face...

wn, yes, that wouldn't be the worst way to put it.

But isn't the reason that epistemology is out-of-fashion precisely what we are trying to establish?

zumby,

ya. So what is the reason? We'd have to agree what that epistemology means, but in general - yes.

Also, I feel it's essential to the success and adequacy-of-reception of this thread to clarify that I like Lady Gaga.

Nvm what I think just now. Your argument just seems circular. You seem to be saying that the explanation for theism being in decline is that it's epistemology is in decline. I'm sure you have a stronger point but haven't articulated it in a way I understand, so if you could enlighten me I'd appreciate it.

A real answer to that question would require a lot of work and scholarship which I'm obviously either not capable of or am not going to even attempt, but as a first approximation it seems reasonable to suggest that the overwhelming success of science, particularly applied to technology and biology/medicine has lead academics and philosophers to place a heavier emphasis on the epistemology of natural empiricism. It's sort of natural that given the successes, people would ask "Why do we even need to think there is such a thing as knowledge beyond the empirical?"

From the theist's standpoint, it's a mistake because the theist posits that there exists knowledge and truth that are not accessible via scientific empiricism (I won't say that it's not available "by experience" at all). In eastern Christianity, you might express the epistemology of spiritual things as being the result of the union of the Knower with the Known, accomplished in Love. And there's a tremendous amount of exposition on those terms, but fundamentally the idea is that there is knowledge which is not "knowledge that..." but is knowledge via participation, by the going out, ontologically, of the knower towards the known, and vice versa, and that this epistemology is very wrapped up with the doctrine of the Trinity.

^^what he said.

I'm not sure (in a "I really don't know" way, not in a "I doubt" way***) that phrasing it in terms of epistemology is the best way for "my" side to present a strong case, but it's certainly along the lines of what I have in mind. (And, since the finer points of christian dogmatics aren't really my forte anyhow, I wouldn't have a better version to offer than that either.)

Edit to add:

***For example, the point in the OP about "attention span" and short/simple arguments is certainly polemics in the simplistic nature it was stated, but I do think one can make an argument that modern society is creating an ever-accelerating environment that doens't really lend itself to long, drawn-out ponderings of points with no/little immediate impact on life. I don't think that's necessarily a question of epistemology but rather of intellectual rigor. I think one *can* make a point that many of the "run-of-the-mill" people on either side (atheist/theist) just go at some piont "meh, that doesn't make sense" - which often would be more accurately stated as "...make sense to me currently, with the effort I put into it." And they then side with whatever authority figure appeals more to them. Increasingly, that authority figure is going to be atheist.

And I suppose another point as far as the "fashionability" of modern epistemology, is that from a philosophically skeptical standpoint, it's not proven to be necessarily correct any more than the Christian epistemology is proven. Rather, the decision to take as axiomatic that there exists no knowledge that's not natural knowledge is predicated upon the successes of science. It's a heuristic judgement, a la Occam's razor, based on an evaluation of what is believed to be "reasonable" evidence. And I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion to draw, but not a certain one, logically speaking.

But against the reasonableness of atheism in the form of scientific naturalism, the theist proceeds by faith towards the knowledge implied by Christian epistemology. But mystically, and in his experience, faith does not remain only "blind assertion", but it leads to a new kind of knowledge, of the kind I described before. I rely on faith in the sense that I can't prove logically why anyone should favor Christian epistemology over naturalism a priori, but nevertheless I feel certain in my knowledge that God Is, because my faith has led to an experience of God which I can't deny, but which is not easily demonstrable in a scientifically valid way.

Actually, as a digression, biblically speaking, the way in which this kind of knowledge is made known is always by love, i.e

For me, the biggest failing of the Church is clearly it's failure in this regard, which is undeniable I think.

How about the argument that Christianity is in decline in some societies because their people are realizing that they don't need to rely on religion to succeed? I could naively see both atheists and Christians espousing this.

Ya, the easiest is always the hardest.

It's not clear to me that anyone ever needed religion to succeed, in terms of material success.

But I'm sure in reality there are many contributing causes to the decline of religiosity

How about, “… they aren’t relying on religion to give their lives meaning, worth and purpose”? I think that’s what religious belief primarily does; it gives an individual’s life meaning, worth and purpose. So, loosely, religious belief fills a void in the human psyche--some are finding they can fill that vacuum through other means.

In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary reported that globally every day there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_atheism