Christianity Offially on the UP in England and Wales

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...rch-shows.html

I have been saying this for several year, and now here is the first piece of evidence. Decline ended about five years ago, and now we are on the upswing.

So, is the enthrallment of the monistic Enlightenment view of a purely physical universe in terminal decline?

I suspect so, it was never satisfying for the vast majority anyway, I think in the not so distant future we will finally see an acceptence among the intellectual elite that one can accomodate both spiritual and scientific world views together without undue anguish.

The irony here is that nothing has done so much to raise the profile of religion favourably as the slew of books decrying it as nonsense and attempting to talk down to and bully their audience.

[InsaneApache]

Reg Vardy has a lot to answer for.

[rory_20_uk]

Very good point that it's not satisfying. People in the main have no interest in whether it's true, but whether it makes them feel better about themselves and the world. Few people can exist without the warm blanket that belief offers: someone who loves you when no one else does, some one who will forgive your sins and finally somewhere after you're dead.

If you're a strong person, then Protestantism or even Quakerism might be the best one.removed to avoid potential religion bashing.

I'm in favour of it - cheaper than antidepressants after all. I hope my son grows up with the belief that somehow everything is going to be OK as it's a great health booster when things are tough. If you can believe that God loves you and not wonder that perhaps it'd be better to display love in ways that wouldn't get one locked up if one were a mere human would be nice...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Very good point that it's not satisfying. People in the main have no interest in whether it's true, but whether it makes them feel better about themselves and the world. Few people can exist without the warm blanket that belief offers: someone who loves you when no one else does, some one who will forgive your sins and finally somewhere after you're dead.

If you're a strong person, then Protestantism or even Quakerism might be the best one. removed as above

I'm in favour of it - cheaper than antidepressants after all. I hope my son grows up with the belief that somehow everything is going to be OK as it's a great health booster when things are tough. If you can believe that God loves you and not wonder that perhaps it'd be better to display love in ways that wouldn't get one locked up if one were a mere human would be nice...

I think these are all fair points, and I accept them. Of course, the social utility of religion does not count against it being true (it may count in favour even, it may not.)

I present alos this, a book review by Rowan Williams on the subject: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/b...on-review.html

I especially liked this:

She distinguishes this carefully and consistently from specific scientific argumentation, making the all-important point that a scientist outside their special field has no particular claim to philosophical acumen

and this:

“Whoever controls the definition of mind controls the definition of humankind itself.” The more the definition of mind is left to the parascientist – to Dennett and Dawkins and to reductive neurologists such as Steven Pinker and Michael Gazzaniga – the more political, moral and imaginative trouble we are corporately in.

Which would, I believe, be an opinion shared by Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, and also probably by Protagoras - ironic as that may be.

[Idaho]

Religion is fine, as long as we don't start based anything important on it.

[rory_20_uk]

Apologies for mentioning the historical practice of selling indulgences for forgiveness of sin, for such buildings as Saint Peter's Cathedral in Rome. I hope that this was for my comment implying these events might occur in the future, and not trying to sweep this practice from the past.

Apparently this is "religion bashing" although was one of the main stimuli for the Protestant movement in the first place as it underlined the massive divide from the teachings of Christ and the Catholic church, especially in relation to the accrual of money, but also to the refusal to allow the masses to obtain copies of the book their religion was supposed to be based upon.

[Rahwana]

as long as people still fear the hell and the uncertainty of their future, they still need a religion... at least, Christians are good friends, they will pay for your beer if you go to church with them!

[Beskar]

I suspect so, it was never satisfying for the vast majority anyway, I think in the not so distant future we will finally see an acceptence among the intellectual elite that one can accomodate both spiritual and scientific world views together without undue anguish.

Religion has no place in science, has Science has no need for dogmatic ignorance such as Creationism, and its kin trying to prevent progress.

If you have happy with your 'opium of the people' though, I don't care until you attempt to force it on me or where it doesn't belong.

[PanzerJaeger]

Very good point that it's not satisfying. People in the main have no interest in whether it's true, but whether it makes them feel better about themselves and the world. Few people can exist without the warm blanket that belief offers: someone who loves you when no one else does, some one who will forgive your sins and finally somewhere after you're dead.

If you're a strong person, then Protestantism or even Quakerism might be the best one.removed to avoid potential religion bashing.

I'm in favour of it - cheaper than antidepressants after all. I hope my son grows up with the belief that somehow everything is going to be OK as it's a great health booster when things are tough. If you can believe that God loves you and not wonder that perhaps it'd be better to display love in ways that wouldn't get one locked up if one were a mere human would be nice...

Excellent points. I'm with Marx on this one.

[tibilicus]

It may be on the up, but aren't the majority of people in the UK still self identified Atheists? I believe the figure is 60%+.

[al Roumi]

Apologies for mentioning the historical practice of selling indulgences for forgiveness of sin, for such buildings as Saint Peter's Cathedral in Rome. I hope that this was for my comment implying these events might occur in the future, and not trying to sweep this practice from the past.

I'd imagine the censure (and warning?) might have been for

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

calling catholicism a religion for the weak.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Saying religion is for the weak and people who can't accept they are going to die etc is pretty much akin to saying that atheists refuse to believe in God because they are too weak to take the consequences of facing up to their sins. There may be some truth in such statements, but they are very speculative and don't really do justice to the vast range of beliefs out there.

I have a hunch that the increase in church attendance may be something to do with all the controversy surrounding Islam, because it is making people consciously identify more as 'Christian', typical us v them scenario. Although even then I have to say I am surprised to see the established church doing so well, things don't seem so rosy with the Church of Scotland. Heh, I've actually been attending two churches recently, one of them being the C of S. But I've also been going to a local Baptist church where they have evening services for people from different churches to come to (not interfaith stuff, still strictly evangelical) because I have a friend that invited me, and the contrast really is marked. They have all kinds of Bible study groups, teaching sessions, various events etc, so I would not be suprised to see such churches thriving. But the C of S on the other hand does pretty much nothing, I actually emailed my minister a few days ago because I want to organise some sort of Bible study group... will see how that goes...

[Beskar]

Probably more to do with the Recession, and people want the comfort of sugar candy mountain in this time of hardship.

akin to saying that atheists refuse to believe in God because they are too weak to take the consequences of facing up to their sins.

That makes no sense, that is as silly as me saying you don't believe in Valhalla because you will end up amongst the dishonoured dead and shall not be permitted to enter its great halls.

The statement that there is no afterlife, no divine purpose, nothing out there looking out for you is a very frightening one to many people, it is also why some religious people will never be atheists as it scares them. Belief in an afterlife and spiritual stuff is a comfort blanket for many people that no matter how bad things are in life, they will be rewarded. It is a pretty known 'fact'.

Though if some one wanted to get rid of sins, they could just go to confession and all sins are stripped away, or pay for a pass to Heaven. That is how the Catholics do it.

[rory_20_uk]

The numbers of religions that offer an easy way out for sinners has always been great. If Atheists are merely weak sinners it'd be much easier to join a church that allows forgiveness after some minor act. Paganism can be pretty liberal in what classes as a sin so that would suit most people.

I'm sure there are loads of other reasons out there, ranging from a good way to meet people, which is certainly true, to meeting the right sort of people, historical or cultural significance or even just wanting to make a stand against the other. I'm (A)gnostic but I would support CoE vs all comers as this has helped form my country.

Ah, Bible study groups. I love them. Last one I called god a sadistic psychopath based on forcing Pharoh to refuse the Israelites their request so he could then punish them with plagues. Since it was a group that believed the literal writings of the bible there was no way to "interpret" their way out of that one. My wife didn't let me attend any after that...

[al Roumi]

I have been saying this for several year, and now here is the first piece of evidence. Decline ended about five years ago, and now we are on the upswing.

Hang-about, I thought the article's headline was "Churchgoing stabilises after years of decline, research shows".

The cynical atheist might say that this just shows attendance has been reduced down to the hard core of believers, which due to social & demographic considerations has been constant in the last 10 years.

This is still interesting, but it's not proof that the UK is becoming more religious.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That makes no sense, that is as silly as me saying you don't believe in Valhalla because you will end up amongst the dishonoured dead and shall not be permitted to enter its great halls.

My point is just that the old "Christians are weak" line presumes that fear is the only motivating factor behind their faith, regardless of any truth behind it, and I think that this is unfair

My own experience with religion is that it has been comforting at times, but more often the opposite has been true, especially in the earlier days. I think that's how things are meant to be though, look at the Psalms of King David which give a very good account of what a personal relationship with God is like, it isn't all about feeling warm and fuzzy.

Although I agree with you, many of the people who believe in 'hippie Jesus' are only in it because it makes them feel good.

Ah, Bible study groups. I love them. Last one I called god a sadistic psychopath based on forcing Pharoh to refuse the Israelites their request so he could then punish them with plagues. Since it was a group that believed the literal writings of the bible there was no way to "interpret" their way out of that one. My wife didn't let me attend any after that...

Well Calvinists like myself would have no problem with your example. God hardened Pharaoh's heart so he could make his glory known to the Isrealites. Pharaoh was already an evil king that had enslaved the Israelite people remember, and refused to let them go even before God hardened his heart.

Such beliefs might seem a bit brutal but that is becaused they are centred on the glory of God and not the glory of men, I don't deny it. Plus at least they are theologically consistent.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Hang-about, I thought the article's headline was "Churchgoing stabilises after years of decline, research shows".

5,000 more people in 2008 it says, but it's not clear if that's statistically significant.

[Tellos Athenaios]

On a population of millions? Are you kidding? It's pretty clear that it is *not* statistically significant.

[InsaneApache]

I've always wondered about the 'merciful' bit of god as well. Compared with him, satan is an angel.

[al Roumi]

I've always wondered about the 'merciful' bit of god as well. Compared with him, satan is an angel.

lol, HERESY.

Where's the Spanish inquisition when you need them? Cue python.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Christian Research: Church attendance in the UK no longer in decline - exclusive guest post from Benita Hewitt

This is actually rather earth shattering.

This will no doubt be very welcome news ahead of the Papal visit.

Let's hope for Christian 'Research' that the pope, like them, will be blissfully oblivious of the fact that while church attendance has stabilised, population has sharply increased, thus decreasing church attendance as percentage of the population. Here you go:



UK population:

2001: 58,789,194 (Census)
2010: 63m (Estimate)
= 7.2 % growth


Catholics:
2001: 980.000
2005: 920.000
2010: 920.000
decline, stable from 2004/5

The Baptist Union of Great Britain:
2002: 148,835
2008: 153,714
3.2% growth.

Church of England:

2001: 1.2 million
2008: 1.145 million
decline


So the percentage of churchgoers has declined the past decade. The best that can be said, is that the decline seems to have mostly halted the past few years.

Worthy of note are:
The CoE, which can not increase its numbers with immigration, has declined most sharply of all percentage wise.

The decline of Catholicism in the UK stabilised from 2004/5, the exact year Poland joined the EU and a massive migration of Catholic Poles to the British Isles ensued. I wonder if there's a connection there...


All in all, we still seem to manage to enlighten them faster than they can breed and import.

[tibilicus]

I've always wondered about the 'merciful' bit of god as well. Compared with him, satan is an angel.

The Old Testament God is very different from the New Testament God in terms of personality. You might even read the New Testament after the Old and think that they're talking about a completely different God.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Old Testament God is very different from the New Testament God in terms of personality. You might even read the New Testament after the Old and think that they're talking about a completely different God.

The overriding theme in the Old Testament is how God chooses a small, defenceless people and leads them out of slavery, provides for them in the wilderness, and gives them a bright and prosperous future in the 'Promised Land'.

On the other hand, the much more apocalyptic viewpoint of the New Testament is based around the idea that God is going to completely destroy the earth and all its inhabitants.

The God of the Old Testament is really not more brutal than that of the New.

[HoreTore]

Louis demonstrates how the French are superior to the English in maths.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. I wonder when people will learn to doublecheck their data and not jump to the first conclusion they see...

Also, I'm happy to note that Christianity is still declining. To me, that can only be a good thing.

EDIT: I do wonder, will the financial crisis create more christians? I mean, I'm sure the number of alcoholics and junkies are on the rise now, and seeing as that's the primary breeding ground for potential christians, will we see a boost to the flock in a few years?

[tibilicus]

The overriding theme in the Old Testament is how God chooses a small, defenceless people and leads them out of slavery, provides for them in the wilderness, and gives them a bright and prosperous future in the 'Promised Land'.

On the other hand, the much more apocalyptic viewpoint of the New Testament is based around the idea that God is going to completely destroy the earth and all its inhabitants.

The God of the Old Testament is really not more brutal than that of the New.

You probably understand it better than I do seeming your a practising Christian but I always thought the general theme was that OT God smited those on a regular basis who disobeyed him whilst the NT God is more "do what you like, just remember your going to hell for it".

Guess that has something to do with the OT God intervening directly in our world and the NT God working through Jesus though.

[rory_20_uk]

Are we editing out how God's chosen systematically slaughtered others near and far in the Old Testament with God's help?

[Beskar]

Are we editing out how God's chosen systematically slaughtered others near and far in the Old Testament with God's help?

I like Numbers 31, where they committed genocide, leaving only the virgin young females, which they took for themselves. Even conducted Human Sacrifice as well.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Are we editing out how God's chosen systematically slaughtered others near and far in the Old Testament with God's help?

Of course not, I was just pointing to examples of God being 'nice' in the OT. Also remember despite the perception below:

Guess that has something to do with the OT God intervening directly in our world and the NT God working through Jesus though.

God doesn't intervene directly in much of the OT. Indeed the God felt the Israelites were becoming too confident in their own abilities to win the conflict, and that's why he told Gideon to purge his army before they fought the Midianites. When God did intervene directly, it was stuff like parting the Red Sea or the Jordan River, or providig manna to eat etc.

[Furunculus]

Very good point that it's not satisfying. People in the main have no interest in whether it's true, but whether it makes them feel better about themselves and the world. Few people can exist without the warm blanket that belief offers: someone who loves you when no one else does, some one who will forgive your sins and finally somewhere after you're dead.

If you're a strong person, then Protestantism or even Quakerism might be the best one.removed to avoid potential religion bashing.

I'm in favour of it - cheaper than antidepressants after all. I hope my son grows up with the belief that somehow everything is going to be OK as it's a great health booster when things are tough. If you can believe that God loves you and not wonder that perhaps it'd be better to display love in ways that wouldn't get one locked up if one were a mere human would be nice...

as commonly occurs; rory expresses my opinion before i get a chance to voice it.

[Brenus]

“The overriding theme in the Old Testament is how God chooses a small, defenceless people and leads them out of slavery, provides for them in the wilderness, and gives them a bright and prosperous future in the 'Promised Land'.”
That is if you believe the Book of course.

Because the systematic extermination of all opponents who pre-owned the lands given by God but taken by men e.g. Joshua leads me to other explanation about one of the greatest piece of propaganda and self-justification ever written.
I discovered it thanks to the .org, in a side door in a thread.
An excellent programme (Battle BC) on history channel reinforced this feeling.

Not only the Jews were not slaves but also they were warriors employed by Pharaoh to waged war on his borders (a little bit as the Serbs in the Krajina by the Austro-Hungarians against the Turks). The reason why Moses left Egypt (due to the fact that peace treaty was signed and Pharaoh didn’t want some to put in danger this treaty in doing something silly as raiding former enemy lands and women and cattle) is because the lost of the source of revenue: war.
Pharaoh assigned a new duty to the Jews as builders, but they didn’t like it. They left but re-supplied in usual way in plundering Egyptian towns.
Pharaoh didn’t like it so started a pursuit. Moses being a general on the field knew the Egyptian tactic and succeeded to avoid a frontal battle and slipped away…
Then the battle of the Holly lands started in systematically exterminating the local tribes…