Church finsd wonderful, terrible news

[English assassin]

According to a survey by the Church of England, young people (1) know nothing about God and (2) are perfectly happy with that: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...169809,00.html

The authors began their work believing that even if the young had little knowledge of Christianity they would still have religious or spiritual yearnings. They were shocked to find that they did not.

Nevertheless, young people do not feel disenchanted, lost or alienated in a meaningless world. “Instead, the data indicated that they found meaning and significance in the reality of everyday life, which the popular arts helped them to understand and imbibe.” Their creed could be defined as: “This world, and all life in it, is meaningful as it is,” translated as: “There is no need to posit ultimate significance elsewhere beyond the immediate experience of everyday life.” The goal in life of young people was happiness achieved primarily through the family.

The researchers were also shocked to discover little sense of sin or fear of death. Nor did they find any Freudian guilt as a result of private sensual desires.

So, happy, well adjusted, focused on the family, finding life meaningful...and this is BAD news?

Anyone who doubts that religion is indeed a drug and the clergy, of all kinds, are the pushers, here it all is, in the good old cuddly C of E no less.

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

According to a survey by the Church of England, young people (1) know nothing about God and (2) are perfectly happy with that:

This is great. They can enjoy their life and when the doomsday comes they can't be doomed, because they didn't know that there is such a thing as God.

[rory_20_uk]

Allelyua!!

Finally, the species grows up.

[Sjakihata]

testing new sig,

+1

[Byzantine Mercenary]

yep, their happy now and good luck to them if they wish to live like that,
but they don't mean that the church is irrelavent if people don't wan't to be christians i don't mind, what i do mind is when an increasing amount of people use this to ridicule my way of life by saying that the church is unessisary.
I can a assure you ive got a lot out of being a christian and think that overall it has benifitted me greatly, if some people think they don't need belief without trying it then good luck to them but it doesn't mean its unnessisary.

[InsaneApache]

Here we go again.

[Red Peasant]

yep, their happy now and good luck to them if they wish to live like that,
but they don't mean that the church is irrelavent if people don't wan't to be christians i don't mind, what i do mind is when an increasing amount of people use this to ridicule my way of life by saying that the church is unessisary.
I can a assure you ive got a lot out of being a christian and think that overall it has benifitted me greatly, if some people think they don't need belief without trying it then good luck to them but it doesn't mean its unnessisary.

Calm down, lah! Who was having a go?

Maybe you need to relax, like the nice young people in this survey

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

yep, their happy now and good luck to them if they wish to live like that,
but they don't mean that the church is irrelavent if people don't wan't to be christians i don't mind, what i do mind is when an increasing amount of people use this to ridicule my way of life by saying that the church is unessisary.
I can a assure you ive got a lot out of being a christian and think that overall it has benifitted me greatly, if some people think they don't need belief without trying it then good luck to them but it doesn't mean its unnessisary.

I have nothing against church, if it is a sunday club were peoples sing and braise their god. But the problem is, at least in Finland, that church wants influence in earthy things.

For example, church has right of taxation. Private person, who doesn't belong to
church doesn't need to pay the tax. But all corroborations must. Even if it owned by pagan.

Churches are okay, state religion is not.

[Enoch]

According to a survey by the Church of England, young people (1) know nothing about God and (2) are perfectly happy with that

Does anyone know anything about GOD?
There is much belief out there but not much knowing...

[doc_bean]

According to a survey by the Church of England, young people (1) know nothing about God and (2) are perfectly happy with that: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...169809,00.html

The article does seem to gloat a little about this. I'm not sure if such a lack of spiritual 'seeking' is a good thing. Religion, or spirituality can confront us with ourselve. It can make us question our motives and ambitions and can help us understand ourselves.
So young people these days prefer an mp3 player to a deeper understanding of the world ? Maybe it's more practical, but it reminds me of a pretty typical reality show saying "I had a difficult moment, I was thinking."

My views on religion are pretty much the same as my views on drugs, used responsibly it can be a good thing, but don't get addicted.

So, happy, well adjusted, focused on the family, finding life meaningful...and this is BAD news?

Well, it is for the church I guess. I think the church (both catholic and all others) have to adjust to the fact they have become a service and need to consider their costumers.

Anyone who doubts that religion is indeed a drug and the clergy, of all kinds, are the pushers, here it all is, in the good old cuddly C of E no less.

I was always taught that pushers shouldn't be users.

Anyway, what bothers me (a little) is that the cultural, traditional value of religion is being ignored. Christianity is part of the European culture and heritage, yet even so called intellectuals have fun bashing it. The same people who look down on the 'unwashed masses' because they lack an historical understanding.

It's rather appalling how bad most people's knowledge of 'our' religion is. Considering our ancestors have practised christianity for thousands of years, I think a little respect for tradition might be in order. Not that we should go to church every sunday, or actually start believing in the trinity (or even understand the damn thing, but go ahead if you like), but we should not forget.

If we completely forget religion I'm pretty sure that within a few generations it will be back with a vengance, no matter how well adjusted the modern youth is.

[Red Peasant]

The Anyway, what bothers me (a little) is that the cultural, traditional value of religion is being ignored. Christianity is part of the European culture and heritage, yet even so called intellectuals have fun bashing it. The same people who look down on the 'unwashed masses' because they lack an historical understanding.

The Church did its best to eradicate most of our classical heritage, which was the the real underpinning of European culture, but kept some bits of it that it liked. The same should now be done to our Christian culture and heritage, for what they are worth in comparison.

[Kralizec]

The Church did its best to eradicate most of our classical heritage, which was the the real underpinning of European culture, but kept some bits of it that it liked. The same should now be done to our Christian culture and heritage, for what they are worth in comparison.

Oh please. You're a smart person, tell me you know better than that

[Kralizec]

As for the C of E, well what do you expect? Of course people who earnestly believe that atheists will spend eternety in hell (or at best, oblivion) will get worried if more and more people turn their backs on religion. How can you possibly be surprised by this?

I am no adherent of any religion, so

[BDC]

I've always wondered how people survive soulless British estates. So it seems it's by not thinking about it and being happy with a shiny car.

Go them. I'm happy religion is dying down here then. Need some sanity in this world, what with people blowing themselves up and banning dildos and stuff in the name of a god.

[Red Peasant]

Oh please. You're a smart person, tell me you know better than that

Then enlighten me, oh enlightened one. You obviously disagree, probably swallowing the Church's propaganda that it saved (ha!) classical culture from the hairy barbarian masses.

[Kralizec]

Then enlighten me, oh enlightened one. You obviously disagree, probably swallowing the Church's propaganda that it saved (ha!) classical culture from the hairy barbarian masses.

My view of the rise of the dark age is a lot more nuanced than that, or your own for that matter. The "medievalisation" of Europe had started when the empire was still going strong, when emperors encouraged the building of churches and monasteries and closed down temples, amphitheaters and bathing houses. Classicist culture never died out abruptly, or even died at all, but it evolved into something else.
Catholicism was not some external power that purposefully sought out the destruction of Roman society. The Romans tried to hijack christianity (if you can't beat them, join them!), and turned it into a state religion. This fusion of a judaist sect and Roman institutionalism became the Roman Catholic church, wich did many horrorible things, but it is one of the channels through wich our Roman heritage has survived. To deny it is folly.

Besides, and the person you responded to referred to christianity (in general) as part of our cultural heritage (in general). Wich is true in any case.

[GoreBag]

The Church did its best to eradicate most of our classical heritage, which was the the real underpinning of European culture, but kept some bits of it that it liked. The same should now be done to our Christian culture and heritage, for what they are worth in comparison.

Huzz-friggin'-ah.

[Avicenna]

Not seeing this from where I am though, seeing the last time we had a show of hands in my class.. 22/24 people were Christian. You can guess that I was part of the remaining 2.

[Soulforged]

Anyway, what bothers me (a little) is that the cultural, traditional value of religion is being ignored. Christianity is part of the European culture and heritage, yet even so called intellectuals have fun bashing it. The same people who look down on the 'unwashed masses' because they lack an historical understanding.

Evolution is in part the result of the new making fun of the old and, why not, decadent, rotting.

I still doubt that religion is a drug (you have more of a point with the clergy being pushers) and I really do not see how it relates to the article...

As any other drug you need something external in wich your life starts to depend upon. As any drug, the idea of the supraempirical "being" starts to take dominance over the real life. And as any drug, abuse can lead to "fanatism".

Well, there have also been studies that show that religious people are more happy, so everyone can get a warm, fuzzy feeling choosing whichever study...

The study was only conducted on the USA, it has as much relevance world wide, as this study.

[Reenk Roink]

As any other drug you need something external in wich your life starts to depend upon. As any drug, the idea of the supraempirical "being" starts to take dominance over the real life. And as any drug, abuse can lead to "fanatism".

Interesting way of looking at it. Sorry I don't agree...

The study was only conducted on the USA, it has as much relevance world wide, as this study.

Was the point of my statement really that vague, as to be so prone to misinterpretation? Very well, my apologies. Also, the types of observational studies concerning religion and happyness or religion and long life, etc...do have the benefit of replication. Thus, although we must remember that the correlation between religion and another variable cannot be interpreted as causation, we do concur that there is certainly a relationship between religion and the other factor, in some cases a very strong relationship. Whether there may be any confounding due to the study being carried out in a specific nation is up to debate.

*Yes, I do spell "happyness" with a 'y'. Don't ask why...*

[Soulforged]

Interesting way of looking at it. Sorry I don't agree...

I was only discribing facts. The drug-addict and the religion-addict suffer of well...addiction to something. That's when both become comparable and measurable with the same scale.

Whether there may be any confounding due to the study being carried out in a specific nation is up to debate.

That's my point. However given that I see religion just as I see drugs (and I know you're refering to the article that Seamus presented a while ago) replacing the one with the other is not a big deal to me. But interesting articles anyway.

*Yes, I do spell "happyness" with a 'y'. Don't ask why...*

I know this one....because you're in Bartixland.

[Reenk Roink]

I was only discribing facts. The drug-addict and the religion-addict suffer of well...addiction to something. That's when both become comparable and measurable with the same scale.

Well, I certainly would not call it 'fact', however, it is certainly a logical approach. I still insist, however, that drugs and religion are intrinsically different and thus cannot be compared in such a manner. But let us agree to disagree.

That's my point. However given that I see religion just as I see drugs (and I know you're refering to the article that Seamus presented a while ago) replacing the one with the other is not a big deal to me. But interesting articles anyway.

Seamus Fermanagh's article is only one of them. I have also read studies about a correlation between religion and long life as well as 'spirituality' and mental health, etc...

Still, there are many ways to interpret them.

I know this one....because you're in Bartixland.

It's very nice here. I will give you candies. They are so tasty.

[Reenk Roink]

Anyone who doubts that religion is indeed a drug and the clergy, of all kinds, are the pushers, here it all is, in the good old cuddly C of E no less.

Errm...

I still doubt that religion is a drug (you have more of a point with the clergy being pushers) and I really do not see how it relates to the article...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes, I believe that the church can/could/should instill some sense of moral virtues, and so on, in people. If not from the church, where are they going to get it from ? TV? Internet ?
Their "free-spirited" peers ?

The whole point of the article is that they managed indeed to get a sense of moral values outside of the church.

By all means celebrate the end of Christianity. In the absense of religion, wait and see what will rise.

What appears to have risen according to the article, are people who are quite happy, well adjusted, focused on the family, and finding life meaningful.

[Reenk Roink]

What appears to have risen according to the article, are people who are quite happy, well adjusted, focused on the family, and finding life meaningful.

Well, there have also been studies that show that religious people are more happy, so everyone can get a warm, fuzzy feeling choosing whichever study...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well, there have also been studies that show that religious people are more happy

Correlation does not equate causation.

Maybe they are both more religious and more happy because religious people live in more stable, traditional societies.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(To which your natural reply will probably be: but Louis, perhaps you are overlooking the fact that religion tends to keep societies more stable and traditional, hence happy?
As that would utterly pwn me, I might as well deny you the pleasure by posting it myself)

[Reenk Roink]

Correlation does not equate causation.

Maybe they are both more religious and more happy because religious people live in more stable, traditional societies.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(To which your natural reply will probably be: but Louis, perhaps you are overlooking the fact that religion tends to keep societies more stable and traditional, hence happy?
As that would utterly pwn me, I might as well deny you the pleasure by posting it myself)

Actually Louis VI the Fat, my response would be, very nice, you are well versed in a basic yet fundamental principle of statistics, that many either are unaware of or ignore when they use observational studies which promote their point. Then I would go and reiterate the second and most important clause in my statement of: "so everyone can get a warm, fuzzy feeling choosing whichever study..."

[Louis VI the Fat]

Then I would go and reiterate the second and most important clause in my statement of: "so everyone can get a warm, fuzzy feeling choosing whichever study..."

I willingly overlooked it as it would leave us no ground for petty disagreement, getting us banned from the Backroom.

[Blodrast]

The whole point of the article is that they managed indeed to get a sense of moral values outside of the church.

What appears to have risen according to the article, are people who are quite happy, well adjusted, focused on the family, and finding life meaningful.

I guess that's rather open to interpretation. People being happy has nothing to do with morality. Heck, I might be happy in a lawless environment, where I could do as I please without a conscience, without remorse, and most likely without consequences ("afterlife", burn in hell, etc, etc).

The church and its learnings, like most other things, are neither purely good nor purely evil.
There is a lot of good in the principles - much less in the way they've been applied through history (see in particular Inquisition, crimes in the name of some god or other, etc, etc).
That is as valid of church as of any other institution, or perhaps even more so - I'll definitely grant you that. But that doesn't change the fact that the principles, the learning, and all the things it stands for (and NOT _how_ it propagates them), are, in essence, good.

(Analogy: US starts war in the name of "freedom", "democracy". People die (it's a war, duh). People dying is a bad thing. Does that mean that the ideals of freedom and democracy suck? No, it simply means that perhaps the means by which they were implemented sucked, or were simply not the best. Let's not start a discussion about whether I'm anti-US, pro-Bush, whether the war is right or wrong, or any of that crap. I gave this particular example because it's familiar to everybody, 'cause we're beating this old horse to afterlife :) ).

On a different note, I'm not saying that the church is the only place where people can turn to for moral values and such - far from it. But it's one of the main ones, and I ask you again (in absolutely shocking (to me, anyway) agreement with Panzer), if people don't take some of their moral values and principles from the church, where will they take them from ?
If the church goes, what will fill the gap ?
If you argue that the church doesn't actually fill any need, then I guess we probably disagree on the fact that I've explained above - that is, the ideas and moral values that the church pushes forward are good, regardless of the corruption inside the institution, the hypocrisy, and whatever mistakes are made from time to time.


(Damn, I must sound like a monk, or something
I assure you I'm not, and I have my own disagreements with the church and certain parts of religion.

[Sjakihata]

What will fill the gap? In a lofty mood, one could dream of idealised greek polis-societies, working both the intellect and the muscles while having dialoguges on morality and other ideas. That would be a good kettle for the origin of morals, but knowing the world, something like or similar to scientilogy will probably fill the gap.

Just keep in mind, the church havent always been there, morality was "invented" outside the church, the church doesnt equal morality. (see my previous post on Nietzsche).