Secular Life in Post-Christian America
Less than five years after Christian America's greatest political achievement -- the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 -- Newsweek magazine announces "The Decline and Fall of Christian America" on its April 13 cover. The issue's lead article is "The End of Christian America" by Jon Meacham.
These stories, and there have been many, begin with the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey that was released in March. That survey showed a rapid increase in secularization in America, doubling since 1990 and a drop in all kinds of religious affiliation. That report brought into sharp focus changes that, in retrospect, were obvious.
But, actually, the story is both less and more momentous than the headline. It is less momentous because even with the doubling of secularists since 1990, only 15% of respondents in ARIS identified as secular. That means that America is still a very religious country and even a very Christian one. Nor will that change any time soon. (Meacham acknowledges this in the article.)
The story is more momentous, however, because growing secularization at some point reaches a cultural tipping point. At that point, and for the first time, large numbers of people begin to reach adulthood without religious training.
Of course there have always been atheists, in America and everywhere. But until recently, almost all atheists have been grounded in traditional religious teaching. They have been in the position of the Atheist relative in Woody Allen's film, Crimes and Misdemeanors, arguing against God at the family Seder. This is true as well of the leading atheist writers of today. They have all been shaped by religion.
In the near future, this will cease to be true. Today, we are still a Judeo-Christian culture with a sizeable secular representation. Tomorrow, we will become a secular culture with a sizeable Judeo-Christian representation.
This is not likely to mean that other religious traditions will step into the cultural vacuum. Interest in Buddhism, for example, has been spurred by religiously trained Christians and Jews who are looking for something else. That Buddhist growth may lessen in a secular culture.
As I have argued on this blog and in my book Hallowed Secularism, the easy assumption that secular culture will be healthy without religion may prove to be false. Secularists have an unwarranted confidence in themselves and in a new cultural formation. In contrast, I think raising children without religion is quite difficult.
Let me take a specific example. Daniel Dennett came to the New School in New York City in March and told an audience that they should all repeat to defenders of religion that "people can be good without religion." Dennett presumably exults in the decline of Christianity.
But religion by and large does not claim that it makes people good. Instead, religion, and especially Christianity, begins with the proclamation that people are not good. We lie, we cheat, we steal, we cheat on our spouses and we allow a billion people in the world to live on a dollar a day.
Which is more realistic about human nature, Dennett or the classic Christian view? And what, and for that matter how, will you teach your children the truth about such matters?
Undoubtedly, the decline of religion is inevitable in a scientific culture. Something, however, must replace religion's wisdom and insight. I assume that whatever that something turns out to be, it will have to borrow from the best of what religion has to offer if it wants to be successful in promoting human flourishing.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Unfortunately too many practitioners of religion believe that their faith not only makes them "good" but so much better than non believers that they absolutely MUST take control of the lives of those wretched others not quite as "good" as themselves and run their lives for them. As to raising children you don't really need any particular religion but you do need to lead by example and teach a value system which develops a positive self concept and replacement of selfish anti social behaviour with consideration for others.
Well said. And I will add that consideration for others and social behavior is not particularly well taught or modeled, by teaching children there is a "saved" and a "damned," an "us," and a "them," a "non-Christian who is not to be trusted" and a "Christian," and that they are to be "apart from the world."
"Something, however, must replace religion's wisdom and insight"
And what wisdoms and insight would that be? Denying equal rights to all Americans, women the right to choose what happens to their bodies, Intelligent design, Adam and Steve, torture by the U.S.? War's of aggression, denying medical care based on religious beliefs? Abstinence only? More harm has been done to society by organized religion.
Doing no harm to others, and trying to help those worse off does not require religion or religious training to be the standard of morality. I had those views long before anyone told me of the redemptive qualities of Christ.
I don't have anything against GOD, it's his fans I worry about. When they put their needs before the needs of the poor and the less fortunate, then maybe I will have some use for ORGANIZED religion. With the new evangelicals claiming GOD wants his followers wealthy, and would impose religious interpretations on those who do not share their beliefs, it's no surprise religion is on the decline.
The funny part about the placement of religious beliefs into law is that it is an attempt to circumvent GOD's plan and promise of FREE WILL. I have yet to meet any religious person who could answer this question:
If God has promised the people of the world FREE WILL, who are you to impose your interpretations on mankind. God gives free will and ORGANIZED INSTITUTIONS would to take it away.
"Doing no harm to others, and trying to help those worse off does not require religion or religious training to be the standard of morality. I had those views long before anyone told me of the redemptive qualities of Christ."
I developed these views after I finally recognized Christianity for what it is and left it far behind.
"But religion by and large does not claim that it makes people good. Instead, religion, and especially Christianity, begins with the proclamation that people are not good. We lie, we cheat, we steal, we cheat on our spouses and we allow a billion people in the world to live on a dollar a day. "
....and thus, only by following the parameters of religion can one truly become good
Same thing.
And then they wonder why people have such low self esteem. Being told as a child that you are a sinner and bad, usually ends in you acting bad. At least until you unlearn most of what you were taught by religion, which is a very freeing experience. I now enjoy reading and learning about the worlds religions and have found that I believe some from all. After all, religions are based on morality, not the other way around.
"Something, however, must replace religion's wisdom and insight."
Religious wisdom/insight is an oxymoron. I think common sense would be an
appropriate answer to your question.
What? A person needs to be steeped in Christianity or the ethical tradition of some other religion to recognize human selfishness, indifference and unethical behavior in general. This is nonsense. You seem to know little about Western history. The classical Greeks are primarily responsible for formulating Western ethical doctrines, which Christianity then grafted onto itself, and religiously the Greeks had nothing but a collection of capricious and often very unethical gods. The God of the ancient Jews was even worse. If He were human he'd be regarded as a bona fide psychopath. Ethics is a human endeavor with no need of a god for support. At any rate, by all appearances, people either have a basic innate ethical sense or they don't and there's no evidence whatsoever that any amount of religious instruction or training changes a person's ethical behavior, or lack of it, in the least. By the way, speaking from personal experience, I can assure you that plenty of Westerners have become interested in Buddhism who grew up in agnostic families that no longer practiced Christianity or Judaism.
So the only "salvation" for humanity is to continue to force belief in a supernatural "Big Daddy" that is gonna whip our butts at the end of the day if we aren't "good".
Sorry, but I think the jury is out on that score. The evils (intolerance, pogroms, military crusades, witch burning, wars, torture, lynching, emotional trauma, abuse of women, children and the mentally ill, justification for tyrany, enforced social conformity, not to mention centuries of self-righteous posturing and discrimination against all others) promoted by religious belief are AT LEAST as horrible as any evils mended by religious belief.
There is a solution. Humanism can teacha the value of life, liberty, respect, tolerance, peace, cooperation. Just takes the will to do so.
The perceived breakdown isn't so much in religion as in how families take responsibility to raise children with ethics. You don't need fear of God to make children have a conscience.
Or if we do, what's the point anyway? If fear is the only real motivator of human goodness, if there is nothing but punishment awaiting us for being what we are (which is what the Judeo-Chri
If there isn't a better way, maybe there's no hope at all.
First of all, "Secularists have an unwarranted confidence in themselves and in a new cultural formation.
Secondly, you ask which view is more realistic?! Hmmm, let's see the one with magic snakes and people walking on water etc. or the one that simply points out that people can be good with out the magic snakes? (says "can" be good.)
Lastly, you say "something" must replace RELIGIONS wisdom and insight. As if Religion is a thing in itself. Religion is people, whether with good intentions or bad, commenting on human nature and behavior etc. If you take away the magic snakes etc, it will still be people and their opinions, what's the difference? The difference is REALITY vs. fairy tale. How can you even question which is better? Are we 3 years old here?
Isn't about time we had some generations without religious indoctrina
Holy mackerel! What's sadder than this uninformed, myopic article is that I allowed myself to be compelled to respond to it. My wife and I raised three boys atheistically - and that doesn't mean we belong to some close-minded church of denial, it simply means without religion - and they have done fine. Ledewitz, you don't know what you write of. We, and other atheists, treat and study religion as the stuff of legend, myth, and story. Our values are grounded in common sense, common practice, and an ideal of how humans can and should treat each other and what we can acheive. Instead of rhetorically pondering, stultified, the question of how will people without religion be able to instruct their children, why don't you actually look into it.
I think that those of us who have to live with the fall out of "religious wisdom" have had quite enought of it. We have been descriminated against, hounded to join your churches to the point of your believers showing up on my doorstep repeatedly, abused by your need to make our laws accomodate your beliefs over common sense, abused by your beliefs about life, women, work, sex, etc.....
Personally, it hasn't proved to be any better than the secularism that you seem so nervrous about.....
Secularism stands for tolerance and should ensure that people aren't falling through the cracks because they don't share common beliefs...
Bruce --
While it's true that "religion by and large does not claim that it makes people good. Instead, religion, and especially Christianity, begins with the proclamation that people are not good. We lie, we cheat, we steal, we cheat on our spouses and we allow a billion people in the world to live on a dollar a day," I don't think that's incompatible with what Dennett was saying.
Yes, religion does come from the place described in your words that I quoted, but it also adds that, through religion (and, often, only through the particular brand of religion being evangelized), people can be made good, can be made to find grace, and can be forgiven in the eyes of an all-loving God.
I can't speak for Dennett, but I think that his words, that people can be good without religion, address this aspect of religion and not the one you described.
Regards,
Dan
"Which is more realistic about human nature, Dennett or the classic Christian view? "
What a nonsensical argument. What Dennett was saying (and what someone has to really stretch in order to miss) has nothing to do with innate human goodness, but the capacity to be good. Religionistas often claim that religion, regardless of its falsity, is a social positive because it makes people behave well (a dubious claim, but one that is made.) Dennett is merely saying that people can be good people without religion entering into the equation.
"Something, however, must replace religion's wisdom and insight."
What, exactly, is the wisdom and insight that is exclusively religion's??
"I assume that whatever that something turns out to be, it will have to borrow from the best of what religion has to offer if it wants to be successful in promoting human flourishin
Nonsense. To the extent that religion has any content at all that promotes human flourishing, it is religion that borrowed (stole, actually) those things from pre-religous and non-religious sources common to most all of humanity and most human cultures.
What can take the place of religion? Psychology. The studies of ontology, ethics, and epistemology in school as part of regular high school education so we produce young adults with compassion, judgement, and self-awareness. Maybe throw in some ancient history from various parts of the world with literature and poety as well. How about that? Those things make for fine sensible minds just as well as religion ever did. And your case for religion is challenged by its use as justifications for slavery, the degradation of women and homsexuals, religious persecutions, and genocide.
I'd rather have our country raising its young people to have disciplined, thoughtful, agile, compassionate minds without religious indoctrination. Bronze age priests from the Levant and early common era Roman theologians, with all their issues with women and sexuality, only perpetuate their era's injustices through their incoherent and inconsistent ramblings, albeit with nuggets of wisdom amid the venom, bigotry, and self-justi
Humans formed families, societies, even nations for tens of thousands of years before a Judeo-Christian existence. The traditions we seek to codify in religions of all kinds are those we learn easily in religion's absence. We are a social species. We need each other. Whether we sense that, or learn that, doesn't really matter.
I think I do understand the point here. But teaching fake history and fairy tales, insisting on belief in miracles and virgin births to "prove" one's faith, does not advance anything. It merely sets a fake bar, wherein one can claim to "believe" in that standard and be therefore free to do whatever evil they wish, knowing that they're "saved."
Humans understand "good" without having to blame it on a God. We learn early and well that people are no good - secularists and unbelievers certainly understand that people lie, steal, and cheat - but first, we know from experience and history that these activities lead to bad results, even for the perpetrator - and we also notice that the "religious" among us still lie, steal, and cheat, but mysteriously get a pass for that activity because they're "good" members of a church.
I'm laughing out loud at this.
"Something, however, must replace religion's wisdom and insight."
Now, I don't deny that a few religious ideas have been constructive. But the concept that we ever were able to rely on religion, which, after all, consists of believing things without evidence -- for any kind of consistent help with our human affairs -- contradicts history.
Here are just a few of the gems various religions have brought us:
human sacrifice
subjugation of women
prejudice against homosexuals and transgendered people, even killing them
absurd "creation" stories rather than science
wars with other religions
the substitution of faith for reason
indifference to spoiling the environment
sexual misinformation and prudishness
opposition to birth control
The list is very, very long.
Secularization of our society is no panacea, but it's far better than the absurdity of religion.
I know the list is long, but don't forget Slavery.
I don't think slavery was invented by religion, but was eagerly supported by some Christian sects in the US. Some religious people, the Abolitionists, also opposed slavery.
Actually people CAN be good without religion. That statement doesn't presuppose that people ARE good, just that religion is not the only avenue to morality.
Further, even with all the religion that we have today, all of the things you mentioned (lying, cheating, adultery, stealing, and letting poverty run wild) STILL happen WITH most of the world being religious.
And if religion doesn't make you a better person, only points out that we are bad people, then what's the purpose? I don't need religion to tell me that people do bad things.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
