Craig

Mageth-

All very good points, I admit that I didn't look at it that way. Ironically, I think that many Americans want their leaders to be more religious than they themselves are. I'm sure many of the people that are happy with the way Congress runs around talking about god all the time probably are not regular church-goers.

Then again, I live in a particularly secular area of the country and am basing much of what I say on personal experience which of course is not necessarily representative of the whole country.

I still think that overall, less people regularly attend church than 200 years ago simply because there is more to do. Back then, church was not just church, it was information, news, companionship and the like. Nowadays people have more stuff to do and I think that makes them less "churchy" even though they may still be religious.

I'll have to give this more thought.

Mageth

Back then, church was not just church, it was information, news, companionship and the like.

I think that companionship, as well as a sense of community absent in most other aspects of today's world, continues to be a major draw for churches today.

Wyz_sub10

That's exactly why I say that the current situation is misleading. Recent leaders have not been as fundamental about religion. Bush is a bit of an aberration.

Because almost everyone was on the same side - pro-theism. The reason we have these contrioversies is because of the decline of religion in the mainstream, and the insistance of some vocal groups to preserve it.

100 years ago, prayer in school was not an issue because almost everyone was Christian. Statements about god didn't cause anyone to bat an eye, and it was "common knowledge" that Adam, Eve, Noah's Ark and the Exodus were "history".

This controversy demonstrates that the rift is widening. If it wasn't, there'd be no need for the defence.

Yes, because developments in the new western world - with new age religions, continual influx of Asian culture, sectoral Christianity and increasing numbers of atheists - are bringing the issue to the forefront.

I read an artical, on Skepdic's Dictionry , I believe (maybe it was the Infidels news page) that noted that the rise in religion post 9/11 was temporary, and that church levels, etc. were returning to normal. (And "normal" rates now are far lower than they were 50 years ago).

I disagree, but I'll admit I haven't reviewed numbers to support my argument.

I think "fundamental" is a matter of perspective. What we call "fundamental" now, others called "fact" 50 years ago.

Modern fundamental movements, I would argue, basically exist as reactions to current trends. The harder one side pulls, the harder the opposite site pulls back.

Look at superstitious beliefs - I'll bet your grandparents have a tonne more than you do. As science becomes more popular, supersitution subsides. (How many people do you know today that will turn around if a black cat crosses their path?) Religion, however, is a tougher nut to crack.

The other point I would add is that I see the relationship in the context of 500-800 years, not just the past 100. I'm speaking of religion from the middle ages to present.

Wyz_sub10

I agree, and I noted as much - that science is represented in the popular mainstream as medicine and technology.

I would agree that urbanization and media are factors, but unlike the two mentioned above, there is nothing inherent to these that diminish the role of god or call into question the teaching of religion.

We can still be urban, global and affluent and believe in Noah's Ark or Adam and Eve. But advances in a number of scientific, technological and medical fronts have made the preservation of these beliefs very difficult without some creative two-stepping.

Speaking of which....where are our creative two-steppers anyway?

Wyz_sub10

But when a judge hangs the 10 Commandments in his courtroom, it becomes an issue. I wonder how many courtrooms in the southern US didn't have such a sign 50 years ago.

Craig

I wonder what the exact number of people (in the US) is that still believe in that sort of story literally.

Wyz_sub10

Craig,

Here are some numbers re: belief in evolution and creationism in the US. There are some non-US there, as well:

PUBLIC BELIEFS ABOUT EVOLUTION AND CREATION

Craig

Thanks for the link. Some of those numbers are frightening. Then again, the thought that our president might even believe in a young earth is even more scary.

Have his views on this been made public anywhere?

I wonder why the numbers for belief in the young earth are so much higher in women. Maybe something to do with how under represented women are in science and engineering courses and careers?

keyser_soze

[whisper]An increase in critical thinking means a drop in religiosity.[/whisper] Popularity of science has little impact imo. By noticing the tendency to raise the bar for proof on ANYTHING, religious or otherwise, when you display critical thinking skills...you are not merely using science(but you are using a scientific principle.)

Wyz_sub10

You think the two are mutually exclusive? By 'popularity of science' I do not mean that people suddenly find it fashionable. I mean that it is becoming more accessible to the mainstream. Science should teach critical thinking because it is based on questions, proofs, confirmations, comparisons. When more people read scientific books aimed at the lay person, they learn the scientific principles and learn to ask questions and consider evidence - i.e. think critically.