Future religiosity in the U.S.

[vivo]

it's going down, right? i'm not religious. i actually view thing for myself. less likely for others to be intolerant towards me or my lack of belief. europe is already there. also what is the least religious part of this country? (west coast is my guess) at least more tolerance amongst the Religious people here would be nice.

[Bman120]

I don't think religion has become any less important in America. What has happened though is that many people have linked religion and intolerance.

It's true that in some cases, religion has been the cause of intolerance. Not by itself, but because people have used it to justify their own. But religion also has many benefits. And for those who want to push away religion, you may reduce some intolerance, but you will also remove those benefits. It's the law of unintended consequences.

[Bocheezu]

It only has positive benefits if you believe in it. Otherwise, it's a complete waste of time.

[Millenial]

I think it's uncertain at this point, I think possible religion will be tolerated more as they try to find common ground with those who are more secular, at least that is the hope in the US. It is a good universal goal.

[wordsmith]

More tolerance OF people of faith by the nonreligious, rather than assuming that everyone with a spiritual background is a. foolish and/or b. hates the nonreligious/has a vested interest in persecuting the nonreligious, would also be a positive. Plenty of people with spiritual beliefs have no problem whatsoever with the secular. People who bring up the point that there are those who are intolerant of those with a lack of religious beliefs tend to ignore the also very real point that there are many who are intolerant of others simply for having religious beliefs.

[Bocheezu]

I've written up this post a few times but I can't really describe what I'm trying to say. The "intolerance strength" between atheists and religious people is not the same, I mean, atheists don't go out physically abusing gays, Jews, etc. Clearly, those are extremists and not meant to represent the whole, but "extremist" atheists never really hurt anybody, as far as I know. They just want to be left alone, for the most part.

[Millenial]

More tolerance OF people of faith by the nonreligious, rather than assuming that everyone with a spiritual background is a. foolish and/or b. hates the nonreligious/has a vested interest in persecuting the nonreligious, would also be a positive. Plenty of people with spiritual beliefs have no problem whatsoever with the secular. People who bring up the point that there are those who are intolerant of those with a lack of religious beliefs tend to ignore the also very real point that there are many who are intolerant of others simply for having religious beliefs.
Definitely, I didn't mean to imply it was a one way street, I should have elaborated. I think that humanists also can find common ground in the field of social justice and environmentalism and vice versa.

[redav]

There is quite a bit of religious revival in many places in the US, while there are other places that are seeing the opposite. As a whole, religion is still very important to Americans.

The issue of intolerance is not caused by religion itself, but by people's hate/pride/greed/etc. Religion is (mis)used to support their hate/pride/greed/etc because it is very effective to do so. If the people dishing it out were not religious, their intolerance would not go away; rather, they would justify it using something else.

[vivo]

i remember wordsmith saying that religiosity amongst this age group is low or atheism/agnosticism is in the majority or something but i forget. no responses on the least religious part of the country. the west coast more so sf, seattle, and portland.

[wordsmith]

There is quite a bit of religious revival in many places in the US, while there are other places that are seeing the opposite. As a whole, religion is still very important to Americans.

The issue of intolerance is not caused by religion itself, but by people's hate/pride/greed/etc. Religion is (mis)used to support their hate/pride/greed/etc because it is very effective to do so. If the people dishing it out were not religious, their intolerance would not go away; rather, they would justify it using something else.

Plenty of people who are not religious dish out hate, pride, and greed.

[Samwell]

It's my understanding that there is good data suggesting that religiosity is declining in the US, but we're still very much a religious country.

More tolerance OF people of faith by the nonreligious, rather than assuming that everyone with a spiritual background is a. foolish and/or b. hates the nonreligious/has a vested interest in persecuting the nonreligious, would also be a positive.

Point taken, but that's a bit of a delicate question. There's a lot of obnoxious heavy-handedness on both sides.

I'm not a believer, and despite attending church regularly as a child I never have been (although I came close during my extended "psychedelic period";):). I will admit to sometimes feeling some unspoken and unwanted condescension towards the religious and since I hate all forms of condescension this causes me real discomfort. It's a truly something I struggle with. The simple fact remains that I do think that believing in a God that is exempt from the "laws" of the physical world (let alone one that talks to people, writes books, cares what animals you eat, etc.) is inferior to a belief that the universe obeys certain principles with no "magic" exceptions. I also believe that religious people would say the opposite, and probably harbor a similar mild (or sometimes overt) condescension towards me. I think history provides a pretty good record of how religious intolerance can be way more destructive than the most obnoxious "holier than thou" atheist.

The issue of intolerance is not caused by religion itself, but by people's hate/pride/greed/etc.

I don't think that is true at all. Certainly many people use doctrine of all kinds as evidence for beliefs they would have anyways, but there is plenty of intolerance explicitly advocated in religious texts. IMO, tolerance in current religious teachings often involves ignoring the bits that inevitable human moral progress makes distasteful.

[redav]

I don't think that is true at all. Certainly many people use doctrine of all kinds as evidence for beliefs they would have anyways, but there is plenty of intolerance explicitly advocated in religious texts. IMO, tolerance in current religious teachings often involves ignoring the bits that inevitable human moral progress makes distasteful.
I couldn't disagree more.

The actual amount of intolerance that comes from religion is remarkably small, especially in comparison to what does not. Also, even those parts are often merely interpretation. (Many passages in the OT come to mind.)

Hate & intolerance are very different things. Somewhere along the lines intolerance became some horrible sin in and of itself. This comes up a lot in PC culture--if anyone disapproves of anything anyone else does/thinks/etc, they get branded as intolerant and are figuratively burned at the stake. (Of course, the irony is that they are not tolerant of people who are intolerant.)

This illustrates the difference: to tolerate = "have a [resistance to the effects of] a poison, strong drug, or pathogen" (one can extrapolate the biological reference to social); "put up with something or somebody unpleasant;" "allow the presence of or allow (an activity) without opposing or prohibiting" (note the "opposing or prohibiting" phrase--one would only oppose or prohibit something they are not in favor of); and "recognize and respect (rights and beliefs of others)" (which again is dependent on the presence of disagreement)

Notice how the definition is blurred across two different ends: that which causes harm and that which is disagreeable. In English we don't distinguish between these two ends. I cannot see how it can be interpreted as wrong to not be tolerant of something which causes harm (e.g. to be intolerant of crime, or the social disease that is the result of hate, such as racism--it is therefore fine to be intolerant of such intolerance).

But there is the other end which is intolerance to disagreement and is the more curious of the two. What causes a person to be intolerant of disagreement? That, I believe, is the result of hate/pride/greed/etc. (e.g. thinking you are better than another, desire for control/power, etc). I cannot think of a time when this type of intolerance is acceptable.

As I already noted, I do not find religion to blame for this second intolerance. The large majority of world religions denounce those things which cause it. There is, however, much confusion/disagreement over what causes harm, and that affects which of the two a certain behavior fits into, and that is the effect of interpretation.

It is like being judgmental--you cannot live without being judgmental since "judgment" is required for making decisions. You cannot say: "Don't judge other people!" since it (1) is itself a judgment of others and (2) denies people the ability to make decisions. That rule is therefore logically inconsistent. But if it were: "Don't judge other people unfairly!" then it no longer has those problems.

[meatwad]

I'd hazard to guess that most of the perceived hatred and tolerance is more dogma motivated and less actual religion.