That’s no evidence at all. People lie. Religious people lie and non-religious people lie. And there is nothing unusual about corrupt religious people.
The restrictions are cultural, not religious. There is nothing inherent in Islam that tells women how to dress, other than “modestly”, and that can mean many different things to many different people. Americans from 100 years ago would consider a business woman of today to be dressed scandalously.
You are focusing on the superficial aspects of religion and erroneously drawing conclusions about people’s faith.
It seems alot of Iranians do not go to the Mosque, in fact, it has been claimed around only 2% do so on a regular basis, which means people have more interesting things to do with their lives than to go to the Mosque.
But from there to the conclusion that practicing religion is “inherently boring” is quite a leap.
Surely other countries have higher rates of popular religious practice. Does this somehow prove that practicing religion is “inherently super-happy-fun-time”?
I don’t think the evidence backs this up. Certainly, it doesn’t apply at all to the pre-modern era, and there are plenty of local and national counter-examples since then. Christianity is explicitly not the law of the land in France, for example. Kazakhstan is resolutely secular (personal ritual prayer is not allowed in government buildings) and most people there are largely indifferent to religion as well. Meanwhile, Zia’s promotion of Islam in Pakistan had a big effect on religiosity there. Shinto Japan before WWII was, well, a weird case. But I’m pretty sure it doesn’t support your assertion. Germany is an interesting case; while religiosity has dropped in the country as a whole, it remains far weaker in the East than in the West.
This argument doesn’t accurately describe the US either; the Northeast and much of the West Coast has a far different and less fervent Christianity than the Bible Belt, despite the fact that Christianity has more explicit effect on the laws of the Bible Belt states than elsewhere. And if your response to this is that the Christians in the Bible Belt are being told that the persecution is coming from the liberals in SF and Boston and Washington, well, why isn’t the hostility Islamic Iran faces from KSA, USA etc. not similarly effective at making people feel threatened?
To the case in point, even when Iran was under the Shah, many people were not especially fervently religious, even if they disapproved strongly of his anti-religious policies. The revolution had groups of many different ideologies in it. Mosque attendance for Muslims is also not as accurate a measure of religiosity compared to Church attendance for many Christian groups. No sacraments happen at a Mosque. In many places, women traditionally don’t go to mosques anyway.
There is, of course, a lot to be said about how people’s identification with religious institutions and labels can be affected by the relationship between religion and the state. The argument about Church-State collusion and the common association of right-wing politics with religious groups affecting religious trends is very much discussed. But I think your argument generalizes far too much based on a misunderstanding of only a few examples.
Yes. I think it’s the idea of progress as a way for people to justify why they are doing something new and different, and more importantly, to convince others to do the same. People say, why does religion seem less prevalent in the more developed countries than in less developed places or in the past? It must be because we know more than those uneducated barbarians, because science has shrunk the God of the Gaps to nothing, etc etc. Luckily, we have progressed. Don’t be backward!
Of course, this doesn’t take into account the simple observation that you don’t need any kind of special modern knowledge to not accept any particular religious claim or institution. There have been people coherently arguing against Christianity and Islam and the Greek Gods and even supernaturalism in general for a long, long time. You don’t have to know about evolution or the age of the earth to have issues with the book of Genesis.
This is without even getting into pointing out that people’s definitions and justifications for religion are disputed, localized, and subjective. And it’s not even about atheism - you see the education/progress/modern argument brought out by religious groups all the time. Just look at the criticism of ISIS.
Accepting the idea, then, that recent trends in religious identity and practice are driven by things other than “progress” is an uncomfortable thing for many people, and it has difficult implications for modern society.
No, it usually proves that societal pressure is involved in keeping people in line. While there’s no doubt that there are people who enjoy practicing religion, as with anything which is institutionalised, it becomes tedious as it is dogmatic and inflexible.
America, a Mexican soccer team in the country’s top division, draws an average attendance of 43,370 fans per game, 41% of its stadium capacity (so it’s not like people are being denied entry). They are based in Estadio Azteca in Mexico City, where they are the most popular team, and are one of the most popular (and hated!) clubs in all of Mexico. Even if you just look at Coyoacán, the borough they are in, it still has 620,000 people.
They can’t even get 10% of their borough to attend, never mind that they are in an urban area of over 20 million with a metro that goes right there. Clearly, US NFL fans are right and soccer is inherently boring.
Institutionalized, tedious, dogmatic, and inflexible are also words that apply to FIFA and many soccer leagues. Not to mention corrupt.
Even in the United States and Western Europe, there are reasons to think that the population a hundred years from now will be more religious than it is today. We know that religiosity has a substantial heritable component (the exact figure is disputed and depends on methodology- heritability of religiosity for adults is of course greater than for children or teens). We also know that religious people have higher fertility rates (though I’m not at all sure that’s causation- they may be both due to some other latent cause). In the United States, for example, nonreligious women have about 1.5 child apiece, mainline Protestants and Catholics have a little over two, and evagelicals have around 2.5. Finally, we know that nonreligious people have a lower retention rate than most Christians: it’s more likely that a child raised in an atheist family will grow up and convert to Christianity, than that a child raised in a Christian family will become an atheist when they grow up. All that suggests, to me, that secularism in the west will prove to be self-limiting. And the same holds true of course for the Islamic world.
Is the practice of Islam declining in the face of modernity?
We should be so lucky. Islam seems stuck in the medieval period with some of its practices. Although Christianity shouldn’t feel too smug, worshiping an executed criminal and symbolically (or even literally if you’re a devout Catholic) feasting on his flesh and blood. Most of the planet seem to have skipped the Age of Reason.
As for modernizing Islam I guess it’s possible that one day it will arrive at the place Christianity is now with its latitudinarianism and wooly notion that all religions worship the same deity and as such are true and worthy of respect. Of course if all religions are true then none are true but religion has always been about the exercise of power over others by claiming unique access to some almighty force. Religions won’t easily relinquish such power.
Well, I think Hector_St_Clare misstates it, but retention rates was a topic covered in the PEW Forum poll on American religion. Quote from the PEW webpage (Bolding added):
[QUOTE=PEW Forum]
The survey finds that constant movement characterizes the American religious marketplace, as every major religious group is simultaneously gaining and losing adherents. Those that are growing as a result of religious change are simply gaining new members at a faster rate than they are losing members. Conversely, those that are declining in number because of religious change simply are not attracting enough new members to offset the number of adherents who are leaving those particular faiths.
To illustrate this point, one need only look at the biggest gainer in this religious competition - the unaffiliated group. People moving into the unaffiliated category outnumber those moving out of the unaffiliated group by more than a three-to-one margin. At the same time, however, a substantial number of people (nearly 4% of the overall adult population) say that as children they were unaffiliated with any particular religion but have since come to identify with a religious group. This means that more than half of people who were unaffiliated with any particular religion as a child now say that they are associated with a religious group. In short, the Landscape Survey shows that the unaffiliated population has grown despite having one of the lowest retention rates of all “religious” groups.
[/QUOTE]
How they define unaffiliated and the specific numbers and methodology are available in the link. I don’t necessarily think you can make future predictions from this data, though.
What you say about Islam is false. The vast majority of Muslim thinkers and communities are in fact grappling directly with the modern in their practices. They have to, since for them, “you are backwards” has usually been accompanied with “therefore we will tell you what to do.”
What you say about Christianity is essentializing and in any case does not describe world Christianity well at all.
What you say about religion is only true to the extent that all human interactions are about power. Many religions that are restricted to particular ethnic groups do not claim unique access to an almighty force. Neither do many forms of polytheist/spiritualist/Buddhist/etc. practice.
Yeah, I’m going off of the Pew Survey. The “nones” (atheists, agnostics, and ‘no religion’ folks) have a retention rate of 46%. Some Christian denominations have retention rates that low or lower, but overall the retention rate for Christians, as a whole, is higher. And most Christians, when they leave their current church, end up moving to another Christian denomination rather than atheism/agnosticism. The highest rate of ‘conversion to nonreligion’ is among people raised Episcopalian or Congregationalist, but it’s still only 20%.
I’m currently living in Indonesia and from what i can see religious practice is declining. religious institutions are still thriving but the younger generation are less religious. The religious institutions here are mainly moderates that does not promote sharia law, jihad or intolerance. Extremism remains a threat but fortunately the police are handling quite well. Sectarian conflicts usually happen in less modernized places. In here the woman are educated, America is the new mecca and people are free to buy beer. In a few years the effect is surely going to show but that’s just my opinion.
That’s interesting. Could you comment on a couple of things? I’m curious about:
How Arabs and practices identified as “Arab” are taken, are there “pro-Arab” and “anti-Arab” splits among people in relation to religion in particular?
Any comparisons of Indonesia and Malaysia you would like to make? It seems like Indonesia is more easy-going on a day-to-day level but when extremism pops up, it does so more strongly; Malaysia keeps a handle on extremists but its state apparatus and day-to-day are more oppressive. What do you think?
I know Christian missionaries report a lot of success in Indonesia, among other influences; do you think that actual identification with Islam will go down significantly in the near future?
Thanks! If this would work better as a separate thread I’m happy to start one.
Hector_St_Clare: I should have said more clearly that I thought you were misstating it in terms of extrapolating it to the future, not in terms of the specific data, which you summarize fine. It’s actually an interesting issue I think; obviously large scale changes in religious identification do happen, even without intervention from authorities, but what sparks them? Is the current secularism in France, for example, a sign of the end of Christianity in that country as a renewing and innovative force, or will there be a resurgence somehow? I’m not sure myself. Do you think that Pew data sheds some light on this question?
Culture in Indonesia is something very interesting because it’s something very open and dynamic. Since the first arrival of Islam in the 14th century people in Indonesia have been mixing everything up. Arabic preachers use traditional Hindu Wayang to teach Islam. In some places they don’t sacrifice cows during Eiid because of Hindu tradition. So Arab culture has been absorbed into the culture itself and altered to meet local values. I actually attended a wedding where The first is the Islamic wedding ceremony followed by the Javanese ceremony and the bride uses a modern wedding gown.
More religious people tend to be pro-Arab. Generally there is a slight dislike mostly because of the wide spread abuse of migrant workers in Saudi and because Arabic men are what is keeping the sex trade alive in certain parts of indonesia.
I’ve actually lived in Malaysia for 5 years. It’s basically like the UAE, the people don’t have any power but are kept well-fed thanks to government subsidies. The monarch that has the power to dissolve the entire parliament and the country is run by a dictator elected by the ruling party with virtually no opposition. The culture is very conservative. The reason there are no extremist is because the government controls Religion. The Friday prayer sermon for every mosque in the entire country is created by the Ministry of religion every week. So any Extremism is quickly put down by the government.
In Indonesia anyone can talk about religion. The Ministry have a bit of control. Most people follow either NU or Muhammadiyah which are moderate Islamic Organizations. But there are literally hundreds of small religious organizations each with their own following. So extremist groups are not tracked till they get to big. Bigger extremist groups like FPI are actually just criminals wearing turbans, they receive money from extortion and they bribe the police to allow them to keep doing things.
Believe it or not people here actually switch religions to get instant noodles in some places. Switching religion is completely legal. Poor people would say anything to get something. There are of course some paperwork it’s not that important. My friend is a catholic but his ID is still Buddhist. Currently, Islam is still seen as something good so even though they are not practicing they will still say they are Muslim, just like in Europe where people don’t go to church but still identify as Christians. I think the change will be gradual. Indonesian are very tolerant and open to other cultures. In the 1930’s and 1940’s the most popular religion was Kejawen (a mix of Islam, Hinduism and paganism). It also depends on the government because studies suggest social security affects religiousness in a population. If the government creates a good welfare system religion will decline. If not it will be Pakistan. Indonesia has a new President this year and also a new head for it’s anti-corruption committee so it’s fate is still hanging. IMHO, The people are becoming less religious nowadays because of economic development particularly the upper and middle class.
What you need to know that it’s a free country with a very different culture than the middle east. People are free here. you can wear what you want as long as it’s respectful. You won’t be fired from your job because you are an atheist. Women’s rights are respected. You won’t be raided by the police for having alcohol, unless its from the black market.
If Buddhism comes to mind, you don’t know much about its teachings, which are as nutty as other religions.
Cycles of rebirth…states of enlightment…attaining nirvana…craving as the cause of suffering…
Their bullshit is no better than anyone else’s bullshit, I’m afraid, when it comes to facts.
I think the practice of Buddhism leads to a more peaceful populace for those who buy into it than does medieval Christianity, ancient Judaism or Islam, however.
But the tenets are as nonsensical and contrived as they come.
In general, a sound scientific education undermines all religions as a source of truth.
So going forward it will be a contest between religions trying to avoid science education, and education trying to avoid the advancement of religious traditions as science.
Boko haram ( Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’Awati Wal-Jihad) is named that for a reason.
Thank you. Of course, I don’t know, either, that you can extrapolate these trends into the future all that accurately. I just think that in the absence of knowing what the future looks like, extrapolating current trends is worth something.
I don’t really know whether there is going to be a religious resurgence, or if so, how it would happen, and I don’t think anyone else really knows either. If I did, I’d be making a lot of money as a consultant for church outreach efforts right now. I do think it’s suggestive that some people seem to be naturally religious, other people not, and that the difference seems to have a genetic component (cf. Bouchard and his twin studies, though the exact heritability figure is debated). I also think it’s suggestive that when people lose faith in organized religion, they don’t necessarily lose faith in the supernatural tout court. Scandinavia is one of the most secularized regions in the world today, where the established Lutheran Churches are shells of their former selves, yet some crazy high percentage of Scandinavians apparently believes in the literal existence of elves. I think the most useful things that the Pew study tells us here is that atheism/agnosticism isn’t necessarily all that ‘sticky’, as people raised nonreligious have quite a high probability of becoming religious as adults, so it’s a mistake to think that irreligion is a ratchet that only moves in one direction.
