Finally, thank you!
I wonder: Are these numbers rising, or have they been stable over the last, what, two or three decades or so? If they’re rising, how quickly are they rising? How long before we have a European country with an irreligious majority?
Ps. France above Sweden - wouldn’t have guessed it.
The same poll with the same methodology and questions was carried out in 2005. At that time, the Europe-wide numbers were 52% believing in a God, 27% believing in some sort of spirit or life force, and 18% not believing in either.
In 2010, the numbers were 51/26/20, so non-belief is on the rise.
In that five-year period, France’s non-believers increased from 33% to 40%, so my money’s on them for the first irreligious majority in Europe (discounting non-free nations like the former East Germany).
Further, even the “spirit or life force” adherents represent an erosion of traditional Abrahamic religion.
The same thing is happening in the U.S.:
…it’s just slower and less dramatic.
Is it wrong if I quietly feel somewhat smug about this right now ? Quietly like ?
As long as you accept that there are probably some American theist types feeling smug using the same data. 
Well, naturally. Americans ! complex dismissive bodily gesture, the layers of meaning of which you uncultured types couldn’t hope to grasp raspberry
Got it. High numbers in the EU’s three most populous countries - France (40%), Germany (27%) and the U.K. (25%). That’s an enormous amount of European non-believers, fully justifying the thread title’s claim that religious belief has “eroded.”
On the other hand, with 20% non-believers in the EU-27 all in all, that still leaves 80% believers - a huge majority. Presumably - and I don’t have a cite to back this up - that majority was even bigger a hundred years ago, but still, 4 out of 5 ain’t bad, right?
So, yes, it certainly looks as if religious belief has “eroded.” But has it “completely collapsed,” as Lemur866 claimed? Clearly not. And does it seem as if what bob++ claimed, without cite, to be true of England - that there, “for most people religion of any kind is largely perceived as irrelevant to their lives” - is true for Europe at large? Doesn’t look that way, no.
I’m up for throwing a party when France crawls up over 50%, though.
I concur, eroded but not collapsed.
Well, yes and no. 80% of Europeans (though only 54% of Frenchmen, 69% of Germans, 60% of Czechs, etc) believe in something, but only 51% believe in a traditional God. Belief in a life force, spirits, etc (e.g. the increasingly popular “spiritual but not religious” isn’t “religion” in the traditional sense of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Thus, those folks can be said to be eroding religious practice just as the full-out non-believers are.
According to this article (a nice one, it details the difficulties of measuring atheism, and how far more people are willing to report non-belief if the word “atheist” isn’t used):
The original poll is behind a paywall, but this article shows the result of a 2008 Gallup poll, in which Europeans were asked, “Does religion occupy an important place in your life?”
In 24 European countries, more people said “No” than “Yes”, led by Estonia at 84%, Sweden at 83%, and Denmark at 80%. When compared to the God/life force/no belief Eurobarometer poll, it shows that relatively few of the believers actually consider their beliefs important to their lives.
I’d say that the 20% who “believe in nothing” (nothing, Mr. Lebowski - nothing!) - they’re the ones doing the eroding.
But the “spiritual but not religious” crowd - the ones who may not follow a traditional religion, and yet believe “in something,” be it a god, several gods, a spirit, a life force or whatevah - are not eroding religious belief as much as they are transforming it.
Perhaps it could be said that the SBNR crowd are eroding some forms of religious belief (the major “Christianities” in Europe and beyond), but not that they’re eroding religious belief itself.
Of course, the OP originally asked for the erosion of “religious belief,” generally, but then much of the discussion ended up being about the decline of (different forms of) Christianity, as if Christianity and “religious belief” were one and the same, or somehow inextricably linked to each other. They’re not.
Will read the Zuckerman .pdf, thank you!
That is remarkable, thank you! Very fascinating! Does a religious belief still count as a religious belief if it isn’t considered by the believer to “occupy an important place” in his or her life!? Tricky stuff, this!
Fair point. It could be said then that the SBNR are eroding religions (Catholicism, Protestantism, etc), but not religious belief itself.
Since the question concerned the U.S. and Europe, both of which are majority Christian, that sort of focus is part and parcel of the discussion. Surely some Europeans are leaving Christianity to become Muslims or Hindus, but many more are leaving it to become irreligious or unaffiliated-but-spiritual.
It counts, but again it’s an erosion of what came before, when religion was a central part of life.
I got some way in this thread without seeing this point made. The religiosity of the USA in the last half-century or so is not historically typical. The USA has been a substantially “post-Christian,” “rationalist,” culture at various points, and indeed rebelled for its independence in such an era. It’s just that various missionaries, charlatans, and quacks have descended on it repeatedly, hence the “Great Awakenings.”
If religious radicals seem particularly influential, well, they pretty much believe in breeding their way back into relevance.
I’d say “unaffiliated-but-religious,” but maybe that’s just me!
See, to me, a belief in gods, spirits etc. is a religious belief; and so, a person holding such beliefs is religious, regardless of whether these beliefs are orthodox or heterodox, organized or unorganized, collective or individual, etc., etc. - and, yes, regardless of whether that person self-identifies as “religious” or not.
To be blunt: I don’t buy that there is any real, meaningful difference between being “religious” and being “spiritual.”
I think that “I am spiritual but not religious” only really means “I hold some kind of religious beliefs but it’s all pretty vague and kinda loose but that’s totally OK 'cuz it feels good and empowering and all that. Also it’s totally not like any traditional church or anything, those guys are assholes #fuckthepope #exceptmaybethenewone #hesactuallykindacute #yolo.”
Interesting thread. So what is happening to all the churches, cathedrals, monasteries, etc. in Europe? There must be many hundreds of such abandoned buildings…have they been converted to other purposes?
How big a part of the American population are we talking about here? Did the U.S. ever have a “post-Christian,” “rationalist” majority?
OK, that’s absurd.
Has the U.S. had a whole bunch of prominent non-Christians, Deists, rationalists etc. in its history, including amongst its Founding Fathers? Why yes, of course. But its Christianity runs a hell of a lot deeper than just temporary flare-ups due to the pernicious agitation of those dastardly “missionaries, charlatans and quacks.” They had millions upon millions of followers - who were all, clearly, fervently religious, and who were almost certainly fervently religious even before those “missionaries, charlatans and quacks” rode into town.
Many have, yes.
I don’t have the numbers, but here in Copenhagen, Denmark, it pops up in the newspapers every few months - yet another church closed, and me oh my what to do what to do? One former church in the city center has been turned into an exhibition hall. Works nicely. Another church nearby has been turned into a concert hall - and the same happened across the water, in Malmö, Sweden.
Some have suggested turning former churches into mosques - as you can perhaps imagine, that raised quite the ruckus here in Denmark, where nativism and anti-Islamic prejudice runs deep. Even the left-wing Social Democrats went bananas, IIRC.
This is a big problem for the Church of Sweden. Hundreds, maybe thousands of churches see little to no use and cost a fortune in maintenance. A few churches in the bigger cities have been repurposed, but for the many churches in the middle of nowhere it wouldn’t be feasible.
To be blunt, 
: You can make up your own definitions if you feel like, but the word religion is primarily used to mean organised belief, usually in a deity. Considering that most atheists’ only problem with religious belief is that it is organised and hence capable and desirous of affecting public life, this is not a trivial distinction.
Can’t believe it’s not been mentioned so far (apologies if I’ve missed a post that does mention it) but has anyone considered the possibility that two world wars and numerous pogroms taking place on European land might just have had an affect on people’s attitudes towards the idea of an omni-benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent god?
Are we going after “definitions,” or are we going after what the word “is primarily used to mean”? If we’re going after “definitions,” you’ll find that some definitions accept organized belief only, while others do not.
Here’s one:
Here’s another:
Now, if we’re going after what the word “is primarily used to mean,” then on what do you base your claim?
Most atheists!? How do you know what problem most atheists have with religious belief? Cite, please?
More importantly: For the purposes of this thread, how is the “problem” that “most atheists” may or may not have with “religious belief” relevant in the first place?
Nah, I’m not buying it.
The European country that suffered the very worst from all those world wars, pogroms and other atrocities was arguably the Soviet Union. And yet, only 13% of modern-day Russians self-identify as atheists (and that, mind you, is after more than seventy years of atheist indoctrination). That doesn’t really seem to fit with your theory.
Poland, too, suffered horribly during most of the 20th century - and yet, theism there hovers around 79%, and only a measly 5% of the population doesn’t believe in any sort of “spirit, God or life force.”
Conversely, Sweden stayed neutral and unharmed throughout the entire 20th century, and yet only 18% of the population believes in God.
Wikipedia should do.
As for most atheists having a problem with the organised part of religious belief, my claim comes from following much debate on the subject. Anytime the question is asked - why do you care if you don’t believe, why can’t you let it be? The answer is invariably the same - because religious belief impinges upon public life, and thus forces us to push back. This is true of practically every debate on religion, including most on this board. If you really want to pursue this, I could cite a few instances, but it seems superfluous to me.