If millennials leave religion, then what?

[cbayer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/commentary-if-millennials-leave-religion-then-what/2014/04/21/5c6619d0-c98b-11e3-b81a-6fff56bc591e_story.html

By Peter Levine | Religion News Service, Published: April 21

As the Pew Research Center recently found, today’s young people are “less likely than older generations to be affiliated with any religion.” The question is whether this trend is a good thing or a bad thing.

If you are a person of faith, you may worry about the souls of these “millennials,” the generation born after 1980. If you are a critic of organized religion, you may rejoice.

From a more neutral perspective, we can ask about the lasting impact on politics and democracy. After all, political movements in America have often drawn on religious movements for recruitment, leadership, financing, and moral vision. That was true, for example, of abolitionism, of Prairie Populism in the 1890s, of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ‘60s, and of the United Farm Workers’ struggles on behalf of migrant workers.

Perhaps society can or will develop functional equivalents or replacements for churches and other congregations. Denominations have done harm as well as good, and there may be other paths to worldly justice and happiness. But equivalents will have to meet several demanding criteria.

more at link

[TM99]

1. Then their kids will simply

react and oppose their lack of belief by becoming believers.

It is not hard for me to observe as I have worked with families and generational psychology to see that Millenials are strongly reactive to the last 25 years of Christian fundamentalism and the New Age movement in America. I see 20 and 30 year olds who are not just 'skeptical', they are against anything that seems like it might be even remotely outside of the mainstream of scientism. They are strongly anti-'woo'. I see the same with regards to deities and religion. They are not just atheists. They are strongly anti-theistic and anti-religion. And honestly, why wouldn't they be?

Give it another 10 to 20 years, and I am willing to bet that there will be a resurgence in the embracing of religions and metaphysical ideas yet again. I hope that it won't be just another massive pendulum swing which American culture is historically known for but that I can't predict. If it isn't, then perhaps we can get back to viewing religion not as an either/or proposition but a both/and. It is rather cyclical it seems to me. We tend not to learn from the past. We reject it first. Embrace it later and think it is fresh and new again.

Now how will this affect activists movements? That remains to be seen. I don't think humans will ever throw off completely the chains of ignorance, bigotry, discrimination, racism, and us versus them ideations. There will always be something for activists to rally against with or without religious institutions as the support mechanism. Though I do not know if OWS made near the same impact as the religious support in the 1960's did for civil rights, so perhaps it will ebb and flow. Humans love to organize into social groups so with or without belief, we will do it anyway.

[cbayer]

2. While I think your theory on this is valid, I am also seeing,

and hope to continue to see, a growth in "interfaith" activist groups that are inclusive of believers and non-believers.

We saw that to some extent with OWS, and there seems to be more and more among millennials, particularly on campuses.

I haven't seen much data yet, but there does seem to be a trend.

As for those that continue to actively oppose and/or attack those whose religious beliefs (or lack of beliefs) are different than there own, I hope they will be sidelined, particularly among liberal/progressive people.

[TM99]

5. I also see it on college campuses

that which you describe. However, for a wider movement outside of that, I think that the language is going to have to change. If I am non-religious and non-believing, how am I a member of a group of inter-faith individuals? I lack faith. What that will look like I can only speculate about. Generally that kind of dialectic must be resolved with a synthesis that includes both but is different from either opposite that preceded it.

I wish I could believe in the hope you express in your last paragraph. If DU is any indication, active opposition and attack of religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is no different among liberal/progressives as it is among conservatives. Too many things are becoming a Coke vs. Pepsi adolescent debate.

[cbayer]

9. I also think the language is going to have to change.

Too often, terms descriptive of religion are being used to describe aspects of organized atheism.

That's really problematic. Even "interfaith" is a problem word, but there hasn't been one introduced that would cover groups that include a variety of believers and non-believers.

"Nones" is a good word when describing that particular group, but is too often translated to "atheist".

DU is not any kind of indication of what is really going on in this country when it comes to religion.

There is a gross over-representation of anti-theists. Even though the group is very small here, it is a noisy one and I have seen or read nothing that would reflect that this is the norm in liberal/progressive communities.

I think Skinner's OP more accurately reflects the atheist community when it comes to matters of faith.

The Coke vs. Pepsi adolescent debate is a great way to describe it. Why engage?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. I would tend to disagree... unless...

religious leaders get more 'Francis-like'. I see a lot of disillusionment with 'organized' religion, not only because many of them push messages that are intolerant or anti-human, but also because they're so frequently hypocritical.

What could 'win back' younger generations to organized religion? Ditch the 'anti' messages, play up the positives of social and economic justice and equality and environmental stewardship. There are a lot of younger people who might not like 'woo' as you put it (and what the heck is it with DU and 'woo'? I'd seen the term before, but it seems to be a fixture on here of late.) but would be interested in working with groups focusing on helping the poor, preserving the environment, and similar social issues.

Just leave the hate and intolerance behind. Young people are savvy enough to realize that parts of the Bible might have had a value two millennia ago, but have been outgrown since. We've gotten a handle on trichinosis - there's no need to avoid eating pig (unless you're avoiding eating meat entirely, which is also cool), we've learned how to safely cook and eat various 'non-scaled' sea critters, there's no more need to 'be fruitful and multiply' (there are now probably too many of us), and we don't need the degree of utter conformity and respect for authority that might have been of more use in allowing small societies to survive in an age when groups would wipe each other entirely off the map. We can tolerate, and even embrace diversity to make us stronger in an age when genocidal acts are infrequent.

[TM99]

4. I think you and I do agree.

One generation fights against that intolerance but in their youth leaves it all behind. Do they re-embrace religion later in life in a different form or flavor that is more tolerant? Do they reject it always and form new non-religious yet decidedly social groups and organizations that will still work together in activism?

Will their children embrace religion again more easily but simply expect it to be more tolerant and diverse? Or will these kids react completely against their parents and embrace further intolerance and hatred as a backlash?

The Millenials are starting to age. Twenty is now thirty and soon to be forty. It is the next generation that we are speculating about.

I think that over-all disillusionment with organized religion and authority has been around now since the Enlightenment. It waxes and wanes though as the history of religion and secularism in first the Colonies and then the United States has shown. Cycles are so apparent in American culture. The study and embracing of different approaches to healing and medicine began in the 1960's as a reaction and reached their peak by the late 1980's. In the 1990's the pendulum starting swinging back again, and now 20 years later, it is all thrown out as 'woo'. And yes, I hate that term as well but it is the current meme here at DU.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. In part, yes.

But I'm specifically saying I think organized religion has to change to wind up with the 'backswing'. Without those sorts of changes, I don't foresee a return to religiosity among younger generations.

[TM99]

8. Organized religion is a big category.

Most if not all mainstream protestant denominations have changed. They are incredibly diverse, tolerant, and embrace many varied believers and non-believers alike. Anglican's have been ordaining women and homosexuals for pushing 25 years now. Catholics in American have always tended to be more liberal than those in Rome, and with Pope Francis there is a real possibility of further change.

It is only the fundamentalists that are living in that kind of bigoted field of hatred and intolerance. I sincerely doubt they will ever change as that type of thinking has been with mankind much longer than Pentecostals have been handling snakes.

I do believe strongly that many young people, in part due to the internet's influence, are living in thought bubbles. They only know and experience what they have already known or experienced. We talk about the Internet as this great bastion of knowledge and liberation, and really it is still just lol-catz, porn, Wikipedia, and the sites that support our own worldview.

[Goblinmonger]

11. I don't know that that will be the case

I realize this is a sample of one family. My wife is, at best, a deist. I'm an atheist. My children were baptized Catholic but we moved to a UU fellowship when they were still in grade school. They basically remember nothing of the Catholic religion. They have not backlashed to become believers. They are both pretty solid atheists. I don't know that they would say, just as a spite level, I'm going to believe in god because my parent(s) don't. And if they did, I don't see it being what mainstream religions are right now.

And can we possibly give some recognition to the non-believer contributions to civil rights throughout the centuries, because it was there. It would be nice if we also gave some recognition to the fact that religion was (and is) used to deny people those civil rights that religions and atheists had to then fight for, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

[TM99]

14. I know lots of individual cases such as yours

and it is still pretty apparent that cycles occur where one generation does backlash against a previous one. It also doesn't mean that they can't switch back to something even worse.

Liberal Jewish men in the 1960's rebelled against the 1940's and 1950's Cold War 'father' and yet by the 1980's those same men had become the Neo-Cons that we all know and despise today embracing the 'winning of that Cold War' to push a neo-imperialistic American Empire in the Middle East.

I have no problem giving non-believers credit for supporting civil rights, and yet how do we easily quantify that? Until recently, most atheists were not organized or even remotely interested in a social group. Many were isolated (I was as a young man) from other atheists. That has changed in the last 20 years, in part probably due to the internet. From Newsgroups to chat-rooms to safe-haven forums on DU, atheists and agnostics have certainly evolved. The AA didn't exist when I was young, and today, they are prominent (if not always agreed with) proponents of non-belief. I think it will be easier from here forward to see positive societal contributions than it has been previously.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. anecdotal

[Warren Stupidity]

15. My children are third generation atheists.

There is no backlash against common sense.

[TM99]

16. Anecdotal.

Last edited Wed Apr 23, 2014, 09:37 AM - Edit history (1)

There is psychic backlash that defies common sense; if only it didn't.

[JNelson6563]

7. The internet.

One important purpose church served was social interaction. Back in the day there was in-person &the telephone. Now there's instant communication in several forms and they don't have to include any of the parts you don't like, such as church & school.

Then there's the whole knowledge aspect of the internet. When kids get doubts about what they are taught about religion they now have endless information at their fingertips as opposed to the old days of mostly just wondering quietly to one's self.

Julie

[cbayer]

10. Excellent point in terms of how the internet has changed socialization

requirements.

I still, though, disagree about the "knowledge" aspect of it. I don't have any exact numbers, but so, so much of what is posted on the internet is bogus. When it comes down to it, anyone can find just about anything to support their position…

and most people haven't the skills or interest in critically evaluating it to see if it's valid or not.

In short, I don't think the internet offers anything more to counter religious beliefs than it does to support them. It all comes down to what you want to hear.

[Goblinmonger]

12. I believe that children coming out of school now

are begin given the skills to critically evaluate what is on the internet. Certainly they are in my school. And it is part of most CCSS and other similar documents coming out now.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. That is such an elitist attitude.

Oh the horrors of the great unwashed masses having all that *access* to information, all of that and not being able to discern bullshit from facts, being all stupid and everything.

Here is how some of this horrible disinformation is being spread:

Bhutan: Reaching the Unreached
One of the major projects that HiWEL is in the process of executing is for the Royal Government of Bhutan. The project is part of a large Indo-Bhutan project formally known as the Chiphen Rigpel (broadly meaning 'Enabling a society, Empowering a nation'). Chiphen Rigpel is an ambitious project designed to empower Bhutan to become a Knowledge-based society. As part of Chiphen Rigpel project, HiWEL is in the process of setting up more than 130 Playground Learning Stations (PLS) all across Bhutan.

http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/News19.html

[JNelson6563]

29. Perhaps I was lucky.

A long time ago I happened upon a forum that was a very mature back and forth between believers and atheists. I was a believe on a quest at the time, just wanted answers and was open minded as to what answers I might find. These folks really knew their stuff, even a coiuple of PhDs on religious matter I will always appreciate having come across that place during that period of my quest.

Additionally, that which can prove helpful is a huge variety of sites that are rather comprehensive. While you may consider such to be cringe-worthy I find the skeptik's annotated bible to be a wonderful resource, Before such things were on the net imade one of my own. I have a bible with countless post-its marking various things like contradictions, bible-god ordered violence and other bits of enlightenment. Now, with a few key-strokes you can break such tbhings down in seconds. Of course the downside could be not really learning the bible as thoroughly as if one does their ow n compilation but that is a negligible disadvantage.

I think if someone earnestly seeks answers they will find them. I think everyone ends up where they want/need to be w/religion. Some really do need to believe others don't.
Julie.

[cbayer]

30. Do you recall what forum that was?

Is it still around?

I think this group could, and sometimes does, present a similar kind of experience.

There are some really great DUer's with interest in religion, both believers, non-believers and everything in between.

I don't find the skeptics annotated (insert appropriate text here) cringe worthy. I just don't think it should be used to beat people up, which seems to be it's primary function.

Your conclusion describes where I also stand in regards to religion. People will find their own path and I'm not convinced that it's all "choice". Taking a stand against a particular position based on belief is understandable, but attacking people just because they believe is quite another.

[trotsky]

31. Another thing that really impacts the ability to have a discussion...

is labeling the challenging of religious belief and the questioning of religion's role in society and politics as "attacking people just because they believe." This reinforces the idea that religious belief is special and privileged, and cannot be criticized. This is exactly what the right wing does when they wrap their political agenda in religion.

[JNelson6563]

32. It died long ago, sadly.

And no, I have never seen a discussion here that even remotely reminds me of that place. It wasn't snipey one-liner packed threads. The posts were long and countered quoted points. Well thought out and respectful. Now that I think about it, by the time I fell away the major players were moving on, new posters joining were more like here and the discussion was worthless by then. Soon after it went belly up.

Like me I think that forum satisfied many of those posters from those "golden" years in regard to arguing religion.It was so thorough & well done the issue had been settled in my mind. Had seen just about every argument hashed-out by both sides more than once.

I wish I had a record of at least some of it. Those guys had brutal standards and I came away thinking I'd been rather privileged to have been able to find,read and discuss it all with them. I wasn't as knowledgeable as them at first but believe I wasinitially granted admittance in spite of this due to the fact I was on a most earnest quest.

While I've no doubt we have some very smart, disciplined thinking folks here, it's pretty clear little effort is spent applying such things here in this forum. One advantage about early days on the net was there were a lot fewer web-sites. Here in this forum many OPs are just a link, article snippet and a comment and all lineup to exchange the same remarks as the last 43,650 times. In the old days we had to mostly compose our own posts and what-not. I'm not too crazy about the newer method of kicking off religious discussion (if our DU religion forum is representative).& I suppose it is a sort of justice that the discussion that generally follows the link/article/comment OP method consists of equally effort-free one line sniper shots.

Julie

[cbayer]

33. There are some thoughtful and lengthy discussion here,

you just have to wade through an awful lot of muck to get to them.

I am glad you were able to be a part of that site when it was flourishing. I have done a great deal of looking around and haven't found much that would fit your description.

My favorite site for just good writing is Religion Dispatches, but it's not truly a discussion board. The writers are really good and their politics are compatible with those of this site.

Since they are so much better informed and much better writers than I could ever hope to be, I like posting their essays here for discussion.

To be honest, I prefer discussion around something that has required some thought and time. Most of what is published as "original" around here has required neither. It may be just my perspective, but I think you are much more likely to get a flame war from an original OP, many of which are written specifically for that reason.

[trotsky]

13. I think you bring up a key point:

When kids get doubts about what they are taught about religion they now have endless information at their fingertips as opposed to the old days of mostly just wondering quietly to one's self.

Exactly what I went through as a kid. I learned pretty quickly not to ask too many questions in Sunday School. I can only imagine how cool it would have been to have a resource like the Internet - I probably would have been an atheist by age 10 instead of 21.

[pinto]

18. I think they may likely coalesce around various groups that fit their social/ethical/moral viewpoint

including the "interfaith" groups - awkwardly named as note above. Not established organized religious models. To me it looks more fluid and evolving than my generation was familiar with. Looking at it from some distance admittedly.

[cbayer]

19. I agree with you.

People seek community with like minded individuals.

I foresee a broadening of the definitions of formerly religious groups, like the UU's are doing.

Anyway, I hope that is what happens.

[pinto]

20. And I think millenials are more likely to refashion religion instead of vica versa.

I see that happening among my niece's group of friends. They're not interested in a pro/anti religion debate, so much.

[cbayer]

21. That is what I am seeing as well.

My son is about to have a big, old catholic wedding. I think the church will have a very important cultural place in his life, even if he remains without specific beliefs.

He will make it work for him and his family and not the other way around.

[edhopper]

22. While I agree about religions impact on the issues mentioned

from the past, and that the impact was positive. Today I see the more major issues pushed by religions, mainly groups like fundamentalist and Mormons as negative. So for America today I see a positive result from a less religious population.

[cbayer]

23. That has clearly been the trend over the past 30 years, but

I believe the tide is turning and activist liberal/progressive people and groups of faith are taking it back.

I think there is an advantage to a less religious population only if secular groups take on the fights that the liberal churches have taken on before. I would feel more optimistic if I actually saw more of that happening.

And the real strength is in everybody working together for the causes we mutually support.

[edhopper]

24. One would hope

I am only commenting on the trend I see. I think secular groups like OWS are a good sign. Maybe they could be more successful in the future.
I would hope as more people become nonbelievers they would also support positive social change.

They certainly would not support the anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-science agenda that makes up much of the religious driven politics today.

Of course since we now live in an oligarchy and not a democracy, we will see if what people want will mean anything.

[cbayer]

25. OWS had strong participation from religious groups and people.

There were places where there was a great deal of secular/religious coordination which benefitted all.

Progressive/liberal people of faith have little problem finding religious underpinnings for the goals of OWS, as they have for previous civil rights/social justice movements.

While people who move away from religion do tend demographically to be more liberal/progressive, they may also shun organizations and participation in organizations. For some, that is one of the reasons why they left.

And despite what would seem logical, there are non-religious people who do indeed support aspects of the republican platform.

[edhopper]

26. Yes

That is true too.
I guess time will tell.

[cbayer]

27. Nice talking to you, edhopper.

I think we are really in this together and I remain very optimistic.