A massive religious study showing that a large number of Americans are religiously unaffiliated caused pollsters to question whether America is heading down the same religious path as that of Europe – where people may consider themselves religious but don’t belong to any institution.
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life study, based on more than 35,000 interviews, found that 16.1 percent of the U.S. population described themselves as unaffiliated – the group with the greatest net gain in members.
The unaffiliated category includes atheists and agnostics, but is mostly made up of respondents who said they were “nothing in particular” (12.1 percent).
More than a third of those unaffiliated said that although they have no particular religion, they at least find religion to be “somewhat” important to “very” important in their personal life.
“Let me underscore again one of the significant findings of the unaffiliated,” said Greg Smith, research fellow of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. “A high percentage of them said religion is still important to them, about six percent of the American public as a whole.”
In future studies, Smith said the group will see if the United States is experiencing the religious “phenomenon” that is already quite common in Europe – “believing without belonging.”
“[For] many people in Europe, religion has become deinstitutionalized even though they still have certain religious beliefs,” Smith said. “So one key question is whether the rank of those who believe but do not belong to religious institutions is a trend that is expanding as we go forward.”
While the unaffiliated group is growing as a whole, within the group, the number of those who consider themselves religious but who are not affiliated with any religion is also growing, according to Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, who noted the “double pattern.”
“I think both of those things are really quite interesting,” Lugo commented.
The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey estimates the United States is still 78 percent Christian, but is tethering on its reputation as a Protestant nation, at 51 percent and falling.
America’s Young
Among the unaffiliated, young people make up a significant portion, which is not a surprise since it has been a common trend “for quite some time,” according to John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
But what is new is that there is indication from this survey and others that the number of young unaffiliated Americans is larger than in past generations.
One in four adults under the age of 30 years old claims no affiliation with a religious institution, according to the poll.
“Given the large size of young people among the unaffiliated, this could have a profound effect upon the character of American religion,” Green predicted.
He said that his team will keep an eye out to see if this young unaffiliated group later returns to organized religious institutions.
Green gave two hypotheses of why young Americans are increasingly moving towards being religiously unaffiliated. He said young adults, when they leave home, are “busy figuring out” their career, family situation, where they want to live, and their religion among other issues.
“In that situation, even people who are quite religious in the level of belief stray away from organized religion,” Green offered.
He added that young people go through a life cycle with periods of transitions that includes a transition in religion.
Other reasons given for the higher number of unaffiliated young Americans include highly-publicized problems within major denominations and the greater number of religious options available to young people in American society.
The Pew study released Monday is the first of likely three reports to be released based on data collected from interviews with more than 35,000 Americans. The phone interviews, which included 40 questions, were conducted from May 8 to Aug. 13, 2007.
Comments
To answer the question, technology at least in the modern relevance began in the monasteries.
Philosopher Vishal Mangalwadi is working on the publishing of his work, Book of the Millenium. For anyone interested you can hear a few of his lectures at:
http://www.maclaurin.org/mp3_group.php?type=The+Heretics+Series
agentorange,
At least you came up with something; the slight is not intended toward you. These fellows of yours need to get a life. Maybe instead of hounding Christians, they should do some research first. At least then they would have an idea of what they are talking about and who they are talking to.
My first question was: Where did modern science come from? While it is true that the Greeks had a form of science, and it likely influenced to some degree modern science today, it is however quite different from modern science. To a large part Greco science was derived from philosophy of thought rather than experiments, and a faulty philosophy at that.
Who introduced the scientific method? Ibn al-Haytham? You may have gotten me there. I was thinking Francis Bacon. I suppose it could be debated, but in either case they both were theists.
Where did technology come from? Well, I am sure that you may be able to contort crude forms of improvising as to mean technology, but that is not what I was thinking. Do you want to try again?
DARWINISM and ATHEISM: UNSCIENTIFIC & MYTHICAL
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
“What is the best example of altruistic animals? Scavengers. lol.”
You have no clue about animal altruism do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
Seed,
“Where did modern science come from?”
Our westernized sciences and their origins are derived from Classical Greece, around 750 BC.
“Who introduced the scientific method?’
Da Arabs, namely scientist Ibn al-Haytham using principles of induction and deduction via evidence.
“Where did technology come from?”
Technology is essentially determined as creation of tools that aid in a particular use of a normal habit. IE, Chimps using sticks as a means to extract termites. If you mean only human innovation and technology, then perhaps the first forms of this would be simply stone based tools that date bate over a million years old.
Alright danny,
Where did modern science come from?
Who introduced the scientific method?
Where did technology come from?
What is the best example of altruistic animals? Scavengers. lol.
Here were a couple of posts where I answered some of your charges:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080223/31298_Report:__More_than_Half_of_Britons_Have_No_Religion.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080220/31271_Oxford_Probes_Why_People_Believe_in_God.htm
All right, since I have to do all the leg work around here:
“As early as the 1830s, the concept of natural selection was used by Edward Blyth (a creationist) to explain how a population maintained itself under changing environmental conditions” (The Evolution Controversy, Fowler and Kuebler). It was different in the details, but the same basic concept.
citsonga: “seed, you are a master at distortion and misrepresentation.”
I guess we have some things in common. Nevertheless, the eugenics propagated by Darwin’s cousin and published eight years after Origin of Species was instigated by the Third Reich as well as Margot Sanger’s abortion plan. You may disagree, but it is Christians who opposed both forms of human experimentation (if you want to call it that). Menger was no more a Christian than Hitler. I responded to the Hitler-Christian connection on my other post.
citizen: “Really, seed you are in no position to criticize science because you dont know what science actually is.”
I will give you credit that I am not a scientist. Notwithstanding, the same can be said of your religious and social studies as well as your knowledge of history, however I shan’t digress.
seedplant " [danny]: Science advances human progress. .”
"You mean like Dr. Josef Mengele? "
seed, you are a master at distortion and misrepresentation.
Einstein, Darwin, Ben Franklin ,Isaac Newton, Carl Sagan, Max Planck ,Thomas Edison, Leonardo Da Vinci , Marie Curie , Watson & Crick...............to name just a few scientists that have advanced mankind. Mengele was a butcher, not a scientist, he was a christian too.
Really, seed you are in no position to criticize science because you dont know what science actually is. Stick with your going nowhere religion, keep waiting for the Messiah and the end of the world.
"Nothing good can come if the will is wrong and to give evidence to him who loves not the truth is only to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation."
-Richard Weaver, University professor and author of, Ideas Have Consequences
danny, all the pep talk in the world doesn't change history.
No, Darwin did not originate natural selection. lol!
Danny: “A better question would be what can religions tell us about the nature of truth.
The answer is nothing.”
My point was that truth is beyond the scope of science. It is also beyond the scope of philosophy. This is not to mention that you obviously are not brushed up on your history. Modern science itself is the product of a Biblical worldview. The first scientist to postulate natural selection was a Christian. The lawyer representing the side of evolution at the Scopes trial was also a believer (a monk actually).
”Another good question would be what have religions done for the human race.”
You can take a look at the Oxford article to see if you can answer where citizen and token either couldn’t or didn’t have the ‘resources’ or ‘time’ to argue my point by point posts that demonstrate how Christianity birthed our modern society. (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080220/31271_Oxford_Probes_Why_People_Believe_in_God.htm)
Robert W. Wilson, an atheist, philanthropist and retired hedge-fund manager, said he is giving $22.5 million to the Archdiocese of New York to fund a scholarship program for needy inner-city students attending Roman Catholic schools. “Let’s face it, without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no Western civilization,” Wilson said. “Shunning religious organizations would be abhorrent. Keep in mind, I’m helping to pay tuition. The money isn’t going directly to the schools.”
“Again the answer is nothing, except for religious wars.”
Do you mean like; Milosevic, Pol Pot, and the rest of the humanistic secularists. LAME is an encoder, not a sign of intelligence. You may find it interesting to know, a study was conducted in 2004 by Bradford University that found that of the 32 wars in the 21st century only three were caused by religion.
”Science advances human progress. Religions are good for nothing but getting in the way.”
You mean like Dr. Josef Mengele?
citizen asks: "Have you ever in your life had an original thought?"
What do you call a monkey on a computer? Apeism!
Atheism is contingent upon the validity and efficacy of Neo-Darwinism and the magic of self-generation. The proven validation of common decent does not however exclude Christian theism. Genesis only says that God did it, not how He did it. You often use this as some sort of evidence against special creation. It doesn’t quite work that way. Genesis does give a chronological order of the creation events, but it does not specify as to how much time (day is translated 12 hours, 24 hours and an undisclosed period of time).
Dr William Lane Craig challenged Richard Dawkins to a debate when he was in England, in which he declined the invitation and rightfully so, because he would have been beaten hands down. Craig explains that in light of the fine-tuning of the universe, evolution is really a non-issue in the debate for theism.
"Jesus is dead."
You should read N.T. Wright's book, The Resurrection of the Son of God.