Millennials Losing Their Religion, Keeping God

[cbayer]

http://www.advocate.com/religion/2014/04/22/millennials-losing-their-religion-keeping-god

New research shows that while nearly half of millennials don't turn to religion for guidance, 62 percent still 'talk to God.'
BY MICHAEL O'LOUGHLIN APRIL 23 2014 11:11 AM ET



A new survey finds that while millennials are rejecting religion in increasing numbers, they aren't necessarily giving up their faith in God.

Carnegie Mellon University released numbers last week that found a slight majority, 52 percent, of millennials "look to religion" but that a much higher portion, 62 percent, "talk to God."

Kaya Oakes, a writer from Berkeley, Calif., told Vox that millenials seek a "do-it-yourself faith" because "institutional religions fail to welcome the kinds of questions [they] bring to the table."

Carnegie Mellon's research supports previous polls that show young people eschewing religion for myriad reasons but especially because of organized religion's hostility to LGBT people.

more at link

[ballyhoo]

1. I'm doing that myself. Thanks for the

post.

[cbayer]

3. If mainstream churches returned to emphasizing civil rights

and social justice, would you be likely to return to one?

[ballyhoo]

4. No. I now believe that

prayer should be done alone between the person and their God. I pray in my garage by myself and will continue to do so. If anything, that which you suggest would detract from my time with God. No offense intended.

[cbayer]

5. No offense taken. None at all.

I think there is room for an infinite number of variations on the religious theme and one should do whatever works for them.

[cleanhippie]

2. And most of us are perfectly fine with that.

Its not the belief in a personal god that's the problem, its the belief in the revealed religions and the institutions that come with that.

[trotsky]

8. No no, cleanhippie.

Our agenda is to DESTROY GOD BELIEF and if necessary, DESTROY BELIEVERS. Why, just ask certain individuals in here, they'll be happy to tell us what we really want!

[Warren Stupidity]

10. When cornered, I did admit that the EVILE PLAN is to tickle the god right out of them.

But that was before lent. Now I am a reformed anti-theist and will instead be offering free beer for non-belief. Or maybe it was nearly free beer. Oh wait, it was near beer. That explains the lack of enthusiasm.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. Although I'm essentially

an atheist, I'll be gifting a New Testament to a sort of god-niece for her first communion shortly. I'm just working out how to phrase the inscription I'm putting in the frontispiece to suggest to her that she go ala-carte, and take away from it the parts about being good to one another, helping those in need, and taking care of the earth, while leaving behind the parts about intolerance and divisiveness...

[cbayer]

7. I would be most interested in how you end up phrasing this.

It's great instruction and essentially the way I was raised (father is a minister).

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. It's tricky, especially given that the

recipient isn't even a tween yet.

If I were writing an essay to a teen or an adult, I think my main point would be that even if there is a God, you can't claim that any one version is the literal word of God, because there are differences between various versions. (And btw, the version I'm giving is actually a bilingual one, to boot.) That these are, at best, words written by men who felt inspired by what they perceived as Divinity, and therefore are prone to human misunderstandings of what might be Divine Will, interpreted in the context of their own lives and societies. Thus, if one perceives God to be a benevolent force, then malevolent interpretations or writings must have come from human failings on the part of the authors or the confines of their understanding of the world and human interactions, and should not be taken to be 'true' interpretations of the Divine. How to get that across to a 7 or 8 year old? In one short inscription? Still much thinking to do.

[cbayer]

13. I might go with something like this.

Use this book to reflect, ask questions and examine your own life. There are things here that are deeply inspirational and some that you may find don't speak to you at all. Take what speaks to you and use it to live a good life full of love, peace and joy.

But that's just me. I agree that a 7 or 8 year old is probably not ready for a deep philosophical discussion on whether there is a god or not, but they can take positive lessons from some of the stories in the book.

[trotsky]

9. Only 62% talk to god?

Dang, far more millenials are discarding god than I thought!

[LostOne4Ever]

12. Talk to God?

That sounds like a really really weird criteria. What percentage of Americans "talk to god?"

If this is supposed to be another way of saying believe in god versus those who don't, then this denotes a HUGE increase in the numbers of non-believers.

If I recall correctly, the number of non-believers in this country range from 2-15% of the population depending on the question asked. This would represent a 250-1900% increase in non-believers if those two terms are interchangable.

In light of this I find it rather strange that the author says we (millenials) aren't giving up our faith.

[cbayer]

14. If the definition is left vague enough,

I would guess a whole lot of people talk to god. Many people describe their god as something that resides within themselves, and who doesn't have a talk with oneself from time to time?

IMHO, many, many are moving into a grey space where they do not identify as either a theist or atheist.

I know that many people still make the argument that an individual has to be one or the other, but that is a position that I and a growing number of people reject.

The push to have someone choose a black or white position is a fight against a rising tide - maybe even a tsunami.

And that, imo, is where we should be heading.

[trotsky]

15. You can reject it if you want.

Doesn't make you right.

[LostOne4Ever]

16. Either way

This trend bodes well for increasing overall diversity, and hopefully tolerance throughout American society (imho).

If 62% of america were believers, and the rest something else (not necessisarily atheists, but lets throw in all the nones, the not-religious but spiritual people, deists, pantheists as well as both explicit atheists and implicit atheists* /agnostics*) I would imagine we would reach a point where an open atheist running for office would be viable at least.

It might still be controversial, but at least they would have a chance.



*Whichever they want to identify as. For instance, I, personally, identify as an implicit atheist, and as you say some reject the atheists label altogether and embrace the agnostic label (people like NDT). So I am using a slash to be inclusive and considerate of everyone's preference on this topic.

[cbayer]

17. I also strongly support increasing diversity, tolerance and the "normalization"

of each individuals take on religious matters.

I foresee positive changes in public perception and acceptance, including in the political arena. I am hopeful it will move with a similar building momentum as we have seen with the GLBT community.

I think your take on the atheist/agnostic issue is thoughtful and very much in line with my own.

[LostOne4Ever]

18. Im just trying to be inclusive of others who disagree with me

I don't like having labels applied to me that are not true, so I try not to label others as a matter of respect. This does not mean I am changing my definition, but rather that I am just trying to be considerate.

As evidenced by my self identification as an implicit atheist I obviously have a very definite stance on the issue*, which I have expanded upon in other threads. Some agree with me, and others have disagreed with me. Either way I have yet to see a single thread on the issue where either side was willing to cede the point.

This does not just apply to atheism and agnosticism, but to other religions such as X-tianity as well. Here is a thread from the interfaith forum debating whether someone who does not believe in the resurrection can be declared a christian or not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12642500

I think the very nature of both religion and language pretty much ensures there will never be a resolution to the label issue. My definition of "atheist" will inevitably be at odds with some other source's (or person's) definition. Some dictionaries agree with me, others not (merriam webster's definition of atheist, in particular, I object to). Hell, some dictionaries define atheist as a wicked person which I think everyone here can agree is wrong.

Either way, the way that language is constantly changing and whether one is referring to technical meaning or definition by general use (consider the difference in how the word "theory" is used via the public vs its actual scientific definition)only makes things even more contentious.

To compound things, whether or not it is intended, by each person supplying their own definition they end up labeling others in ways that the others might not want. My definition labels many people as atheists who do not want the label. Similarly, their definition of agnostic would label me as not really an atheist to which I would object.

So as I have done with X-tians, I have decided not to call anyone an atheist if they do not self-identify as one in deference to their sensibilities. I am aware of the issues with such a policy, but I see no other way of proceeding without giving one group or another a label they do not want or risking derailing almost every single discussion into never ending arguments over semantics.



Whew. Sorry for the long soapbox, but after the wars I have seen on this issue its hard to explain things in a way that won't be held objectionable to one group or another or lead others to misunderstand my position.


*To be clear, I define atheist as anyone who lacks a belief in God(s). I also define belief as holding a position to be true. I accept others have different definitions, this is the one I use and hold to be true.

[cbayer]

19. I don't care what people call themselves.

It's what they do that means something. And I cringe at anyone who thinks they have the one and only way. The more adamant they are about it, the less secure they are in their own beliefs or lack or beliefs, imo.

I think the discussion of terms can be really interesting, but draw the line at telling others what they should call themselves.

Will be interesting to see how the nomenclature may change over time. I think we need better, more flexible and inclusive language to explain to others (and ourselves?) what we are.

Too much of a "we" and "them" thing going on with the current nomenclature. And it gets greatly exaggerated when you have places where only those that fit a very specific definition are permitted to speak.

Sometime people that are entirely respectful and civil and tolerant out in the community are lulled into being something else when they are surrounded by people they think are really just like them.

I think it's a kind of tribal thing.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. im more concerned about the ones who hear god talking back.

I understand talking to gods. People walk around seemingly talking to nothing all the time. It used to be a symptom of crazy people, now it is a symptom of ear buds. But nothing doesn't talk back. Not even from burning bushes.

More to your point, religion is losing ground, rapidly, and consequently the defenders of the faith are desperately searching for anything they can spin as positive from the data.

[LostOne4Ever]

21. Agreed

Assuming that they are using "talk to god" as another way of saying believers, this is an astronomical amount of growth in the number of non-believers over the population as a whole. It is annoying how they are trying to hand wave the numbers away.

The only thing more annoying is how the media almost always frame these issues where faith is protrayed as being good and positive and doubt a horrible negative. To be honest, the cynic in me took great pleasure seeing that narrative unravel last year on Wolf Blitzer.