There it was, an old term with new urgency: post-Christian. This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is less of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory. To the surprise of liberals who fear the advent of an evangelical theocracy and to the dismay of religious conservatives who long to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, Christians are now making up a declining percentage of the American population.
According to the American Religious Identification Survey that got Mohler’s attention, the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent. The Jewish population is 1.2 percent; the Muslim, 0.6 percent. A separate Pew Forum poll echoed the ARIS finding, reporting that the percentage of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith has doubled in recent years, to 16 percent; in terms of voting, this group grew from 5 percent in 1988 to 12 percent in 2008—roughly the same percentage of the electorate as African-Americans. (Seventy-five percent of unaffiliated voters chose Barack Obama, a Christian.) Meanwhile, the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million. (That is about double the number of, say, Episcopalians in the United States.)
While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. [...] As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America’s unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom—not least freedom of conscience. At our best, we single religion out for neither particular help nor particular harm; we have historically treated faith-based arguments as one element among many in the republican sphere of debate and decision. The decline and fall of the modern religious right’s notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life.
#117: “When you find that a christian church is declining you need to ask where they’re going and not assume they’re becoming unchurched.”
Maybe they’re giving up religion for Lent.
# 115 Thomas said, on April 6th, 2009 at 6:28 am
#104
You need to go back to school as you are incorrectly claiming an argument from silence. The argument from silence is a fallacy when there is no other evidence or pattern to consider. However, we have plenty of other evidence in many books of the Bible that are quite clear and dire in their punishment. Leviticus has numerous punishments of death for fairly innocuous crimes. Thus, far from being silent we are able to show a pattern in the clarity and severity of punishments that is lacking in this example for reasons that must be intentional. Would you like to try again?
An argument from silence is NEVER sound.
The desperation of the exegete is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent to the soundness of making an argument based upon nothing.
NOTHING in scripture states a child less than a month old is not human.
There are however a handful of passages that assign less value to them than other humans and not in relation to work value. If the value fetuses were cherished so high as the fanatically religious would have us believe, one would think they could find many (or at least one) clear and explicit passage indicating specifically and exactly that.
22 If men contend with each other, and a pregnant woman [interfering] is hurt so that she has a miscarriage, yet no further damage follows, [the one who hurt her] shall surely be punished with a fine [paid] to the woman’s husband, as much as the judges determine.
23 But if any damage follows, then you shall give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burn for burn, wound for wound, and lash for lash.
Exod 21:22-25 Amplified Bible
This text is explicit…if a women has a miscarriage, but both are unhurt, then a fine is levied.
If ANY damage follows, for example, loss of life of the child, then its “life for life.”
Clearly the life of the fetus is equal to the man causing loss of life, otherwise the death penalty wouldn’t be exacted.
That is explicit.
That the passage was understood thus by the Ancients who were not “invested” in either prolife or prochoice positions, is clear:
JOESEPHUS Against Apion 2:202 The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to kill it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by killing a living creature, and diminishing human kind; if anyone, therefore, proceeds to such fornication or murder, he cannot be clean.
(Apn 2:202 JOE)
APE Epistle of Barnabas 19:5 Thou shalt not be of doubtful mind as to whether a thing shall be or not. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. Thou shalt love thy neighbor more than thine own soul. Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born. Thou shalt not withdraw thy hand from thy son, or from thy daughter, but from their infancy thou shalt teach them the fear of the Lord. (Brn 19:5 APE)
#122, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
C’mon Queenie, are you suggesting women are second class citizens? Are you really proposing that your mother is worth less than your father or that she might even be property, the same as a fetus?
Hey, I am really seeing that you bear false witness against Obama. If you would lie about your President, why can’t we expect you to also lie about the bible?
#109 – Dallas,
#106 Misanthropic – I like your writings and share many of your views but you should know better why people eventually resort to quoting scripture as a final defense of their argument.
Unfortunately, much as I don’t understand how a mind can believe such self-contradictory failed logic in the first place, I also don’t understand the quoting of scripture as evidence of anything other than a weak mind.
#116 – Thomas,
Re: openly gay pols: See Barney Frank who Dickhead Armey once called Barney Fag.
Re: openly atheist, but only after deciding not to run again, see Pete Stark
Here’s a list of LBGT pols in the U.S.
#104 – Alfred1,
Here’s a question for you. Given that abortion was performed for 1550 years prior to the supposed time of Christ and was commonly practiced both surgically and via abortifacients at the time of Christ, why exactly did he say so much about so many things including sex and murder but never once mention abortion by name?
Could it be that Christ was fine with abortion at all stages of pregnancy?
# 119 Mr. Fusion said, on April 6th, 2009 at 6:54 am
#72, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
You didn’t answer my question…I might think you are the greatest…but then again, what do I know?
You have the unmitigated audacity, the brazen gall, the effen garbage intellect to request someone else answer one of your twisted questions when you have repeatedly been requested to simply post where you got your information that Obama sold drugs.
You did ask a good question; what do you know?
Wow…that’s like being flogged with warm lettuce.
Your passionate slobbering defense of Obama…yet again…how droll
Why not try something new…perhaps then you will get his attention …this time proclaim your slobbering love for Obama to music…made by rubbing your back legs together.
That word “ensouled” is my new favorite.
People have only begun to think for themselves without need of a deity. Mankind has become aware of his own psychology. It’s what’s been pulling the strings all along. Surprise!
The deity turns out to be a projected sock-puppet from mankind’s ancient DNA. The word “soul” is doomed to the trashheap of history. Your “soul” will not outlive you.
We are mortal beings & that’s good enough. Kiss your deity goodbye & good riddance.
#125, Quaalude Queenie,
C’mon Queenie, you can do better than that. You bore false witness against the President. You have been caught in an out and out lie.
If you would lie about something posted with the sole intention of besmirching someone, how can anyone have any faith in what you write as the correct interpretation of the bible. You blatantly lied already, how can anyone not believe you didn’t lie now.
Just as Thomas so eloquently pointed out, your bible treats babies as worth less than a person. Women are worth less than a man. Slavery is accepted and most people in the bible kept slaves. The Kings you worship were all bigamists.
Or will you condemn that behavior as normal and suggest we all engage in it.
# 127 cow-patty furniture said, on April 6th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
#125, Quaalude Queenie,
C’mon Queenie, you can do better than that. You bore false witness against the President. You have been caught in an out and out lie.
I didn’t lie…Obama sold drugs…that is “likely” according to all the circumstantial evidence surrounding his admitted drug use…
That is my conclusion…it might be wrong…but its more likely correct.
I have a right to believe it…
I certainly have much more indication Obama sold drugs, at least once in his druggie career, than you have for your blind faith in lefty loony dogmas.
Religion is the downfall of society. Plain and simple. If you want to guess at wherever , whoever, whatever we come from, then you are not fit to make any important decisions such as medical research and lawmaking.
#130, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
I didn’t lie…Obama sold drugs…
Wrong. You claimed he sold drugs, now prove it. There is no evidence, even “likely” evidence. It is all just your wish in order to denigrate the man. Now you’ve been caught in a lie.
For a couple of weeks you’ve been avoiding the answer because, in my opinion, you knew it was a lie. You would post stupid comments about Obama being married. Then you claim I love Obama and apologize for him. But you still can’t back up your claim.
I do not know for a fact if he did or didn’t. I wasn’t observing him entire life. But I will give him the benefit of a doubt. Why? Because my MORALS require I treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty. A very similar concept to what some Christians believe.
Other so called Christians don’t hold the same morals as “Do unto others as you have them do unto you”.
#132, Mr. Fusion – why are you bothering to demand that Alfred1 uses logic and actual evidence? It’s very clear he is capable of using neither, which is why he’s a perfect lemming for blind religious belief, and explains his irrational belligerence.
#122
> An argument from silence is NEVER sound.
You are incorrectly claiming an argument from silence fallacy. An argument fits into this category only if there is no pattern of expected behavior. Take the following statement for example, “A swimmer picked trinkets off the bottom of the pool.” I said nothing in that statement about swimmer taking a breath before they submerged however we can infer that this action occurred.
In deciphering historical texts, what is not written can say volumes about the importance, or lack thereof, of actions and deeds. Bunny rabbits existed at the time the authors of the OT wrote their material and yet there is nothing in the Bible about them. Barring evidence to the contrary and based on other writings from alternate sources, we can infer that the people did not consider them of sufficient importance to include in their writings.
The Old Testament on numerous occassions meets out dire punishments for many infractions and it is quite explicit about those punishments and the crimes for which they are given. Yet they are strangely silent on abortion. Strange, don’t you think, given how explicit they are with everything else and how important you claim fetuses to be that they say nothing about it nor layout any specific and dire punishment?
You do realize that the quotes from Exodus you are providing actually prove my point do you not? Continuing to post that passage, even with you own personal injections, illustrates a degree of insanity if you are hoping that the meaning of those passages will somehow change with each repost. The passage clearly refers the consequences of ignoring the judgment as a result of hurting a pregnant woman, not the act itself.
Josephus was not an apostle nor an author of the Bible (as far as we know). Therefore, citing a third person’s interpretation of another person’s writings is entirely irrelevant. Given that we are tossing argument fallacy barbs, this would qualify as a poor appeal to authority.
RE: Barnabas 19:5
This is the one and only statement I have seen in any Christian texts that says anything explicitly about abortion. The problem is that it is not part of the Bible. It should be noted that the Epistle of Barnabas was not written by the Apostle Barnabas but was written by someone sometime after Jesus (assuming he existed) had died. So again we are reading what someone thinks about another person’s writing. Regardless, it is not part of the Bible and therefore not part of the “official” word of your deity (how man can make such a determination is another fascinating question but another time…) and it contradicts what is in the official Bible. If you are going to include the apocrypha as a basis for your arguments you open yourself to a world of new problems and contradictions.
I note with great irony that this document states that you should hate all hypocrisy. Furthermore, it states that you shouldn’t corrupt boys. Given the track record of Christian priests, I suppose we now know why it did not get into the official Bible.
#134 – Thomas,
Excellent and sound logic. Let me know if it ever convinces anyone. I’ve been trying for years, though I doubt I expressed it as well as your post just did.
The real problem is that the whole hypothesis of a creator fails from the start. Given that the simple logic failure of a creator has not swayed anyone, I can’t really imagine what would.
Why is it that only assorted non-theists are willing to even ask where such a creator might have come from?
Why is it that only assorted non-theists can see that if one assumes that cause and effect holds true in all cases, then a god creator and a god creator creator and a god creator creator creator etcetera ad infinitum would all be required?
Why is it that those who believe that cause and effect holds true are still willing to turn on their computers to blog despite the fact that the semiconductors necessary for those same computers use quantum mechanics, which flatly denies cause and effect at the most basic level?
Why is it that those who believe most strongly refuse to ask the questions that have the potential to genuinely bring them closer to an understanding of the god they claim exists?
Would not one who believed in such a creature want to know where said creature came from in order to gain a greater understanding of the mind of the creator?
I think I will never understand this simple and basic logic failure on the part of the vast majority of humanity.
# 134 Thomas said, on April 6th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
#122
> An argument from silence is NEVER sound.
You are incorrectly claiming an argument from silence fallacy. An argument fits into this category only if there is no pattern of expected behavior. Take the following statement for example, “A swimmer picked trinkets off the bottom of the pool.” I said nothing in that statement about swimmer taking a breath before they submerged however we can infer that this action occurred.
I will address the rest of your post later…when I have time.
An argument from silence is an argument from NOTHING, therefore it cannot be sound. “Pattern of expected behavior” can only indicate what is possible, not what is.
Your “illustration” is not an argument from silence…this is:
“She couldn’t read the Spanish writing, therefore she doesn’t speak Spanish.”
While it is “an expected pattern” those who read Spanish can speak it, its non sequitur as she may be illiterate, yet able to speak Spanish.
While the argument “from silence” sounded plausible, there are other explanations for why she could not read…she might also be blind…or the print illegible…or perhaps she swore off reading…or has a headache etc.
Premises must be relevant to the conclusion…the conclusion must be a necessary result of the premises…otherwise its an unsound argument from silence…
You don’t have to take my word for it…Google “argument from silence” and you will see, at best, it yields only a “possible explanation” (until a more likely one arises.)
Now I gotta watch 24
Alfred1,
Thanks for thinking I was hilarious!
The fourfold growth of Atheism from from 1990 could be from several sources. For example, a couple million immigrants from the Former Soviet union could explain most of it.
As for the “decline” of Christianity, that could also be for lots of reasons other than disillusionment.
America just isn’t monolithically Christian like it used to be. People of other religions are moving-in and people who attended church for social reasons don’t feel the need anymore.
Even though I’m a devout Christian, myself, I’m totally OK with that.
In my observation, the large majority of people who leave the church don’t quite believing in God or lose their sense of spiritual reality — they just express it another way. I’m fine with that, too.
My own church (liberal Episcopalian) is absolutely full of people who have rejected some other church expression (usually conservative) but found that unacceptable too.
And they are amazingly enthusiastic about a church that takes the bible very seriously but don’t beat people over the head with it.
#136
I am well aware of the argument from silence. I am also aware that you are incorrectly applying it. I’m not arguing from nothing as there exists extensive patterns of writing set forth in the rest of the Bible and all other period texts. Historical analysis is not black-and-white as you might wish; rather it is based on reasonable, but guarded, assumptions given the evidence we have.
Let me put it this way, one could easily argue the opposite of any premise in the Bible as the rantings of a handful of authors and thus failing to be indicative of the general populace because we have heard nothing from them (or even most of them). After all, it might be the case that most Jewish people of the time thought eating pork was fine and generally took two days off instead of one. We will “never” know as those people never wrote about it.
Of course this argument is silly just as arguing that there is no pattern of importance in the writings of the Bible is silly. We must presume that what is written and mentioned often are the most important themes as felt by the authors and conversely what is not written is of lesser importance. If abortion equated to murder we’d have more than one dodgy passage that indicates more about compensation for property than it does for taking a life.
Thus, a more accurate, revised version of your analogy would be something like evaluating John Adams based on his writings and those about him. Adam’s never says anything about purple leprechauns in any of his speeches, any of his memoirs, or any his official documents nor does anyone else when they are talking about the President. We can thus make a reasonable assumption that purple leprechauns were not as important to him as say France. It is still remotely possible of course that he hid his love for purple leprechauns but until we get evidence to the contrary and from an historical perspective, we can make a safe conclusion that purple leprechauns were not important to him.
#135
Thank you. Indeed the first argument set forth by an atheist should be to define what exactly is meant by “god”. How do we know it when we see it? How do we know what it is not? That argument alone typically ends most discussions with some variant of “you have to take it by faith” (or translated: “I have NFC”).
# 137 Greg Allen said, on April 6th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Alfred1,
Thanks for thinking I was hilarious!
Your reply was hilarious!
The fourfold growth of Atheism from from 1990 could be from several sources. For example, a couple million immigrants from the Former Soviet union could explain most of it.
Perhaps…but our schools denigrate theism in general and as seen here, mockers abound on the internet…
I think it correct there has been some decline in theism in America, how much and for what reasons I don’t know. There is a definite “secularization” where religion is relegated to “hobby status” and not allowed to play a public role. But I’ve not researched this…I accept scripture’s prediction the true faith would be persecuted in the end times…and that a major falling away from it would occur in society in general:
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (2Th 2:3 KJV)
But some of those who now rejoice at the decline of religion in America, and who mock it at every turn, will have a spiritual or supernatural experience that will rock their secular world and its presuppositions.
AND it is amazing to me, a cult researcher, how these are so vested in mocking Christ and the Bible as being the truth, turn to the weirdest cults and new age groups as they seek answers for their paranormal experience.
I would love to see some conclusions drawn from accurate statistics on that phenomena.
As for the “decline” of Christianity, that could also be for lots of reasons other than disillusionment.
America just isn’t monolithically Christian like it used to be. People of other religions are moving-in and people who attended church for social reasons don’t feel the need anymore.
I confess I’m one of the “unchurched”…and the blame for that rests upon me, there is such diversity in churches everyone should be able to find one they like to attend..I have one I attend occasionally…and enjoy it greatly every time I do…I just don’t go that often…go figure.
Even though I’m a devout Christian, myself, I’m totally OK with that.
In my observation, the large majority of people who leave the church don’t quite believing in God or lose their sense of spiritual reality — they just express it another way. I’m fine with that, too.
My own church (liberal Episcopalian) is absolutely full of people who have rejected some other church expression (usually conservative) but found that unacceptable too.
And they are amazingly enthusiastic about a church that takes the bible very seriously but don’t beat people over the head with it.
I judge no man…but I do take a definite stand on issus…on matters of faith…
I could never attend a church that denigrates scripture or teaches a form of Christianity one cannot see in the pages of Scripture, New Testament in particular. While Episcopalians have a great history…recently there has been schism between liberals and conservatives…and if I were an Episcopalian, I would side with the conservatives….its impossible to reconcile homosexuality with Christianity…any who are such, must repent, cease and desist. Abortion also is never a Christian…liberals can accept all that in the name of tolerance…moderation…but a believer in Scripture will call that a different name…”apostasy…a falling away from the faith.”
We all must stand before the judgment seat of Christ… therefore while I judge no man, I do judge these issues for myself…and there is no way I want to be in the shoes of “pro choice” people when standing before Him who said:
16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
(Luk 18:16-17 KJV)