(1) Comprehensive means (a) not limited to just the US or the West, but global in nature (b) not limited to small slices of time but rather larger periods of history and social movements (c) means how religions affect even the most basic of human interactions (religions are a largest source of morality - rightly or wrongly) (d) how religions and religious beliefs affect all areas of study - politics, science, sociology, economics (eg. behavioral economics), psychology, and so much more...
(2) You do understand that the Earth holds 8+ billion people right? And that the US (and the West) are but a minority of this population. So any 'insights' about religion based on a minority of the population is inherently inaccurate.
(3) You obviously do not understand even the fundamentals of religion - it is NOT based on facts/science/etc. It's a BELIEF SYSTEM. What do you find so difficult to understand about that? Yet you keep harping about 'science/technology/new information/etc.' as if that has much of an impact on religions. If anything, that would have an impact on 'the belief about the existence of God', and religions have always found novel ways to ignore any such objections to the existence of God.
(4) You seem to have missed my point about the data collection and analytics and their limitations/biases/etc. for studies that point to either an increase or decrease of participation in religious beliefs. To wit, it is impossible to accurately sample 8 billion+ people to arrive at a definitive conclusion as to the increase/decrease of religious participation globally.
Your response contains a few strawman arguements ->
(1) You conveniently try to limit the scope to just the US and the West
(2) You disregard religions and religious organizations and institutions that are not based on God (eg. nontheistic religions like Buddhism, Christian atheism, nontheist Quakers, Jainism, Taoism). Many of these nontheistic religions share the same problems as the theistic religions that you seem to have issues with (and rightly so).
(3) Your opinion of my comments (past) is irrelevant to this discussion (but thank you for trying to use flattery to buttress your argument).
As I said before, your knowledge of 'religions' seems to be severely limited. Hence I suggest understanding religions of the world (current and throughout history) so that you understand better the subject that you are trying to have a discussion on and are able to make more informed arguments (or you can talk to people that have a background in religious studies for gaining a better perspective).
""You disregard religions and religious organizations and institutions that are not based on God (eg. nontheistic religions like Buddhism, Christian atheism, nontheist Quakers, Jainism, Taoism). Many of these nontheistic religions share the same problems as the theistic religions that you seem to have issues with""
I really like this point you make, and I did disregard them.
Do you think that the rapidly increasing advances in science and technology has or will have any effect upon religious affiliation (actually, I will pose this to you, and perhaps other questions, directly at your substack)?
I do have some more thoughts on what you just wrote and I also do not think one needs to have as deep an understanding of "religions", as you seem to think, in order to have the opinion that I initially stated. I think there is a way to exchange with you thru personal Substack messaging. I will message you that way, and perhaps you can catch me on much more of what you feel I've apparently missed/ignored. And although it was not for the reason you assumed, still... you're welcome.
>>"Do you think that the rapidly increasing advances in science and technology has or will have any effect upon religious affiliation?"
I don't know. Does anybody with any level of certainty? What I do know is that there is already enough science/technology to refute MOST (if not all) religious beliefs - but still people persist.
So then, the question to ask would be - 'Why do people still persist in believing the things that they believe in?'
Isn't that how many faith/belief systems work? eg. beliefs in Aliens, magic, supernatural entities, spiritual beliefs, ghosts, bigfoot, etc. etc. People believe in many things (including organized religions) for SO MANY reasons - often having NOTHING to do with science/technology/facts.
So why do you think science/technology would stop people from believing in religion? There's enough evidence to show that though "religious beliefs HAVE decreased in some/many segments of populations", it has also INCREASED in other segments of populations.
What I do know is that 'humans often find ways of justifying their beliefs REGARDLESS of science/technology/whatever. I see no reason why religious beliefs would be impacted differently by human psychology.
Just fyi C-C, we veered way far off the theme of Caitlin's article here. So, like I noted I would do, I messaged you directly a couple days ago. Nothing urgent/important obviously (nothing really is in these comment sections, I guess). Probably not even really worth your time to invest, but if you feel like it, I posed a question to you.
Some issues you seem to have missed/ignored ->
(1) Comprehensive means (a) not limited to just the US or the West, but global in nature (b) not limited to small slices of time but rather larger periods of history and social movements (c) means how religions affect even the most basic of human interactions (religions are a largest source of morality - rightly or wrongly) (d) how religions and religious beliefs affect all areas of study - politics, science, sociology, economics (eg. behavioral economics), psychology, and so much more...
(2) You do understand that the Earth holds 8+ billion people right? And that the US (and the West) are but a minority of this population. So any 'insights' about religion based on a minority of the population is inherently inaccurate.
(3) You obviously do not understand even the fundamentals of religion - it is NOT based on facts/science/etc. It's a BELIEF SYSTEM. What do you find so difficult to understand about that? Yet you keep harping about 'science/technology/new information/etc.' as if that has much of an impact on religions. If anything, that would have an impact on 'the belief about the existence of God', and religions have always found novel ways to ignore any such objections to the existence of God.
(4) You seem to have missed my point about the data collection and analytics and their limitations/biases/etc. for studies that point to either an increase or decrease of participation in religious beliefs. To wit, it is impossible to accurately sample 8 billion+ people to arrive at a definitive conclusion as to the increase/decrease of religious participation globally.
Your response contains a few strawman arguements ->
(1) You conveniently try to limit the scope to just the US and the West
(2) You disregard religions and religious organizations and institutions that are not based on God (eg. nontheistic religions like Buddhism, Christian atheism, nontheist Quakers, Jainism, Taoism). Many of these nontheistic religions share the same problems as the theistic religions that you seem to have issues with (and rightly so).
(3) Your opinion of my comments (past) is irrelevant to this discussion (but thank you for trying to use flattery to buttress your argument).
As I said before, your knowledge of 'religions' seems to be severely limited. Hence I suggest understanding religions of the world (current and throughout history) so that you understand better the subject that you are trying to have a discussion on and are able to make more informed arguments (or you can talk to people that have a background in religious studies for gaining a better perspective).
""You disregard religions and religious organizations and institutions that are not based on God (eg. nontheistic religions like Buddhism, Christian atheism, nontheist Quakers, Jainism, Taoism). Many of these nontheistic religions share the same problems as the theistic religions that you seem to have issues with""
I really like this point you make, and I did disregard them.
Do you think that the rapidly increasing advances in science and technology has or will have any effect upon religious affiliation (actually, I will pose this to you, and perhaps other questions, directly at your substack)?
I do have some more thoughts on what you just wrote and I also do not think one needs to have as deep an understanding of "religions", as you seem to think, in order to have the opinion that I initially stated. I think there is a way to exchange with you thru personal Substack messaging. I will message you that way, and perhaps you can catch me on much more of what you feel I've apparently missed/ignored. And although it was not for the reason you assumed, still... you're welcome.
>>"Do you think that the rapidly increasing advances in science and technology has or will have any effect upon religious affiliation?"
I don't know. Does anybody with any level of certainty? What I do know is that there is already enough science/technology to refute MOST (if not all) religious beliefs - but still people persist.
So then, the question to ask would be - 'Why do people still persist in believing the things that they believe in?'
Isn't that how many faith/belief systems work? eg. beliefs in Aliens, magic, supernatural entities, spiritual beliefs, ghosts, bigfoot, etc. etc. People believe in many things (including organized religions) for SO MANY reasons - often having NOTHING to do with science/technology/facts.
So why do you think science/technology would stop people from believing in religion? There's enough evidence to show that though "religious beliefs HAVE decreased in some/many segments of populations", it has also INCREASED in other segments of populations.
What I do know is that 'humans often find ways of justifying their beliefs REGARDLESS of science/technology/whatever. I see no reason why religious beliefs would be impacted differently by human psychology.
I like this response. Very thought-provoking. Will message you directly later, maybe tomorrow, with other thoughts.
Just fyi C-C, we veered way far off the theme of Caitlin's article here. So, like I noted I would do, I messaged you directly a couple days ago. Nothing urgent/important obviously (nothing really is in these comment sections, I guess). Probably not even really worth your time to invest, but if you feel like it, I posed a question to you.