Religiosity slides worldwide, plummets in scandal-hit Ireland

Buddhists are the most religious. Muslims and Jews are the least religious.

Or so they say.

More at http://uk.reuters.co...E87716820120808

I was raised as a Catholic, but I have never been religious. However, I was somewhat supportive of Christianity until so much came out about Catholic priests being child molesters and I have read that the percentage of Protestant ministers is even higher. On top of that, religious leaders were totally aware that this stuff was going on and enabled it by helping to cover it up. It makes it very difficult for me to believe that God has anything to do with organized religion.

Could the Flynn affect have something to do with this?

James Flynn, a political scientist working in New Zealand, observed in the 1980's that the scores of different groups of people on standard intelligence tests had consistently augmented over the past decades

The results of intelligence tests in different countries show that over the past century average IQ has been increasing at a rate of about 3 points per decade

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/FLYNNEFF.html

Interesting results.

I wonder if some of the results are down to people back in 2005 being less willing to admit a lack of religion/faith? 9 points seems a big drop since 2005. The last decade has seen a lot of debate and writings regarding religion; it is much easier/more acceptable to call yourself an atheist or stating you have no religious belief than it was

I also wonder about the ease of communication and access to information, if this has played a part in peoples thinking?

Religiosity usually has a pejorative meaning, a spurious or sentimental show of religion. Presumably here it just means "religious feeling".

Certainly the publicity given to the pedophile priests has harmed the Catholic church. A hundred years ago they could have got away with murder, figuratively speaking. But I think much of the criticism of Christianity (and presumably this will apply to other religions) is due to false logic. If the premises of the religion, the Incarnation and Resurrection etc., are true, the wickedness of those who profess that religion does not affect them. It shouldn't happen, of course, but it doesn't make the religion false.

The general spread of education has certainly reduced the proportion of believing Christians, and I suppose muslims and Jews too. When people have only one source of information (the Church), they tend to accept it uncritically.

Religions are obviously all false. People are weak and need the opiate. In modern times, we are getting more enlightened.

Religions are obviously all false. People are weak and need the opiate. In modern times, we are getting more enlightened.

More enlightened? I haven't noticed it!

Religions are obviously all false. People are weak and need the opiate. In modern times, we are getting more enlightened.

More enlightened? I haven't noticed it!

Freedom from religion is a good start anyway.

Lack of gods and commandments might be part of the reason Buddhists aren't straying. It's also difficult to twist Buddhism into reasons to kill people.

It makes it very difficult for me to believe that God has anything to do with organized religion.

Admittedly, I have never read the Bible. Not even the comic book versions. Anyway, in the Good Book, full of the word of God, do any of those words go into detail how Christianity should be organized? Kind of like the US Constitution lays out how gov't should be organized? Or is the organization totally a man-made creation?

I think it is a combination of many factors

certainly people are bothered with the resent revelations of sexual misconduct with in the Catholic church , but that in it;s self cant be the sole reason, since there is a decrease in religiosity among all the other faiths as well.

People have being getting more intelligent, as indicated in the Flynn studies,.Reasons being,better nutrition,less chilhood disease, increase of intellectual stimulation.

People are also better informed. With the internet, artificial, and natural barriers to information are disappearing,

When one shines the bright light of reason on religion,one can not help than have doubts at the very least.

Also In the past people were afraid revealing their doubts about their religion from fear of repercussions, I believe as it becomes more accepted to be secular, more and more people will be coming out of the atheist closet.

Of course the sex thing did not help. It is not only the violation of trust, trust being a large part of religious belief it is also the hypocrisy of an anti gay agenda while engaging in that very same behavior.I am afraid once trust is lost it is very hard to be regained.

...

Of course the sex thing did not help. It is not only the violation of trust, trust being a large part of religious belief it is also the hypocrisy of an anti gay agenda while engaging in that very same behavior.I am afraid once trust is lost it is very hard to be regained.

Foul! To suggest an equivalence of homosexuality and pederasty/raping children is the classic tactic of homophobes.

The original report is here: http://redcresearch....ism-25-7-12.pdf

These data provide more information than the Reuters report cited above, and possibly a few surprises. For example, I was surprised to see that fewer women describe themselves as religious than men (females 57% to males 60%). I think this is counter-intuitive.

That religiosity declines with higher education (and income) is certainly affirmed by the data. As you would expect, religiosity tends to be found more in poorer countries. The United States is an exception, together with Finland to a lesser degree (less religious and less wealthy). Switzerland is on the cusp.

Convinced atheists are a very small minority everywhere outside the Big 4 (China 47%, Japan 31%, Czech Republic 30% and France 29%). The "little league" that follows is headed by Germany with 15% and then five relatively prosperous western nations with between 10% and 14%. Most others seem to be in the 1% - 5% range.

Of course "religiosity" covers too wide a range of responses to the unknown and unknowable to be very helpful without further unpacking. To one person it may mean loyal and disciplined adherence to an institution and creed. To another it may just be openness to mystery in a more mystical sense. An atheist could well fall into the latter category, as could a Mahayana Buddhist or Hindu. To declare oneself a "convinced atheist" also begs the question of what kind of "Theos" one has in mind to be disavowed. The report indicates that older people (65+) are not much more religious than the young (under 30) - there's a differential of 10% - but the oldies are much less inclined to declare themselves atheist than the young are.

I do not think that so many people are becoming atheists as instead rejecting religion. There are lots of people that believe in a God without defining "him" in a traditional manner.

...

Of course the sex thing did not help. It is not only the violation of trust, trust being a large part of religious belief it is also the hypocrisy of an anti gay agenda while engaging in that very same behavior.I am afraid once trust is lost it is very hard to be regained.

Foul! To suggest an equivalence of homosexuality and pederasty/raping children is the classic tactic of homophobes.

I would call males engaging in sexual activity with other males homosexual behavior, What would you call it?

The fact that there is pedophilia involved make's Vile, and is a separate issue , but does not change it from what it is .My Comment in the matter was in reference to the hypocrisy of privately engaging in a behavior, while publicly condemning others, and compromising their lives, for like behavioral.and not passing morel value in the behavior it's self but in the Hypocrisy involved.

I suggest next time you read more carefully before you pass moral value your self.

Why I even bother posting in this forum is beyond me, certainly a fault in my character.

...

Of course the sex thing did not help. It is not only the violation of trust, trust being a large part of religious belief it is also the hypocrisy of an anti gay agenda while engaging in that very same behavior.I am afraid once trust is lost it is very hard to be regained.

Foul! To suggest an equivalence of homosexuality and pederasty/raping children is the classic tactic of homophobes.

I would call males engaging in sexual activity with other males homosexual behavior, What would you call it?

Males engaging in sexual activity with males (or females for that matter) is not the same as males engaging in sexual activity with children of either sex.

...

Of course the sex thing did not help. It is not only the violation of trust, trust being a large part of religious belief it is also the hypocrisy of an anti gay agenda while engaging in that very same behavior.I am afraid once trust is lost it is very hard to be regained.

Foul! To suggest an equivalence of homosexuality and pederasty/raping children is the classic tactic of homophobes.

I would call males engaging in sexual activity with other males homosexual behavior, What would you call it?

Males engaging in sexual activity with males (or females for that matter) is not the same as males engaging in sexual activity with children of either sex.

Thank you for that insightful observation, but i never said that it is

Thank you for that insightful observation, but i never said that it is

"Of course the sex thing did not help. It is not only the violation of trust, trust being a large part of religious belief it is also the hypocrisy of an anti gay agenda while engaging in that very same behavior.I am afraid once trust is lost it is very hard to be regained."

So what did you mean by this then?

Thank you for that insightful observation, but i never said that it is

"Of course the sex thing did not help. It is not only the violation of trust, trust being a large part of religious belief it is also the hypocrisy of an anti gay agenda while engaging in that very same behavior.I am afraid once trust is lost it is very hard to be regained."

So what did you mean by this then?

I meant exactly what it said,

They did not chose to molest girls, they chose to molest boys, and while they preached that sex with males is wrong, and if you do you will go to hell. they were having sex with males. that is hypocritical

Having sex with males whether consensual or otherwise is homosexual.

Which part are we not understanding, the what constitutes homosexual behavior,or the meaning of hypocritical.

...

Of course the sex thing did not help. It is not only the violation of trust, trust being a large part of religious belief it is also the hypocrisy of an anti gay agenda while engaging in that very same behavior.I am afraid once trust is lost it is very hard to be regained.

Foul! To suggest an equivalence of homosexuality and pederasty/raping children is the classic tactic of homophobes.

I would call males engaging in sexual activity with other males homosexual behavior, What would you call it?

Males engaging in sexual activity with males (or females for that matter) is not the same as males engaging in sexual activity with children of either sex.

No shit !!!

Thank you for that insightful observation, but i never said that it is

"Of course the sex thing did not help. It is not only the violation of trust, trust being a large part of religious belief it is also the hypocrisy of an anti gay agenda while engaging in that very same behavior.I am afraid once trust is lost it is very hard to be regained."

So what did you mean by this then?

I meant exactly what it said,

They did not chose to molest girls, they chose to molest boys, and while they preached that sex with males is wrong, and if you do you will go to hell. they were having sex with males. that is hypocritical

Having sex with males whether consensual or otherwise is homosexual.

Which part are we not understanding, the what constitutes homosexual behavior,or the meaning of hypocritical.

You're still confused. They are not the same thing.

One is a sexual orientation and NOT CRIMINAL. Homosexuality.

The other is a serious crime. Pederasty.

I think you're skating on thin ice here.

The reason the church got into trouble over pederasty was because it was happening a lot there and their powers were protecting the priest criminals. This is NOT related to their teachings on homosexuality. Don't paint gay people with the pedo brush. That is hateful.

A baiting, inflammatory post has been removed. Stay on the topic and keep it civil.

Thank you for that insightful observation, but i never said that it is

"Of course the sex thing did not help. It is not only the violation of trust, trust being a large part of religious belief it is also the hypocrisy of an anti gay agenda while engaging in that very same behavior.I am afraid once trust is lost it is very hard to be regained."

So what did you mean by this then?

I meant exactly what it said,

They did not chose to molest girls, they chose to molest boys, and while they preached that sex with males is wrong, and if you do you will go to hell. they were having sex with males. that is hypocritical

Having sex with males whether consensual or otherwise is homosexual.

Which part are we not understanding, the what constitutes homosexual behavior,or the meaning of hypocritical.

The what constitutes consenting adult or the definition of paedophilia...

Why I even bother posting in this forum is beyond me, certainly a fault in my character.

I could not have said it better. Resignations are always gleefully accepted.

The reason the church got into trouble over pederasty was because it was happening a lot there and their powers were protecting the priest criminals. This is NOT related to their teachings on homosexuality. Don't paint gay people with the pedo brush. That is hateful.

Of course people are deeply offended when they discover that a priest has been indecently dealing with children, whether male or female (and the kiddy fiddling hasn't all been with boys). But that is not so much related to the Church's teachings on homosexuality, as JY points out, and there's more than one of these.

Apart from a natural revulsion for the idea of a grown man, in a position of trust, who is expected to be a moral exemplar (and perhaps a confessor), engaging in manipulation, deception and intimidation of children in return for sexual favours, many Catholics have walked away from the Church because they saw a cover-up - the clergy protecting their own above all and trying to keep the institution's reputation "clean" (Fail!). For many, too, this was the last straw in a series of disappointments and disillusionments with the institutional church that began with the encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968.

Homosexual orientation, to my knowledge, has always until recently been viewed with sympathy by the Church, if not by the more "muscular" sort of Catholic (one of my bosses was quite openly homophobic, though a generous-spirited man in other respects). There have been homosexual saints, as long as they've been celibate, and the recently beatified Cardinal Newman is widely regarded as having had quite open homosexual orientation. However, there has not been, to my knowledge, any suggestion that he did not keep his vow of celibacy. Looking at some work recently on the Christian Sannyasi, Bede Griffiths (d. 1993), I would think he had some (maybe not strong) homosexual orientation, but he never violated his monastic vows. He certainly did say, in the latter part of his life, that he believed homosexuality to be as "natural" as heterosexuality.

So the issue for the Church and for the clergy has not been homosexuality, but celibacy. Until recently, when the child abuse became well known, candidates for the priesthood were not checked out for their orientation, but for their character and aptitudes in general. It was understood that they were applying for a celibate vocation and that this must be inviolate regardless of one's sexual inclinations. Since the child abuse scandals, however, candidacy processes include a closer look at any indication of homosexuality, and men who have engaged in a "gay lifestyle" are not admitted. So, although most educated people understand clearly the difference between homosexuality and pederasty, the priestly abuse scandals have not been helpful to homosexual candidates for the priesthood who genuinely wish to serve and to abide by their vows of celibacy. I'm sure many homosexual men of good faith and ability will be lost to the Catholic clergy as a result, and that is unfortunate.

Perhaps we also need, in our condemnation of the priestly pedophiles' behaviour, to not lose sight of the vulnerable humanity of the men concerned. I knew some of these men. The pedophile was not the whole man. That they had these weaknesses and succumbed to them led them to lives of great unhappiness. They knew they were despoiling their own lives as well as the innocence of their victims, but they also had gifts and virtues that people knew them by and the knowing of which caused such shock when their misdeeds were revealed. I remember especially one colleague who phoned me in distress and told me she could not get over the sense of betrayal she had as a result of a well-regarded senior administrator's uncovering. His was difficult for all of us who knew him because he was, to us, a very decent person and a very fair administrator. But his victims from 30 years before (he'd since become laicised, married and had a family), had not forgotten and were still very bitter. It seems we never really know people.

That was an excellent post. The history of homosexuality as related to the church is something very few of us know about.

I actually knew a gay Catholic priest when I was a young lad. I always liked him and he never came on to me, but later he was thrown out of the church for messing around with young boys.

As far as I know he did not force himself on anyone and the boys were of a reasonable age (late teens), but at the time, I did not realize how common his behavior was.

Some off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

Forum rules apply to this sub-forum.

The reason the church got into trouble over pederasty was because it was happening a lot there and their powers were protecting the priest criminals. This is NOT related to their teachings on homosexuality. Don't paint gay people with the pedo brush. That is hateful.

Of course people are deeply offended when they discover that a priest has been indecently dealing with children, whether male or female (and the kiddy fiddling hasn't all been with boys). But that is not so much related to the Church's teachings on homosexuality, as JY points out, and there's more than one of these.

Apart from a natural revulsion for the idea of a grown man, in a position of trust, who is expected to be a moral exemplar (and perhaps a confessor), engaging in manipulation, deception and intimidation of children in return for sexual favours, many Catholics have walked away from the Church because they saw a cover-up - the clergy protecting their own above all and trying to keep the institution's reputation "clean" (Fail!). For many, too, this was the last straw in a series of disappointments and disillusionments with the institutional church that began with the encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968.

Homosexual orientation, to my knowledge, has always until recently been viewed with sympathy by the Church, if not by the more "muscular" sort of Catholic (one of my bosses was quite openly homophobic, though a generous-spirited man in other respects). There have been homosexual saints, as long as they've been celibate, and the recently beatified Cardinal Newman is widely regarded as having had quite open homosexual orientation. However, there has not been, to my knowledge, any suggestion that he did not keep his vow of celibacy. Looking at some work recently on the Christian Sannyasi, Bede Griffiths (d. 1993), I would think he had some (maybe not strong) homosexual orientation, but he never violated his monastic vows. He certainly did say, in the latter part of his life, that he believed homosexuality to be as "natural" as heterosexuality.

So the issue for the Church and for the clergy has not been homosexuality, but celibacy. Until recently, when the child abuse became well known, candidates for the priesthood were not checked out for their orientation, but for their character and aptitudes in general. It was understood that they were applying for a celibate vocation and that this must be inviolate regardless of one's sexual inclinations. Since the child abuse scandals, however, candidacy processes include a closer look at any indication of homosexuality, and men who have engaged in a "gay lifestyle" are not admitted. So, although most educated people understand clearly the difference between homosexuality and pederasty, the priestly abuse scandals have not been helpful to homosexual candidates for the priesthood who genuinely wish to serve and to abide by their vows of celibacy. I'm sure many homosexual men of good faith and ability will be lost to the Catholic clergy as a result, and that is unfortunate.

Perhaps we also need, in our condemnation of the priestly pedophiles' behaviour, to not lose sight of the vulnerable humanity of the men concerned. I knew some of these men. The pedophile was not the whole man. That they had these weaknesses and succumbed to them led them to lives of great unhappiness. They knew they were despoiling their own lives as well as the innocence of their victims, but they also had gifts and virtues that people knew them by and the knowing of which caused such shock when their misdeeds were revealed. I remember especially one colleague who phoned me in distress and told me she could not get over the sense of betrayal she had as a result of a well-regarded senior administrator's uncovering. His was difficult for all of us who knew him because he was, to us, a very decent person and a very fair administrator. But his victims from 30 years before (he'd since become laicised, married and had a family), had not forgotten and were still very bitter. It seems we never really know people.

Thank you for this post, XSH, especially for the last paragraph. One so rarely sees any sympathy for the man behind the pedophile priest (sorry for the double entendre). Most of these people enter the priesthood with high ideals, and take the vow of celibacy without realising that it is something too rigid for them to keep. Their failure is something which they themselves regret deeply, but which they are not strong enough to resist. The man who enters the priesthood intending to tamper with young boys is rare indeed.

My criticism is reserved for the senior church officials who condone their lapses; they are the real culprits.

When I was a young (legal age) man I enjoyed a wonderful affair with a handsome young gay Catholic priest. Knowing he was "sinning" and being a total hypocrite gave it an extra edge for me even though I didn't share his faith. For him, I think he was a matzoh queen which might have been an extra edge for him. I can't say it was a religious experience.

Thank you for this post, XSH, especially for the last paragraph. One so rarely sees any sympathy for the man behind the pedophile priest (sorry for the double entendre). Most of these people enter the priesthood with high ideals, and take the vow of celibacy without realising that it is something too rigid for them to keep. Their failure is something which they themselves regret deeply, but which they are not strong enough to resist. The man who enters the priesthood intending to tamper with young boys is rare indeed.

My criticism is reserved for the senior church officials who condone their lapses; they are the real culprits.

Perhaps the Catholic Church ought to reconsider its views on celibacy then? The CofE seems to get along fine without it. Perhaps those who want to take vows of celibacy ought to enter monasteries where the temptation isn't as great.