Christians in Denial
Aaron Kinney Permalink
32 comments
Paul Manata has a recent entry over at Press The Antithesis, where he tries to show that atheism has dark days ahead. Too bad his sources for this conclusion are Darwin and Hume, not exactly the best place to find contemporary, modern trend/prediction data with patterns such as collective social beliefs.
The fact is, that atheism is on the rise. In the developed world, atheism is more prevalent than it has ever been, and here is the source.
I don't want to get into too much detail, for that link has plenty of detail already. Please click on it. But I will state that the Catholic Church has been lamenting Europe's increase of secular humanism as of late. Funny that they ignore the fact that Europe's losing of religion coincides with a reduction of crime, (especially murder and rape, and other violent crimes), an increase in life expectancy, a reduction in STD infections, a reduction in teen pregnancy rates, and a reduction in infant mortality.
Not to mention that between 1990 and 2003, the "nonreligious" percentage in America doubled from 8% to 16%. How's that for growth? Any religious systems in America growing that quickly? Here is the source for that figure.
Missionaries and priests themselves will tell you, as they have told me: The only successes in evangelizing are happening in undeveloped and developing nations. In the developed world, religion is dying. Churches are closing their doors, and priests have to be imported from third world nations to make up the shortage of them (that's right, a double shortage of both church attendance and priest supply!). Just the other day, I read an article in the paper about how so many closed churches are being converted to houses and businesses and shelters, because nobody is around to worship in them anymore.
When people like Manata talk about recent trends regarding belief in society, they should stick to referencing current-day sources, not old predictions from Hume and Darwin.
Post a Comment
32 Comments:
Good blog, Aaron, a great point, and some wonderful online sources as well. Short and powerful, right to the point. Excellent work.
As for Manata and other presuppers, they like to quote Hume because they can't tackle anyone else. I've been a convinced atheist since 1992, and I've yet to encounter a devoted Humean. I'm not saying there's none out there, but if there are any, I suppose they're few and far between.
Honestly, when I became an apostate, the number of atheists in the world was the last thing on my mind. But, knowing that there are others who are waking up from the religious nightmare is comforting to my hope for the future.
Thank you for the kind comments everyone. Ive been in heated debate over this fact in many christian forums on the net. The ironic thing is that most preachers know this fact already, but most devout Christians deny it with all their might. Interesting, no?
A funnt thing to note is that EUROPE is the most Godless place in the world, yet the cities in Europe dominate the "happiest places to live" ratings from all the various research groups.
Aaron: "The ironic thing is that most preachers know this fact already,"
That's probably because they need to be more in tune with sizing up the field, and they're noticing that church coffers (the ultimate measuring stick for church leadership) aren't what they used to be, or just aren't sufficient to cover upkeep costs.
Aaron: "but most devout Christians deny it with all their might. Interesting, no?"
It's probably the case that those Christians who've taken it upon themselves to "defend the faith" are simply determined not to give in on any point that they think might be satisfying to their non-believing opponents. In the Christian worldview, numbers of adherents to a view is extremely important. I'm constantly being reminded about how many academic philosophers and books don't mention Rand, for instance, as if this were somehow significant. They don't realize that academia is prone not to accept someone other than their own, and Rand was certainly not an academic. Indeed, she's what academics tend to loathe the most: someone immensely successful in business. Even more than 20 years after her death, her books sell like hotcakes.
you have your sources we have ours, taken from "Mission Frontier." See their documentation.. anyway, here's the relevent quote:
Look What God Is Doing!
Especially if you're in a dull little corner of Christendom, it's critical that you realize what God is doing these days around the globe. Here are a few highlights:
• 3,000 new churches are opening every week worldwide.
• The Church in Africa is increasing by 20,000 per day on the average; the southern part of that continent was 3% Christian in 1900 and is nearly 60% Christian today.
• Worldwide, Christianity is growing at the rate of 90,000 new believers every day.
• More Muslims in Iran have come to Christ since 1980 than in the previous 1,000 years combined.
• In 1900, Korea had no Protestant church; it was deemed "impossible to penetrate." Today Korea is 35% Christian with 7,000 churches in the city of Seoul alone.
• In Islamic (Muslim) Indonesia, the percentage of Christians is so high the government won't print the statistic--which is probably nearing 15% of the population.
• After 70 years of oppression in Russia, people who are officially Christians number about 85 million--56% of the population. In one Siberian city people are being baptized 24 hours a day!
• God is creatively sending Chinese believers to reach Tibetans, Hondurans to reach North African Muslims and Navajos to reach Laplanders. There are currently more than 60,000 non-Western missionaries from over 1,000 non-Western mission agencies. Many of these are serving in places which are hostile to Western missionaries.
Where the church has been planted, it's growing like wildfire. The Good News is breaking loose worldwide:
• In AD 100, only one in every 360 people was an active believer. Today one in ten people is an active believer (9 to 1). (See chart above)
• In AD 100 there were 12 unreached people groups per congregation of believers. Today, with six million churches worldwide, there are 600 congregations for every remaining unreached people group!
Is that the best you scumbags can do ? Quote numbers from impoverished countries turning to your vampire religion, and compare your Church with that of 100 CE ? (by the way, drop the AD, it's not an anno domini, there was no domini)
You disgusting vampiric Christian scumbag.
Anon, none of the stats you quoted call into question Aaron's point that "In the developed world, atheism is more prevalent than it has ever been," that in major western countries "religion is dying." In fact, most of your stats simply confirm Aaron's statement that "The only successes in evangelizing are happening in undeveloped and developing nations."
Anon: "Where the church has been planted, it's growing like wildfire."
This is just wishful Christian exaggeration. The "church" was planted in western countries, and it's wilting like a dried out leaf in those countries.
Anon: "3,000 new churches are opening every week worldwide."
And how many are closing every week worldwide? I know in many Bay Area neighborhoods such as my own, I've seen countless churches come and go. Some stick around, but many languish until they finally close their doors for good.
Anon: "Christianity is growing at the rate of 90,000 new believers every day."
Sure, in places where the culture is already steeped in some kind of primitive mysticism which primes people to be vulnerable to missionizing. A good question to ask is: what is the adult literacy rate in the places where Christianity is thought to be spreading so wonderfully?
Anon: "In Islamic (Muslim) Indonesia, the percentage of Christians is so high the government won't print the statistic--which is probably nearing 15% of the population."
See what I mean? Indonesia? I've been to many places in Asia, but haven't been to Indonesia, and don't have any desire to go there. I had a co-worker who worked in Indonesia for six months (she was establishing a health clinic). She was grossed out because the people there don't use toilet paper - instead, they grow the nail on their left thumb really long so that it can serve as a kind of scoop. Isn't that nice? No one touches another person's left hand over there. Christians can have 'em! (But they better expect a fight with the Muzzies.)
I know that in Thailand, where I have traveled several times before, it's fashionable among some young people today who want to associate with western styles, to call themselves Christian-Buddhists. One of my wife's friends is such a person. I asked him if he sees any conflict between Buddhism and Christianity, and he said not at all. But it's clear they don't take Christianity very seriously. It's trendy, not truth. Thais are far too live and let live for Christianity to take a firm footing there.
Anon: "After 70 years of oppression in Russia, people who are officially Christians number about 85 million--56% of the population."
Let's not forget the fact that Russia was Christianized in 988 by Vladimir I - by force, that is. Throughout its history since then Russia has been a hotbed of Christian mysticism (ever heard of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Metropolitan See? Ever wonder why Moscow is sometimes called the Third Rome?) It's because of Christianity, whose political implications are clearly and obviously collectivistic in nature, that Russia turned Communist so readily. They simply replaced the religious god with a secular one. Philosophically, however, they share every essential (something Jack Kemp doesn't want you to realize).
Also, I wonder if Anon has considered which variant of Christianity is on the rise in third world nations. I understand that Pentecostalism is the champion among the non-Catholic versions of Christianity, and I also understand that Mormonism is also making a big splash everywhere as well (probably even more so than other forms of Christianity). So once all these places turn Christian, you're going to see more and more strife among Christians - and the rise of more Christian militant groups (the bible nowhere teaches against slavery and the initiation of the use of force), much of it due to doctrinal disputes (as we find today among internet apologists). But I expect that we'll still see believers trying to view all these degenerative trends in a positive light, amassing statistics such as those that this fellow how wants to remain anonymous wants to publish before us and attribute to his god. What's funny is that if the variants of Christianity that are spreading successfully in these third world nations are something other than the 5-point Calvinism, well, they've got a big problem on their hands, don't they?
BB- All Of Aarons statements and sources are just "wishful thinking."
Also, he's a liar. We are graduating HUNDREDS of students from our reformed Seminaries each year who are going to pastor churches.
Anon: "We are graduating HUNDREDS of students from our reformed Seminaries each year who are going to pastor churches."
So the brainwashing mill is pumping out more herds of pre-programmed sheep. Is that supposed to impress me?
I found some interesting things in this post, Aaron. Especially as to how it relates to your chastising Manata. here's an example:
Aaron: "When people like Manata talk about recent trends regarding belief in society, they should stick to referencing current-day sources, not old predictions from Hume and Darwin."
Anon: I guess when people talk about philosophical issues they shouldn't reference Ayn Rand either.
Anon says, "I found some interesting things in this post, Aaron. Especially as to how it relates to your chastising Manata. here's an example:
Aaron: "When people like Manata talk about recent trends regarding belief in society, they should stick to referencing current-day sources, not old predictions from Hume and Darwin."
Anon: I guess when people talk about philosophical issues they shouldn't reference Ayn Rand either."
But we really don't even have to do this. We could just borrow aaron's consistent tactic and not read what he says and 'contend' that he's wrong. (see Goodman, Bahnsen, and Van Til). :)
p.s. for more background to the previous post see the past few blog comment sections...
Anonymous-
Anon: I guess when people talk about philosophical issues they shouldn't reference Ayn Rand either.
What a ridiculous non sequitur. The issue was recent social trends. Even if the issue was recent philosophic issues, Rand beats Hume by two centuries.
Anon,
As BB pointed out, all your stats only CONFIRM what Ive been saying.
Yes of course Christianity is growing in undeveloped nations. Hardly any suprise is it? Christianity is migrating to Africa because its historical core, Europe and America, is dying from the inside out.
In nations where education, health sesrvices, and opportunity are available (Developed nations) theism, especially Christianity, is wilting.
Anon, it doesnt suprise me at all to see that you deny what the Catholic Church in Europe and the Protestant Church in America are already admitting. Ive seen many faithful do this... trying to deny what their own church leaders concede.
I provided a couple of links to support my assertions. And I do not dispute your assertions that in Africa and other places of human misery have Christianity spreading. In reality, you have prvided no argument against anything I have said in here.
Oh wait, you mentioned HUNDREDS of new seminary students. Okay, well even if theres HUNDREDS it does nothing to refute my priest shortage assertion, because you give no context. Is "hundreds" above average or below average? Where is the context?
Im going to back up my assertions with evidence now. Read these links please:
Future Church website on Priest Shortage statistics
USA Today article on priest shortage
You also tried to take a jab at me an my Van Til quote, but have you refuted anything I said about faith and Van Til? Have you provided a Van Til quote where he actually defines faith and "blind" faith? Nope.
Why am I the only one that supports my assertions? And why is it that the only time "anonymous" cites actual statistics, they merely agree with my assertions about the third world?
I will use the dreaded "induction" to cite the past and make a prediction about the future. Here it is:
Once the third world develops and catches up with America and Europe (100+ years from now), it will lose religion just like the developed world is doing now.
:P
This is true CADman. I have read articles from both "secular" newpapers and "Christian" websites that talk about the importing of clergy from places like Africa and India etc...
Zachary Moore said: "What a ridiculous non sequitur. The issue was recent social trends. Even if the issue was recent philosophic issues, Rand beats Hume by two centuries."
Anon: No, the analogy is loose but you should have got it, smart guy. If you're gonna reference Philosophers, at leats don't reference someone who isn't in ANY companions to Philosophy. Who isn't in ANY history of philosophy books. Who hardly ANY college professors waste their time on. And who most philosophers consider a HACK and a JOKE.
Anon,
What does Rand have to do with my blog entry about the decline of Christianity and all theism in the developed world anyway?
Anonymous-
You mean false analogy. Have you been able to find a blind person yet?
Anon: "If you're gonna reference Philosophers, at leats don't reference someone who isn't in ANY companions to Philosophy. Who isn't in ANY history of philosophy books. Who hardly ANY college professors waste their time on. And who most philosophers consider a HACK and a JOKE."
I guess I won't reference Jesus Christ then. There's no entry for any thinker bearing that name in any of my philosophy anthologies. Come to think of it, they don't mention Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, Oliphant, or even Paul Manata. So they must not have any authority on matters philosophical as well.
"I guess I won't reference Jesus Christ then. There's no entry for any thinker bearing that name in any of my philosophy anthologies. Come to think of it, they don't mention Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, Oliphant, or even Paul Manata. So they must not have any authority on matters philosophical as well."
Anonymous scumbag, in my authority as member of this blog team, I declare you officially zinged.
The score is BAHNSEN BURNER 1, ANONYMOUS SCUMBAG 0. We'll be back after these messages.
BB-"I guess I won't reference Jesus Christ then. There's no entry for any thinker bearing that name in any of my philosophy anthologies. Come to think of it, they don't mention Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, Oliphant, or even Paul Manata. So they must not have any authority on matters philosophical as well."
Well, you're wrong, first off. Jesus is mentioned in a few history of philosophies, and so are many Christian thinkers mentioned in almost EVERY anthology (think: Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Edwards). Secondly, most of these books mention "Christianity." Thirdly, they are mostly an account of *secualr* philosophy, and so their focus isn't on Jesus or Mohammed for that matter. Fifthly, why wouldn't Rand be mentioned by her ilk? It's even more embarrssing when you consider that if she was ANYTHING she SHOULD have been mentioned since the purpose is to portrary secular views of philosphy. Sixth, I have a reason, men hate God and their sinful nature is such that they seek to supress the truth. What's your excuse?
Moore: "You mean false analogy. Have you been able to find a blind person yet? "
Anaon: I don't need to, for I deny your whole premise there, does it make you feel good to beat up on straw men? C'mon Zach, be honest, when you feel like half a man (which is most the time) you go around the neighborhood and pick on 10 yr olds, don't you. When you actually feel like engaging let me know.
Oh yeah, have you got around to answering my questions? You can e-mail me the answers if you're too embarrassed to have them critiqued in public. Hey, I understand that you wanted to stay as reserved as possible, it's sinful nature and pride to not want to get embarrassed. Anyway, when you think you can answer my questions, as I did ALL of yours, just let me know.
Franc: "Anonymous scumbag, in my authority as member of this blog team, I declare you officially zinged."
Sorry if I don't take Mr. "My specialty is transcendental arguments yet I deny a crucial element to them" Tremblay, seriously. You wouldn't know when someone got zinged if it bit you on your flacid bum.
My bum is on the Franc, bum is on the Franc, it's a lot of fun to put your bum on a Franc.
Anonymous-
I don't need to, for I deny your whole premise there
Fair enough, by denying my premise you are accepting materialism. I have no problem with that.
Zach: "Fair enough, by denying my premise you are accepting materialism. I have no problem with that."
Anon: I missed that, maybe you could logically lay it out for me? Also, "materialism" is the belief that all that exists is matter (or, mind is immaterial but has emerged from, and is dependant upon, matter, e.g., epipheneomonalism). So, you're saying that since a blind person could not have the concept green without seeing it then, therefore, all that exists is matter?
Make no mistake, that *is* your argument and it's called a hasty generalization, and I also fail to see how it follows, especialy considering the sort of mind/body thesis that I hold to-a unity not a duality.
Remember, you're positing that *all* that exists is matter. All I have to do is to provide but ONE example of an immaterial thing (unless you're an epiphenominalist?) to disprove your thesis. Having said that, now you see why you needed to deal with *all* my questions.
Anyway, my refutation of your green/nanometer argument has been shattered. I proved how you did not have a necessary account of attribute agreement. Of course you can say that it isn't problematic, but I and many think it is, so if it's so easy then you'd need to provide a necessary account of attribute agreement, follwing the variables I left you on the other site. But, Zack, we both know that you hadn't studied a lick on the problem of universals and were just trying to save face, I understand Zack. No one likes to look like an ignorant person and like they don't know something. It's called pride, Zack. The Bible tells us of this sin. So, I understand why you acted the way you did and I don't hold it against you. To be honest, I felt a little sad for you, but I think we've all been there.
Anon: "Well, you're wrong, first off. Jesus is mentioned in a few history of philosophies,"
I just checked again, there's no entry for a guy named Jesus in any of mine, as I stated before.
Anon: "and so are many Christian thinkers mentioned in almost EVERY anthology (think: Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Edwards)."
As I stated, there are no entries for guys named Van Til, Bahnsen, and many other hyped up philo-babblers.
Anon: "Secondly, most of these books mention 'Christianity'."
Irrelevant.
Anon: "Thirdly, they are mostly an account of *secualr* philosophy, and so their focus isn't on Jesus or Mohammed for that matter."
None of mine make secularism the point of their collection, but rather history. Again, I don't see entries for a guy named Van Til, so apparently history has not caught up with him?
Anon: "Fifthly, why wouldn't Rand be mentioned by her ilk?"
Here's where you derail yourself with your own assumptions. Rand is not of the "ilk" that is mentioned in most contemporary philosophy anthologies. Rand was not an academic, and modern academics tend not to accept anyone other than their own. Worse, Rand was a successful businesswoman, and academics absolutely hate such persons. Also, Rand was a fierce champion of capitalism, and it's no secret that academics can't stand that, either. Meanwhile, Rand's books continue to sell faster and at higher volumes than Rorty, Popper, Wittgenstein, Hegel, Bosanquet, Husserl and even your Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame et al. put together. So the demand is out there for her stuff, and many university professors and educators are starting to take interest in her achievements. Sciabbara, Kelley, Ridpath, Bernstein, Gotthelf and Locke are just to name a few. So, be patient.
Anon: "It's even more embarrssing when you consider that if she was ANYTHING she SHOULD have been mentioned since the purpose is to portrary secular views of philosphy."
Actually, I see it quite differently. Since Rand was not an academic, it's going to take a lot of academics a long while to warm up to her, and given her vociferous and uncompromising defense of capitalism, I would find it surprising if she were mentioned in many such anthologies. Meanwhile, I see that you can't argue against any Objectivist position, so that speaks louder to me than any statistic you want to put forward.
Anon: "Sixth, I have a reason, men hate God and their sinful nature is such that they seek to supress the truth."
Well, may the force be with you in your cartoon universe.
Anon: "What's your excuse?"
Excuse for what? I need no excuses.
Anonymous-
So, you're saying that since a blind person could not have the concept green without seeing it then, therefore, all that exists is matter?
No, I'm saying that green, or greeness, or whatever you want to call the concept of the color green, is dependent on material reality. If, as you say, green is immaterial, then it is not dependent on material reality, and therefore a blind person would have as much knowledge of it as you. So all you have to do to prove that green is immaterial is to find a blind person with whom you can have an intelligible conversation about green.
All I have to do is to provide but ONE example of an immaterial thing (unless you're an epiphenominalist?) to disprove your thesis.
Yes, and you've failed every time.
Anyway, my refutation of your green/nanometer argument has been shattered.
I would agree that your refutation has been shattered.
But, Zack, we both know that you hadn't studied a lick on the problem of universals
Amazing, then, that I was able to disprove one of your examples of an immaterial universal.
No one likes to look like an ignorant person and like they don't know something. It's called pride, Zack.
I'm fully prepared to accept your expert opinion on the matter.
So, I understand why you acted the way you did and I don't hold it against you.
As do I, but I don't want to subvert the topic of this blog any more, so if you want to respond to me on this subject, please do so by email. You have my permission to post our email correspondence and make fun of me as much of you like.
Anon: "Anyway, my refutation of your green/nanometer argument has been shattered."
Zach: "I would agree that your refutation has been shattered."
I agree as well: Anon's "refutation" has been shattered.
I think that Anonymous Coward Scumbag's brain has been shattered.
Great blog. If I can just get your RSS feed to work, I'll be a regular reader. Keep up the good work!
anonymous uses an ad hominem attack to explain away the fact that his pro-God writers arent favored by many philosophers.
"They all hate God so its a conspiracy to deny the 'TRUTH'!"
Broad, generalized ad hominem attacks such as this are ESSENTIAL to the Christian Apologetic.
This is the same thing as Manata saying (to paraphrase) "All people are born with knowledge of Christ. Those that do not agree, are merely lying and self-deceiving evil bastards."
Anon, an ad hominem defense for your Christian position is no defense at all.
Aaron: "Anon, an ad hominem defense for your Christian position is no defense at all."
And yet, he demands us to answer questions like "What's your excuse?" Quite derranged!
<< Home