Secularism: Mod note in first post

AllForIt

Mod: As we had two completely separate discussions going on in the 'do you read the bible?' thread, I have split off the secularism aspect of the discussion. I think I have got all the relevant posts, if anyone wants me to move their post either way please pm me.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But this communal dimension isn't unique to religion. Secularism, for example, isn't just about what I should do; it's also about what we should do. So a fully-realised secularism has to be expressed collectively as well as individually.

Erm...bit uncomfortable with the slant you put on it. Secularism only exists because of religion. If their were no religion there would be no secularism. I can certainly see how there can exist a movement of anti-religion which one might take up as a cause, but in itself not subscribing to a religion could hardly be described as a belief in itself. That's just absurd.

Two thoughts on that:

1. Others may envy your simple faith!

2. Does it necessarily matter who wrote it? It seems an odd basis for choosing which heavy text you'll read.

Firstly you first link is fascinating, thanks for that.

Not quite sure where your coming from in your second point. I would have though that who wrote the bible and where the ideas came within it were of critical importance ?

Oh, I was just about to post and I've noticed you've said "Other's may envy your simple Faith" in your link to the Shakespeare article. That neatly brings me back to the psychology of religion. What really shows there is a sense that you feel you've got something over everyone else that doesn't have such a faith. Why do you think someone who doesn't have faith would be envious of someone who does? I put it to you that that presumption of envy is completely in your own mind and is a big factor in why one might be religious in the first place. Would you feel so superior if everyone was a Catholic? Of course you wouldn't because you would't stand out then.;)

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

Erm...bit uncomfortable with the slant you put on it. Secularism only exists because of religion. If their were no religion there would be no secularism. I can certainly see how there can exist a movement of anti-religion which one might take up as a cause, but in itself not subscribing to a religion could hardly be described as a belief in itself. That's just absurd.

Tell that to George Holyoake, who coined the term "secularism"and founded the National Secular Society (which is still with us). He insisted that secularism is a positive philosophy, with its roots in the philosophy of the classical world - Zeno, Epicurus, Marcus Aurelius - and that it's not simply a response to religion, but has affirmative things to say about how we should live and how we should act.

OK, maybe you, I and G. H. Holyoake are using the word "secularism"to mean slightly different things. But it doesn't really matter. Forget secularism. The point is that there are plenty of non-religious philosophies that have an essential communal dimension - humanism, for example; socialism; liberalism; romanticism. Humans are relational creatures; an essential dimension of humanity is the relationships that we have with one another; no account of what it is to be a human being that doesn't address relationships can be complete. Any philosophy or belief that has implications for how we should conduct those relationships or how we should act in common has an essential communal aspect, because relationships are something we cannot create or conduct in isolation from one another.

So, yeah, religion is mostly a shared thing. But this is not surprising, and religion is not unusual in that.

AllForIt wrote: »

Not quite sure where your coming from in your second point. I would have though that who wrote the bible and where the ideas came within it were of critical importance ?

The era, the culture; yes. The names of the authors of the individual texts, not so much. Some names we have, some we don't, and some we're not entirely sure about, but this doesn't go very much to the significance or influence of the texts. As noted, the value of performing, watching or studying Shakespeare (the plays) doesn't really depend on whether they were written by Shakespeare (the man), and most people who perform, watch, read the plays get by just fine without knowing or caring that there's any controversy about authorship. Why should it be any different for other heavy texts?

AllForIt wrote: »

Oh, I was just about to post and I've noticed you've said "Other's may envy your simple Faith" in your link to the Shakespeare article. That neatly brings me back to the psychology of religion. What really shows there is a sense that you feel you've got something over everyone else that doesn't have such a faith. Why do you think someone who doesn't have faith would be envious of someone who does? I put it to you that that presumption of envy is completely in your own mind and is a big factor in why one might be religious in the first place. Would you feel so superior if everyone was a Catholic? Of course you wouldn't because you would't stand out then.;)

It was a joke, AllForIt. Be assured that I don't feel superior to you at all. I am not worthy to untie even the strap of your sandal, etc, etc.

But you do make an interesting point; people who have a worldview which they believe to be right, or to be better than alternative worldviews, can radiate an air of superiority over those who hold other worldviews. If I have a correct understanding of reality and you have a different understanding, your understanding must by definition be incorrect, and you must be more stupid than me, or otherwise more limited, to be unable to discern, as I can, that your understanding is wrong.

This arrogance is not confined to religious worldviews, of course. It's not difficult to find examples of atheists expressing disdain for believers or approbation of atheists as a group, and we can also find this going on as between worldviews which have no implications for religion at all - e.g. the way some people speak of Trump supporters, and the way some Trump supporters speak of non-Trump supporters, etc.

We could speculate that this points to some essential, or at least common, insecurity that humans feel, and that we seek to deal with by emphasising our own superiority, using belief (or race, or national identity, or educational attainment, or gender, or anything really) to mark us out as different from, and superior to, those people over there. And while exploring this make for be an interesting psychological study, I'm not sure that it will have anything profound to say about the psychology of religion, as such, or about the psychology of belief more generally. I suspect the fact that people use belief to distinguish themselves from those to whom they wish to feel superior is probably incidental; almost any characteristic would serve just as well.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

people who have a worldview which they believe to be right, or to be better than alternative worldviews, can radiate an air of superiority over those who hold other worldviews. If I have a correct understanding of reality and you have a different understanding, your understanding must by definition be incorrect, and you must be more stupid than me, or otherwise more limited, to be unable to discern, as I can, that your understanding is wrong.

This, to me, is why secularism is so important to society. If we can work on the basis that what we believe is a subjective personal choice where others may hold equally valid yet diametrically opposed beliefs we can move away from who is right and who is wrong to how we should act in such as way as is best for the collective good. I have no great interest in other peoples personally held beliefs until such time as they try to impose them, or the morality informed by their beliefs, on me and my family.

Fourier

Peregrinus wrote: »

Just a small quibble: the idea of an afterlife isn't entirely absent from the OP;

Quite right, I should have remembered as it is an innovation Hayes mentions in her book (which I recommended above) attributing it to Greek influence as you said.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

This, to me, is why secularism is so important to society. If we can work on the basis that what we believe is a subjective personal choice where others may hold equally valid yet diametrically opposed beliefs we can move away from who is right and who is wrong to how we should act in such as way as is best for the collective good. I have no great interest in other peoples personally held beliefs until such time as they try to impose them, or the morality informed by their beliefs, on me and my family.

In a continued spirit of nit-picking, what you're describing there is not secularism; it's more like pluralism.

Secularism is the view that choices and actions should be based solely in regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God/an afterlife. In the political context secularism generally refers to the application of this principle to the choices and actions of the state.

So, a pluralist secularist might take the view that his/her choices/actions should have no regard to God etc (and likewise the choices/actions of the state) but hold that the choices/actions of others should be based on considerations that seem good to them.

Whereas an, um, evangelical secularist, to coin a phrase, might urge others to base their choices/actions on considerations that do not include God, etc.

And a really evangelical secularist might argue not that the actions of the state should be taken without regard to God, but that the state should encourage, favour, accommodate, advantage or reward individual citizens who make choices without regard to God, etc.

And an extreme (and definitely non-pluralist) secularist might argue that the state should compel citizens to do this, or penalise or disadvantage those who do not.

In other words, there's a spectrum here. All those people would be secularists, but they're at different points on a spectrum of pluralism.

(And of course people who are non-secular could also be at various points on the pluralism spectrum.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secularism is the view that choices and actions should be based solely in regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God/an afterlife.

Do you have a reference for that definition? Can't find any mention of God or an afterlife in any definition of secularism in the more widely used dictionaries. I tend to go with Merriam-Webster as per usual;

MW wrote:

Definition of secularism
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations

Whether the religions that I'm indifferent to believe in God and an afterlife, Allah, Thetans, Spaghetti monsters, reincarnation or fairies at the bottom of the garden is not my concern, merely that these religions doesn't impose their beliefs on wider society.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Do you have a reference for that definition? Can't find any mention of God or an afterlife in any definition of secularism in the more widely used dictionaries. I tend to go with Merriam-Webster as per usual.

The Oxford English Dictionary. (The big, multi-volume one.)

The Merriam-Webster defintion that you cite isn't that different. "Exclusion of religion and religious considerations" is pretty much at the core of the OED defintion, and indifference to/rejection of religion looks like an extended meaning that developed because, if people tended to exclude or disregard religiouS considerations, it was probably because they were indifferent to religion, or they rejected religion.

In the political context, the context of the state, though, the difference matters. Most people argue that the state should be secular in the OED sense; its choices and actions should have no regard to considerations about God/religion/the afterlife. (So it offends against this principle, for example, to insist that a public official should be a Christian, or should perform a Christian ritual, take a Christian oath, etc.) But they wouldn't go on to say that the state should "reject religion" if that means, e.g, excluding believers from public office, or requiring officials to repudiate religion in some way. The state should disregard religion, which means neither embracing/endorsing it, nor rejecting it.

So, a secular individual may well reject religion, proclaim his or her atheism, etc, and many do. But a secular state simply disregards religion; it adopts no position on religious questions, and does not allow them to influence law or policy. A state which actively rejected religion and professed/promoted atheism would not, I think, conform to most people's understanding of a "secular state"

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, a secular individual may well reject religion, proclaim his or her atheism, etc, and many do. But a secular state simply disregards religion; it adopts no position on religious questions, and does not allow them to influence law or policy. A state which actively rejected religion and professed/promoted atheism would not, I think, conform to most people's understanding of a "secular state"

Agreed, but as per my post you were originally nit-picking, this clearly implies that a secular society containing different religious groups will aspire to pluralism. So for example if we look at the Wikipedia article on secularism under aspirations of a secular society we see the following;

• Refuses to commit itself as a whole to any supernatural views of the nature of the universe, or the role of mankind in it.
• Is not homogeneous, but is pluralistic.
• Is very tolerant of religious diversity. It widens the sphere of private decision-making.
• While every society must have some common aims, which implies there must be agreed upon methods of problem-solving, and a common framework of law; in a secular society these are as limited as possible.
• Problem solving is approached rationally, through examination of the facts. While the secular society does not set any overall aim, it helps its members realize their shared aims.
• Is a society without any official images. Nor is there a common ideal type of behavior with universal application

.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, but as per my post you were originally nit-picking, this clearly implies that a secular society containing different religious groups will aspire to pluralism. So for example if we look at the Wikipedia article on secularism under aspirations of a secular society we see the following;

Mmm. I'm going to be a bit critical of the Wikipedia article with regard to "a secular society", so. It seems to me that if society is diverse, and pluralistic, and contains individuals and communities expressing a variety of views on religious questions, then it's not really a "secular society". It may be a society in which there is a consensus that the state should be secular, but the society itself is diverse; it contains secular elements (individuals and communities) but it also contains non-secular, religious elements, and I don't see that the secular elements characterise the society in a way that the non-secular elements don't.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mmm. I'm going to be a bit critical of the Wikipedia article with regard to "a secular society", so. It seems to me that if society is diverse, and pluralistic, and contains individuals and communities expressing a variety of views on religious questions, then it's not really a "secular society". It may be a society in which there is a consensus that the state should be secular, but the society itself is diverse; it contains secular elements (individuals and communities) but it also contains non-secular, religious elements, and I don't see that the secular elements characterise the society in a way that the non-secular elements don't.

Of course society is diverse, and acknowledging and have mechanisms to work with that diversity is largely what secularism attempts to address. From the National Secular Society (UK)

Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from religion.

If you take this in the context of a society that has many differing belief systems, it clearly demands pluralism.

AllForIt

Peregrinus wrote: »

Tell that to George Holyoake, who coined the term "secularism"and founded the National Secular Society (which is still with us). He insisted that secularism is a positive philosophy, with its roots in the philosophy of the classical world - Zeno, Epicurus, Marcus Aurelius - and that it's not simply a response to religion, but has affirmative things to say about how we should live and how we should act.

According to his Wikipedia profile he died in 1906 so it would be a bit difficult to put my points to him. If I could contact him beyond the grave to put my points then I think I've lost the argument. I scanned his wikipedia page and it says he was convicted of blasphemy, so it's not so surprising he held the views he did. I don't agree with him anyway but can totally understated where he was coming from in the era he came from.

OK, maybe you, I and G. H. Holyoake are using the word "secularism"to mean slightly different things. But it doesn't really matter. Forget secularism. The point is that there are plenty of non-religious philosophies that have an essential communal dimension - humanism, for example; socialism; liberalism; romanticism. Humans are relational creatures; an essential dimension of humanity is the relationships that we have with one another; no account of what it is to be a human being that doesn't address relationships can be complete. Any philosophy or belief that has implications for how we should conduct those relationships or how we should act in common has an essential communal aspect, because relationships are something we cannot create or conduct in isolation from one another.

The thing about region for me as distinct from other non-religious philosophies you mention, is to what extent does a religious person expect to interact with society that matches their own belief on a daily basis. I wouldn't have though that a humanist society would ever say that the government has a duty to provide public schooling for their offspring, based on their own humanist philosophy.

When I hear arguments that Catholic ethos schools should continue to exist that tells me that the psychology of a person who is religious is driven to live in a communal society where everyone who surrounds them as far as possible believe the same thing. That's psychologically totally understandable to me.

But you do make an interesting point; people who have a worldview which they believe to be right, or to be better than alternative worldviews, can radiate an air of superiority over those who hold other worldviews. If I have a correct understanding of reality and you have a different understanding, your understanding must by definition be incorrect, and you must be more stupid than me, or otherwise more limited, to be unable to discern, as I can, that your understanding is wrong.

You bet they can. As a non-believer I would never ever say that someone who is religious is stupid. I don't care what science has ever been presented, no science has ever definitively explained the origin of the universe. Personally I am much more interested in the psychology of why one is religious and one is not.

This arrogance is not confined to religious worldviews, of course. It's not difficult to find examples of atheists expressing disdain for believers or approbation of atheists as a group, and we can also find this going on as between worldviews which have no implications for religion at all - e.g. the way some people speak of Trump supporters, and the way some Trump supporters speak of non-Trump supporters, etc.

Yes, but Trump supports are not advocating Trump ideology. Trump Schools.

We could speculate that this points to some essential, or at least common, insecurity that humans feel, and that we seek to deal with by emphasising our own superiority, using belief (or race, or national identity, or educational attainment, or gender, or anything really) to mark us out as different from, and superior to, those people over there. And while exploring this make for be an interesting psychological study, I'm not sure that it will have anything profound to say about the psychology of religion, as such, or about the psychology of belief more generally. I suspect the fact that people use belief to distinguish themselves from those to whom they wish to feel superior is probably incidental; almost any characteristic would serve just as well.

Well if there is a God then psychology has noting much to do with it. I don't think there is so it's all about psychology for me.

.........

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, a secular individual may well reject religion, proclaim his or her atheism, etc, and many do. But a secular state simply disregards religion; it adopts no position on religious questions, and does not allow them to influence law or policy. A state which actively rejected religion and professed/promoted atheism would not, I think, conform to most people's understanding of a "secular state"

This isn't a thread about secularism, but as you've referred to it at length, true secularism doesn't take sides between belief and non belief. Collectively in a representative democracy, politician's beliefs, beliefs that are both religious and non religious, shape a country's law, policy and morality. If a very large proportion of citizens beliefs are automatically excluded from being allowed to have any influence on law or policy, and only non religious beliefs are permitted to shape state policy, then what you have in effect is state atheism, no matter how much you try to disguise it or dress it up as 'secularism'.

AllForIt

Peregrinus wrote: »

In a continued spirit of nit-picking, what you're describing there is not secularism; it's more like pluralism.

Secularism is the view that choices and actions should be based solely in regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God/an afterlife. In the political context secularism generally refers to the application of this principle to the choices and actions of the state.

So, a pluralist secularist might take the view that his/her choices/actions should have no regard to God etc (and likewise the choices/actions of the state) but hold that the choices/actions of others should be based on considerations that seem good to them.

Whereas an, um, evangelical secularist, to coin a phrase, might urge others to base their choices/actions on considerations that do not include God, etc.

And a really evangelical secularist might argue not that the actions of the state should be taken without regard to God, but that the state should encourage, favour, accommodate, advantage or reward individual citizens who make choices without regard to God, etc.

And an extreme (and definitely non-pluralist) secularist might argue that the state should compel citizens to do this, or penalise or disadvantage those who do not.

In other words, there's a spectrum here. All those people would be secularists, but they're at different points on a spectrum of pluralism.

(And of course people who are non-secular could also be at various points on the pluralism spectrum.)

I really can't believe what you are saying here. Peregrinus you usually talk logicaly but this post of yours is embarrassingly way of the mark.

I'm afraid I'm going have to nit pick every point of yours so here goes.

Secularism is the view that choices and actions should be based solely in regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God/an afterlife. In the political context secularism generally refers to the application of this principle to the choices and actions of the state.

What a warped description of secularism that is. Secularism is nothing more than a rightful desire that a religious ethos should not be forced on the peoples of a state. Secularism in itself doesn't hold within it any opinions or views on anything. I find it totally bizarre that you would describe secularism in the way you have. Seriously bizarre.

So, a pluralist secularist might take the view that his/her choices/actions should have no regard to God etc (and likewise the choices/actions of the state) but hold that the choices/actions of others should be based on considerations that seem good to them.

This point again make no sense to me. Secularism has nothing whatsoever to to do with points of view or choices or actions. Really weird take on it by you.

And a really evangelical secularist might argue not that the actions of the state should be taken without regard to God, but that the state should encourage, favour, accommodate, advantage or reward individual citizens who make choices without regard to God, etc.

This statement of yours is very worrying from the point of view of your personal psychology. The state is not in the position that it should further or encourage or accommodate or reward the personal views of it's citizens. Not in non-criminal actions anyway. Bizarre comment by you.

Your final points are so vague to the point one would surmise your talking total nonsense. Are you feeling alright? Your not thinking of going down the evangelical route are you, you've used that word a lot in your post.

looksee

Mod: Allforit, please make your argument without getting personal.

Nick Park

AllForIt wrote: »

Your not thinking of going down the evangelical route are you, you've used that word a lot in your post.

As an Evangelical Christian who is also a convinced secularist, I found that amusing.

It might help to draw a distinction between two uses of the word 'secularism' as in the following quote:

One of the problems with the words secular and secularism is that they are used in two entirely different ways. Some people understand secularism as a desire to eradicate religion from public life altogether – that you can practise religion in private but shouldn’t speak about it in public. Heiner Bielefeldt, Professor of Human Rights and Human Rights Policy at the University of Erlangen, makes a very useful distinction between doctrinal secularism and political secularism.
Doctrinal secularism is anti-religious in nature and wants to see religion banished altogether. In many ways this kind of aggressive secularism functions like a dogmatic religion itself.
Political secularism is the idea that the State should be entirely neutral with respect to religion, and that religion should be afforded no special privileges and subject to no special restrictions. In a politically secular society all religious groups, and those of no religion, operate on a level playing field and compete in the marketplace of ideas. As Bielefeldt puts it, political secularism “gives religious communities their independence from unwanted state intervention, and makes possible that people across religious boundaries enjoy equal rights and an equal status as citizens.” In other words, a church should have exactly the same right as the Vegetarian Society or the Humanist Society to meet, operate, raise funds, or voice their opinion on political and social matters.

Doctrinal secularism seeks freedom from religion, and in doing so treats religion as a special category to be discriminated against. Political secularism protects freedom of religion, reasoning that religion (including minority religions) should not be discriminated against, but neither should it receive any special powers or privileges.

How does this work out in practice? Here are a few scenarios.

1. The Dept of Foreign Affairs holds regular gatherings for NGO's and Human Rights groups. A doctrinal secularist might argue that any faith-based groups should be excluded from participation. A political secularist might argue that faith-based groups should be treated like anyone else.

2. A publicly funded school or university allows various student groups to use classrooms for clubs and societies. A group of students want to meet as a Christian Union. A doctrinal secularist might refuse permission on the grounds this is a violation of separation of church and state. A political secularist might grant permission on the grounds that religious activities should be granted the same status as any hobby or pastime.

3. Should a national broadcaster like RTE which is funded by the licence fee provide religious broadcasting? A doctrinal secularist might argue for no such programmes. A political secularist might take the view that given the large number of citizens who attend a religious service each week (more than the combined numbers who attend or play rugby, soccer or GAA matches) then a public broadcaster should reflect the interests of viewers and listeners. Therefore permitting religious programming is no less secular than permitting the broadcasting of sporting events.

As long as we keep confusing the two types of secularism, then any discussion of the subject will descend into nitpicking and chaos.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Doctrinal secularism seeks freedom from religion, and in doing so treats religion as a special category to be discriminated against. Political secularism protects freedom of religion, reasoning that religion (including minority religions) should not be discriminated against, but neither should it receive any special powers or privileges.

I suspect the confusion arises because you're citing what for many are two polar extremes on what is actually a spectrum of possible positions. Personally, I tend to agree with the notion of that secularism ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from religion.

The issue as I see it in Ireland is that we do not know where people's preferences lies with respect to church involvement in the running of the state and making of policy. So on the one hand we see a census where the larger majority of citizens self identify as Catholic, and the people acting against the wishes of the Catholic church to varying degrees on matters such as LGBT rights, contraception, abortion, and who should run our schools and hospitals.

I certainly think any society that enables and sponsors a church to proselytise children into a religion irrespective of whether it is that child's religion cannot be considered secular.

smacl

......... wrote: »

If a very large proportion of citizens beliefs are automatically excluded from being allowed to have any influence on law or policy, and only non religious beliefs are permitted to shape state policy, then what you have in effect is state atheism, no matter how much you try to disguise it or dress it up as 'secularism'.

A secular democracy is still a democracy first and foremost. Peoples's beliefs will always influence laws and policy in a democracy, as opposed to say a theocracy where the laws are informed by church dogma. Secularism fully supports freedom of religious expression, it simply seeks to have decisions made based on the shared needs of society rather than the preferences of the church.

Hotblack Desiato

Nick Park wrote: »

given the large number of citizens who attend a religious service each week (more than the combined numbers who attend or play rugby, soccer or GAA matches)

[citation needed]

.........

smacl wrote: »

A secular democracy is still a democracy first and foremost. Peoples's beliefs will always influence laws and policy in a democracy, as opposed to say a theocracy where the laws are informed by church dogma. Secularism fully supports freedom of religious expression, it simply seeks to have decisions made based on the shared needs of society rather than the preferences of the church.

You've missed the actual point. No one claimed it isn't. But that depends entirely on if you're talking about true democracy and true secularism, a secularism which doesn't take sides over belief or non belief, or just facilitates non belief in policy and takes only and interpretation of secularism that suits an agenda that is in fact much closer to state atheism e.g. The official title of North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Do you consider it truly democratic ? The same with secularism, just because you have a truly democratic country, there is no guarantee that it will implement true secularism, if its politicians don't understand what true secularism is. Most religious people I know want true secularism, not a version of secularism that is in fact closer to state atheism that actual secularism.

smacl

......... wrote: »

You've missed the actual point. No one claimed it isn't. But that depends entirely on if you're talking about true democracy and true secularism, a secularism which doesn't take sides over belief or non belief, or just facilitates non belief in policy and takes only and interpretation of secularism that suits an agenda that is in fact much closer to state atheism e.g. The official title of North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Do you consider it truly democratic ? The same with secularism, just because you have a truly democratic country, there is no guarantee that it will implement true secularism. Most religious people I know want true secularism, not a version of secularism that is in fact closer to state atheism that actual secularism.

So perhaps you could define 'true secularism' as distinct from 'secularism'? As per my previous post to Peregrinus, most dictionaries will define secularism as Merriam-Webster do, i.e. 'indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations'. Interestingly, googling 'True Secularism' comes up with the following article for me as the first hit, which describes political secularism as pseudo-secularism.

Nick Park

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

[citation needed]

Gladly provided.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-football-is-most-attended-sport-according-to-sports-council-survey-1.1948431

20.3% of adults attended at least one sporting event in 2013.
6.7% attended Gaelic Football
4.2% Hurling/Camogie
5.4% Soccer
2.5% Rugby

http://sportforbusiness.com/irelands-10-most-played-sports/

5.9% play soccer
4% play GAA
1.4% play rugby

Meanwhile: https://faithsurvey.co.uk/irish-census.html

Over 40% attend church weekly.

In other words, twice as many people in Ireland attend church weekly as attend a sporting event annually.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

So perhaps you could define 'true secularism' as distinct from 'secularism'? As per my previous post to Peregrinus, most dictionaries will define secularism as Merriam-Webster do, i.e. 'indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations'. Interestingly, googling 'True Secularism' comes up with the following article for me as the first hit, which describes political secularism as pseudo-secularism.

I'm not sure that terms like "true secularism" are going to be helpful; even if not so intended, they look like an attempt to claim an authenticity or value for one sense of the word, and to deny it to others. It's like arguing about who's a true atheist, or who's a true Catholic; it will generate more heat than light.

Can I suggest there's at least two axes along which we can measure degrees of secularism?

First, running with the Merriam-Webster definition, "secularism" can embrace both indifference to, and rejection of, religion. But those are two every different concepts, so "secular" can mean anything on a scale between sublime indifference to religion, and active rejection or repudiation.

Secondly, an individual may be secular in that he himself is indifferent to religion or he rejects religion, or he may be secular in the sense that he argues for the state to be indifferent to, or to reject, religion. And you could make the same comment about a society. Secularity can refer to the person, the individual, or it can refer to the collective, society, the state.

This makes for a matrix of possibilities. Nick, for example, is clearly not secular on a personal level; he's a devout religious believer, and a minister of religion to his community. But he argues for a secular state.

Another person who argues for a secular state might not agree with Nick's vision of what a secular state looks like. Not to put words in Nick's mouth, but his vision of a secular state might lean more towards the state being indifferent to religion - i.e. treating individuals, groups, institutions etc in a way which pays no attention whatsoever to their religion or lack of it, while someone else might argue that a secular state should be more rejecting of religion, limiting it, marginalising it or excluding it from the public square. Both can plausibly name their stances as secular stances, but neither can claim that secularity mandates their particular stance. And, awkwardly, neither can claim that everybody who advocates for state secularity can be assumed to agree with them, and to support their particular vision of a secular state.

And we also have to remember the distinction between society, the nation, the country on the one hand and the state, the government on the other. The US might an example of a society that is (relatively) religious, with a state that is (largely) secular, while the UK might be a more secular society, with a state that in significant respects is not secular (established churches, bishops in parliament, religious tests for public office).

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can I suggest there's at least two axes along which we can measure degrees of secularism?

Agreed, though outside of those two I'd guess most of the other axes are ones that people have to grind.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

How does this work out in practice? Here are a few scenarios.

Based on the limits of those examples, I'd tend more towards political secularism by your definition. To look at some other examples however, I guess you might consider me more doctrinal, e.g.

1) Should the government be allowed gift the National Maternity Hospital to a religious order?

2) Should religious orders be funded by the state to run religious ethos schools?

3) Should religious dogma be allowed inform medical decision making in state funded hospitals?

For me, needless to say, the answer would be no to all of the above. As per the secular society wording, I think freedom of religion needs to be balanced with freedom from religion, and done so in such as way as meet the preferences of the people in a proportional manner. As things stand, so far as I'm aware, we do not know what peoples secular preferences are in this country.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Based on the limits of those examples, I'd tend more towards political secularism by your definition. To look at some other examples however, I guess you might consider me more doctrinal, e.g.

1) Should the government be allowed gift the National Maternity Hospital to a religious order?

I'd suggest that the criteria by which state aid/support is provided to voluntary hospitals should pay no attention to whether the voluntary hospitals have a religious character or not. Strictly secular criteria should be used.

smacl wrote: »

2) Should religious orders be funded by the state to run religious ethos schools?

I'd suggest that the criteria by which state aid/support is provided to schools should pay no attention to whether the schools have a religious character or not. Strictly secular criteria should be used.

smacl wrote: »

3) Should religious dogma be allowed inform medical decision making in state funded hospitals?

I'd say it's not the business of the state to dictate medical decision making. I'd say that, to the extent that the state is concerned about the treatments provided or not provided in public hospitals, the religious or non-religious character of the hospital's decision-making process should be disregarded; the only question should be whether the hospital is willing to provide services which the state's policy for providing medical care requires the hospital to provide.

smacl wrote: »

For me, needless to say, the answer would be no to all of the above. As per the secular society wording, I think freedom of religion needs to be balanced with freedom from religion, and done so in such as way as meet the preferences of the people in a proportional manner. As things stand, so far as I'm aware, we do not know what peoples secular preferences are in this country.

As regards the way they choose to live themselves - personal secularism, if you like - we don't have a huge amount of information. We assume that the pattern is diverse - some people are more secular than others, and furthermore people may be secular in some respects (e.g. rarely go to mass; do not pray) but less so in other respects (give to charity; have their children baptised, want a church wedding, prefer a Catholic school).

Arguably, though, this is mostly not the state's business. The state shouldn't care whether I'm religious or non-religious, except to the extent that this is going to impact on activities of the state.

As regards whether the state should be secular, again we don't have much information on what people think. Again, we assume there's probably a diversity of opinion out there. As already noted, secularity is a fairly flexible concept, particularly as applied to the state, so if there were to be further research on this, it would need to be fairly in-depth, not only exploring whether people like the idea of a secular republic, but exploring what they thought a secular republic would look like.

But, with regard to the secularity of the republic, one further point. True, we don't really know the state of public opinion about this, but a lot of people would argue that this doesn't necessarily matter. A lot of people would see secularity as a matter of fundamental principal, like democracy, and the rule of law, and equality before the law. It doesn't matter whether these things are popular or not; they are desirable in themselves. And, if you're of this view, then the republic should be secular regardless of whether a majority or a minority of the citizens favour a secular republic.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Based on the limits of those examples, I'd tend more towards political secularism by your definition. To look at some other examples however, I guess you might consider me more doctrinal, e.g.

1) Should the government be allowed gift the National Maternity Hospital to a religious order?

2) Should religious orders be funded by the state to run religious ethos schools?

3) Should religious dogma be allowed inform medical decision making in state funded hospitals?

1. If the government gifts hospitals to other private organisations, then they should also be able to gift one to a religious order. My own preference is that publicly funded hospitals should be fully owned and operated by the HSE.

2. Again, my interpretation of a politically secular State means 'open to all, or not at all'. Either all publicly funded schools should be run by the State, or else public funding for privately owned schools (as happens in the UK with charter schools) should be equally accessible to religious and non-religious entities alike.

3. No, religious dogma should not be allowed to inform medical decision making in state funded hospitals (unless the decision is being made by the patient).

There are a number of other areas of life where I would like to see a more secular approach adopted. For example:

4. Religious bodies should not be subjected to discriminatory restrictions with regard to TV and radio advertising. If the manufacturers of a chocolate bar are allowed to imply that you might find eating it a beneficial experience then a church should be allowed to imply that you might find attending a Christmas Carol service to be a beneficial experience too.

5. The current system of charity registration should be replaced by a system whereby non-profit organisations are treated alike, without the State making any value judgement as to whether their aims are good or not (at present 'promoting religion' is a legal criteria by which a charity can be recognised).

Hotblack Desiato

Nick Park wrote: »

Over 40% attend church weekly.

Based on what? Supposedly a 2006 survey by RTE, but I'm expected to take the word for it of "catholicculture.org" whoever they are, they don't provide a link to the actual source.

You're going to have to do far better than that I'm afraid. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence after all, and 40% weekly church attendance is by any standards an extraordinary claim.

Peregrinus

I don't think it was that extraordinary a claim for 2006.

Still, I'd take it with a pinch of salt. Studies in other countries suggest that measuring church attendance by asking people about their habits tends to produce higher rates than studies which work by counting people who attend. In other words, people over-estimate their frequency of attendance.

Still, the notion that on a typical weekend more people rock up to church than rock up to a football game is entirely plausible to me. Even if the faithsurvey.co.uk figure were halved to allow for overreporting and changed habits in the past ten years, you'd still have as many people going to church every week as go to a football game every year.

Nick Park

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Based on what? Supposedly a 2006 survey by RTE, but I'm expected to take the word for it of "catholicculture.org" whoever they are, they don't provide a link to the actual source.

No, the European Social Survey of 2010 - which, according to my link, indicated that 41% attend church weekly.

Whatever way you slice and dice it, even the lowest estimates of church attendance still show more people attending church weekly than attend sports events annually.

Mark Hamill

Nick Park wrote: »

No, the European Social Survey of 2010 - which, according to my link, indicated that 41% attend church weekly.

Whatever way you slice and dice it, even the lowest estimates of church attendance still show more people attending church weekly than attend sports events annually.

Might be something to do with the cost of the ticket to attend sports matches in person.

robindch

Nick Park wrote: »

Whatever way you slice and dice it, even the lowest estimates of church attendance still show more people attending church weekly than attend sports events annually.

Would be interesting to break down these figures for church attendance by - say - age and desire-to-be-there. Educational and income levels would be fun attributes to graph out as well. And to see how these things change over time. It's news to nobody that religious congregations are declining as their average age is increasing.

Going out on a limb here, but I'm going to suggest that there'd likely be a strong inverse relationship between youth and interest level.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Might be something to do with the cost of the ticket to attend sports matches in person.

You wonder if they put Mass on the telly at the same time as the Sunday game, which would have higher viewing figures? Or as real test of faith to the flock, how about if it clashed with Game of Thrones? :pac:

Nick Park

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Might be something to do with the cost of the ticket to attend sports matches in person.

Or it might not, since sporting events include your local GAA club, amateur soccer team etc. which are often free to attend matches.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

You wonder if they put Mass on the telly at the same time as the Sunday game, which would have higher viewing figures? Or as real test of faith to the flock, how about if it clashed with Game of Thrones? :pac:

Oh, I'd rather watch paint dry than watch a televised mass.

My point is, that if religion is something that a significant portion of the population participates in, then it is entirely consistent for a public broadcaster in a secular society to devote proportionate time and funds to producing creative and interesting religious broadcasting.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Oh, I'd rather watch paint dry than watch a televised mass.

My point is, that if religion is something that a significant portion of the population participates in, then it is entirely consistent for a public broadcaster in a secular society to devote proportionate time and funds to producing creative and interesting religious broadcasting.

No issue with that in principal, though our national broadcaster often seems challenged enough in making creative and interesting programs without religion. Unlike say primary school places, it is not as if the viewer doesn't have plenty of alternative options if a religious program doesn't float their boat. All that said, Gaybo and Stephen Fry seems to have elicited plenty of interest even among us heathens.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Whatever way you slice and dice it, even the lowest estimates of church attendance still show more people attending church weekly than attend sports events annually.

Depends what you call a match. Up in my neck of the woods there are games being played on multiple sports fields every Sunday and regularly on week nights. I'd say many if not most peoples kids play some sports at the weekend as do many parents. Mostly amateur, for fun and fitness, and very much a community activity. Not unlike Mass used to be in some respects, though arguably more healthy and much more fun.

Most people who attend matches are participants, and I'd guess they not only outnumber regular mass goers, but show quite a bit more devotion. Some of course do both.

.........

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure that terms like "true secularism" are going to be helpful; even if not so intended, they look like an attempt to claim an authenticity or value for one sense of the word, and to deny it to others. It's like arguing about who's a true atheist, or who's a true Catholic; it will generate more heat than light.

I think that's a bit of deflection. As secularism isn't taking sides between belief and non belief, or excluding belief and non belief, it's quite easy to determine if something is actually secularism or state atheism disguised as secularism. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea might like to claim that there is no such thing as 'true' democracy and therefore they can claim any definition of democracy they like, but I think we all know actual democracy and secularism when we see it in action and how citizens with or without belief are treated, and it's not how you defined it, what you defined is much closer to state atheism.

Hotblack Desiato

Nick Park wrote: »

No, the European Social Survey of 2010 - which, according to my link, indicated that 41% attend church weekly.

There must be as many liars in that survey as there are bogus Irish speakers in the census.
Easy to give the 'safe' answer or the one you think the surveyor wants to hear especially in a face-to-face survey.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There must be as many liars in that survey as there are bogus Irish speakers in the census.
Easy to give the 'safe' answer or the one you think the surveyor wants to hear especially in a face-to-face survey.

Why "must" there be that many liars? Is it that your preconceptions require it?

I've already pointed out that, yes, surveys which measure church attendance by asking people whether they attend, and surveys that measure church attendance by counting people who attend, do produce different results.

But there's no logical necessity that this difference must be such that the numbers actually attending church are fewer than the numbers actually attending football games. This is simply an article of faith on your part, unsupported so far by any evidence at all.

The same phenomenon is observed in other areas, incidentally. Surveys show that, in the period after an election, a higher proportion of the electorates reports that they voted for the winning party than actually voted for the winning party according to the election results.

And this lead so the conclusion that, if we're going to correct the reported church attendance figures for over-reporting, for consistency we must also correct the reported football game attendance figures for over-reporting. We have no reason to assume that the same "I like to give the answer that reflects well on me" factor won't be at work there, too.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Would be interesting to break down these figures . . .

Knock yourself out. You can download the raw data.

robindch wrote: »

Going out on a limb here, but I'm going to suggest that there'd likely be a strong inverse relationship between youth and interest level.

There's a positive correlation between age and attendance rates, if that's what you mean.

It remains to be seen whether this means that attendance rates will continue to drop as existing low-attending cohorts mature and older high-attending cohorts suffer, ahem, demographic shrinkage, or whether people who are less prone to go to church in their younger years become more prone to do so as they mature. Or a bit of both.

My guess, FWIW, is a bit of both, but more of the former than the latter.

Nick Park

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There must be as many liars in that survey as there are bogus Irish speakers in the census.
Easy to give the 'safe' answer or the one you think the surveyor wants to hear especially in a face-to-face survey.

There would appear to be little point in asking for a citation if you automatically reject as 'lies' any survey that doesn't fit with your own notions.

I mentioned worship attendance/participation in relation to sports attendance/participation as an illustrative aside in a point about broadcasting and a secular society. You asked for a citation.

When I provided a citation you moaned about how one of the surveys in it came from a Catholic source and ignored the one that was from a secular source.

When I pointed out that my citation included a survey which was from a secular source you dismissed it, without providing any counter evidence, as lies.

All the research done in this area indicates that more people in Ireland attend religious worship than play in or attend sporting events of any description - let alone my more modest point about GAA, rugby and soccer. The research indicates that the numbers attending religious worship are massively greater - weekly participation/attendance at religious worship (in percentage terms) exceeding annual participation/attendance at sports events.

If you want to continue down this rabbit trail then I would ask you to provide a citation to support the extraordinary claim, contrary to all published research, that participation/attendance at football matches in Ireland (of any code) exceeds participation/attendance at religious worship.

Nick Park

robindch wrote: »

Going out on a limb here, but I'm going to suggest that there'd likely be a strong inverse relationship between youth and interest level.

So, what you're saying is that those with more life experience are much more likely to be interested in religion than those with little life experience?

Fair enough, although it seems to be a strange point for an atheist to make.

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why "must" there be that many liars? Is it that your preconceptions require it?.

Definitely.

Hotblack Desiato

Nick Park wrote: »

There would appear to be little point in asking for a citation if you automatically reject as 'lies' any survey that doesn't fit with your own notions.

Twisting my words.
I never said the survey is lies. It inevitably contains a proportion of liars, however.

It's well known in any survey asking an 'emotional' question or one where there is a perceived judgment on the participant if they give a particular answer. People will lie to avoid giving the awkward or unpopular answer.

This is a systematic bias present even in paper surveys (Irish speakers and catholics in the census) but most pronounced in face to face surveys. Particularly when there's no way to tell if you're lying or not. Some fecker stops you in the street and starts asking you questions you find embarrassing or uncomfortable, yet you feel it's too late now to decline, so you give them the answer they want to hear that doesn't raise any awkward follow up questions.

For the abortion debate, in particular, this needs to be borne in mind. (And yes there were 'shy Nos' in the marriage equality surveys, and this was seen to some extent in the actual vote)

It's difficult to see how a face-to-face survey can overcome this huge inherent bias.

An actual count of attendance rather than surveys would be worthwhile. No doubt the RCC has good figures of its own but isn't going to release them.

Towers Wilson report preparaed for the RC is mentioned here http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mass-attendance-in-dublin-to-drop-by-one-third-by-2030-1.2504351

Weekly Mass attendance levels in Dublin are currently put at 20-22 per cent (of the population), while being as low as 2-3 per cent in some working-class parishes

Now even accepting the 20-22% figure as accurate and not an overestimate, it's completely not credible to arrive from there to an overall population figure of 40% for weekly church attendance. I'll run the figures later but I'd be surprised if it's even mathematically possible.

If you want to continue down this rabbit trail then I would ask you to provide a citation to support the extraordinary claim, contrary to all published research, that participation/attendance at football matches in Ireland (of any code) exceeds participation/attendance at religious worship.

Twisting words again. I made no such claim, which is a rather silly claim in any case as some people do both and many do neither. All I did was question the 40% figure.

Nick Park

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Twisting my words.
I never said the survey is lies. It inevitably contains a proportion of liars, however.

The semantics just kicked into overdrive. The liars were either statistically significant or not. If they were not statistically significant, then not worth mentioning. If they were statistically significant, then their responses are, by most people's definitions, 'lies'.

It's well known in any survey asking an 'emotional' question or one where there is a perceived judgment on the participant if they give a particular answer. People will lie to avoid giving the awkward or unpopular answer.

Such as asking people whether they participate in sporting activity? Or whether they actually attend live sporting events rather than being the kind of couch potatoes who just watch sport on the TV?

Now even accepting the 20-22% figure as accurate and not an overestimate, it's completely not credible to arrive from there to an overall population figure of 40% for weekly church attendance. I'll run the figures later but I'd be surprised if it's even mathematically possible.

Let's unpack what you just posted. You have just cited a source that states the percentage of weekly mass attendance in Dublin (which, by common consensus, is the least religious area in the country by a considerable margin) is greater than the percentage of the population that attends a sporting event (all sports, not just football) once per year.

Twisting words again. I made no such claim, which is a rather silly claim in any case as some people do both and many do neither.

The issue of whether people do both or neither is statistically irrelevant to the stated fact that more people participate/attend religious worship than participate/attend GAA, rugby or soccer.

All I did was question the 40% figure.

No, what you did was request a citation for my claim that more people participate/attend religious worship than participate/attend in GAA, rugby or soccer.

However, you have now yourself provided a citation stating that the weekly participation/attendance at religious worship in the most irreligious part of the country is, in percentage terms, still higher than the national percentage of those who participate/attend any sport (not merely GAA, rugby or soccer as I claimed) once per year.

So, unless you want to keep quibbling that the difference between the two figures is slightly less massive than in the citation I provided, presumably the point is conceded and we can go back to discussing secularism?

robindch

Nick Park wrote: »

So, what you're saying is that those with more life experience are much more likely to be interested in religion than those with little life experience?

Fair enough, although it seems to be a strange point for an atheist to make.

Rookie mistake there Nick - correlation does not imply causation.

One could also point out that religion is more important to people with gray hair, or to people who are closer to death.

In terms of a belief system which claims to prevent people from death, which explanation is more likely to be the right one?

Hotblack Desiato

Someone did a very good post a while back looking at the non-religious figures by age cohort over the last few censuses. Their conclusion - those who ticked non-religious in the past continue to do so as they age (and even in the oldest age cohorts, there are people who never ticked NR before who are doing so now.) Meanwhile the proportion of younger adults ticking NR is going through the roof. There is no reason to believe a substantial proportion of them are going to become religious in future if 14 years of daily RC indoctrination didn't work.

Hotblack Desiato

Nick Park wrote: »

So, unless you want to keep quibbling that the difference between the two figures is slightly less massive than in the citation I provided, presumably the point is conceded and we can go back to discussing secularism?

I was questioning the 40% or 41% weekly church attendance claim, not anything to do with sport.

Let's plug in some figures. They're far from complete and not necessarily reliable but they're the best we have as far as I'm aware.

From Census 2016: RC 78% Non-religious 10% Others 12%. Also the population of the greater Dublin area is 40% of the total population

Towers Wilson report states/claims that the Dublin weekly attendance at RC mass is 22%. I am assuming that this is 22% of self-declared catholics not 22% of the whole population.

I am also assuming the non-RC-religion attendance rate is 50% (possibly being quite generous here - Church of Ireland, the largest sub-group, states15%) - and for non-religious it is zero

To reach the claimed overall weekly church attendance of 41%, the proportion of RCs outside the greater Dublin area attending each week needs to be no less than 60%.

I think the RC church would be very happy indeed if that were the case (apart from finding it difficult or impossible to manage with the current numbers of priests.) Perhaps it is 60% or more in some rural areas, but in cities and large towns outside Dublin, I don't think so - do you?


|Proportion of Total Population|Attendance Rate|Proportion of Total Population Attending

RC-Greater Dublin Area|0.31|0.22|0.07
RC-Rest of Irl|0.47|0.60|0.28
No Religion- Whole of Irl|0.10|0.00|0.00
Other Religion - Whole of Irl|0.12|0.50|0.06

|1.00||0.41

Nick Park

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I was questioning the 40% or 41% weekly church attendance claim, not anything to do with sport.

Let's plug in some figures. They're far from complete and not necessarily reliable but they're the best we have as far as I'm aware.

From Census 2016: RC 78% Non-religious 10% Others 12%. Also the population of the greater Dublin area is 40% of the total population

Towers Wilson report states/claims that the Dublin weekly attendance at RC mass is 22%. I am assuming that this is 22% of self-declared catholics not 22% of the whole population.

I am also assuming the non-RC-religion attendance rate is 50% (possibly being quite generous here - Church of Ireland, the largest sub-group, states15%) - and for non-religious it is zero

To reach the claimed overall weekly church attendance of 41%, the proportion of RCs outside the greater Dublin area attending each week needs to be no less than 60%.

I think the RC church would be very happy indeed if that were the case (apart from finding it difficult or impossible to manage with the current numbers of priests.) Perhaps it is 60% or more in some rural areas, but in cities and large towns outside Dublin, I don't think so - do you?


|Proportion of Total Population|Attendance Rate|Proportion of Total Population Attending

RC-Greater Dublin Area|0.31|0.22|0.07
RC-Rest of Irl|0.47|0.60|0.28
No Religion- Whole of Irl|0.10|0.00|0.00
Other Religion - Whole of Irl|0.12|0.50|0.06

|1.00||0.41

So my point is proved.

You want to quibble that the margin by which attendance at worship exceeds that at sporting events is slightly less massive than the citation I quoted.

Knock yourself out. I'd prefer to discuss secularism.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Someone did a very good post a while back looking at the non-religious figures by age cohort over the last few censuses. Their conclusion - those who ticked non-religious in the past continue to do so as they age (and even in the oldest age cohorts, there are people who never ticked NR before who are doing so now.) Meanwhile the proportion of younger adults ticking NR is going through the roof. There is no reason to believe a substantial proportion of them are going to become religious in future if 14 years of daily RC indoctrination didn't work.

Your point is sound, but I think we're conflating two issues here. Declining church attendances are not simply, or even mainly, the result of rising identification as non-religious/atheist/whatever. The bulk of the decline is not accounted for by the absence from church of people who identify as unbelievers , but by the absence of people who identify as believers, but don't go to church.

So, in terms of predicting the future, the question is not whether people who identify as unbelievers will suddenly get religion and start rocking up to church. The question is whether people who identify as believers but don't attend will attend more as they get older.

There's some evidence from other western societies which have secularised before Ireland did that, yes, this does happen; the older a believer is, the more likely he or she is to attend church, and this remains true in the long term, which means that as the individual believer ages, he or she is more likely to attend. But this is not a very strong pattern.

So, on the one hand the church will lose attenders as the relatively high-attending older cohorts die off. On the other, they'll gain attenders as the cohort of non-attending believers matures, and more of them start to attend.
(For simplicity we can ignore other factors, like unbelievers converting to belief, and starting to attend; they are likely to be too small to make any difference to the overall picture.)

My fairly confident bet is that the loss of attenders through death will, for the next few decades at any rate, substantially exceed the gain of attenders through higher rates of attendance from the maturing cohorts, so the overall decline will continue albeit that the rate of decline will reduce, and eventually tail off. We can't say where church attendance will bottom out, except that it will be at a level lower than at present. But since we don't have a terribly precise idea of what the present level of attendance is, that doesn't cast much light.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Rookie mistake there Nick - correlation does not imply causation.

One could also point out that religion is more important to people with gray hair, or to people who are closer to death.

In terms of a belief system which claims to prevent people from death, which explanation is more likely to be the right one?

They are not inconsistent.

If you assume that people's minds are concentrated by the (relative) closeness of death, they might be going to church because they think of this as some kind of investment in the afterlife. On the other hand, they might equally be going to church because the relative closeness of death has brought home to them the importance of living life well, and they find that going to church is part of a well-lived life.