
The Age Gap in Religion Around the World - JumpCrisscross
http://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/the-age-gap-in-religion-around-the-world/
======
mmagin
At least in my experience, as a gen-X person in the US:

For at least a generation now, organized religions have been doing a poor job
of addressing people's personal spiritual needs, while at the same time being
the bastion of various sorts of social conservatism with justifications that
often don't hold up in the context of modern scientific knowledge.

Now, I do think this is sometimes quite unfortunate, as it sometimes leaves
these people easy prey to even less rationalistic religions and cults. (A
certain amount of practice at various sorts of critical thinking may also
immunize you against these things as well.)

~~~
red75prime
> being the bastion of various sorts of social conservatism

Aren't they conservative out of necessity? You cannot rapidly change
interpretation of the holy texts, and keep the congregation assured that you
are true to the hundreds/thousands years of tradition/the words of the
prophet.

~~~
danaris
Social progressivism does not require willingness to change holy texts. If you
look at the Christian New Testament, most (though possibly not all, I don't
claim encyclopedic knowledge of it) of the teachings Jesus line up quite well
with social progressive values in the US today—things like caring for the
poor, the sick, and immigrants and refugees.

The fact that the "religious right" is a thing in the US today doesn't
particularly indicate that this is the natural order of things. While I'm no
longer religious myself, much of my family still is, but identifies as part of
the "Christian left," and pushes very strongly against the view that religious
must necessarily equal Republican.

------
travisgriggs
This text focuses on the religiousity of generations, and the comments below
demonstrate that religiosity is a really squishy term.

I would be more interested in the more general notion of “values.” Every
generation goes through some sort of rebellion against its previous
generations. I’m interested in the general question of “to what extent does a
younger generation hold/cling to the values imparted from their parents,
including amongst others, traditions, religion, philosophies about governance
and civics, etc.”

------
BrandoElFollito
The article does not make much sense as it, at least for France.

We have a tremendous difference in the adoption of religions by age depending
on the religion. There is no "average".

When I was a child in the 80's, I have never heard of Ramadan. My children,
same age same school know everything about it. Same for hallal food.

When I see people of my age (mid-40) who as Muslims, their religiousness is
medium to poor. The next generation is very much different, way more
religious.

Atheists are more or less the same.

Catholics are in decline, except in some places where the tradition is strong
(Versailles for instance).

So averaging "religion" over a whole country does not yield any sensible
results in some countries. In other maybe.

------
ThJ
It's tempting to view this as being about trends, but there's a maturity
element as well. Young people tend to want to try different things. They also
haven't experienced much hardship or given much thought to (life after) death.
For many people, religion only comes into the picture when life gets serious.

~~~
stevenwoo
The data in the study broadly contradicts the insecurity argument -
belief/adherence to religion is generally higher the lower the
lifespan/education level/economic disparity/GDP across a country's population.
The long term studies of the USA referenced (because that is where they have
the data long term) shows young people have not always deviated from old
people in their religious convictions, either, so maturity is not a complete
explanation.

~~~
denverkarma
But the study specifically says that the data may indicate that people become
more religious as they age.

~~~
stevenwoo
I read all of that as hypothesis, are you talking about this part?

"Another theory is that differences in religious commitment reflect change
during the life course. Although young adults often start out less religious
than their elders, they tend to become more devout as they age, have children
and begin to face their own mortality (or so the theory suggests)."

They have a lot of hypothesis that could all be true - i.e. the younger people
who started off with a lower percentage religious as measured would end up
with a higher percentage religious if measured as a group later, but still
less than the current age group measured right now.

Or maybe this one?

While not ruling out the influence of other factors – such as when and where
people live – one research team argued that “life course trajectories may
trump generational placement as predictors of religious behaviors and
orientations.”

Lastly, they have the caveat that America is kind of special case with several
contravening indicators, with some conditions among the best and among the
worst.

------
ekianjo
> Japan, religion is only very important for 10% of adults

Yet Japanese spend routinely 20 000 to 30 000 USD to have a religious
(Buddhist) ceremony for their dead family members. Very generic statistics
about vague opinions don't explain everything.

~~~
tomerico
The ceremony might be a matter of culture, and less about religious belief.

~~~
joelcornett
What’s the difference?

~~~
danaris
One can spend large amounts of money on a wedding without having a priest
present to conduct the ceremony. That, too, is a cultural phenomenon, not
purely a religious one.

------
lazysheepherd
Why is this [flagged]? May whoever flagged this come forth with an
explanation?

------
denverkarma
It would be fascinating to see a meta study that ignores the traditional
definition of organized religion and instead looks at “religious”
characteristics. What are the behaviors that make Buddhism and Islam both
religions?

Beliefs that a person holds deeply, holds on faith without requiring proof,
bases their life choices on, and evangelizes as the truth.

By that measure, aetheist San Francisco is the most religious place I’ve ever
lived. The religions focus on the right way living or eating, and the
evangelism is off the charts.

I would argue that the younger generation isn’t significantly less religious,
but rather that they’re all inventing new religions or following scattered and
informal tribes online. It’s like a new philosophical primordial soup from
which I suspect we will see organized and “formal” religions emerge given
sufficient time.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _By that measure, aetheist San Francisco is the most religious place I’ve
> ever lived_

You've constructed a loose definition of religion that approximates the common
definition of culture. The term "religion" is generally reserved for "claims
to relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements"
[1]. (That said, "there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely
constitutes a religion.")

A better term for the behavior you describe might be "zealotry."

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)

~~~
travisgriggs
I consider a lot of the arguments that come out of modern hype movements to be
based on near supernatural reaches of selective logic and rationalization.

Also, I think that while parsing religion from culture would be a handy
classification, they don’t really decouple that easy.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _near supernatural reaches of selective logic and rationalization_

Near is not at. Conspiracy theorists aren't religious. They're just zealous.
People become zealous about many things. What differentiates religion is the
explicit invocation of supernatural causes. That delineation is meaningful, to
the person making the claim as well as in society's treatment of the claim.
(Particularly in the United States, where the Constitution treats religious
zeal differently from secular zeal.)

------
kelukelugames
On most days, I think people should allow to worship however they want. And
then there are days when my government quote the Bible to support laws that
are otherwise indefensible.

~~~
falcrist
It's true that religion has engendered a great deal of evil throughout
history. It seems like almost every major atrocity has been religiously
motivated in some way.

However, if you look at Georgia for example, you'll see that suppressing
religion doesn't do much. Even if you took the harshest anti-theist position,
you'd have to admit that people simply need to choose to stop being religious.
It's difficult or even impossible to force the issue.

So even if you dislike religion, the answer is still a secular society with
freedom of religion and a healthy religious tolerance.

~~~
denverkarma
Don’t gloss over all the atrocities committed by the Soviets and Chinese in
the name of aetheism.

Evil people will harness whatever philosophy is convenient to justify their
actions.

~~~
cfadvan
They didn’t commit them in the name of atheism, they committed them in the
name of economic and social revolutions of which atheism played a relatively
small part compared to communist ideology. By comparison with “in the name of
god” there is no honest comparison.

 _@Jumpcrisscross: One can make similar arguments for the Crusades._

Then why not make that argument? Remember to put “Deus Vult” in that context.

 _Of course they did since the pretty much first they did was to imprison in
concentration camps the clergy, and destroy all religious buildings as well._

“Pretty much” is doing yeoman’s work there, bravo. I like how it also glosses
over the fact that _most_ of what happened was anti-money, anti-status, and
anti-intellectual.

~~~
ekianjo
> They didn’t commit them in the name of atheism,

Of course they did since the pretty much first they did was to imprison in
concentration camps the clergy, and destroy all religious buildings as well.
This comment is so incredibly naive.

------
magic_beans
Young people have a lot more perspective these days. God is less necessary in
a world where the answer to any question is only a Google search away.

That said -- just because young people don't claim religion is "very
important" to them doesn't mean they don't have any sense of spirituality.

~~~
booleandilemma
Or we can think of Google as tier 1 support for God. I think there are still a
lot of questions Google can’t answer.

~~~
noir_lord
Shrugs, There are lots of things we don't know, that doesn't mean you wedge
God in when we don't know something because eventually we probably will know
that thing and then God is pushed back again.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)

I personally don't believe in God nor do I have any objection to other people
believing in god _except_ where they think their belief gives them special
powers to influence things beyond 'one person, one say' then I get annoyed -
fortunately I live in a largely secular country (and becoming more so) so it's
not an issue I run into with much regularity.

~~~
AuthorizedCust
Knowing more about the natural world doesn't eliminate God. It makes the
unexplainable parts more amazing.

It's similar to how holders of doctorates say that their achievement makes
more clear what they don't know.

~~~
noir_lord
On the other hand the more we understand about the way the universe works the
less need is there for God as an explanation.

There simply isn't any evidence for his/her/its/their existence.

------
amriksohata
Just because younger people don't worship God doesn't mean they don't worship
other things now, their new God is consumerism and their new Gurus and guides
are celebrities and pornstars

~~~
magic_beans
It's not like young people are praying to Kim Kardashian for a healthy crop
season.

~~~
coldtea
No, they're just looking up to her for lifestyle guidance...

------
taxicabjesus
I spent two years at a Catholic high school. The most important lesson from
that experience was the maxim that "you have to believe _something_ " \-- that
class (senior religion) encouraged us to examine our beliefs. Many people
adopt their parents' explanation for the world we live in. Others prefer the
scientific explanation du jour ("of the day").

The old religions have become stale, but the hunger for spirituality persists.

Science has "true believers" too. These prostelytizers proclaim that that
there is no need for spiritual hocus-pocus anymore, that Science has
explanations for everything now, or at least they'll have it all figured out
soon. This has been the Physicalist's sermon for ... maybe 170 years.

Spiritualism maintains that the life force is separate from the physical world
we inhabit: the life force is what "animates" the bodies we take on for a
while.

    
    
      YODA: Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. 
      You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you, 
      me, the tree, the rock, everywhere. Yes, even between 
      this land and that ship.
    

People have experiences that cannot be explained by 'physicalism' all the
time: out of body experiences, 'intuition', memory, telepathy, imagination,
etc... My comment on this subject from 12 days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17238552](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17238552)

~~~
mgamache
It may be comforting to believe in something. That doesn't make it true. There
is no evidence that any of the experiences people have that can't be explained
are a result of supernatural causes.

~~~
taxicabjesus
When I was taxi driving, I found it useful to believe that I had an itinerary,
and that my job was to be in the right place at the right time to meet the
people who I was supposed to meet that day. Mr. "Who are your lifelines" [0]
was a case in point. I was parked at a Quik Trip gas station, he asked if I
was available, I took him somewhere, he saved my number. I later bailed him
out of jail, and am going to be using his story to push for change in our
criminal justice system.

[0] [http://www.taxiwars.org/who-are-your-
lifelines/](http://www.taxiwars.org/who-are-your-lifelines/)

> There is no evidence that any of the experiences people have that can't be
> explained are a result of supernatural causes.

This is slander for phenomenon which are not very well understood by the
present state of knowledge. Radon/radiation poisoning would have been
classified as "supernatural" by pre-1896 scientists ("science advances one
funeral at a time"; I don't know how long it took for the possibility of
'radiation' to permeate the scientific culture).

~~~
mgamache
> Radon/radiation poisoning would have been classified as "supernatural" by
> pre-1896 scientists

That is exactly my point. A lot of phenomena that were once the purview of
religion are now explained by science. The reverse is never true (nothing
explained by science has subsequently found a better explanation in religion)

~~~
taxicabjesus
> The reverse is never true (nothing explained by science has subsequently
> found a better explanation in religion)

1\. Scientific explanations are often found to be incorrect.

2\. Scientific explanations are often found to be incomplete.

3\. Scientific explanations are often found to build on assumptions.

My posts in this thread are not so much about Religion, but about _what do you
believe_. Everyone believes something. Why do you believe what you do?

~~~
mgamache
Scientific explanations are always incomplete and approximations of an
objective reality. Yes all Science has to make fundamental assumptions to
function, we all have to make assumptions to function in the real world. There
are fewer fundamental assumptions with Science then with religion. I am
fallible, but I try believe in things based on evidence.

~~~
taxicabjesus
> Scientific explanations are [...] approximations of an objective reality.

There's one of your beliefs: that there is an "objective reality". I believe
in a shared reality, and that each individual has their own subjective reality
too. Everyone has their own experience of an event, and their own inner world
(dreams, imagined experiences, etc).

I would also posit that there is no one "Science". Science is a process. Every
individual who investigates the world forms their own conception of what has
already been discovered, and what is worth investigating. 'Scientific
Consensus' is an agreement about what good scientists are to believe. Simple
matters are easy to form a consensus about; complex matters are still under
discussion.

