
Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are? - luu
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_hidden_brain/2010/12/walking_santa_talking_christ.single.html
======
Passthepeas
While I am an atheist myself, I grew up going to a Unitarian church. They held
food drives and other charity events, and was a social staple of our
community. Religion can give a person's life structure, give them a social
support network they might not have otherwise. I have met religious people
that quite simply could not get out of bed without it, and as long as they
don't become too dogmatic I see no issue with it.

What many atheists seem to miss is this, god doesn't need to be real for
religion to have massive benefits for an individual. I will never fault anyone
for believing, nor will I fault anyone for playing up their level of belief to
be able to participate. I will not overlook the excesses and corruption of
large scale organized religions, but on a smaller scale it can be of great
benefit for a community.

~~~
daveFNbuck
> I have met religious people that quite simply could not get out of bed
> without it, and as long as they don't become too dogmatic I see no issue
> with it.

Are you not concerned that these people might one day come to the conclusion
that their religion isn't real and be left with no reason to get out of bed?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
That can happen to anybody.

~~~
daveFNbuck
Most people who lose their faith don't also lose all their motivation.

~~~
ykevinator
Agreed. Perhaps the opposite.

------
Rainymood
For those hardcore atheists that just can't fathom why someone would believe
in Christianity/religion in general, let me ask you are you WEIRD (Western,
Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic)?

If the answer is yes, I can highly recommend the book The Righteous Mind by
Jonathan Haidt. It didn't really change my opinion on religion but it did give
me a different view and perspective into why some others do believe in it.

~~~
linsistine
What I can't fathom or understand is how someone can look at the universe and
say that there was no Creator or Architect of some kind?

If I showed you an incredibly complex software program and told you there was
no developer or designer behind it, and that it came into existence randomly
and for no reason, you would look at me like I'm crazy.

Or for the artistically inclined, if I showed you the Sistine Chapel and told
you there was no artist or creator behind it, you would say I'm insane.

But for some reason people can look at something as remarkable as the universe
and say there's no creator.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. But software and Sistine chapel having
creators doesn’t provide any proof regarding origins of anything else.

Some people choose to assume things that make themselves feel better, such as
after lives and gods. Some people assume the opposite. Some people don’t
assume anything at all. Either way, it’s nobody else’s business. Belief =
assumption + ego, so I find assumption to be a better word to use when
speaking about a political topic.

~~~
linsistine
I'm not even bringing feelings or faith into this discussion though.

This is pure logic my friend. It is not rational to "believe" that an object,
a thing, a complex structure, can come into existence without being
intelligently designed in some manner. That something as intricate and complex
as the universe just came to be randomly, for no reason, and with no architect
of some sort.

~~~
ceejayoz
Where this line of thinking falls apart is realizing you must, due to the same
logic, explain the _architect 's_ coming into existence.

~~~
linsistine
All creation has an ultimate source though, does it not? A point of
singularity.

This source, or point of singularity, is what religious people refer to as
'God'.

~~~
ceejayoz
> All creation has an ultimate source though, does it not? A point of
> singularity.

This is an unsupported assertion. The current answer to "what came before the
Big Bang" is "we're not sure, and we're not sure that's even the right
terminology".

If everything needs a creator, that "singularity" has to have one, and its
creator, and its creator, and so on and so forth for infinity.

~~~
linsistine
Name me one thing which has no beginning.

~~~
ceejayoz
We see all sorts of weirdness with time, like delayed choice experiments:
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-eraser-
de...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-eraser-delayed-
choice-experiments/)

The entire concept of time starts to break down in spots, like within a black
hole: [https://phys.org/news/2015-09-law-implies-thermodynamic-
blac...](https://phys.org/news/2015-09-law-implies-thermodynamic-black-
holes.html)

It also breaks down when you start talking about pre-Big Bang cosmology. It's
not clear there _is_ such a thing as a "beginning" outside of the universe.

~~~
linsistine
What does this even mean?

~~~
ceejayoz
"Time is a weird concept even in our universe at times. It breaks down
entirely _outside_ of the known universe."

~~~
linsistine
Yes...but what does this mean?

~~~
ceejayoz
That the idea that "things must have a beginning" may not be the case when
talking about physics outside the known universe.

Sure, that's hard to wrap your head around, but so's quantum entanglement and
the double slit experiment. Doesn't change the fact that the universe works in
very, very weird ways sometimes.

Here's Stephen Hawking on the weirdness of all of this:
[http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-
time.html](http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html)

> Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time
> may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But
> nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the
> following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line.
> On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's
> another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary
> time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a
> sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.

------
AndrewDucker
It's very common, when one lives in a theocracy, to pretend to be religious.
That way you don't get shunned by your fellow citizens, and have to deal with
all sorts of awkward situations.

The actual levels of religosity can drop a _lot_ before it becomes clear that
darn-near everyone is just pretending.

In 2011, membership the Church of Scotland dropped to the point where it was
less popular than "No Religion". This got a lot of publicity - and meant that
over the next two years the membership nearly _halved_, from 32% to 18%.
Because once there's no social requirement to say "Oh yes, I believe in God",
all of the people who hadn't been going to church anyway stop saying it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland#Position_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland#Position_in_Scottish_society)

------
notus
Because American communities were built around religion with the church being
the social congregation area. The average sentiment is that people don't
really want to go to church but do so to maintain certain social relationships
and keep up appearances. It is far more prevalent in smaller communities.

------
tcrow
What does it mean to be religious? Is it simply belief or belief and action? I
would argue that you aren't really religious unless you actually live by the
code of the religion. That would mean a very strict sense of how to navigate
the world and your interactions with others and yourself. How many people do
this? In my experience - not many, and I don't think this is unique to
Americans. Perhaps I'm way off but it seems like the world in the majority is
often only pretending to be religious.

~~~
dfxm12
Some religious codes don't have an obligation to do good works or think
philosophically about themselves or navigating the world. Simply believing -
_sola fide_ \- defines religiousness for some religious codes, particularly
among Protestant religions, which some 46.5% of Americans belong to [0].

0 -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_in_the_United_States)

~~~
tcrow
I understand this idea, but it doesn't really address the fundamental issue or
what it REALLY MEANS to say you are religious. Can I really make a valid claim
to be religious If my actions are not in accordance with the principals of my
religion? Sure I can say I "believe", but then If I truly did, why would I not
act it out in my life? I don't think the two are really separate concepts at
the most fundamental analysis of it. Say one thing but do another just means
you are a hypocrite.

~~~
dfxm12
Based on your line of thought here, I'm not sure you understand this idea as
well as you claim to. You appear to be passionate about this though. I suggest
you do some research into the key differences between Catholicism & Orthodox
churches and many protestant churches like the Lutheran & Reformed Churches
when it comes to _sola fidelis_ vs "faith and works".

I'll say this again: for many protestants (and thus many Americans), simply
believing defines being religious.

~~~
tcrow
We may be talking past each other to some degree. I'm not debating the ideas
of sola fidelis vs "faith and works", this goes beyond that, for those are, to
some degree, just interpretations of the original doctrine of Christ. I'm not
interested in interpretations and I'm positing the idea that unless you act
out the doctrine of Christ in your life, you cannot make a valid claim to be
religious (in the Christian sense).

~~~
dfxm12
Oh, I thought you were making a point related to the article.

 _I 'm not interested in interpretations and I'm positing the idea that unless
you act out the doctrine of Christ in your life, you cannot make a valid claim
to be religious (in the Christian sense)._

Please find a Lutheran and posit this to them. :)

------
dfxm12
FWIW, this article is from 2010.

