
'Christianity as default is gone': the rise of a non-Christian Europe - neverminder
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/21/christianity-non-christian-europe-young-people-survey-religion
======
vowelless
Relatedly, I have been reading an enlightening book: The Triumph of
Christianity [0]. It's a very interesting insight into why Christianity took
over Europe in the first place. One of the points made is that paganism was a
loose confederation of religions that didn't demand exclusivity. Christianity
was an evangelical, exclusivist religion which provides a full alternative
world view. However, the early Christians, the author alleges, were less
educated and oppressed (non intellectuals ).

While it may be good that Europe is going secular, I think without a strong,
exclusivist moral ideology at the center, Europe will be susceptible to an
Evangelical exclusivist ideology (Christinity 2.0). Or, as the book
highlights, perhaps the population should be a lot more educated (which Europe
seems to be doing well) and this education level sustained across generations.

> In the UK, only 7% of young adults identify as Anglican, fewer than the 10%
> who categorise themselves as Catholic. Young Muslims, at 6%, are on the
> brink of overtaking those who consider themselves part of the country’s
> established church.

Islam is an Evangelical exclusivist ideology and has strong state backings
today. Billions of dollars are used by Islamic states to evangelize the
religion. I don't think Christianity has done that in a 100 years or so. If
the younger generation is more Muslim than Christian, and the majority is
without an exclusivist ideology, and state backed evangelism continues, it
will be interesting to see how, over generations, Muslim ideology becomes more
mainstream.

As a secular humanist, former Muslim, I hope we actually establish secular
humanism with religious frevor (make it the state ideology) to make sure human
rights and human progress is sustained.

[0] [https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/595161200/author-traces-
chris...](https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/595161200/author-traces-
christianitys-path-from-forbidden-religion-to-a-triumph)

~~~
thevardanian
I honestly think that the whole oppressed conversion theory is wrong, for the
most part. For most of Christian, and Islam the history was a top down
conversion.

Furthermore India, and Hinduism stands in stark contrast to this narrative.
Especially considering the whole caste system narrative.

~~~
vowelless
The author cites an early critique of Christianity by a pagan intellectual
named Celsus, who criticizes the early Christian evangelists from running away
from engaging in intellectual debates. Also one thing to keep in mind is that
a very small number of people were actually educated at this time. The vast
majority of people were not educated, slaves, etc. He also alleges that it is
possible many of the early Christian converts were women, who were shunned
from the power structures and oppressed.

~~~
pmarreck
I was curious about this individual (my new ancient-hero-of-the-day) and came
across this [https://streetapologist.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/celsus-
vs-t...](https://streetapologist.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/celsus-vs-the-early-
christians-177-180-ad/) for anyone else curious. Also

> secular humanist, former Muslim

My opinion is not evidence, but here it is anyway: You made the right
decision, here.

------
simonbarker87
As a young(ish) British citizen I am pleased to see the UK ranks so highly in
these charts. While I like many aspects of the being part of a religion, what
I like is completely viable without the religious aspect. I have some good
friends who are very religious and in chatting with them I can see the
benefits of community, helping others and being inclusive. Their strand of
Christianity seems to be very liberal and open to both change, and a variety
of lifestyles and choices - it just seems, to me, such a shame that to be a
part of such a positive community you have to believe in God.

I don't think people need the "guiding light" of religion to live a "good"
life but I do think that we could all benefit from a secular version of
religious gathering, I just wish we could figure out am effective way to do so
without religion.

On the not praying aspect of the article, I distinctly remember the day that I
stopped saying the Lord's Prayer in morning assembly and being called over
aside by the Depty Head and asked "Why aren't you praying?", I replied "I
don't believe in God" whilst bracing for a telling off and being forced to
pray again, she simply said "Ok, if you change your mind then you can always
go back to it, that's ok to" \- pretty great way to deal with a 6 year old
atheist.

~~~
ElectronShak
The problem is Christianity was being introduced to children as a law, being
taught from the Old Testament, as something they had (must) to believe in,
simply because their parents are / were Christian. They didn't have a choice.
Scripture simply says you should train up a child the way he or she should go,
the choice will be clear to them as you teach them.

True Christianity is not "religion" because religion points you towards
perfecting yourself, Christianity is not something to work for, not a set of
Laws to follow, its evidence of God's Love, its a gift of God.

~~~
blattimwind
I find it quite amusing that the OT is given so much relevance by some
(christians and christian-bashers likewise), given that it actually has little
theological importance.

~~~
armandososa
What? The NT is pretty much just a commentary on the OT.

------
jawns
I think the shifts have been so rapid that we'll really need to wait a
generation or two before we can say that some of these countries have fully
cast off religious practice, although it certainly looks like that's the way
it's going.

But let's be clear: This is not shocking or unexpected. One of the primary
reasons why young adults nowadays are not religious is because their parents,
even if they were nominally religious, did not raise them as active members of
their faith. And in many cases, _their_ parents only made a half-hearted
effort, or tried to off-load the task onto parochial schools without
reinforcing the faith at home. So that's basically three generations of
decline, covering roughly 60 years. And when a trend has been going on that
long, the results should not be a surprise to anyone.

One interesting question, which will only begin to be answered in the next
several decades, is whether the rates of religious adherence within these
European countries correlate with anything. For instance, do countries with
low religious adherence have any sort of markedly different character or
outcomes than countries with high religious adherence?

Another interesting question is how Christianity and other faiths will
respond, in terms of evangelization. Is first-world Europe now a "foreign
mission," in the way that third-world countries were in the previous
centuries?

~~~
jerf
"I think the shifts have been so rapid that we'll really need to wait a
generation or two before we can say that some of these countries have fully
cast off religious practice,"

Christianity is not the only religion. On the generational time scale, Europe
(considered as a geography) may be trading Christianity for Islam.

~~~
Freak_NL
As the major _religion_ , or as the major _world-view_? It looks like
atheism/agnosticism/no religion is set to remain the majority world-view in
the countries where it already is.

Unless you subscribe to the notion that Muslims will be in the majority in
those countries because of immigration and large families. Some extreme right
political parties claim this, but the sources for these statistical prognoses
seem dubious at best.

~~~
candiodari
Only on a global level. In Rotterdam, Antwerp and Brussels and Amsterdam and
even Paris is very close this is now fact among the very young (kindergarten).
That means that it's only a matter of time unless something drastic changes.
But it would need to be very drastic. Even if immigration stops completely
muslims will still be a majority there, at the very latest in 30 years, but
very likely much sooner.

And ...

www.ejournals.eu/pliki/art/3178/

Religion has always retreated while great economic progress was being made.
And time and time again great economic progress periods ... end. And time and
time again ... nobody sees it coming, and time and time again the exact same
thing happens : religion comes back with a vengeance.

Even in this current period. Where economic progress crashed, an extremely
intolerant brand of religion immediately gained an incredible following.
Google "Egypt in the 60s". Google "Iran under the Shah". Google "Turkey under
Ataturk".

Now this may or may not be happening soon (and soon means something like a
decade), but that's another one of those things people think during periods of
great economic progress. That they never end. That it's impossible for
anything to go wrong. But I must say, even today, one walk around the North
station of Brussels through Schaarbeek and Molenbeek will tell you that it's
not going so well for everybody, especially if you stop in a street shop for
dinner (note: sorry to state this but do not attempt in the evening if you're
a woman).

------
aestetix
To me, it is always a huge red flag when an article does not properly cite the
source. Here is the best I could find:

"The figures are published in a report, Europe’s Young Adults and Religion, by
Stephen Bullivant, a professor of theology and the sociology of religion at St
Mary’s University in London. They are based on data from the European social
survey 2014-16."

No link to the actual study, which would contain useful information like
methodology and sample size. And the latest data is from over a year ago. But
they readily reproduce graphs, which show percentages without actual numbers,
and leave out important European countries like Italy, which happens to have
the Vatican.

Based on this, it is a rubbish article, IMHO.

~~~
grzm
If you're interested in reading the report, I found it with a quick internet
search on the title and the author. Here's a link:

[https://s3cdn-observadorontime.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/upl...](https://s3cdn-observadorontime.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/20170428/europes-young-adults-and-religions-
report.pdf)

~~~
aestetix
Thanks! I wonder why it was so difficult for the actual journalist to include
it.

------
unknown_apostle
This is a disastrous state of affairs, even if you don't believe in God. We
are witnessing the rapid destruction of a cultural heritage that has co-
evolved together with the European peoples and even their secular institutions
for at least 16 centuries.

It's like deciding to cut some organ out of your body just because you don't
understand its clinical function (so it must have no function) and because it
was involved in some disease a few years ago (so it must be something
fundamentally bad).

I marvel at the arrogance, the sheer recklessness of this negligence. Unlike
the neglect of beautiful piece of nature, or the neglect of healthy eating
habits, I can't see right now how this disaster will be reverted.

~~~
jdietrich
Most young Europeans don't think that Christian practice is useful or
relevant. They're not bulldozing churches or burning books, they're just
deciding not to participate in something that they see as archaic. If the
churches want to survive as living institutions rather than relics of history,
they need to make the case for their survival. They need to put forward a
coherent, plausible answer as to why going to church is the best use of a
Sunday morning.

Indifference is actually the best case scenario for European churches. In
Ireland, the Catholic church is widely regarded as little more than a criminal
conspiracy. The church has done practically nothing to change that perception.

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

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

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

~~~
unknown_apostle
Agree mostly with your answer.

20 centuries of Christianity has been reduced to a caricature. Most people
don't even understand what has been given up. It's all persecution, corrupt
popes, hatred for science, opium for the masses, child molestation and the
flying spaghetti monster.

Like you mention: being active in a church community in the country where I
live, will induce flippant jokes at best and real hostility at worst.

I'm also tempted to look at the clergy. They seem to have lost a certain kind
of "fighting spirit" and focus on avoiding controversy. Modern masses are
spineless and devoid of flavor or a sense of history. It sometimes feels like
they hired f*cking Nickelback or the marketing board of the Disney Corporation
to advise them on liturgical reform. (Except Nickelback and Disney sell and
they don't...)

The cultural loss of all this is imho enormous. It's not just stuff like being
part of an active community that includes the broadest possible cross section
of the population (across class, age, wealth, profession, personal interests,
...). Or the weekly ritual of this community, the gentle but firm reminder
that we're all mortal and that we should at least try to live the good life.

It's also more mundane stuff like the feasts, the fasts, the saints, the
pilgrimages (basically an entire village hiking to a nearby basilica), the
processions, the choirs, the maintenance of beautifully decorated popular
chapels in the middle of fields, all the local cults and customs, some of
which probably even predated Christianity, etc. These things gave local places
a lot of flavor and it's all gone in a few short years...

Once again, I don't even think you need to believe in God to appreciate all of
this wealth. Some day, its loss will be greatly lamented.

~~~
eesmith
Part of those 20 centuries includes the Inquisition, slavery, selling of
indulgences, persecution of the Protestants, the expulsion of the Jews, The
Killing Time in Scotland, witch hunts, and corrupt popes, so it's not like
this most of these caricatures are new or that a sense of history would help.

While it's true that everyone attended the parish church, it's not like
historically they mingled and used the church as a place to put worldly status
aside. Or rather, not since the 1400s
([https://thesecondeclectic.blogspot.com/2012/12/churches-
with...](https://thesecondeclectic.blogspot.com/2012/12/churches-without-
chairs-how-christians.html) quotes 'Church Architecture' as “In the late
Middle Ages the congregation sat down on the job and there was a drastic
change in Christian worship—perhaps the most important in history. People, in
effect, became custodians of individual spaces which they occupied throughout
the service, and social distinctions made some spaces more privileged than
others.” )

That weekly ritual also reminds us that "we have all sinned and fall short of
the glory of God." Nothing like a bit of negging to start the week.

The pilgrimages were during the medieval era. When I researched it a few years
ago (after learning about someone who did the pilgrimage to Santiago de
Compostela some 20 years ago), I was surprised to know that something like
20-50% of the adult population of Europe went on at least one pilgrimage,
during the period 1150-1450. Along with, as you say, many feast days. (Parts
of the US still have many feast days; eg, the Native American pueblos in New
Mexico.)

But then we had the rise of power of central kings, who wanted people to work
more, giving power and wealth to the king(dom). For example, the Swedish king
Gustav Vasa forbade pilgrimages in 1545. So this loss, and "the State",
occurred a long time ago, not just a few years ago.

And yet, pilgrimages are on the rise since Paulo Coelho's 1987 book about
walking the Camino de Santiago, and the follow-on renewals of other pilgrim
routes like Norway's St. Olav’s Way.

~~~
unknown_apostle
This is exactly my point: you mix up 20 centuries of christianity with 20
centuries of specific christian institutions and worldly regimes that existed
in christian societies. And then you cherry pick some terrible, big historical
events. You completely miss the 20 centuries of Christianity that inspired a
vast cultural patrimonium and provided courage, justice, moderation and
dignity to its laymen and clergy.

Unlike what you say, abandoning this patrimonium has only started recently.
Definitely not centuries ago. For instance, where I live, there is still an
annual Christian pilgrimage. Attendance started dropping only a few years ago.
I'm not sure if it will still exist in a few years. A lot of us are fascinated
and sometimes even a little envious when learning about foreign cultures. Yet
when our own culture is dying or has died, we shrug. Some even want to beat on
the corpse.

Also: "we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" sounds to me
like a pretty accurate description of mankind, including Christianity itself.
Other ways of saying the same thing are: "don't be too satisfied with
yourself" or "try to do better next week". I'd say the first version packs
more punch but that's a matter of taste.

(Then again, as I implied earlier in this thread: maybe this matter of taste
is an important part of modern Christianity's problem.)

~~~
eesmith
When you say "only started recently", you mean since at least the deists of
the 1700s, yes?

As in Jefferson, whose quotes include:

\- "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of
Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not
advanced one inch towards uniformity."

\- "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.
He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for
protection to his own."

Or near-deists like Thomas Paine who wrote:

\- "The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which
they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the
adoration originally paid to the sun."

\- "The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the
study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it
proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing, and it
admits of no conclusion."

I am one of many who recognize that the many good things came from
Christianity, but argue that the bad outweighs the good. Please do not mistake
that for absolutist portrayal of someone who "completely miss[es]" the good.

We also have good things that came from the Ancient Greeks - including things
which continue to provide "courage, justice, moderation and dignity" to modern
people. And we don't need faith in their gods to enjoy them.

You wrote: "where I live, there is still an annual Christian pilgrimage".

Sure, and in New Mexico there are people who to the pilgrimage to Chimayo.
I've seen them walking along the highway, and it makes the news every year.
The number of people who do that pilgrimage is not decreasing.

301,000 people made the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela last year. That's
far more than went a generation ago.

But go back to what I wrote. A large fraction of the adult population used to
go on long pilgrimages in the medieval era. It ended up being _banned_ in some
countries, to force the people to work more.

You been talking about this long grand historical period, so doesn't it makes
sense to look at the changes in pilgrimages over that entire span, and not
some fluctuation in your area in the last generation or so?

Do you have any better numbers to show the dying off of pilgrimages?

Something stronger than my counter-evidence, which also includes things like
"Pilgrimage is enjoying a huge revival across Europe", quoted in
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/5126285/E...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/5126285/Easter-2009-top-
five-pilgrim-routes-in-Britain.html) , and from
[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jun/15/rites-of-
way-p...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jun/15/rites-of-way-
pilgrimage-walks) (emphasis mine):

> The poet Edmund Blunden wrote in 1942: "We have been increasingly on
> pilgrimage." We are once again increasingly on pilgrimage. A revival is
> under way worldwide, with _pilgrim numbers rising even as church-going
> figures fall_. Medieval hostelries on the roads to Santiago de Compostela,
> closed for centuries, are reopening to cater to the volume of travellers. In
> 1985, 2,491 people received the certificate of completion known as la
> autentica; more than 270,000 did so in 2010. On the little north Norfolk
> village of Walsingham – site of an 11th-century vision of the Virgin Mary,
> recently self-branded as "England's Nazareth" – a quarter of a million
> pilgrims now converge each year, including participants in the "children's
> pilgrimage", the "youth pilgrimage" and the "Tamil pilgrimage".

You edited your text, did you not? You had a mention of the oppressive power
of the "State" in it, which is why I wanted to point out Gustav Vasa's decree
from nearly 500 years ago. I don't think you can point to 50 years ago as some
recent high water mark when that was only an echo of what it was 800 years
ago.

"Doing the best we can in this confusing, muddled world of ours" is also a
pretty accurate description of humanity. Personally, I can't figure out what
"sin" means because that requires a transgression against divine law, and
neither "God" nor divine law exist. So no, I don't think Romans 3:23 is at all
an accurate description.

~~~
unknown_apostle
The whole thread, for me at least, is about confirming the Guardian article,
that Christianity is declining in Europe. I'd say especially in NW-Europe.

I'm not talking about deist intellectuals and their opinions, or academic
theology, or about places other than NW-Europe (New Mexico?), or a few big
tourist tickets like Santiago.

I'm talking about the popular Christian day-to-day _practice_ of regular
people of NW-European communities, of which I can witness the last strange
hours in my own community.

It's hard for me to come up with numbers beyond the kind of polls shown in the
Guardian article or the drop in callings. It's not like we have centuries of
headcount records for all the local events, cults and customs that used to
exist here, the amount of tresses tied to chapel walls, or logs detailing the
time and effort the local farmers, notables and grandmas spent decorating
chapels. There have been no double blind control studies of how going to the
village church made people's daily behavior slightly more mellow or made the
community tighter here. By now there's mostly old pictures, living memories
(less every year) and a rapid dwindling of what little remains today.

The edited stuff you refer to was a sarcastic quip along the lines of "Now
that Christianity is gone, I'm sure celebrities or the state will tell us what
to do." I removed it because, reading it back, I thought it detracted both in
style and content from my main point.

Namely my prediction that future people in my community will regret current
people having turned their back on this heritage so recklessly. They may try
to reconstruct some of it, but it will be hard without continuity. I can see
that happen even if Christian belief itself never bounces back. (Which would
actually put such efforts at risk, by making them prone to political
recuperation.)

~~~
eesmith
Well, yes, Christianity had been on the decline in NW (and N) Europe for a
long time. What's new is "as default is gone."

I'm from the US. My experience with pilgrimages is in the US context. I lived
in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where the local big pilgrimage is to El Santuario de
Chimayo. Not a big ticket pilgrimage. Because of this discussion, I remembered
that there's also the pilgrimage to San Juan Capistrano,
[https://www.rcbo.org/year-of-mercy/pilgrimage-oc-
sites/](https://www.rcbo.org/year-of-mercy/pilgrimage-oc-sites/) .

You say now that you are not talking about "places other than NW-Europe".
Thing is, you brought up "20 centuries of Christianity", and since it took a
few hundred years until Christianity reached NW Europe, I think it's fair to
believe you were talking about all of Christendom.

I understand that you are talking about the _practice_. My point was that you
see importance in the connection to 2,000 years of religious faith, but that
faith has not been constant over the years. I'll quote again what I quoted
earlier:

> In the late Middle Ages the congregation sat down on the job and there was a
> drastic change in Christian worship—perhaps the most important in history.
> People, in effect, became custodians of individual spaces which they
> occupied throughout the service, and social distinctions made some spaces
> more privileged than others.”

NW Europe is mostly Protestant, and it's only been 500 years since Luther.
Sure, it's connected to the older Catholic faith, but that's then connected to
the Jewish faith, and _that_ is connected to the Canaanite and Babylonian
religions.

Your last paragraph is absolutely true. Look at the modern druids or the
Asatru, who lack the continuity with the ancient Celtic and Norse religions,
or the Slavic Native Faith. I wonder why we don't have that continuity, or
even good records of what it was like then. Could it be that the Christians
fought hard to expunge alternate (and ancient) religious practices, and didn't
want to make and preserve those records over the centuries?

Or, perhaps you could you tell me about the preservation efforts that
Christians did during most of those 2,000 years, for the cultures that it
replaced?

By comparison, the current secular world seems much less likely to destroy
traces of what came before. There will be books, movies, art, blogs, recorded
sermons and more, by the bucket-full, for those trying to understand what a
late 20th century NW-European Christian life was like.

~~~
unknown_apostle
-> 16 vs 20: I said in the beginning (talking about Europe) "rapid destruction of a cultural heritage that has co-evolved together with the European peoples and even their secular institutions for at least 16 centuries."

 _co-evolved_. I understand that Christianity became big in Europe only
centuries after Christ. And that it has changed and fluctuated a lot in its
history. But I think there was never a discontinuity of the sort we see since
~2 generations.

"20 centuries" came into play when I deplored a modern fashion in which we're
supposed to take the vastness of 2 millennia of highly complex history
involving millions or billions of people, strip it from all context, compress
it to a few soundbite sized low points and say: "this is Christianity".

-> About continuity and pre-Christian paganism: one of the things that fascinates me endlessly about the christian traditions of my community, is how many aspects of it are obviously echoes of pagan times. Many saints that used to be popular here, are not historical figures but thinly disguised pagan deities. A nearby community has (= used to have) a big tradition of Marian worship, which is almost certainly a continuation of an older cult devoted to a pagan fertility goddess. A nearby Christian chapel built next to a well, located beautifully in a forest in the middle of nowhere, was a place of worship in pagan times. Lots of Roman coins were found around the chapel. People used to walk there and tie strips of clothing from sick relatives to the chapel door. I can go on like this for quite a while. I would argue that the transition to christianity, despite its implicit intolerance at the time, does not seem abrupt but rather "organic".

Same for theology. (Btw, with some exceptions, this topic doesn't interest me
much personally. Just like I don't care much for all the pseudoscience in
secular academia.) But anyways, a lot of christian theology is obviously
classical philosophy in a Christian jacket, with influences from Platonism to
stoicism. In fact, christianity did something antiquity failed to do: in
antiquity, becoming literate and trained in classical philosophy was very much
a "1 percenter" thing. Early christianity brought a "pop version" of this
literacy to a much broader public.

To conclude, I'd predict the exact opposite of what you said. To me, the
current secular world actually seems _more_ likely to destroy traces of what
came before. Turning a church into a hipster lounge is so much more drastic
than turning a pagan shrine into a church, or a church into a mosque. The
French revolution or the various socialist regimes didn't seek to adapt, echo,
continue, soften, change, transform, absorb or even abuse Christianity. They
aimed to root it out.

The sudden and rapid abandoning of all things Christian suggests the secular
revolution is finally succeeding in Europe. It's Brumaire of Year I. Or
rather, Germinal of Year L.

Obviously, in all our secular glory and freed from the irrational, time
consuming habits of our grandparents, Europe may never know wars or bigotry or
superstition or pseudoscience or corruption again. And this time I will leave
the sarcastic quip in :-)

~~~
eesmith
"I think there was never a discontinuity of the sort we see since ~2
generations."

Is that perhaps because you don't have a good understanding of the history, or
is it perhaps because recent changes affect you more strongly than old ones?

If you were a Catholic 500 years ago, wouldn't you have complained bitterly
about the upheavals in the 1500 year old Church caused by Luther and those
inspired by him?

If you were a Catholic in England, when Henry VIII broke from the Catholic
Church, wouldn't you again be complaining about the discontinuity?

I don't see why the large-scale changes of the Reformation are less
discontinuous, for someone living in that period.

You wrote: "one of the things that fascinates me endlessly about the christian
traditions of my community, is how many aspects of it are obviously echoes of
pagan times."

This was part of a deliberate plan by the Catholic Church to co-opt local
religions. It wasn't really "organic."

I know the history better in the context of the Spanish colonization of the
Americas. The Catholics would come in, tear down the old places of worship,
and build a cathedral on the same site. They would identify important stories,
rituals, dances, etc. associated with the old gods, and recast them to the
saints. This practice is known as Interpretatio Christiana.

This synecretic approach helped spread the religion, by making it a more
tolerable replacement for what was before.

You write: "in antiquity, becoming literate and trained in classical
philosophy was very much a "1 percenter" thing." You may want to read
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy#Ancient_and_post-
clas...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy#Ancient_and_post-
classical_literacy) and the given references like
[https://www.academia.edu/13211795/_Ancient_Literacy_in_New_T...](https://www.academia.edu/13211795/_Ancient_Literacy_in_New_Testament_Research_Incorporating_a_Few_More_Lines_of_Enquiry_TrinJ_36_2015_161-189).
It seems that the during the 1990s and early 2000, it was though that about
10% of Rome was literate, and that more recent research suggests it was rather
higher at perhaps 30-40% .. until the fall of the Western Roman Empire. That
period of heightened literacy corresponds to the early Church, so it reflects
the general culture and not something special about Christianity.

You write "Turning a church into a hipster lounge is so much more drastic than
turning a pagan shrine into a church, or a church into a mosque."

Wow. Really? "Hipster" is a derogatory term meaning "I'm getting old and don't
understand kids these days, so I'm going to call them names to make myself
feel better."

I'll give an example from the Interpretatio Christiana Wikipedia page: "when
Benedict took possession of the site at Monte Cassino, he began by smashing
the sculpture of Apollo and the altar that crowned the height"

Would you rather have the sculpture of Apollo shown as artwork in a hipster
lounge, that anyone can see, or destroyed to make way for a Catholic church?

The French revolution is hardly "current". The modern France - a mostly
secular country - has a lot of archeologists and archivists trying to identify
and preserve history, including non-Christian history.

Regarding your sarcastic quip, please stop trying to force things into a
dichotomous world. We have only to look at the misogyny and racism of many of
the "stars" of atheism to see that a lack of faith in a god has very little to
do with good ethics.

~~~
unknown_apostle
"Is that perhaps because you don't have a good understanding of the history,
or is it perhaps because recent changes affect you more strongly than old
ones?"

Of the 2 choices you present me with: neither.

"This was part of a deliberate plan by the Catholic Church to co-opt local
religions. It wasn't really "organic.""

Indeed, to co-opt it. It continued what came before.

"You may want to read..."

Actually bookmarked this.

"Would you rather have the sculpture of Apollo shown as artwork in a hipster
lounge, that anyone can see, or destroyed to make way for a Catholic church?"

Of the 2 choices you present me with: as an artwork in a hipster lounge.

"The French revolution is hardly "current"."

If you use numbers in the same way as me, it's _literally_ more current than
the stuff you injected (lutheranism, Henry VIII, bishops smacking pagan
shrines, Killing Time, Gusta Vasa, ...).

Many revolutionaries in France, like many more recent socialist regimes, aimed
to root out christianity and religion in general, not
change/extend/temper/reduce/garden wall/coopt/transform/echo/reorganize it.

"The modern France - a mostly secular country - has a lot of archeologists and
archivists trying to identify and preserve history, including non-Christian
history.""

France has museums and archeologists? Really?

Before you joined, it was about the decline of christianity in Europe, which
is not bricks and books, but actual people identifying with and practicing a
living cultural heritage.

We're going nowhere here.

"Wow. Really? "Hipster" is a derogatory term meaning...."

Lmfao here.

You lost me.

~~~
eesmith
Do you really want me to list all of the possibilities? I'm not trying to
force you to choose one of the ones I present. I do not get from your writings
that your statements about history are made with a certainty which is not
justified.

You wrote "Indeed, to co-opt it. It continued what came before."

You cannot make that simple connection. The Marvel comics co-opted Thor as a
superhero. That does not make Marvel comics a continuation of Norse mythology,
nor does it mean that watching "Thor: Ragnarok" is a form of religious
service. The system of physical exercise called "yoga" in the Western world
co-opted the physical motions of the branch of Hinduism called "Yoga", but the
people doing yoga at the gym down the street are not meaningfully connected to
the 2,000+ year old tradition.

Christians destroyed the sacred trees and groves which were a core part of
Germanic paganism. They co-opted the (symbolic) power of Donar's Oak into wood
for a church they built on the site. That isn't a continuation.

Charlemagne destroyed the Irminsul and ordered the massacre of 4,500 Saxon
pagans as part of his campaign to Christianize the Saxons, and justified it as
acting "like a true King of Israel" \-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden)
.

This is not a continuation. This is an usurpation. The cultural symbols were
co-opted to demonstrate that a new power is in charge.

You wrote "Of the 2 choices you present me with: as an artwork in a hipster
lounge." We are making the assumption that the congregation can no longer
support the physical building. What other option you would prefer?

You wrote "If you use numbers in the same way as me ..." I understand the
comment now is meant as sarcasm. But I am trying really hard to not cherry-
pick the bad parts of religion, but rather trying to demonstrate that your
statements about history appear do not appear to come from a strong
understanding of that history.

While it seems that you see me pointing to those counter-examples to your
assertions, interpret it as cherry-picking, and so decide to cherry-pick in a
tit-for-tat sort of dialog.

I don't think it's really correct to say "like many more recent socialist
regimes, aimed to root out christianity and religion in general". Certainly
early Marxist-Leninists in China and the USSR and its satellites were against
all religions (as compared to all-but-one religion, as was the case in
European countries for hundreds of years. Similarly, early republican
countries, like the US and France, were also against religion. But looking at
the list of officially socialist countries now, I see quite a few secular
countries with strong support for at least one religion, and often support for
the free practice of religion.

As you point out, we are talking about "actual people identifying with and
practicing a living cultural heritage." My question again is, so what?
Cultures change. There are always people who bemoan change. It's hard for me
to have sympathy given the excellent records we have, the voluntary nature of
the change, and given the long history of Christians stomping out older
religions.

Yes, "hipster" is a derogatory term. Why else did you qualify it as "
_hipster_ lounge" instead of simply "lounge"?

~~~
unknown_apostle
“This is not a continuation. This is an usurpation.”

Fine, call it usurpation already.

Older pagan habits survived in later pagan habits. Pagan habits survived in
catholicism. And catholic habits survived in Lutheranism.

And now this whole package, this sponge of history, is just being abandoned.

“You wrote "Of the 2 choices you present me with: as an artwork in a hipster
lounge." We are making the assumption that the congregation can no longer
support the physical building. What other option you would prefer?”

As an artwork in another church or in a museum or something like that? Where
are you going with this?

“You wrote "If you use numbers in the same way as me ..." I understand the
comment now is meant as sarcasm.”

No, this was actually not sarcasm. You pick numerous events from all over
Christianity’s history. When I pick something, you complain it’s not
“current”. Wtf? And now you complain that it’s “tit-for-tat” picking. 2
weights I call it.

“I do not get from your writings that your statements about history are made
with a certainty which is not justified.” “your statements about history
appear do not appear to come from a strong understanding of that history.”

One thing that oozes from all your writing is that you seem to think you’re
lecturing me on stuff I don’t know or that I deny or something.

Aside from a potentially interesting tip on literacy in antiquity, you gave me
nothing new.

“My question again is, so what? Cultures change.”

Ok, back on topic.

Yes, culture change.

I care because unlike you, I think the christian habits of our grandparents
were interesting, positive and linked us to history. Loosing that is not good,
even if you don’t believe in God.

“ (…) Christians stomping out older religions”

No, not stomping out. Usurping them, to use your latest choice of words.

“Yes, "hipster" is a derogatory term. Why else did you qualify it as "hipster
lounge" instead of simply "lounge”?”

Sorry, I just wanted to be cool and hang out with you modern kids (<\-
sarcasm, to be clear)

Heads up: I probably won’t read your reply, as we’re going round and round and
round.

~~~
eesmith
You wrote "I think the christian habits of our grandparents were interesting,
positive and linked us to history. Loosing that is not good, even if you don’t
believe in God."

Given your positive views on how Christianity has incorporated non-Christian
practices, you should have no worries. Christian traditions will continue to
be followed in a non-Christian future in ways similar to how Christian
traditions currently include older religious practices.

------
pjf
I for one as believer find phrases like "non-Christian Europe" (or "post-
Christian") sad and intriguing given that European Union has its roots in
Christianity and was so deeply shaped by notable Christians, incl. Robert
Schuman, one of the founding fathers. I think without common beliefs it will
be more difficult to keep and develop the union.

~~~
n4r9
There is and will for a long time be a shared culture which is distinctively
European. It's just becoming less focused on religion.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
But that shared culture had deep roots in Christianity. One of the more
interesting questions is, without the Christianity, what will happen to the
culture? (Even if you're an atheist, it's a relevant question. You don't have
to go to church, but you still have to live in the culture.)

And it's too soon to tell, really. The cultural habits last longer than the
roots from which they grew. If the roots are gone, will the cultural habits
find new roots? Will they survive without them? Or will they just slowly fade
away over the next several generations?

------
teekert
Knowledge and science diminish the (need for) faith. Nowadays when you are
religious (because of the way you were raised) and you get the nagging feeling
that some things just do not make sense, you go onto the internet, you read,
you watch YouTube and you find that many of the things you experience make far
greater sense from a scientific point of view. First we explained lightning,
then biological diversity and now you can easily go online an get a feel for
the size of the universe as well as the general weirdness of religious
documents and how they only make sense in their own zeitgeists.

~~~
taborj
Are you really implying that persons of faith are less knowledgeable than the
faithless? That faith is simply the lack of knowledge?

Knowledge and science do not preclude faith; indeed, the two often go hand in
hand.

~~~
teekert
Yes. Putting a book like the bible which contains horrible, unethical stories
(Lot and his daughters?) and paints the terrible tyrant that is the god of the
old testament as a loving being above modern science is a mental state only
achieved after thorough indoctrination. There is 0 evidence for the presence
of a God, there is also 0 evidence which makes a Christian god more likely
than a Muslim god. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. These are
things you learn when reading and being honest with yourself. I was raised
Christian but being a molecular biologist now, there is absolutely no use in
the God theory it raises more questions than it answers, it has 0 predictive
power, no evidence for it and is just plainly wrong when it comes to many
details (all animals that existed 5000 years ago on 1 ark?). I see religious
people mostly as victims of memes (memes in the Richard Dawkins sense),
viruses of the mind. They still can be nice and honest people though.

~~~
palimpsests
Speaking of being honest with ourselves, there is also zero evidence for the
absence of God. So far, there's no signs of this being a debate rooted in
physical evidence, it's a philosophical question.

~~~
teekert
Oh come on. What if you'd wipe our collective memories but retain our
scientific equipment and skills? You'd look at our DNA and see how it matches
and differs from other species, you'll start to see that you can build a sort
of tree of life from the data gathered. You will find evidence of common
ancestry in all species. You will find that DNA can change for better or worse
and that if it changes for the better, survival chances are increased. Over
the ages this slow process affects entire populations. And when you look to
the sky afterwards, you will see that everything is moving away from us and
you must honestly conclude that some 14 billion years ago everything was
pretty close together. If, at that point someone would show up with a book as
his only proof, saying that the world was made in 7 days by an all knowing
being and that there are angels, a heaven and a hell and that dinosaurs might
have lived within the last 6000 years... how do you think such a story would
be received? And what if there were three individuals who have roughly the
same book until the story mentions an individual name Abraham. After that the
story splits and focuses on different individuals. None of them agree with
each other on how to deal with women, live your life or even on what god
expects of you.

The only reason these stories have survived into this day and age is because
we corrupt the logic of little children to such an extent that when someone
mentions the earth is 4 billions years old it just _feels_ very wrong to them
and then these kids transfer their thoughts and feelings to their children,
etc. The entire idea of christian children is as sick as saying there are
garbage collector children or lawyer children. Yet we have no qualms about
labeling children in this way. Because that is how it has always been.

And even if you want to play the "there is no evidence against god"-card I'd
point the atrocities of the old testament, the lack of reponse to the prayers
of children with cancer, the complete neglect of all the misery in the world.
This alone would make the Christian god not one I'd want to meet and I
sincerely hope he or she doesn't exist.

------
joshuaheard
I'm glad to see religion go, but I'm afraid if we remove religion and don't
replace the moral component, we will see more societal dysfunction like school
shootings. We need to replace the moral teachings in the schools. I recommend
a high level law class in high school, maybe combine government, law, and
economics.

~~~
poulsbohemian
IMHO, the greater loss is that of community. Religious institutions fostered
social, business, and civic community. That in itself helps reinforce ethical
and moral norms as you don't want to screw over your neighbor and become
ostracized. Community also helps people not slip through the cracks of
loneliness and mental illness. Frankly, as a kid I remember the number of
people at my church who would have otherwise been unlikely to find friends or
a marriage who were able to do so because church brought them together.

~~~
Dirlewanger
Yup. In Austin, churches are closing left and right due to endlessly rising
property taxes. Want to know what one of them is being converted into? A co-
working space.

~~~
Analemma_
Are you sure they're not closing due to declining attendance? I cannot imagine
a healthy church being forced to close because it can't get enough donations
to match a quarter-percentage-point property tax increase.

------
gimmeDatCheddar
I wonder why Romania isn't mentioned at all. It's part of Europe.

~~~
24gttghh
The report ignores almost all of Eastern/Southeastern Europe. I don't think
they can rightly make their claims about the whole of Europe based on
that...Northwest/Western Europe, sure, but all of it?

Countries not included: Italy, Croatia, Slovakia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine,
Moldova, Romania, Bosnia, Serbia (and Kosovo), Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro,
Bulgaria, Greece. Plus none of the small city states or island countries of
Malta, (Iceland?) (Cyprus?).

They even include Israel (not European??)

------
y0ghur7_xxx
The report the data is taken from:
[https://www.stmarys.ac.uk/research/centres/benedict-
xvi/docs...](https://www.stmarys.ac.uk/research/centres/benedict-
xvi/docs/2018-mar-europe-young-people-report-eng.pdf)

------
dep_b
A lot of people don't realize they're actually still living by Christian
rules. Take a look at social-democrat governments and for example their stance
towards immigrants. Impossible to understand without knowing The Good
Samaritan parable and other stories in that vein. It's post-Christian as in
post going to church, post creationism and post hell and damnation. But it's a
_reduced_ form of Christianism nonetheless.

A Dutch right-wing politician once said if you would only leave the good parts
of the Koran you would have a book the size of a Donald Duck (1). Well I guess
we already did that with the Bible.

1) _Donald Duck is a weekly magazine of comics in some European countries. It
's about 44 pages_

~~~
logfromblammo
The Jefferson Bible is 168 pages long. It could probably be edited down a bit
further.

~~~
dep_b
168 pages of New Testament, 44 pages if you remove the fluff, hate and/or
bigotry. Sounds about right!

------
yters
In some ways this may be good for Christianity, as it seems to grow best when
it is an oppressed minority. On the other hand, this may not be good for
Europe. Secular nations seem unable to reproduce, so will die out. Hardline
atheist nations become genocidal and have no regard for human life. If the
entire world were to become atheist, that could mean the end of humanity.

------
yters
I would like to hear a clear articulation why a secular or atheist has good
reason to believe there is a moral standard they should live by. I've never
heard of such a thing. Mostly it is just handwaving that "everyone knows it's
good to be tolerant and kind." History would suggest otherwise.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Like most moral arguments then, religious or otherwise? Pretty much everyone
starts with the conclusion they want and then engages the rationalization
engine in their mind to work backwards. Religion doesn't offer any better a
basis than anything else, otherwise we probably wouldn't have so many
religious groups, often claiming to believe in the same God, fighting each
other would we?

~~~
yters
Most major religions have the same core moral beliefs, and similar
justifications. They fight each other because they think the other religion is
undermining the moral code.

------
adultSwim
Good riddance

------
nolite
Thank God!

------
ed_balls
It's about time. This mass delusion was bound to stop with the development.

~~~
toasterlovin
Mass delusion is not relegated to religion.

------
epx
I consider myself Christian but I quit church because it was a snake pit, and
I don't believe in hell at all. I think that churches didn't keep up with the
times. These days, a priest should discuss the implications of many-worlds
interpretation of quantum theory, I think.

Here in Brazil (probably in USA as well?) pentecostal churches seem to be
reactionary congregations, people that long for the "good old family" with
SAHMs and providing husbands - with some reason, because the "Brave new world"
with full freedom for everyone is not exactly cozy for the dim-witted ones.

~~~
wyager
> These days, a priest should discuss the implications of many-worlds
> interpretation of quantum theory

So basically you want to replace Christianity with scientism? Let’s not - at
least right now it’s still relatively easy to tell religion and quackery apart
from, say, particle physics. Priests aren’t qualified to talk about the
implications of hypothetical quantum models (and probably neither are you).

> the "Brave new world" with full freedom for everyone is not exactly cozy for
> the dim-witted ones

Of course, the only reason someone could like a stable, well-functioning,
painstakingly evolved social model is because they’re stupid... I’m also
curious why you would describe the world today as “full freedom for everyone”;
that certainly doesn’t match my experience, unless your definition of
“freedom” is very selective.

