But according to David Voas, a demographer at Manchester University, in fact secular society in Britain is characterised by not by people who don't believe, or even by people who don't know, but rather by people who simply don't care. Voas says:
The dominant British attitude towards religion is not one of rejection or hostility. Many of those in the large middle group who are neither religious nor unreligious are willing to identify with a religion, are open to the existence of God or a higher power, may use the church for rites of passage, and might pray at least occasionally. What seems apparent, though, is that religion plays a very minor role (if any) in their lives.Voas calls them the 'muddled middle', but I don’t think they’re really muddled. High falutin discussions about the existence of God are interesting to a minority, typically well educated. Everyone else has better things to do with their lives.
Exactly where one should draw the line distinguishing the secular from the rest is unclear. Many nominal adherents are failed agnostics: they used to have doubts, and now they just don't care. Arguably, most are secular for all practical purposes. If they are included, then at least half the British population could reasonably be regarded as secular.So this is the picture of a secular society. It's not one in which religion has been abandoned as a result of some careful analysis of the evidence. It's one in which religion has simply become unnecessary.
There are two different things that some people run together in such discussions. The first is the strength of religion as a social force. This is clearly something that is waning, despite the recent uptick in religious fervour. The second is the strength of religious beliefs within the population. Here, I suspect, the norm has remained pretty much the same through out history, i.e. to espouse the social norm but to pay it very little heed in practice. Most people who self-identify as religious have never known the most basic tenets of their own faith. And if someone doesn't know, for example, the dogma regarding the Trinity it is very hard to defend the claim that they believe in this dogma. For at least 90 percent of people the social practices attached to religion would have to be considered as far more important than the ontological claims that religions make and that philosophers and theologians like to discuss ad nauseum (and I'm saying this being a philosopher). Having said that, I tend to much prefer dealing with people who have thought seriously about religious claims. Even if they happen to have reached conclusions I whole-heartedly disagree with. It simply means that they have a depth to them which makes talking to them more interesting.
ReplyDeleteIt's clear that there are biological predispositions to a variety of religious-type beliefs. Mind-body dualism, attributing 'intent' to the play of chance or to non-intelligent things, etc. These will always be with us, unless evolution maybe breeds it out. But like you say, it's how those instincts feed into behaviour that's changing.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, if you are interested in the intelligent arguments of believers, you should read some of Justin Barrett's work, if you haven't already. He's a cognitive scientist and also a christian believer.
Thanks for the pointer. I think it is interesting to see the range of religious replies to the current work on religion as a natural phenomenon. Not surprisingly, it is all of the board, ranging all the way from straight out rejection to enthusiasm. The response that is the most interesting to me is the one at the enthusiastic acceptance end. Clearly such people are not bothered by the fact that the work being done serves to provide a full explanation of religious experiences and traditions. The question has to be 'Why?' Something of this can be seen in David Sloan Wilson who, although not religious himself, seems to think that his work reconciles religion with science. Well, it does so but only by turning religion into a subject for science. And such a reduction is hardly the reconciliation that I would expect religious people to be happy with. Yet, many seem to be quite happy with Wilson. And his generally nonconfrontational and friendly demeanour can only be part of the story.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that one reason some believers express enthusiastic acceptance of research that, we see, undermines their religion is that their religion is not, for them, primarily a reasoned conclusion at all. It may be primarily a sense of belonging to a community (extended in space and time) or a commitment to a moral code.
ReplyDeleteMembership of local humanist groups may have similar (though visibly less powerful) sources.