Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...Like I said earlier a lot of change is going to happen on this earth in the next 10-40 years...projection studies are based on things staying the same.
You like to cheery pick to try and win your case but as a scientist I like to truly understand the accuracy of methodology used in projections.
no you like to ignore data that you don't like. Just like in 1968, when the demise of religion was also predicted, like you claim is happening now. Did it happen? no it did not.
The New York Times. 1968. “A Bleak Outlook is Seen for Religion.” Feb. 25, page 3. The article quotes sociologist Peter L. Berger predicting that by the year 2000, traditional religions would survive only in “small enclaves and pockets.” Berger has since renounced his earlier position.
And yeah, that's like calling me egocentric because I'm far and away more concerned about the weather where I ACTUALLY LIVE and do not care too much if it's supposed to rain in MOSCOW!
I wonder how long you sat there trying to figure out a way to turn my post into some horribly negative, racist, sexist, bigoted rant.
At any rate, you failed. The amount of reaching you had to do in order to make what I said "egocentric" is simply beyond the pale.
Like I said ... amateurish. Very, very sophomoric.
no you like to ignore data that you don't like. Just like in 1968, when the demise of religion was also predicted, like you claim is happening now. Did it happen? no it did not.
The New York Times. 1968. “A Bleak Outlook is Seen for Religion.” Feb. 25, page 3. The article quotes sociologist Peter L. Berger predicting that by the year 2000, traditional religions would survive only in “small enclaves and pockets.” Berger has since renounced his earlier position.
LOL! All that proves is that the projection you're citing could ALSO be proven to be ridiculously wrong.
And most projections are wrong. There are far too many variables -- most of which cannot be accurately predicted or guessed at. Which is why human behavior studies like sociology and psychology aren't considered hard science. It's as much an art as a science.
It's like back in the 80's when experts were predicting that AIDS would kill hundreds of millions of people - if not billions - and become the modern day Black Death. Mmmhmm. Didn't happen.
All either side is doing is basing their projections on CURRENT TRENDS -- and trends NEVER STAY THE SAME for very long. Human behavior is too erratic, illogical, and chaotic to accurately predict with any degree of accuracy. This isn't a projection of an ant colony, after all.
Just like in 1968, when the demise of religion was also predicted, like you claim is happening now. Did it happen? no it did not.
The New York Times. 1968. “A Bleak Outlook is Seen for Religion.” Feb. 25, page 3. The article quotes sociologist Peter L. Berger predicting that by the year 2000, traditional religions would survive only in “small enclaves and pockets.” Berger has since renounced his earlier position.
LOL do you realize that Peter L Berger was a Theologian who was on a crusade to promote the relevance of region?
So you find an old New York Times article and try to compare it with the Pew predictions? LOL!
What methodology did Berger use to make his predictions?
BTW The article quotes sociologist Peter L. Berger predicting that by the 21st century, traditional religions would survive only in “small enclaves and pockets.” Berger has since renounced his earlier position.
All either side is doing is basing their projections on CURRENT TRENDS -- and trends NEVER STAY THE SAME for very long. Human behavior is too erratic, illogical, and chaotic to accurately predict with any degree of accuracy. This isn't a projection of an ant colony, after all.
I thought I explained this to her but I guess it went right over her head. *Shrug*
So you find an old New York Times article and try to put it up there with the Pew predictions? LOL!
The article quotes sociologist Peter L. Berger predicting that by the year 2000, traditional religions would survive only in “small enclaves and pockets.” Berger has since renounced his earlier position.
No, the 2012 Pew article included the Berger reference, see footnote 20, and this statement:
"Back in the 1960s, when secularization theories first achieved high visibility, they were sometimes accompanied by predictions that religion would wither away in the United States by the [year 2000]."
No, the 2012 Pew article included the Berger reference, see footnote 20, and this statement:
"Back in the 1960s, when secularization theories first achieved high visibility, they were sometimes accompanied by predictions that religion would wither away in the United States by the [year 2000]."
I see you edited your post.
I linked an interview where he describes renouncing his 1960 theory in 1990.
Here is the first question and answer in that interview. You are free to click on the hyperlink titled An Interview with Peter Berger. Since you don't seem to have done this I will post the first question and answer from that interview.
Quote:
You’re known for arguing, most notably in The Sacred Canopy in the 1960s, for a theory of secularization *and then for renouncing that theory in the 1990s.* What are the distinctively modern characteristics of how religion is lived today?
You’re right, of course, that I changed my mind over the years. It wasn’t a dramatic change—it happened in stages, and it wasn’t due to any change in theological or philosophical position. It was basically the weight of evidence, as I think a social scientist should base his theories on evidence. Much earlier than the 90s—I would say by the
late 70s or early 80s—most, but not all, sociologists of religion came to agree that the original secularization thesis was untenable in its basic form, which simply said modernization and secularization are necessarily correlated developments. I followed most people in the field; I went through the same process of rethinking. There are
some people who didn’t follow, and there are still some today. Steve Bruce in Britain is a heroic upholder of the old theory, which I greatly respect. He’s a very intelligent and
likable fellow, and there are a few others. If I look at my early work, I think I made one basic mistake intellectually—leaving aside the question of data and empirical evidence—and that was to conflate two phenomena that are related but quite distinct: secularization and pluralization. Today you cannot plausibly maintain that modernity necessarily leads to secularization: it may—and it does in certain parts of the world among certain groups of people—but not necessarily
No, the 2012 Pew article included the Berger reference, see footnote 20, and this statement:
"Back in the 1960s, when secularization theories first achieved high visibility, they were sometimes accompanied by predictions that religion would wither away in the United States by the [year 2000]."
I think everyone knows that religion will never "wither away."
There will always be adherents, always be believers -- because there will always be a need for simplistic answers to complex problems.
I'm pretty certain that most atheists can concede this point.
And if you had bothered to read AND process my post about where most of the population growth takes place instead of ripping a handful of words out of the post to justify throwing a petulant little fit you would have seen one of the main reasons WHY religion will never wither away.
I linked an interview where he describes renouncing his 1960 theory in 1990.
Here is the first question and answer in that interview. You are free to click on the hyperlink titled An Interview with Peter Berger. Since you don't seem to have done this I will post the first question and answer from that interview.
Quote:
Today you cannot plausibly maintain that modernity necessarily leads to secularization: it may—and it does in certain parts of the world among certain groups of people—but not necessarily
I pretty much disagree with this statement. I know the guy isn't on this forum to defend himself so perhaps I'm just howling at the moon, but here's why I disagree:
In those VERY few nations that have progressed and modernized while still being predominantly religious did so in spite of the religion. In many cases, the inventing and the innovating occurred within a relatively small cadre of scientists -- most of whom are atheist, agnostic, secular, or, at best liberal Christians.
In almost every case (perhaps in *every* case), nations which have allowed fundamentalism and conservative religious paradigms to usurp power within government and educational infrastructures have either not progressed or modernized at all -- OR -- they backslid into a more primitive, low-tech society.
There is a direct correlation (and perhaps a direct causation) between the degree of religiosity and the modernity of the nation -- and not just in terms of technology. High religiosity often includes primitive worldviews and mindsets as well as primitive infrastructures and grinding poverty. Little, if anything, is based on factual evidence and, instead, everything is blamed on demons, spirits, witchcraft, totems, and other supernatural forces.
The reason for this is relatively simple: When you think you have the absolute right answer, something religion often teaches, you have no need to continue asking questions. If you think a disease is caused by a vindictive neighbor casting a curse on you with eyes of newt and nightshade all mixed in a boiling cauldron, there's really no point in analyzing the microbes in a lab in order to come up with a vaccine.
Hence, progress and modernization tends to stop or be slowed to a crawl. Those few enlightened individuals who hail from one of these nations tend to up sticks and leave at the first available opportunity, creating brain drain that further prevents that nation from advancing.
Personally, I think this is a horse-before-the-cart scenario when it is said that modernization leads to secularization. No, it's the other way around. Secularization leads to modernization.
This is why the West sat stagnant for over a thousand years -- as the Catholic Church ruled with an iron fist over everything. You couldn't even get a degree in medicine without first earning a degree in theology because the two were intertwined. Science that contradicted scripture in any least way was banned and the authors arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and sometimes executed.
Much the same happened in the Islamic world. While the West stagnated in it's benighted pool of religiously-inspired superstition and ignorance, the Islamic world was experiencing a renaissance; science thrived and you can see the Arab influence even today in words like "Algebra," the use of Arabic numerals, and nearly ALL of the named stars in the sky have Arabic names. Like, for instance, Betelgeuse.
However, at some point, religious fundamentalism obtained power; any manipulation of numbers was deemed to be witchcraft and consorting with evil djinn. Because of this, the Islamic world went into decline and backslid into a more primitive and brutal state. Today, you have the Islamic world as you see before you, plagued with religious terrorism, the oppression of women, and massively heavy restrictions placed on one's personal freedom. The majority of Arabs who live in these countries live no better today than the Arabs who lived during the time of Mahammad.
Only those Muslim nations that have liberal Islamic views or which are rather secular have come even close to parity with the West. This is changing somewhat, however, due to the influx of oil money, allowing Muslim nations to build gleaming cities of glass and steel that look like any Western or Asian city, but even so, many of the rank-and-file citizens still live somewhat primitively.
Iraq, for instance, under the secular Saddam Hussein was THE best place in the Middle East to live back in the 70's -- women were fully equal to men, Iraq had a better health care system than America ever had, it had the best universities in the Arab world, etc. You just had to accept Hussein's rulership and not try to oppose him; otherwise, you could have had a rather comfortable life for yourself there. Until Hussein bankrupted his country with the Iran-Iraq war, at any rate.
History is replete with examples of how secularization has led to modernity. Europe being yet another example. The only places that still have a lot of strife, poverty, oppression, and ethnic cleansing are the places with a high degree of religiosity.
Which is why I have said again and again that right-wing, fundamentalist religion poses a direct threat, a clear and present danger, to the United States. If we allow these nutjobs to take power, if we allow them to have their way, I can guarantee -- sure as I'm sitting here -- that America will backslide into a 19th Century cesspool in the same way the Islamic world sabotaged itself many centuries ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
*Shrug*
