TV Schedule

From childhood to adulthood, has your faith changed?

  2. woodywoodbeck
  3. related topics
More than a quarter of adult Americans have left the faith of their childhood to join another religion or no religion, according to a new survey of religious affiliation by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

The report, titled “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey,” depicts a highly fluid and diverse national religious life. If shifts among Protestant denominations are included, then it appears that 44 percent of Americans have switched religious affiliations.

For at least a generation, scholars have noted that more Americans are moving among faiths, as denominational loyalty erodes. But the survey, based on interviews with more than 35,000 Americans, offers one of the clearest views yet of that trend, scholars said. The United States Census does not track religious affiliation.

So let's ask you this question...were you raised on one religion and have changed your views as you entered adulthood.
woodywoodbeck

21 responses // From childhood to adulthood, has your faith changed?

  • http://current.com/items/88800321_generation_faith
    Check out this Current pod called "Generation Faith" where Current's Adrian Baschuck sits down with a Muslim, a Christian and a Jew to talk about religion.
    woodywoodbeck
  • I think it's only natural for a person's spiritual beliefs to evolve over time. I think of it like a belief in Santa. When you're young you don't really question a lot of the logical of Santa. As you mature you look at that belief more critically until most people come to the conclusion that Santa as a flesh and blood person with unexplinable supernatural powers doesn't really work for them but the "Spirit of Christmas" and the attitude of giving fits nicely within their psychological framework. You move from a literal belief in Santa as a person to more of a philosophical belief in the power of giving and charity. When I was younger I had a rather uncritical acceptance of God as a "real" deity that interacted directly and routinely with humanity. But then I started wondering, "How could an all-knowing and all-powerful Being both interact with humanity and simulatenously fail to achieve His own goals?" Then you start wondering why (if God considered Heaven to be the ideal existence not only for Himself but for humans) did He bother to create Earth after Heaven? And what's the point of Hell? What's the point of torturing someone for all eternity? Seems like overkill for a supposedly enlightened deity whose allegedly above such pettiness. I mean, If someone is really that unreedmable (even by God Himself, another oddity) then why bother torturing them? Wouldn't it be more humane to either redeem them or erase them from existence? Anyway, I think most people eventually move beyond the literalness of ancient Hebrew mythology (Old & New testament) and grow into a more sophisticated belief system of what an actual super-deity might be like, or atheism, even though they may not feel comfortable admitting it in this culture.
    crob80227
  • I would not say that my faith has changed but that my views, feeling and spiritual growth got powerful with a sense of tolerance and moderation. Like I said before in one of my discussions here, "It is not Religion that represents any problem to the world but what you make of it." Have said that, - How or what you want to make of it?

    By the way "Woodywoodbeck," Great Pod indication there! Thanks!
    stopnoise
  • My parents raised us to make our own decisions regarding religion; they told us what they believed, and reminded us that it was just what they believed. I remember knowing that when I was thigh high.
    I dabbled in Christianity, paganism, and atheism, but they just made me depressed, and forced my spirituality into someone else's mold, complete with narrow-minded rule books. I always tried to force them into my own mold, but all that did was remind me of how retarded organized religion is (imo).
    Now I have ideas, but I'd never assume to really Know anything about the workings of the universe.
    ...so I guess I fluctuated plenty, but my core values are still very much the same. I've definitely deviated from my parent's View, but I wasn't exactly force-fed anything. Come to think of it, since their View is "what works for you works for you," I haven't really deviated at all. Who knows?
    Humdrum
  • Crob80227, after reading your thoughts on God Himself not being able to redeem some people and so He resorts to torturing them, it reminded me of why my husband left the organized church when he was 16. The family raised cattle and he knew that if he bred a bull and a cow and the calf didn’t meet his expectations, he would never resort to torturing it. Since then we have found many people of faith who have taught us that mythical hell is not in the bible even though some of the words are translated that way. And we also found out that heaven is God’s throne and all Christians are not going to heaven to live forever. People are going to live forever on the earth when paradise is restored in the future. I am glad we had similar questions like yours and found some new beliefs that make sense to us. I haven’t told my mother because I don’t think she would understand and my husband’s mother was open to our new beliefs and has adopted them also.
    resolute
  • Hell, I was raised on Catholicism, and I'm still 16 and I've already rejected it.
    Adumbration
  • I'm glad I never had to deal with something like Catholicism...Jesus
    Half my family's Irish Catholic, but when my grandparents tried to force feed it to my mother, she totally puked.
    Happy Day
    Humdrum
  • Well, I was raised Catholic and to this day I still consider myself a Catholic my world views have changed of course. I believe that everyone's spirtual beliefs evolve over time, I know mine have and I know I am more tolerant and open to other people's ideals and beliefs about religion than my parents will ever be. That is why if I see something that I agree with I absorb it and I make my own that is how my world view has matured and grown over time.
    ferrjuan
  • I was raised Catholic but I outgrew it then sampled all the other religions until I reached the stage of "Spiritual, but not Religous" Ken Wilber describes a method he calls "The Conveyor Belt" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUNlpyfT2LU because as he says "Everyone starts at square one when they are born" and the worlds religions are the only things that reach from the lowest stages of developement to the highest.
    Argon18
  • I watched the video 1/4 way and I felt that there are nothing that are there that many after have put their hands on it end up to distort it for reasons that only they know about it. Spirituality for me is the stage of opening your mind and spirit to understand and respect many of the World religions and culture without prejudice. Many individuals in this world pickup religion to make their own political statement, or justify their actions in the name of... However, Spirituality and Religion goes beyond that. Spirituality and Religion explains the existence of a Spiritual GOD and a Living GOD. That is the reason I call myself "Spiritualist." Because I believe in the Spirit of GOD ruling the Universe. I do pray daily for it! I did read and study many costumes and Religions and I end up to adopt Jesus, the Old and New testament as my own compass. My question is not what Religion or Culture do you belong to but how we from different beliefs can get together in brotherhood and do something that is constructive and productive for all human kind. That always has been my question through.
    stopnoise
  • My religious beliefs haven't changed uch; still going with "none." That's not to say I haven't tried, but belief just doesn't do it for me. Whenever I talk to a religious person, asking them how or why tthey believe, it comes down to faith. They say, "Just believe. That's all there is to it." Well I try to believe, but what I come up with is this: "Okay, God, God, God. He exists. Right. I believe." This typically doesn't take. I can't wholeheartedly believe. I mean, I can say I believe, but not earnestly. In this manner, I'm stuck with doubt; de facto atheism, as Dawkins puts it. Unless, of course, there's evidence at some point, but that wouldn't really be BELIEF anymore.
    dco
    • dco
    • 7 months ago
  • http://www.aericanempire.com/silinism.html
    Resolute belief in anything, including atheism, involves the stagnation of your mind to one degree or another.
    That's why I don't tend to actually "believe" anything 100% - apart from things proven by science, of course - although, while science tells us much of the workings, it hasn't yet told us anything about what is behind the workings, at which point it becomes speculation, and at which point personal beliefs come in - it's something I don't think anyone will truly know. People can either accept that, or make up stories to explain it (though most people adopt other people's stories...for some reason).

    Scientists turn into priests very easily, their views just as firm and immovable as any religious person's, which misses the point of science completely. Science is the best thing we have yet (best thing ever, really - look what it's done/doing for us), but we also have to be careful not to assume anything is set in stone.

    In my opinion, it's much better to have educated ideas - ideas are malleable.

    We know more about the workings of the world and the universe than we ever have before, but we still haven't even scratched the surface.
    One of the things people do all throughout history is assume that their generation is the one that Has It All Down and Knows Everything, which creates...problems.
    Particularly when people make Rule Books in the Bronze Age, and people are still following them in the modern age...it wigs me out sometimes. Institutionalized religion holds the species back, in my opinion. Too many rules that ignore new information.


    PS - at least my parents didn't bring me up following Silinism...Great Penguin indeed.
    Humdrum
  • Humdrum, It makes sense that if the Creator made the heavens and the earth, then the heavens and the earth should reflect that. Scientists study creation and know there is intelligence behind it. There are definite laws that are in place-matter cannot be created nor destroyed, gravity and so on. Take an apple seed. Scientists can tell you what it is made of. But they can’t tell you what the life in the seed is made of. Once an apple seed has been analyzed, they can’t put it back together again so that it grows an apple tree. An egg is the same way. Once you break into it, you cannot put it back together and have it “live”. What can be know about the Creator lies in what we can see of creation and what we can’t see (the life in seeds). The life in the seeds is invisible. Where did this invisible life come from? It came from the invisible Creator. Scientists can study creation, but realize it is the “Ford” trying to explain Henry’s mind. Another invisible reality that a test-tube cannot analyze is love. You can’t put love in a bunson burner and find what it is made of. It is invisible. That tells us more about the invisible Creator.
    resolute
  • resolute - You propose that abstract concepts like life and love are beyond science. I disagree. We know that life is a chemical process through which a carbon based organism interacts with others. If you mean something else by "life," then tell me. We know that love is another chemical process, involving pheramones, etc. True, love does not exist without a close bond between two individuals, but there is nothing metaphysical about cognitive and emotional compatability. I would argue that everything can be explained empirically. To say "I guess we'll never know" is the root of religion. A God of the gaps, who explains everything that is unknown with "God did it" is of no use to society. Nothing should ever be accepted as inexplicable. If we give up, we'll never find out because people will be too goddamn obstinate with their petty delusions of knowledge, when all they really have is a good dose "belief" to satiate their ignorance.
    dco
    • dco
    • 7 months ago
  • Speaking of "gaps" assuming that love is "just" a chemical process and reducing it to a one dimensional concept is as bad as explaining "God did it" That's like saying a cube only has length and leaving out the other 2 dimensions. Science is only one perspective, it is essential for the understanding of concepts but it is only partial as not everything can be explained empirically from the outside. Just as religion can only explain the 2nd perspective and is also only partially true since not everything can be explained from the inside either. If you want to get the other 2 perspectives on what "life" is you'll have to use all 4 quadrants, of the inside and outside of the singular and the plural. This should help explain it a little more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wX_W1BB_0M
    Argon18
  • Dco, We know what molecules make up the physical parts of matter, but we can’t take those molecules and put them together in a lab to make a seed and have a plant, animal or human life produced from the seed man makes. Man cannot make a seed like creation does, and have it produce and reproduce. This may not be a good example. Yes, emotions move us, but you can’t take molecules, put them into matter and inject someone with the love to stay in a marriage and work it out, or take care of an elderly parent. Again, my examples may be bad.
    resolute
  • Argon18 - I noted that there was more to love: cognitive compatability. It is an abstract concept, and largely emotional. With this, I ask you: What does religion explain? The two "perspectives," or magesteria, as Gould coined it, are mutually inexclusive. I think science is far more disposed to ANSWERING questions. Religion does a mighty good job of raising those questions. There is nothing that religion has given us an answer to; it has just hindered us in finding answers.

    Resolute. Yes, your examples are kind of bad. I get what you're saying, but it's a little off. You're trying to say that there is more to, say, love, than chemical interaction, and I would agree, partially. It takes a predisposition between the two indivuals to LIKE each other, which takes a compatibility. It is not divine, by any means, nor is it spiritual. It, believe it or not, is chemical. The chemicals that allow us to feel, think, and react drive us to form relationships. These relationships, if things go right, may lead to love.
    dco
    • dco
    • 7 months ago
  • Everything in life depends of how you were initiated at first. A faulty initiation can spiritually and mentally "cripple" a person, hardening their feelings, reasoning and interpretation of life, making them to refuse to deal with the subject of GOD, Spirituality and Religion at all. It is ludicrous to compare Sciences and Religion as a discussion of who is better than the other. It is like comparing bananas and oranges. One has potassium and the other have citric acid and both are necessary to our health. Some of the differences of Sciences and Religion today is that Sciences is not available to all as Religion is. Sciences still an elite obstructed by economic factors that actually disfavor the poor and the general population. Therefore thanks for Religion that goes there and gets their hands dirty with lots of works of charity. The real fact is that many fear religion. Their fear comes from their thinking that they will lose their analytical capacity to reason when they get in contact with it. That is a fallacy since in truth Religion will help individuals to sharp their analytical skills and be more alert and to predict things to come. Spirituality and Religion will not going to direct solve anyone's problems but sure will give to many that understand it, the means to solve their problems. No else, at least it will save you some bucks with your psychologist.
    stopnoise
  • I was not initiated wrong... if that's what you meant. I just wasn't initiated. I learned about God, etc. when I was old enough to think about it, and not follow blindly. I openly deal with the subject of God, in fact, it's typically the religious people I talk to who are reluctant. Ultimate, I want to understand; I want to know how people accept the idea of God. I think it s totally expected to compare science and religion, as they are the two areas of thought that are familiar to most people. What part of religion is "essential to our health?" You say "Science is not available..." What? Of course it is! If you have internet, you can find all the science you need! It isn't held in a smoke filled room, or a barricaded city, or anything! Scientists are seldom secretive. The clergy on the other hand, how many years is it before anyone is allowed to see the shroud of Turin? I'd argue the opposite; science is open to all, but religion is hidden by a guise of clandestine mystery. Science enlightens any who seek it. There is no effort to keep the latest discoveries from the poor, or the general public. It is not elite, either. People just need to value it. I think religion keeps people from seeking knoeldge, thus making science unavailable. CHARITY! Ha! What do you call curing diseases? Sure the Catholic Church runs missions in India, but they also indoctrinate, and forbid contraception and abortion. The Church is semisweet as far as charity goes, and science is bsed on principles of general benefit. People fear religion because it has proven to be dangerous. I'm not exagerating when I say that religion has caused the death of billions and billions of people. Religion corrupts, ruins, and indoctrinates. It blinds people. Tell me exactly how religion aids analytic skills. To my knowledge, it doesn't. It assures people that they really don't need to KNOW anything; that belief is enough. I'm not sure what your last statement means, but since you bring up the psychology of religion, what is the difference between faith and delusion?
    dco
    • dco
    • 7 months ago
  • http://jcnot4me.com/Items/cults/victims_of_religion.htm
    Well, dco has pretty much responded in exactly the way I was going to upon reading stopnoise's post....but better, and with more memorable quotes...so I'll just post a link that I find both darkly funny and deeply disturbing...granted, it's quite militant.
    Humdrum
  • Thanks for the compliments. And very... appropriate link.
    dco
    • dco
    • 7 months ago

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.