Let me recap the main points of our discussion:

1) You claimed that there is “…not a shred of evidence that there is an afterlife…”, as if you were familiar with the subject.
2) I am familiar with this subject, and pointed out that there was actually a massive amount of evidence for the existence of an afterlife as well as other spiritual phenomena; That this evidence was available at any major library (and has been for at least 100 years) for anyone interested to access.
3) I further pointed out that, for emotional reasons I don’t pretend to comprehend, many scientists deny the existence of this evidence: or, if they are made aware of it they claim that it has been debunked – all this without ever examining the evidence themselves. I pointed you to a small compilation of this evidence in a popular book, as an easy way to look at some of it.
4) You immediately claimed (without actually looking at it) that all of this evidence was debunked – thereby supporting my point #3 above (thanks). You are even willing to let a professional magician with only a high school education make this determination for you – somehow I don’t think you would cede the “Amazing Randi” this authority in your own field.

By the way, engineer/author Arthur C. Clark spend a one hour television show deconstructing one of Randi’s “proofs”: Randi had set up a dowsing experiment in Australia and claimed that it proved that dowsing didn’t work. Clark demonstrated that Randi’s statistical analysis was bogus and, when done properly, proved (to ~90% certainty) the exact opposite. Naturally, neither Randi nor those scientists who claim that he “debunked” dowsing took any notice.

You seem to think that I must convince you of the existence or quality of this evidence – why? The evidence is available for anyone to access, just as is the evidence of the correctness of quantum mechanics (as distinct from the multiple, philosophical meta-theories based on QM). (BTY, I probably know more about QM than you credit me with, as I have a MS in solid-state electronics.) If someone chooses to ignore it, that is their business.

Your attempts to disparage me for my evidence-based belief in an afterlife (as well as other spiritual phenomena) hints of desperation, and illustrates that you have no real arguments to offer. Better you should wonder why you have an emotional need to believe something that is so strong that you can’t even admit the existence of contrary evidence.

Bob

As for church attendance, some say it has been stable since the 1950s, some say it is on the decline. Some say about 20% of Americans attend a religious service regularly, some around 40%. See for example the following blog post on this:

http://missionalchurchnetwork.blogspot.com/2008/11/weekly-usa-church-attendance.html

Granted, there is no perfect way of assessing the religious situation. But at best only 40% of people have attended a religious service on a regular (weekly or better) basis since the 1950s. This means that 60% of Americans are either nominally religious or non-religious.

What this ARIS study may really show is that more people who would have identified themselves with a religious tradition, but were nominally religious in the sense that they rarely attend service, don’t practice their faith, and aren’t the most knowledgeable about it have recognized that they don’t in all honestly belong to said faith tradition and now consider just check “none” when asked about religious adherence.

This may be in part to the experiences of the Bush years and the politicalization of religion. It may also be because the sexual values of non-religious Americans have changed vastly since the 1960s and no longer have much in common with religious people. For example, your average atheist, agnostic, and nominal Christian in say 1960 saw homosexuality as abnormal and immoral and frowned on divorce, pre-marital cohabitation, and out of wedlock births. The same isn’t true today at all. Non-religious America has changed greatly since the 1960s and has embraced the values of the sexual revolution in ways that marks them off considerably from religious America.

In the end, however, I’m not sure if the ARIS study actually shows any real decline in Christianity or any meaningful change. The honest truth is that most Americans weren’t orthodox, committed Christians in the first place. What we may be seeing isn’t so much a huge falling off of Christianity (though some of that may be happening), but a recognition on the part of those who don’t ever attend a religious service and aren’t really religious of where their religious adherence lies. In short, the ARIS survey may show that what is really declining is nominal religious adherence.

rr

Great response. I thought your words went straight to the heart of matters. We never chose this, and we will all eventually die. You can’t argue with that. What was I before I was born and what will I be after I die? (Your response had more nuance than this. Please pardon me for simplifing it to something I can get my thoughts around.)

For me, these are cultural questions as much as existential ones. Everything about western civilization leads us to believe we are individual free agents playing out our lives in an impersonal universe. Religion was invented to soften that perception. Somehow we have to step outside of centuries of cultural conditioning. What is required at this point in human history is a reframing of the questions about life. I think we must move from belief in a dead universe to one that is literally alive, and begin to understand our role in that. We have to see ourselves as part of something larger and something timeless, and do that without all the storytelling.

The central problem is this: If we continue to identify “me” as only the fraction of the universe inside our own skin then the questions of existence will never go away. We must see the whole as well as the parts. Personally, I don’t think life has a beginning and an ending, and I don’t think “we” do either.

In any event, thank you for taking the time to respond. Discussions like this are a wonderful way for us all to deepen our understanding of each other.

I was (I think!) also alluding to the way much of the American Protestant segment of the body of Christ has a tendency to run after every “new thing,” no matter how unbiblical. (“Strategic-level spiritual warfare,” the so-called “Prosperity Gospel,” etc.)

Do I believe that other religions will also attract people, especially if they’re non-legalistic? The answer is “yes,” though I also believe that many of us (me, too) seek comfort in structure, even in rules. (Again, I’ve no intention of dissing you or your faith… but it’s a bit outside of what we know and believe – historically – of/about orthodoxy.)

I’m a concerned baptist as far as this visit goes. If you have some suggestions on some specific areas to address, it might be helpful in the visit.

Thanks

TGfKnx

This particular church will be gone in 10 years or less if they don’t make some inroads into the transitioned community around them and attract some outside of that as well. I was shocked and saddened to see this church in that condition. After reading that today I’ve decided that I’m going to visit the pastor and get some “real time” perspective on what has happened and what he and the church might be considering to change the direction – if they’re considering anything. It should be a very eye opening, enlightening conversation.

The Guy from Knoxville

I see two very big holes in your “new vision.”

First: none of us choses when, where, or in what socioeconomic status we are born into.

Second: Physically, we ALL die eventually. Not only that, but we certainly haven’t cracked the code on whether or not we get sick. We may be able to cure the disease, but there’s no fix that guarantees we won’t get the disease. We live longer, but we still get old (perhaps at a slower rate; just compare people born in the 1st world and those born in abject poverty in the 3d.)

As for comprehending the forces of nature, keep this in mind: every time we THINK we have found the smallest “particle” in an atomic structure, we seemingly find that there is something yet smaller.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Science is the search for the truth in our natural world. God has no “beef,” as it were, with that. Nor should religion. Aquinas would agree. So did Pope Urban VIII, who was elected to suceed Paul V. Galileo’s problem was he presented his hypothesis (which turned out to be partially incorrect, btw) as absolute fact.

Yes they will grow, but so will “non-traditional” (as you implied) Churches like the LDS Church. People are seeking Truth. We don’t “beat people over the head with a 20-lb. pulpit Bible” and we have the Truth that many people are searching for. Going back to the 1st & 2nd Century understanding of Jesus Christ answers MANY questions people have in the inconsistencies in many “Traditional” Churches.

Acting more like Christ: Absolutely yes.

I think one of the things that must go is the perceived “need” to evangelize. When people know you have other motives for something as simple as taking a walk or inviting you to dinner – in other words, when you suspect proseletyzing [sp??] is the real main course – why would they bother showing up?

I’ve been around churches that have gotten obsessed with so-called “church planting” to the exclusion of living out the Gospel in the here and now. To me, it seems like a quintessentially American way to try push something on other people. Then, when we “plant” the churches, we can get all smug and self-satisfied about how we did that and *still* not bother to attend to the real needs of others, both in the church and not.

As for the future looking like Mark Driscoll, I find that notion to be deeply troubling (like a number of other commenters here). God help us. The “traditional” churches (RC, Anglican, Orthodox, Lutheran) are likely to end up being the refuge of those who are seeking something real but don’t know quite what it is or where else they can go that allows them to just be (as opposed to being beaten over the head with a 20-lb. pulpit Bible).

In a way, I can see some close parallels between the so-called “prosperity ‘Gospel’” and this church-”planting” movement, and I’m alarmed by that.

If Driscoll and pals were really doing the job of building churches, I doubt we would so much as know their given names.

I agree that we are having challenges communicating, and I was trying to just push your idea to the absurd ending. I agree that we need to know when to stop and trust our stuff, and our people. Thank you for the explanation about the Arctic ice. I had not heard that, but it makes sense.

I also agree with you completely about being careful whom you trust.

Rod,

Thank you for replying. I will have to think about some of the things that you are saying. For myself, I must be one of the more primitive types, because I love stories, and even today, my favorite reading are stories. I’ve found some Christian writers that are very good parable writers, and lap their writings up. Walter Wangerin Jr is one of them, and I read “The Shack” also.

I disagree that Christianity made people weak, though. Just look at some of the non-Christian religions and see. I’m thinking of the ones where the poor never have a chance to break out of their poverty. At least, we Christians are taught that there is difference in people. The serf and the lord of the manor came before the same priest, knelt and recieved communion. Granted, that is the ideal, and may not have happened as much as you and I would have liked.

Yes, we can do a lot, but just because we can does that mean that we should? How do we decide those questions?