What is needed to combat the overwhelming level of belief in God?

[Mudhammam]

I have a question.

As many of you admit, the philosophical arguments for the existence of God works best for those that already have a propensity to believe in God (raised that way, exposed through family or friends, or an evangelist ministry of some kind that resonated with them or met their needs in other ways). In that way, the arguments provide affirmation of what they believe to be true from other sources.

I have seen first hand, that apologetics in the last 10 years is on a HUGE upswing in churches. Almost every church has a periodic class or a study looking through the philosophical arguments, reviewing those things that science can't explain, picking apart scientism and pointing out the logical implications of such a belief system. It is great sport to pick apart Dawkins and other spokesmen of the "New Atheist" movement. I wonder if Dawkins et al efforts have not actually been counter-productive and instead galvanized the church into much needed education. 

If 90% of the world believes in God and 31% (and growing) are Christians, it seems that your "there is no evidence for God" theme is not getting out. Include the above observation that the philosophical arguments will be more effective in this group anyway, and it seems unlikely to change. I am not mocking you, I simply want to know what you think will happen in the future. Do you think science will provide some sort of answer(s) to combat the huge imbalance (it sure doesn't look like it is going to be philosophy)? If science, what things in particular might make a difference?

What believers consider to be "philosophical arguments" that serve to "provide affirmation" is similar to the way that Fox News affirms for a segment of conservative voters certain stereotypes and prejudices. You may possess these stereotypes and prejudices due to similar "other sources," and then you see "news reports" and what appear to be intelligent pundits and politicians offering facts and arguments which seem to lend support to your view. But, of course, Fox News is never fully truthful or rarely straight news, just as "philosophical arguments for God" are never valid and sound philosophical arguments. In both cases what is needed are greater doses of reality, more attention paid to detail, and of course, following the rules of demonstration by sticking to valid deductions and sound inferences, proportioning your confidence in the belief at hand to the evidence you have to support it. As this would require human beings to operate at a level that most are simply unwilling or incapable of doing, the ignorance that is conducive to religiosity is never going away.

[Cato]

I have seen first hand, that apologetics in the last 10 years is on a HUGE upswing in churches.

You report this as positive; however, I'd like to present a different perspective. For two thousand years religious authority supported by societal pressure has ensured unquestioned belief. The focus of belief has largely been a function of one's family specifically and geography generally; perpetual indoctrination. Only the very brave had previously had enough conviction to openly question the prevailing dogma. Have you asked yourself why in the last ten years has it been important for religious institutions to increase engagement of the more reasoning side of its adherents; i.e., apologetics? This not so strangely coincides with the phenomenon of what's now called new-atheism, a very vocal manifestation of what's always existed...skeptical inquiry into the existence of God and religious claims.

Let's be honest about apologetics. Despite how fresh and new the arguments seem when one is first made aware of them, most have been around for hundreds of years; they were also promptly refuted. Apologetics only serves to drag out the inevitable given the dearth of evidence for god and religious claims. You put a lot of stock into atheist population statistics when you should be much more alarmed about the rapidly increasing ranks of nones. Apologetics is the clapper ringing hell's bells.

The truth is that the cat not only escaped the bag, but promptly turned around and shredded it.

[The Grand Nudger]

b-mine.
 
....sounds alot like religion to me..........

I honestly am those things..btw.  I make no argument as to any of them being true, but for me, they are - regardless.

I believe you believe you believe that. But I don't think you really do.

Pretty sure that you've officially stepped out of conversation if the only way for you to proceed is to imagine that another person isn't who they plainly are, lol.

[downbeatplumb]

I have a question.

As many of you admit, the philosophical arguments for the existence of God works best for those that already have a propensity to believe in God (raised that way, exposed through family or friends, or an evangelist ministry of some kind that resonated with them or met their needs in other ways). In that way, the arguments provide affirmation of what they believe to be true from other sources.

I have seen first hand, that apologetics in the last 10 years is on a HUGE upswing in churches. Almost every church has a periodic class or a study looking through the philosophical arguments, reviewing those things that science can't explain, picking apart scientism and pointing out the logical implications of such a belief system. It is great sport to pick apart Dawkins and other spokesmen of the "New Atheist" movement. I wonder if Dawkins et al efforts have not actually been counter-productive and instead galvanized the church into much needed education. 

If 90% of the world believes in God and 31% (and growing) are Christians, it seems that your "there is no evidence for God" theme is not getting out. Include the above observation that the philosophical arguments will be more effective in this group anyway, and it seems unlikely to change. I am not mocking you, I simply want to know what you think will happen in the future. Do you think science will provide some sort of answer(s) to combat the huge imbalance (it sure doesn't look like it is going to be philosophy)? If science, what things in particular might make a difference?

You think this because you are surrounded by people of faith. In the UK the story is different with the majority not believing. The church I was christened in is now a pub. This is the way of churches in the UK they need to find other uses for them coz people don't need hat shit anymore.

A 2014 survey of approximately 64,000 people in 65 countries revealed the UK to be one of the world's most irreligious countries, with only 30% of those surveyed identifying as 'religious'.

http://faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity.html

[Edwardo Piet]

Shits goin' down!

Since I'm providing good entertainment, you should at least be kudosing my efforts

I like it when you tell me what to do

[Whateverist]

It's not the same, is it? Wouldn't you rather get more people to where you are right now than throw up your hands and say it's all hopeless because you have the impression you're showing signs of irrationality yourself?

Damn, you are just driven by this aren't you?  I wonder what it is that motivates you anyhow.  Wanna be the hero that saves the world?  Who needs gods when you can be heroic.  

Why not manners?  In this day and age everyone in the world should have good manners.  Are you just going to sit there and let people fail to achieve their potential?  What the hell kind of hero are you?

[Edwardo Piet]

A narcissistic one.

Don't worry Whatev, he takes that a compliment. At least, he did last time

[SteveII]

I think that naturalism has been embraced by many because of either 1) the misunderstanding that it can account for everything we see or 2) if not now, it will.

As it relates to enlightening the masses, what happens if we do not figure out the origin of life and irreducible complexity? Isn't it logical that, with the overwhelming propensity for people to believe in a god, that naturalism will lose appeal when promised answers are not forthcoming? With 50% or so of scientist believing in god or higher power now, wouldn't that number just increase as time passes--further supporting a trend away from naturalism?

[Excited Penguin]

He's citing this poll:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/...-2009nov24

But the Pew poll found that levels of religious faith among scientists vary quite a bit depending on their specialty and age. Chemists, for instance, are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in biology and medicine (32%). And younger scientists (ages 18 to 34) are more likely than older ones to believe in God or a higher power.

[Excited Penguin]

Steve, you're a an OK guy. You're honest and very responsible in how you broach this topic.

How come you're so brainwashed though?