Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Millennials are dumping religion for witchcraft, not science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Image result for witchcraft symbols public domainIt’s not a new story. We’ve covered it here, here, and here within the last year or so. People don’t seem to be ditching traditional religion for science as much as for witchcraft:

Interest in spirituality has been booming in recent years while interest in religion plummets, especially among millennials. The majority of Americans now believe it is not necessary to believe in God to have good morals, a study from Pew Research Center found. The percentage of people between the ages of 18 and 29 who “never doubt existence of God” fell from 81% in 2007 to 67% in 2012.

Meanwhile, more than half of young adults in the U.S. believe astrology is a science. compared to less than 8% of the Chinese public. The psychic services industry — which includes astrology, aura reading, mediumship, tarot-card reading and palmistry, among other metaphysical services — grew 2% between 2011 and 2016. It is now worth $2 billion annually, according to industry analysis firm IBIS World. Kari Paul, “Why millennials are ditching religion for witchcraft and astrology” at MarketWatch

It’s curious how this trend and the current war on math and science in education garner so little attention among pop science commentators. Both trends will have devastating effects on the ability of members of the public to judge propositions in science, effects they would certainly not have derived from reading, say, C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, or G. K. Chesterton.

But what we won’t recognize, we must live through anyhow, just without the means of dealing with it effectively.

Hat tip: Heather Zeiger

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: John Gray: New Atheists don’t acknowledge their myths and beliefs

Why do we think technological progress is inevitable? Historically, plateaus and declines in technological development have been quite common. There is no “must” about it. And the role of religion is varied.

And

Which side will atheists choose in the war on science? They need to re-evaluate their alliance with progressivism, which is doing science no favours.

Comments
OldAndrew
If my wife makes cookies, is it okay for me to “sniff” them and enjoy how they smell?
Is it ok to eat food for the pleasure alone? That's why Romans built vomitoria. To gorge on the pleasures, vomit and then do it again. That's contraception. It's for the selfish pleasure alone - with opposition to child. It's a lust-based activity. It's parallel to gluttony.Silver Asiatic
November 5, 2018
November
11
Nov
5
05
2018
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Wow, this is really going off the deep end. There's some logic employed: The purpose of sex is procreation. There's a built-in assumption: The only purpose of sex is procreation. That's a big assumption since so many features of our bodies and what we do with them serve more than one purpose. If my wife makes cookies, is it okay for me to "sniff" them and enjoy how they smell? After all, the purpose of breathing is to get oxygen. And what if I eat one after dinner? I don't need the extra 75 calories to live. Is it a violation of moral law to eat it just because it tastes good? I see a pattern here. It sounds like if someone wants to assert that self-evident moral law prohibits sex with contraception then they have to think really hard about why the rules for some things are self-evident and the rules for others aren't. Then, this logic with its built-in assumption, which clearly isn't all that self-evident when we think about it, is used to assert a natural moral law. That's a huge leap. I think most reasonable people will conclude that it's just Catholic dogma, not some moral law. And what do pornography and masturbation have to do with a married man and woman having sex? If you think that sex between two people is only about self-satisfaction then... wow. How does one address how much is wrong with that? This is not natural law. This is starting with Catholic dogma and reasoning backwards. Adding to it, Catholics use contraception anyway. So why should the rest of us care?OldAndrew
November 5, 2018
November
11
Nov
5
05
2018
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
SA,
Why would a person engage in sex acts, and at the same time, deliberately frustrate the purpose of the acts (with contraception)?
Sex has purposes other than procreation. For example, a woman who has had a hysterectomy does not engage in sex in order to have children. Likewise, a couple using contraception wishes to enjoy the non-procreational aspects of sex.daveS
November 5, 2018
November
11
Nov
5
05
2018
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
daveS The natural moral law will prohibit acts which violate human nature (humans are rational) and human reason. So, the morality of sexual acts must conform to the purpose of sexuality. To violate that is irrational and a moral sin against humanity. Why would a person engage in sex acts, and at the same time, deliberately frustrate the purpose of the acts (with contraception)? It's to obtain the pleasure of the act by stripping away the purpose (and responsibility). A virtuous life is one lived with purpose, intention, responsibility and self-sacrifice. An immmoral life is lived with self-satisfaction, pleasure-seeking, irresponsibility and irrationality. Contraception, abortion and masturbation are means of obtaining selfish pleasure -- they are anti-child, anti-responsiblity. They are childish - very effeminiate acts for men. They're pleasure-seeking and addictive - cowardly. A lot of men in our culture are addicted to pornography for all of these reasons. A wife and children is a big responsiblity - requiring courage. But a life lived in accord with reason requires that kind of virtue. Socrates showed it - a big price to pay. Jesus was crucified for telling the truth about life. Escaping into the world of imaginary sex, or comfort-seeking, just damages the human soul. It leads to acceptance of gay-sex, sex with robots -- and all sorts of self-loathing behaviors like that.Silver Asiatic
November 5, 2018
November
11
Nov
5
05
2018
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Is there a "natural moral law" solution to this apparent conflict? For me, the moral arguments against contraception have literally zero force. I do feel it would be very important to minimize the chance of conceiving a child with serious birth defects. For example, there would be no drinking of alcohol during pregnancy or attempting to conceive when the mother is of relatively advanced age. But I have no idea of the effect size in the study EDTA cited, so I don't know if this phenomenon is really of practical importance. For all I know, contraceptive use could actually introduce a greater risk to a child's health than this issue of damaged sperm.daveS
November 5, 2018
November
11
Nov
5
05
2018
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
Science or scientism?kairosfocus
November 5, 2018
November
11
Nov
5
05
2018
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT
STDs also have a negative effect. Or did the researchers consider that?anthropic
November 5, 2018
November
11
Nov
5
05
2018
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
EricMH @ 5, ?In fact, it also convinced me that masturbation... [was] wrong, because in a certain sense they keep a person from even beginning to exist, which appeared to me even more horrible than murder. Not to get into the religious implications of this (because I don't know what I think yet), but it appears that abstinence prior to a mating encounter will actually increase the probability of a birth defect in the offspring so conceived, if there are any resulting from that particular union. This is because of accumulated damage in the sperm: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5714597/ Quoting: "The duration of abstinence had a statistically significant positive influence on sperm concentration and volume, the number of leukocytes and a statistically significant NEGATIVE INFLUENCE ON SPERM MOTILITY AND VITALITY [empahsis mine]. The percentages of DNA fragmentation and MMP (mitochondrial damage) worsened with the increased duration of abstinence. The percentage of sperm protamination was statistically significantly increased with abstinence......This study...highlights the deleterious effect of increased abstinence on DNA damage,...EDTA
November 4, 2018
November
11
Nov
4
04
2018
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
@daveS, all the "difficult cases" disappear with the premise that the fetus is a full human life deserving of all human rights at the point of conception, which is the most logically straightforward deduction of ID. It's also most in line with our constitution, which is unique in the history of civilization in giving everyone a right to life (upon which all other rights are founded). An easy way to see this. If a fetus is just as human as a 5 year old, then replace the fetus with a 5 year old in all the difficult cases, and the correct decision becomes very clear. The difficulty in these cases is not with the pro-life position but with our faulty moral intuitions.EricMH
November 4, 2018
November
11
Nov
4
04
2018
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
EricMH, I can certainly understand a principled position against the legality of abortion in some cases, for example, as a means of "birth control", for lack of a better term. How about more difficult cases, for example where a young girl is raped and becomes pregnant?daveS
November 4, 2018
November
11
Nov
4
04
2018
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
@daveS, when I was considering atheism I was ambivalent regarding abortion. ID convinced me to become much more pro-life, because I realized there was an inherent difference between human beings and matter, and thus humans were somehow special at the very point of conception. In fact, it also convinced me that masturbation and contraception were wrong, because in a certain sense they keep a person from even beginning to exist, which appeared to me even more horrible than murder. Regarding rituals, something is a ritual regardless of whether they are explicitly recognized as such. A ritual is merely a consistent pattern of behavior devoted to a certain end. The only difference between our society and, say, the Incas, is they were honest in their ritualized infant sacrifice, whereas we do not have the courage to face what we are.EricMH
November 4, 2018
November
11
Nov
4
04
2018
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
EricMH, I'm guessing that even for atheists who are in favor keeping abortion legal, it's preferable to have none. That is, no one deliberately sets out to have one in their 'worship of comfort and pleasure'. Edit: May I ask, when you were considering becoming an atheist, did you have opinions one way or the other on abortion?daveS
November 4, 2018
November
11
Nov
4
04
2018
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
@daveS it certainly has the markings of ritual sacrifice to our worship of comfort and pleasure.EricMH
November 4, 2018
November
11
Nov
4
04
2018
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
There is also a weird collusion between atheists and satanists, because the atheists see it as a stick to poke established religions with. Or, perhaps atheism is just a cover for satanism. It certainly seems to work itself out that way, such as with the genocidal atheist states. In our own country, both the atheists and satanists push for abortion, aka child sacrifice. I see very few atheists on the other side of the fence.
Hm. I know a few atheists, and I don't know any who would say they are in favor of "child sacrifice", in the sense of "ritualistic killing of children in order to please or appease a god or supernatural beings in order to achieve a desired result." (cribbed from wikipedia).daveS
November 4, 2018
November
11
Nov
4
04
2018
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
And not merely witchcraft. There is a disturbing trend of interest in satanism. This goes hand in hand with the denial of objectivity and moral relativism. If there is no right or wrong, everything is worth looking into, even the most disturbing. That is why there is "black" and "white" magic, instead of "good" and "evil" magic, since there is no "ought" in the color scale. There is also a weird collusion between atheists and satanists, because the atheists see it as a stick to poke established religions with. Or, perhaps atheism is just a cover for satanism. It certainly seems to work itself out that way, such as with the genocidal atheist states. In our own country, both the atheists and satanists push for abortion, aka child sacrifice. I see very few atheists on the other side of the fence.EricMH
November 4, 2018
November
11
Nov
4
04
2018
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply