geo wrote:I agree, it has become a kind of package deal. Staunch conservatives tend to be religious. And congregants of many of your traditional churches tend to be more conservative (and older).

I haven't studied the demographics of these things Geo, and globally it's a mixed picture from what I do know.
Obviously the Reformation was a major historic split in the then Catholic church, and I generally speaking side with the reformers on the main points of contention.
So I see problems there myself. In the biblical view all believers actually are priests whether male or female but even the concept of what a priest actually is,is defined by the conventional view in our minds,like that photo image.

So what can be said here about that church in the interests of fairness?
I guess the guys in the Vatican are bound to be older being Bishops. White? Looks like it in the photo, but they do have lots of Asian,African,and Latin American ones too.
On age it depends where you look and of histories in various places.
Catholicism is dead and buried here in Ireland due to a now known history of sexual and physical abuse of children in institutional care.
It's tough for those religious nuns and priests who did not behave this way, but it was bad enough to finish it off, and young people here generally are indifferent to religion, and hedonism a lifestyle for many, though not all.
In places like the Philippines, Latin America,Africa and many other places the picture is different and young people are involved in it.
Politically "Liberation theology" which was prominent in Latin America was based on biblical ideals of social justice and mainly Catholic in it's advocates.
Certainly it was on the side of the oppressed and not the staus quo. I'm not convinced it's completely biblically justified myself though social justice is a prominent theme of the prophets,and shouldn't be ignored.
Anyway,I'm just looking at what actually happened historically.
U.S. evangelicalism produced one monstrous child in the "prosperity gospel"churches and why it should have originated in the U.S. is worth asking perhaps.
How about a conference of prosperity gospellers and liberation theologists?
Anyway globally it's a mixed bag for the Catholic church.
Pentecostal churches globally are far from being retirement homes and evangelical churches generally speaking are not age specific in their composition.
The gender question is not simple biblically but would take a bit of going into.

So while you can point to real deficiencies there, was it really Christianity or secular philosophy that drove materialism and consumerism? That's what that essay is addressing; Secular Religions of Progress.

So while you can point to real deficiencies there, was it really Christianity or secular philosophy that drove materialism and consumerism? That's what that essay is addressing; Secular Religions of Progress.

That's right. The red herring in progress is yet another deflection.

"old white men" in robes starts off as an ad hominem and leads to a red herring.

I've read here before that atheism/secularism offers a superior moral/ethical system.

WHERE?
WHERE IN THE REAL WORLD?

We've all seen it run amok. There's evidence for that.

Oh wait a second - that was not true atheism. Those repressive, murderous regimes who professed atheism were not true atheists.
They were just bad politicians.

Flann 5 wrote: So while you can point to real deficiencies there, was it really Christianity or secular philosophy that drove materialism and consumerism? That's what that essay is addressing; Secular Religions of Progress.

Ant criticizes the red herrings I'm tossing up, but he's the one who asserted the connection between atheism and consumerism. And all I said is that you'd probably have a better argument saying just the opposite. Plus I love ragging on the Catholic Church, which I think is mostly just a bad joke. Clearly institutionalized religion is mostly about politics anyway.

But I think consumerism is driven mostly by capitalism. That seems almost too obvious, I know. I don't think religion or lack of religion has much to do with it. Certainly institutionalized religions help to cement old habits and old traditions in place. Does anyone suggest that the Church is at the bleeding edge of progress?

Did you post a link to this article somewhere? I must have missed it.

Does anyone suggest that the Church is at the bleeding edge of progress?

What type of progress?

Technological progress? The church is not a techno corporation.

Scientific progress? The church has never claimed or promoted itself to be a scientific endeavor. It has, however, supported and sustained progress and has not been the demonic, anti science entity new atheists pawn it off as. History falsifies that cheap rhetoric.

Has it played a roll in the cultivation of society and culture?

Yes.

Has it provided meaning to people's lives, regardless of your personal disdain for the church?
Again, that's a yes.


Cherry picking at will wont change any of the above.

And again, I think you mainly are referring to material progress, which has not made people happier campers (i'd guess)

geo wrote:But I think consumerism is driven mostly by capitalism. That seems almost too obvious, I know. I don't think religion or lack of religion has much to do with it.

I wouldn't disagree about capitalism which is obvious as you say.
But do you think these philosopher economists did not shape these ideas about the market and mechanisms and the nature of people and society as per social science?
Self interest is a foundation ideologically for an economic system with societal benefits because...............

The climate change crisis looks like the chickens coming home to roost.

geo wrote:Clearly institutionalized religion is mostly about politics anyway.

In a way everything is about politics but the church state alliance does have a bad track record,though usually it was the monarch calling the shots.Still that doesn't excuse the wars of religion.
But since when was that biblically based?
They have to violate Christian teaching to do these things.
There's a logic to Marxism with it's critique of capitalism, it's "diagnosis" of religion as the opiate of the masses and it's remedy in revolution which obliterates it's perceived enemies.
The intellectual rationalists loved it, in droves.

geo wrote:Certainly institutionalized religions help to cement old habits and old traditions in place. Does anyone suggest that the Church is at the bleeding edge of progress?

It depends on what you think Christianity is for. It's about transforming lives, and it does and it strengthens communities in doing so. You will find that true historically whether it was the salvation army yesterday, or the inner city Pentecostal church working among addicts and needy people today.
There's a tendency to write off the contributions of Christians to scientific advances as being just incidental,with the line that today they wouldn't be Christians because of the greater knowledge of science they would now have.
The fact remains that they were both Christian and scientists and as is often said,they expected to find order because of their theistic understanding.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... nd-maxwell

wouldn't disagree about capitalism which is obvious as you say.
But do you think these philosopher economists did not shape these ideas about the market and mechanisms and the nature of people and society as per social science?

yes they did. that's beyond question.

The suggestion is that the pursuit of science requires the presence of certain cultural and institutional supports if it is to steadily advance

- The Rise of Early Modern Science (Toby E Huff)

The capitalistic economic mode of consumption undoubtedly has its roots in Marxist/atheistic philosophy that influence perspectives of individuals that have promoted a materialistic utopia. It is faith in that particular system that promises "heaven on earth" The institutions of atheism/secularism clearly support personal fulfillment by material means, their social science influences that define advancement, or as Geo says "progress"
Unless of course someone wants to make an argument that real atheism, and not some vague, generic definition of it we can't find in action, also means spiritual fulfillment. But that would be an oxymoron.

Redirecting the discussion by asking if the church is on the "bleeding edge of progress" is a red herring.

Flann 5 wrote:In a way everything is about politics but the church state alliance does have a bad track record,though usually it was the monarch calling the shots.Still that doesn't excuse the wars of religion.
But since when was that biblically based?

This thread has gone way off the rails due in part to my own admittedly off topic rant about the Catholic Church. Let's just say, trying to blame atheism for society's ills is really unbelieveably simplistic. And despite my rant about the Catholic Church, I don't believe religion is to blame for society's ills either. When I refer to bleeding edge, I am referring to social progress. That would be idiotic to blame religion for not providing technical advancement. That would be like blaming consumerism on atheism. Organized religion both hinders and helps social progress. It's a non starter argument out of the gate. But I stand by my point that the Catholic Church in particular still has one foot in the Middle Ages. As far as I can see the Church is not leading the charge for social change. Although the current pope is trying . . . much to his credit.

Nor do I believe capitalism is evil. I think today's consumerism has many complex causes as well. I mentioned urbanization somewhere. I suppose urbanization is the fault of atheism too, Yes, I sometimes mock the Catholic Church, but I fully recognize that many people find much comfort in the Church's teachings. My mother is one of them.

But I do agree with you, Flann, that much of the negative stuff that comes from religion has to do with its politics. There's nothing biblical about it. And that brings me to one final clarification. I don't equate organized religion with one's personal religious belief. They are two very different things.

geo wrote:This thread has gone way off the rails due in part to my own admittedly off topic rant about the Catholic Church.

I don't think we went completely off topic, Geo.
In a way the secular religions of progress were themselves man made mythologies.
Most of the time their intentions were good and the ideas not as good as they thought, and harmful when " economic growth" becomes simply an item of faith.
Marxism was such a vision too, but virulent in it's demonising of it's designated enemies of "progress" and emancipation for the "naturally good" proletariat.
We can't say that the exploitation of children in industrialised factories is good, but it's obviously how best to remedy such things that is the issue.
Dickens did much to inform and influence public opinion on such issues with his writings, and parliament responded albeit slowly, to the public demands for change. That's just an example.