Clergy told to take on the 'new atheists'

[Cheese]

The Church of England will this week vow to fight "new atheism" in an attempt to combat the rise of secularism and defend Christianity in Britain.

It predicts "the next five years are set to be a period of exceptional challenge for the nation and the Church of England."
In particular, it points to the fallout from the economic crisis, shrinking and ageing congregations and the retirement of 40 per cent of its paid clergy in the next decade.


I think the last point is the most valid of all...as congregations get older less and less young people are following <choice of thesim>.
It appears that the Church of England is taking notice.

[HotHotHeat]

It's the same reason fox news conservatism in the US will lose traction in then coming years. I think America is a few years behind England, but today's young people have already made up their mind.

[TylerSVT]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

It's the same reason fox news conservatism in the US will lose traction in then coming years. I think America is a few years behind England, but today's young people have already made up their mind.

Exactly, kids have the internet now as a form of information, many of them no longer rely on information from their parents/church when it comes to religion. When you open doors people choose their own paths, and many are choosing Agnostic/Atheist.

[Sainters7]

That'd be a shame if a religion (Church of England) who's foundations are built upon such noble beginnings as the fact that the king was looking for a loophole to divorce his wife and marry the new apple of his eye so he created his own religion, had to fold.

[GGG]

The church needs to re-think their marketing strategy.

They use fear based marketing and a long term reward. Our society is currently wired in immediate gratification for our actions.

Without bringing faith into it it is easy to see why religion is not attractive to todays youth culture.

[HotHotHeat]

How do you rebrand 2000 year old fairytales?

Disney?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

How do you rebrand 2000 year old fairytales?

Disney?

They should really capitalize on enviromentalism and social justice. THis way they can have some immediate reward for peoples actions instead of focusing on end game.

[Codes]

I think it boils down to education and access to information.

Can't really fight that.

[Savvy27]

"Drawing particular attention to the threat posed by a new movement of militant atheists, led by Dawkins and Hitchens,"

I can't speak for Hitchens, but I have trouble thinking of an individual who is less of a militant than Richard Dawkins. I have read several of his books and he has never once suggested that violence should be used to stop people from being religious.

The article makes me wonder how the clergy intends to fight against atheism. They can make their own arguments, but, in my opinion, the more comfortable they get in discussing the evidence in favour and refuting the evidence against the Christian faith, the more power they give to their opposition.

Really, the best way for religions to ensure their survival is through the indoctrination of children. If congregations are diminishing, there must be fewer children being brought up believing that Anglicanism is the true faith and they will eventually disappear. I'm not sure what they can do.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

"Drawing particular attention to the threat posed by a new movement of militant atheists, led by Dawkins and Hitchens,"

I can't speak for Hitchens, but I have trouble thinking of an individual who is less of a militant than Richard Dawkins. I have read several of his books and he has never once suggested that violence should be used to stop people from being religious.

.

Being "militant" about something does not mean that you are advocating violence. It just means that the person has an aggressive and combatitive nature when it comes to arguing particular issues. I'd say that describes Dawkins pretty well.

[Savvy27]

Fine, point taken. Common usage does allow for that. Although, I think that using the word in such a way makes it so vague that it is basically meaningless and purposely misleading. A "militant muslim" or "militant christian" do not seem to conjure up equivalents of Richard Dawkins.

I still think it's a misnomer to describe a person that uses public debate and text (that does not support violent or militaristic action) to promote their viewpoint.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Being "militant" about something does not mean that you are advocating violence. It just means that the person has an aggressive and combatitive nature when it comes to arguing particular issues. I'd say that describes Dawkins pretty well.

It also describes the Pope pretty well too. Would you call him a militant?

Dawkins certainly is aggressive and combative. He's strident, staunch bla bla bla, but "militant" has a very negative connotation.

People with scarves over their faces and AK-47's in their hand are often called militants.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It also describes the Pope pretty well too. Would you call him a militant?

Dawkins certainly is aggressive and combative. He's strident, staunch bla bla bla, but "militant" has a very negative connotation.

People with scarves over their faces and AK-47's in their hand are often called militants.

I perfer evangelical when describing Dawkins.

[flamesfever]

The word zealous comes to mind. There are different degrees of zealousness, all the way from mildly zealous to out and out fanatic.

I think this applies to some of the religious as well as those against religion.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It also describes the Pope pretty well too. Would you call him a militant?

Dawkins certainly is aggressive and combative. He's strident, staunch bla bla bla, but "militant" has a very negative connotation.

People with scarves over their faces and AK-47's in their hand are often called militants.

I honestly can't say I have ever seen any footage of the pope being combatitive or aggressive when arguing anything. He has no reason to be, because he is always just preaching to the choir.

[calumniate]

Spoiler!

Does this mean shrinking 'packages' as well? Could be good news for choir boys

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Fine, point taken. Common usage does allow for that. Although, I think that using the word in such a way makes it so vague that it is basically meaningless and purposely misleading. A "militant muslim" or "militant christian" do not seem to conjure up equivalents of Richard Dawkins.

I still think it's a misnomer to describe a person that uses public debate and text (that does not support violent or militaristic action) to promote their viewpoint.

Dawkins does seem to have a true hatred for the side he argues against, so I don't think the term is misleading at all.

It's like the difference between feminists who advocate gender equality and militant feminists who hate men.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I honestly can't say I have ever seen any footage of the pope being combatitive or aggressive when arguing anything. He has no reason to be, because he is always just preaching to the choir.

He is about a hundred years old, so we probably aren't going to see him shaking his fist, but he is/was well known as "The Pope's Pit Bull" or something like that. Oh that Bennie, he's a feisty one.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Dawkins does seem to have a true hatred for the side he argues against, so I don't think the term is misleading at all.

What gives you that impression? The reason I made a concession about Christopher Hitchens being militant (it's still the wrong word) is that he is so adversarial. I do not think that Dawkins hates anyone. He just thinks they are wrong and that teaching the next generation things that are false has negative consequences.

It's like the difference between feminists who advocate gender equality and militant feminists who hate men.

I disagree with this comparison. Dawkins isn't out for revenge, nor is he denying the religious perspective a position in the debate. He is concluding that their perspective has insufficient evidence to back up their claims.

It is very easy to flip that comparison around and argue that it is the clergy who suit the position of the militant feminists who hate secular forces that threaten their position of influence.

[GreenLantern]

People still believe in God?

Really...?