AS a species verges on extinction, conservationist take note of the estimated number of breeding pairs, for without them the species is doomed.
Well very few breeding pairs can be seen around the mainstream Christian churches these days. The adherents to these faiths are dying out.
It was borne out this week by an Australian Bureau of Statistics collation of data from censuses on religious belief.
The “No Religion” box was first proffered in the 1971 census and was selected by 6.7 per cent of people. In 2006 that had shot to nearly 20 per cent. It had overtaken all other categories except “Catholic”. But its trajectory is up and “Catholic” is down.
The only other category to rise is “Non-Christian”, largely due to an increasing number of migrants coming from non-Christian countries. Even so, the non-Christians are only just over 5 per cent of the population.
The figures show how the mainstream religions, particularly Anglicanism, are dying out. Anglicans are more than 30 per cent of the over 80s and just 15 per cent of the under 40s.
The 19.1 per cent who ticked “No Religion” probably under-states the number of the people who are agnostic, atheist or apathetic.
For a start, 11.2 per cent of people did not answer the question – it has always been an optional question. It is likely that the bulk of these would be atheist, agnostic or apathetic because people who take an active part in religion tend to profess it, or confess it, rather than hide it. It is in the nature of religion to proselytize it.
These is some evidence for this because in the age groups where “no Religion” was highest, the “decline to answer” was lower than average.
A further point is that quite a number of people are tribally or ethnically associated with a religion and would tick a religious box even though they would rarely if ever be actively religious. Many census forms are filled out collectively by a family – some non-religious spouses and children might go along with a tick in a religious box so as not to cause family ructions.
When you look at this new detail about religion in Australia, it would well be that Australia is one of the least religious nations on earth.
Are we any less moral, generous or caring than other places? There is no evidence of it. We certainly give more to foreign aid and charity than the more religious United States. And our crime rates are lower.
There may be some genetic predisposition to religion. The United States was settled by people fleeing Europe so they could practice their religion, whereas Australia had a large portion of convicts among its first settlers. But even in the US there is a trend away from religion, especially in the West.
Will the trend away from profession of religion continue in Australia? Several factors point that way. The number of people will to state their lack of religion has nearly trebled in 35 years. In the 2006 census more people (42 per cent) were willing to describe their under-five-year-olds as having no religion or not did not answer the question – as against 30 per cent in the population as a whole.
That might indicate a trend to less religious indoctrination and further increase the trend to less religiosity in Australian society.
After all, religious adherence only comes about through indoctrination. Left alone, no child would wake up one day and accept the totality of, say, Catholicism or Judaism, as revealed truth. Without indoctrination and passing on, a religion would just die out.
When my daughter was a child, I used to write “not yet known” for her religion question on census forms.
The greater number of people with no religion has resulted in more overt atheism or agnosticism verging on atheism (I can’t prove either way, but I think it extremely unlikely there is an all-good all-powerful god given the evidence.)
That overt atheism, exemplified by Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens’s God is not Great and others, is probably persuading people, directly or indirectly. These writers among others are providing the tools of persuasion.
Hitherto, people were silent about their atheism for fear of being stigmatised, or in earlier times burnt to death.
They have been joined by atheists seeking to put up billboards and buy bus advertising promoting atheism. One slogan was: “There is no god, so for goodness sake be good.” Others urged people to free themselves from the guilt of religion.
The trends are encouraging for those who hold that on balance religion is a force for the worse. All the good and charitable things done in the name of religion can be done anyway without religion. There are dozens of secular charities. But the wars, pogroms, persecutions, violence and servitude against women, discrimination and refusal to allow females to be educated that are done in the name of religion, would not be done if there was no religion.
It is becoming tolerated, accepted and even laudable to be an atheist or an agnostic verging on atheism. A momentum is building.
The next census will most likely reveal the trends continuing. Among 25-year-olds now, more than a third say they have no religion or do not state a religion.
Your “’No religion’ ticks more boxes in this secular society of ours” on page B7 of the February 7 edition of The Canberra Times triggered memories of discussions with the ACT statistician last millennium.
Believe that during a lecture on the misuse of statistics decades ago that the difference in census questions between Australia and New Zealand was quoted as an example. The comparison between the religiosity of New Zealand and Australia is a case of comparing apples with oranges. It is understood that the New Zealand census poses the question – What church do you belong to? The Australian census asks – What religion are you? To compare answers to different questions is false epidemiology. Possibly a question along the lines of – To which church or charity do you pay your tithes [10% of salary]? – would result in a more limited response.
As far as I am aware it has been impossible to declare oneself a Christian in the Australian Public Service or Defence Force for some half a century. I, for one, would be happy to be described as a Christian due to a broad Christian upbringing. However, in no way would I wish to be associated with any “God bothering” organisation. I suspect that many of those brought up in the teachings of the Jewish or Islam traditions would not want to be associated with their sects either.
According to the ACT statistician the “unacceptability” of Christianity per se as a religion within the Australian bureaucracy has been caused by successive generations of Australian Church hierarchies preferring accounting fuzziness to cover declining attendances and to retain semblance of community spiritual and moral leadership.
Some sceptics have argued that by raising sects to religion status in Australia it confirms that these sects have diverted from Christianity.
Perhaps the census religious questions need revision or alternatively be accorded due relevance and be excised.
Regards,
Go unto all nations
Whenever Crispin Hull writes about Christianity (”No religion ticks more boxes in this secular society of ours”, February 7, pB7), he gets it wrong.
By chance, he almost got something right when he said, ”It is in the nature of religion to proselytise”. The truth is that some people are chosen by God to be evangelists. Jesus told His disciples to go and make disciples of all nations. (Matt. 28:19)
Crispin Hull, along with Andrew Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, misleads his readers.
Ideally, they should leave Christianity alone, and write only about a subject they know.
R.Lyne, Kingston
Crispin
Excellent article but I have one criticism – there could potentially be just as many non-believers ticking that box on the census for the rest of their church going family as visa-versa.
Still it is good to see non-belief on the rise and it eventually may cause the Government to consider removing all the tax breaks religious organisations currently receive. Make church user pay I say.
Regards
Mark Dawson
Crispin
Congrats on an excellent article in today’s Canberra Times.
You might have seen my op ed, also in Canberra Times, on 29 October 2008 that pushed hard on religion:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/drop-parliamentary-prayer-and-adopt-secular-ways/1346072.aspx?storypage=0
If we continue to express such views, then little by little, people might appreciate that religion isn’t what many religious leaders make it out to be.
Regards
David Swanton
Dear Crispin Hull,
I subscribe to the Canberra Times to get local information and read your material frequently., but really prefer other newspapers due to the poor quality of much material in this unfortunate publication.
Nothing seems to rile you more than religion, or perhaps the Queen. But I would like to make a few comments.
You frequently claim no need for “a god”. However you need to attempt a definition of “a god”. The Oxford and other dictionaries provide a collection of suggested meanings including, an idol, an adored or admired person, and something or someone that motivates or dominates a person’s life or actions. People adopt such gods to accord direction and meaning in their lives, which otherwise would be quite purposeless. Others seek power, prestige, money, advancement in the public service and then drive themselves relentlessly towards these goals. I may be entirely incorrect, but it seems to me that your gods include leftist politics, humanism, or some other sort of materialist “ism”, to which you are fully entitled. However others might seek a religious god, not because they have been indoctrinated, but because they see a spiritual side to life, which can hardly be denied, or they find their own abilities inadequate and find it necessary to seek resources beyond themselves. The question for debate is to which gods will provide needful satisfaction, address life’s difficulties or assist in finding meaning and purpose in life.
I am fascinated by the way atheists idolise Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchings after their two recent publications. However intelligent people will not formulate an opinion solely on the basis of two publications but will read very widely, including contrary opinions, which are many. I am currently reading The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, a former legal editor of The Chicago Tribune who was an atheist but became a Christian. I find this work quite boring notwithstanding he quotes Dawkins occasionally. There is really no need for a number of biologists, physicists, geologists, astronomers etc. to advise that their disciplines do not provide all the answers about the universe and that further research is necessary. They also claim that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is deficient and there is no evidence of the supposed prebiotic soup. However these claims are surely self evident. Furthermore, it is better when anyone is condemning religion to provide some evidence that they understand what you are decrying, so that any observer can test the genuineness or otherwise of their claims. There is plenty of material available for research into the practical application of the Christian religion to assist in its evaluation. For example the contemporary writings of award winning auditor Philip Yancey, Where is God when it hurts? Prayer, does it make any difference? What’s so amazing about Grace? The Christian religion has always claimed that to find it, you have to practice it, it was intended to be an assistance in daily living, not just a subject for theoretical musings.
Yes indeed, there are dozens of secular charities. But I am not aware that the Humanist Society operates any schools, hospitals or orphanages. Which ones were there first? In Australia, the Christian church has over the years, initiated many social welfare enterprises, most of which were started before secular or humanist agencies even recognised there was a problem. Foe example, the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia, a national icon which provides health care for over 80% of Australia in this day and age, resulted from a mission commenced by Rev. Dr. John Flynn in Beltana, South Australia in 1911. There were many interests, both secular and government, which ridiculed the suggestion that sick people could be carried in an aeroplane, or that hospitals could exist in the outback, or that a radio signal for help could be conveyed 400 miles. However John Flynn took the grace of God in heart and mind and persevered, notwithstanding that it was 17 May 1928 before the first mercy flight took off from Cloncurry. To this day, the RFDS relies on public support for most of the finance to continue its activities with minimal assistance from the Government. In Canberra, the Christian church, particularly Canberra Baptist Church took up the issue of aged care at a very early stage before this was accorded general concern. Canberra a city of enormous human need despite claims of superior enlightenment and the churches will have a continuing role to play if this need is to be in any measure, addressed.
The Christian church often obtains bad press because the human element dominates in a manner that might not even be pleasing to God. However a love of humanity is important and I wish you well as you continue to research these issues.
_____________________________________________________________________________________