Is the death of Christianity greatly exaggerated?

October 08, 2024 23 Reactions

In the UK, according to a recent survey, there are more atheists than people who believe in God. Researchers at Queen’s University Belfast spent three years asking why atheism has grown around the world. Nearly 25,000 people from the UK, the US, Brazil, China, Denmark and Japan participated in the survey.

They found that atheists do not necessarily lead lives devoid of meaning, morality or purpose and that parents are a major factor influencing a belief in God.’

According to Professor Jonathan Lanman from Queen’s University Belfast, “Our large cross-cultural surveys reveal that while many factors may influence one’s beliefs in small ways, the key factor is the extent to which one is socialised to be a theist.” He added: ‘Many other popular theories, such as intelligence, emotional stoicism, broken homes, and rebelliousness, do not stand up to empirical scrutiny.”

And Dr Lois Lee from the University of Kent commented: “The UK is entering its first atheist age. Whilst atheism has been prominent in our culture for some time – be it through Karl Marx, George Eliot, or Ricky Gervais – it is only now that atheists have begun to outnumber theists for the first time in our history."

This is not the first obituary for Christianity. To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of Christianity have been greatly exaggerated, largely because its atheist critics resent having to bow to a religion in a society that, they insist, no longer bows to God. In their eyes Christianity is a pernicious influence; at best it is a private hobby that everyone else is forced to fund.

Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis

Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.

But if they did succeed in eradicating Christianity, the needy amongst us would have to join a very long queue to obtain help from the non-existent atheist schools, hospitals, welfare organisations, while those seeking non-spiritual solace in the atheist halls of non-worship not to be found in every hamlet in the land, however remote, would be similarly disappointed. Presumably everyone would have to rely on the State for everything – not such a great step forward for human welfare and human flourishing, although clearly in line with Marxist theory.

The director of religious think tank Theos, Chine McDonald, said: “the findings reflect 50 years of widespread non-religion in society”. She remarked: “What this collation of the data is showing, is the consequence of around 50 years of a pervasive non-religion in our society, in our media and our culture; this idea that actually to believe in God is a weird thing.”

However, what does the future hold?

“Recent research has found that over 50 per cent of immigrants to the UK are Christian and less than 20 per cent are Muslim,” she pointed out. “That is a significant proportion of people coming to this country who do believe in God.”

And why is this significant? Because the biggest predictor of religious convictions is parental attitudes. “So it would follow then that if you’ve got a significant proportion of society in the future believing in God and bringing up their children in their faith, then it’s going to be a significant number of people who will believe in God.”

And besides, the research suggests that: “There are lots of people who just aren’t religious because they have never encountered religion in the household that they grew up in.”

Lack of a religious upbringing may indeed be a factor in the decline in those who describe themselves as Christian, especially since many of those children who have been taught in school about Christianity alongside other belief systems, are now parents themselves, and have almost nothing to pass on to their own children.

This is despite knowledge about Christianity being vital for developing an understanding of British history and geography, as well as the character of the British people.

Another reason why so many now describe themselves as atheist is the same reason that so many people used to describe themselves as C of E [Church of England] – because it was the easiest box to tick and did not hold the risk of being attacked or invite a lecture on the historical crimes and intolerance of “organised religion”.

The same could now be said of atheism which, however implausibly, has acquired the status of a belief system, even though based on a negation of belief.

The emergence of Islamist terror in a multi-cultural society has also complicated matters: inevitably, tolerant progressives, too frightened to criticise a non-indigenous religion that might attack them, settle for attacking Christianity, secure in the knowledge that it is safe to do so, while intoning the erroneous belief that Christianity is a product of Western culture rather than emerging, as it did, from the Middle East.

Having successfully marginalised Christian beliefs, they can now claim that society has evolved beyond Christianity – that Christianity is moribund.

Fortunately, not all atheists have taken the same line: even Professor Richard Dawkins, long-time adversary of religion, has recently affirmed the role of Christianity in our society and identifies as a “cultural Christian”.

The oft-heard claim that religion has caused all the wars throughout history, may explain why Christianity is the most persecuted of all religions worldwide, but so little interest is shown in the sufferings of its adherents.

But if Christianity does die, we will miss it. It should be noted that it is a Christian charity, not an atheist charity, which is helping displaced Muslims in war-torn Lebanon.

Don’t be too eager to publish that obituary. As G. K. Chesterton remarked, “Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a God who knew the way out of the grave.”

What do you think? Is Christianity on the skids where you live?

Ann Farmer writes from the United Kingdom.

Image credit: Unsplash / Burrow Mump, Somerset, UK

Showing 23 reactions

Sign in with

Peter Sammons commented 2024-11-12 21:03:36 +1100

Steve Meyer (below) misunderstands Matthew 25. The command of Jesus is specifically to succour ‘brethren’ , not ‘neighbours’ (which I presume Mr Meyer assumes, or “reads” into this). Christians down through 2 millennia have had a duty to care for all people (‘love thy neighbour’) but an especial responsibility to succour those who are persecuted BECAUSE they are Christians. It is this responsibility that too many ‘church’ people ignore. If Mr Meyer thinks that Jesus was a communist (as a Catholic friend of mine says very often!) then sorry, the answer is He is not. Thre is no social gospel, and our primary task is not social. Any social ‘work’ done by the ‘church’ is merely a signpost to the Kingdom, it is not a mission in it’s own right. A social ‘gospel’ is not gospel at all! Christians are ‘ambassadors living in a foreign land’ (2 Cor 5:20).
Jürgen Siemer commented 2024-10-10 17:30:57 +1100

What is the difference between fact and belief and what is evidence?

You are born, that is a fact. You must have been born because you are a human being.

But is your mother really your mother? She says so, you look similar, and there are photos.

But she may lie, photos can be manipulated. The truth may not be what you think it is. The true fact may be that your real mother is your aunt, the young sister of the person you thought was your mother.

We all are believing that our mother is our mother, in spite of the fact that we were present at our own birth.

Believing, trusting in something is an inevitable part of living.

So, do not fool us by playing out with the words belief and evidence.

A testimony, be it by your mother or the apostle John, is a piece of evidence. We not to assess and Interpret the evidence. Call that believing.

You also have belief, only a different. But I challenge you: you do not have better pieces of evidence to support what you claim to be a true fact.
Jürgen Siemer commented 2024-10-10 17:01:30 +1100

Emberson,
Yes, if it is a single event, then the most probable logical reason for that event is an act of will, a decision, which requires a person.
That does not explain who that decision maker is or what his characteristics are – other than he must be outside of time, space and matter.
Only after that is clear you can start to argue if that non-material, eternal and spaceless entity that is able to do an act of will that affects time, space and matter is an Egyptian or the God as described in the Bible.

So this is the next level of reasoning after you have agreed that there must be an original creator.

I personally am a sceptic by nature. Hence, I want evidence. That evidence has to be an event that shows the capabilities of that being to handle time, space and matter.

This would be a miracle, I need that!

So only then you need to do your homework and check which reports, storied and eyewitness reports you find credible, the Egyptian or those about Jesus. For me the answer is obvious.

But di not be a fool and say they are all the same.
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-10-10 14:58:43 +1100

“The most logical cause for this event is a decision.”

Is it?

I agree we can have no idea what happens before the Big Bang. Most cultures came up with some story as to how it all started. The Judeo-Christian explanation is no more plausible than that of Ancient Egyptians, Norse mythology or Aboriginal Dreamtime stories. Christian’s claim that THEIR mythology is the only plausible one, but of course, it’s just one story among thousands.

“When you accept that miracle, you have evidence for the creator god hypothesis.”

No you don’t, you have belief. That is not evidence.
Jürgen Siemer commented 2024-10-10 14:00:50 +1100

Emberson, no there is no logical fallacy: scientific models and observations point to the conclusion that time, space and matter had a beginning, a point from which it all began.

The cause for this point of beginning is logically outside of time, space and matter.

The point can also be called singularity, singular event.

The most logical cause for this event is a decision; which is why Aristoteles concluded that there must have been a will or a person making the decision.

If you instead choose to conclude that there was a random event at the point of singularity, then you logically end at the theory of multiverse, which basically says that universes appear randomly, die and reappear, which then basically is essentially an etenal universe, now only modified in the way that not an individual universe but the multiverse system becomes eternal.

This is, I believe, how far you can get, with logic, scientific models and observations into space.

From here on, you are on your own to pick and choose – unless you are willing to accept the possibility of the miracle of the resurrection of the one who claimed to be the son of man and God as prophecyzed, and who himself prophecyzed the destruction of the Temple.

When you accept that miracle, you have evidence for the creator god hypothesis.

There you are again, you need to examine Jesus.

You can, I believe, either be for him or against him in the end.

If you have another idea let me know.
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-10-10 10:59:51 +1100

“If you simply do not want to see or accept the creator hypothesis, then you have to choose the only possible alternative, that the universe was not created but eternal.”

Logical fallacy. Why must it be the “only possible alternative”? This is a basic flaw is the ground work of many theologians’ arguments.
mrscracker commented 2024-10-10 00:59:58 +1100

" The future doesn’t belong to those who show up. It belongs to those who provide the food to keep people alive …"
*******
One must first be alive in order to be productive, Mr. Bunyan. I think the Amish & Mennonites do a pretty good job of that, plus they share what they raise with those in need.
I try to do my part also & hope that example is a witness to my children & grandchildren. All 25 of them.
:)
Jürgen Siemer commented 2024-10-09 18:13:20 +1100

Emerson, my conviction is that the theory of evolution has to be rejected, only on scientific grounds.

That necessary rejection does not make the story of Genesis true. However, it is still a hypothesis that has not been rejected – provided you are open to the possibility of a creator outside of time, space and matter.

If you simply do not want to see or accept the creator hypothesis, then you have to choose the only possible alternative, that the universe was not created but eternal.

Of course, those who follow the eternal-universe hypothesis have a problem, since Einstein’s theory of general relativity and actual observations point to a beginning. This is what they call the big bang.

To get out, atheist scientist therefore began developing the various-multiverse-theories, which again made the universe or the system of universes appearing, collapsing and reappearing, essentially eternal again.

But be honest, that is only speculation, only developed to explain away their original fundamental problem.
Jürgen Siemer commented 2024-10-09 17:59:42 +1100

I was raised like everybody else trusting my teachers that evolution was a fact, and did not think much about it.

I am an engineer working in finance. My journey to creationism started when I had to assess a loan to a listed company that was breeding agricultural seeds. When visiting the company I had the opportunity to talk to scientists, how they actually breed. Surprised about a few things I began my research tour through the scientific literature, and now I am a creationist.

Old age versus young age is debatable, even when reading the bible. Theologians are not sure if they should interpret the first few days as literal 24hour days.

Concerning the global flood there are various findings that lend support to the flood, such as marine fossils found on the highest mountains or the rock layers I see every morning from my train watching to a mountain. Even the layers of the fossil record can be plausibly interpreted, when you assume sedimentation under water.

Noah’s Ark cannot be proven, that is a question of trust into the bible.

What, for instance, is interesting, that researchers have just recently taken samples from lakes under the ice sheet of Antarctica. They were hoping to find some prehistoric species, like intermediate forms between what we see today and what was supposed to be there thousands of years ago. Surprise surprise, nothing like that was found, everything found is also found in the ice free ocean.

Personally, I find young age creationism more plausible, since in the meantime I have found a good hypothesis about the speed of light in the distant universe and during the phase when the universe expanded rapidly early after creation, which together would re-explain the age of the universe which is currently based on a few assumptions on the speed of light in the universe. Something for astronomers to figure out….
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-10-09 17:56:07 +1100

Evolution is not something you believe in. You either accept the evidence for evolution or you reject the evidence for evolution.
It would be like saying, “I believe in gravity.”
Steven Meyer commented 2024-10-09 17:08:25 +1100

Jürgen Siemer:

Are you a “young Earth” or “old Earth” creationist?

Do you also believe in a literal flood and a literal Noah’s Ark?
Steven Meyer commented 2024-10-09 17:03:18 +1100

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger and you welcomed me;

36 I was naked and you clothed me; I was ill and you took care of me; I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will say to him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and give you something to eat, or thirsty and give you something to drink?

38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?

39 When did we see you ill or in prison and come to visit you?’

40 And the King will answer, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brethren of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

42 For I was hungry and you did not give me anything to eat; I was thirsty and you did not give me anything to drink;

43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me; I was naked and you did not give me any clothing; I was ill and in prison and you did not visit me.’

44 “Then they will ask him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison and not minister to you?’

45 He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you failed to do for one of the least of these brethren of mine, you failed to do for me.’

46 And they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous will enter eternal life.”

(Mt 25:34-46)

How many of the people in UK or US who purport to be “Christians” actually follow the teachings of the one they purport to believe is the incarnation of the God they purport to love?

I would put it like this.

Christianity in the UK and US may not be dead but it’s on life support.

Something that purports to be Christianity but pays scant attention to the actual teachings of Jesus has taken its place.
Jürgen Siemer commented 2024-10-09 16:20:06 +1100

I believe that the most important reason for the loss of faith in our western countries, is a lie, a lie taught in school to all children as fact, as scientific consensus view: that lie is the false theory of evolution.

It was taught to me in the 70s, and I went to a private Catholic school in Germany, where my parents had to pay a monthly fee.

If you believe in evolution, then the foundation of your faith will be automatically be destroyed, because a) you had to admit that the Bible is wrong, and b) you were the result of random processes and not the result of an act of will, a personal decision by our creator.

No creator, no faith in God, empty churches, and you neglect the teaching of our church.

The problem is, however, that the theory of evolution, from a purely scientific point of view, has been falsified many times. I and many other scientists have discovered that.

And therefore: the story of Genesis, told by God to Adam and passed on the following generations is still the best or most plausible explanation we have. Scientifically, it has not been falsified and you therefore have good reason to trust it to be true.

And by the way, Jesus has confirmed it.
Jürgen Siemer commented 2024-10-09 12:37:49 +1100

So I call out England: return to the only true religion!
Jürgen Siemer commented 2024-10-09 12:35:47 +1100

Paul, Hitler had not become an antisemite for religious reason. While there is indeed a religious conflict between the Catholic church and Judaism, the relations between Catholics and Jews were actually rather relaxed in Germany and Austria before 1930.

There is proof that Hitler became an antisemite after the failed communist putsch in Munich in, I believe, 1918, where the leading communists were eastern European Jews, Rosa Luxembourg’s colleagues. He equated Bolsheviks with Jews.

There is also proof that Hitler had accepted Jewish donations from New York earlier in his career.

National Socialism versus global socialism (=communism), and both are evolutionists, social/human evolutionists: that was the war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

And such a catastrophy was and I believe is only possible because the christian faith had been lost earlier, giving room to these evil ideas.
Jürgen Siemer commented 2024-10-09 11:58:17 +1100

… The victor of the war and made popular by a former catholic turned atheist, Hitler through his speaches and his best-selling book.

The conclusion he offered was simple: the stupid christian morals have lowered or damaged the German will to fight and win. The winner writes history.
Jürgen Siemer commented 2024-10-09 11:52:47 +1100

Paul, re: Hitler’s rise.

You are wrong when you point at poverty.

Historically, the approximately or third of Germans, who were catholic, were on average significantly poorer than the other, mostly protestant Germans. The poorer regions in Germany, where Catholics dominated, did not vote for Hitler in the last 2 free elections.

Why: because the remained loyal to their bishops and priests.

The situation in the protestant German majority was different: the protestant monarchy and the very pro-monarchy and patriotic protestant church had lost most of their reputation, they were held responsible for the catastrophy of the war.

As a result, many protestants lost their faith and their complete world view fell into ruins.

The spiritual void was filled by evolutionism, imported from England, the vict
Jürgen Siemer commented 2024-10-09 11:32:41 +1100

So, why did the parents of our adults today lose their Christian faith, which must have happened in the 60s and 70s?

What changed in society and church during those years?
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-10-09 11:18:52 +1100

“The same could now be said of atheism which, however implausibly, has acquired the status of a belief system, even though based on a negation of belief.”

This has become a common line amongst the religious, but of course, it is complete nonsense. Atheism is simply an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Nothing more.

I wonder why the religious do this? Why are they trying to conflate religion with atheism

Is it because somewhere in their minds, religious people understand that beliefs (accepting something as true without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary) are ludicrous.

Since they cannot prove that God exists, they must accept that they hold a belief – so they can’t push away the word “belief” – so they do the next best thing.

They pretend atheism is a belief too, so atheists can be as daft as they are.
Paul Bunyan commented 2024-10-09 08:46:23 +1100

That’s not quite true, mrscracker. The future doesn’t belong to those who show up. It belongs to those who provide the food to keep people alive and productive.

When food is scarce, violence and genocide tend to erupt. Poverty allowed Hitler to rise to power. And starvation was the impetus behind the Rwandan genocide.

https://overpopulation-project.com/new-study-shows-what-is-possible-with-strong-family-planning-funding/

“The genocide in Rwanda was 30 years ago. Hunger was a factor that led to neighbors killing neighbors. People in many places in this largely agrarian society were not able to produce enough food to keep away hunger. This was due to land degradation and rapid population growth; there was no violence in areas where people had at least 1500 calories of food per day. The average American eats almost twice that amount!

Back in the year 2000, few low-income people in Rwanda had access to modern FP. The country was largely Roman Catholic, which forbade modern FP and relied heavily on the unreliable rhythm method for birth spacing. Then, in 2005, the government started supporting a more effective method of natural FP, the Standard Days Method (SDM). It is considered acceptable by the Church and became popular. It is simple and is up to 95% effective—if used properly. Only 5 years after its introduction, the proportion of the poorest couples using effective contraception had risen to half!"
Ann Farmer commented 2024-10-09 07:12:35 +1100

Mrscracker, many thanks – you are quite right, and where there’s life there’s hope, so no need to lose hope.
mrscracker commented 2024-10-09 02:13:47 +1100

Christianity, especially as practiced by Christians who hold traditional views on marriage & family, is less likely to die out than secular folk who decline to reproduce themselves.
Ann Farmer published this page in The Latest 2024-10-08 16:17:47 +1100

Like what you are reading?

Here are some more articles you may enjoy