Check out this PDF file (in German, but still readable enough for English speakers). It tracks the number of people who are either Protestant ("evangelisch"), Roman Catholic ("römisch-katholisch"), no affiliation/non-believing ("ohne Konfession"), Muslims ("moslemisch"), and Other ("Sonstige").

The basis of this data is the official registration of each person. In Germany, you have to declare your affiliation for tax purposes, so that your church or other group gets their share of the tax support (if they collect it). There are predefined abbreviations to use for each major religious group. For those groups that do not actually collect church tax, there is still usually a separate registration to track them.

One thing anyone will notice is that the two mainline church groups, Protestant (actually an umbrella of the main Protestant churches, but not counting "free churches" that don't receive state support, such as Baptists) and Roman Catholic, have lost huge chunks of the population over the last 50 years, going from roughly 45-50% each in 1950 to in the low 30s today. Thus on that score, those who are fearmongering about Islam taking over Europe would seem to be right, in that mainline Christianity is indeed collapsing in Germany (a bellwether for Europe), and the trend is accelerating.

Muslims went from not even being on the radar in 1950 to 3.9% of the population today. That too seems to support the fear expressed that Islam is taking over.

However, note two things. One, Islam is growing, but its growth is dwarfed by the "Konfessionslosen". Two, the study notes that the data registers "Muslims" as being such not just by tax cards, but also by origin -- so that many people who are registered as "Muslim" are not actually believers, but are culturally Muslims, such as Turks. They estimate that no more than half are actually in any Islamic groups of any kind, and the bulk of them are in a Turkish Muslim association mainly noted for its mild form of Islam. And many Turks have actually registered as being "Konfessionslos", that is, officially nonbelieving. Indeed there is even a Central Committee of Ex-Muslims (the name is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Central Committee of Muslims and Central Committee of Jews in Germany).

Of course, before the atheists among us get too slap-happy, I should note that the "Konfessionslose" statistic is itself somewhat misleading. It primarily registers those who do not wish their tax money to go to the churches or organizations in the church tax system (though the churches that do collect church tax require their members to pay it), not what they actually believe. Thus not all those people are actually atheist or agnostic -- not even close (though that group is indeed growing dramatically). Anglicans in Germany, for example, do not pay church tax -- and thus aren't listed in the statistics, and my tax card claims I'm "Konfessionslos", even though I most certainly am not. Same goes for Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons, and many other Christian groups not in the church tax system (while Buddhists, etc. are summed up under "Other"). Put them all together, and you get pretty significant numbers.

The other hitch with the "Konfessionslos" numbers is that many people game the system, a side effect of the church tax. There is a loophole in the law that is increasingly being exploited, where married couples with only one income earner (which is still very common in Germany) have the non-earning spouse register with the church, and the breadwinner declare himself or herself be "Konfessionslos" -- thus entitling the family to weddings, baptisms, outreach and so on, while not paying any church tax. The churches know about this and are trying to figure out ways of "fixing" the problem (such as it is), but even so, there are very many supposedly non-Christian people who are, at least notionally, Christian.

Even so, these numbers do put the phobia of a supposedly soon-to-be Islamic Europe into perspective. Not only is Islam still tiny in Germany in spite of generations of massive immigration from Turkey, what little Islam there is -- no more than 2% of the population, roughly in line with the percentage in America -- tends to be of the very mild variety. There is little chance of extremist Islam taking root.

I mentioned it briefly in FK's blog about the controversy surrounding the Golden Compass series, but I thought I would mention it here more explicitly. The Telegraph has an interview with Archbishop Rowan Williams and Philip Pullman, the author of the Golden Compass series and avowed atheist.

My favorite exchange from the interview (regarding mythology in the Easter passion):



The rest of the interview is like that -- well worth a read (and a chuckle). It's also refreshing to see two people have a friendly (and generous) debate.

For your daily dose of serious WTF:



O_o

Earlier I was surfing Ship of Fools, a humorous Christian website. You'll notice that they have a link to Richard Dawkins' website, "Dawkins Hell", tongue-in-cheek pointing out the number of self-aggrandizing links on his page currently visible. (You have to admit, that is kinda cute.) So for the hell of it (no pun intended...well, maybe a little), I went over to his site, and ended up in particular in the Backlash Corner.

Of course, I've been there before, and the thing is, I have mixed emotions about it. Naturally, it's good to have critical articles there, and kudos for that. But what's always nauseating for me is the comments. Bilious, hate-filled, inane, nonsensical rage directed against anyone who dares to disagree with the host. Sycophancy is the order of the day. It is rare to see an insightful, thoughtful comment dissecting the article; rarer still to see agreement or criticism of the host. Usually the posters dismiss it out of hand, even though there are some pretty good ones there. Once in a while Dawkins himself shows up with a snide remark at the article writer's expense, but he seldom if ever bothers to really respond with anything of substance. So the whole purpose of the exercise, which was no doubt noble originally, is defeated.

You really needn't bother reading the comments unless you want to read a lot of screeds. Slashdot is informative and insightful by comparison.

Sam Harris' blog is much better, maybe because there are some more thoughtful people there (from both sides) and it's not just a rah-rah echo chamber. What is interesting is even when Harris posts some pretty inflammatory stuff, like this, atheists take him to task:

As an adamant atheist, I disagree. Religion, in its place, provides a vehicle of community and ways for people to learn about themselves and their feelings. Some people NEED this. The problem isn't the conflict of religion and science, the problem is when one tries to trump the other perspective's strength.

The thing that struck me was this: There is the so-called Brights movement, which Dawkins and Harris would both certainly claim to be a part of, even be leading lights in it. But the central aspect of the Brights is really be able to be questioning, and fostering an environment of questioning. You cannot search for truth if you can't ask questions in an open, fair and reasonable environment without just being shouted down. The Brights website mentioned above says:

The constituency of Brights is hugely diverse. Besides those who self-identify as atheist, humanist, secular humanist, freethinker, rationalist, naturalist, agnostic, or skeptic, there are individuals who go by their preferred affiliations, such as Ethical Culturalist, Pantheist, Buddhist, Yogi, Wiccan, Transhumanist, or Unitarian. Also part of the gamut of constituents are Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians, and others who may personally maintain their religion’s cultural or aesthetic aspects, but not its supernaturalism. There are professors of religious studies and clergy in and out of practice who are Brights (e.g., Unitarian-Universalist ministers, Protestant pastors, even one ex-Benedictine monk). Not all constituents associate themselves with familiar groupings or labels. The movement’s goals attract all sorts of people who “have a naturalistic worldview” and favor thinking of themselves broadly and in a civic sense, as Brights.

So here we have a sharp contrast -- between Dawkins and Harris. Both of course say things I find pretty shocking at times as a believer. Both I disagree with, often strongly. But which one seems to allow for real questions to be asked? Which one fosters real discussion?

To paraphrase the Bible a bit: By their blogs shall ye know them. ;-)

In the previous poll, the subject of Passover laws came up. Smooch, bless him, had a little bit of an outburst when I answered Em's question in brief about why observant Jews don't consume corn syrup during Passover:

Corn/maize isn't kosher only during Passover. During Passover, Jews are supposed to refrain from eating "leaven", that is, products from the five basic grain types defined in the Torah. Some also include other grains and legumes. Since corn falls in that latter group, any corn product isn't kosher, either, including corn syrup. However, interpretations vary, and some don't include corn in the list of things not kosher during Passover -- generally only the stricter Jews do so.

The rules are defined in Leviticus and Exodus, and extended and refined in the Talmud.

Technically these rules don't apply to non-Jewish Christians because we're Gentiles (that is, non-Jews). Thus we're not bound by the original Covenant between God and the Israelites (if you're wondering). So goes the theology, anyway.

Religious laws like that, according to Smooch, are ridiculous. The thing is, the above answer is actually just a summary -- and it is easy to miss the point of why people have such laws and why they are observed. I referred Smooch to the US tax code as a loose parallel, but unfortunately I don't think he got the point.

Try reading this rabbinical article about kosher laws. Yes, it's dripping in references to angels and Talmudic quotes, so Smooch will no doubt find it hideous. But if you get past those references, the essence of the reason for the laws is still there: teaching respect for creation by living that respect through ritual handed down through many, many generations.

The thing is, of course sometimes people lose sight of the origins of those laws or rituals. Our parish priest tells the following joke story as an illustration:

In a monastery, the abbot had a pet cat that was very dear to him and he took it with him wherever he went. The problem was that the cat would caterwaul during vespers whenever the monks did their chants, which would disturb the other monks. So they began tying the cat to a leash outside the church during vespers, and everything worked out OK. Then years later, the cat died, and the abbot, now getting rather old, got a new cat, and as a precaution, they tied the new cat outside as well, just in case the cat also would caterwaul. Then the abbot also died, and the monks kept the cat, still tying it up outside during vespers. Eventually that cat also died, and they couldn't imagine not having a cat, so they got a new one -- and tied that one outside as well. This kept going until eventually, when that monastery's liturgy was compiled, there was a rubric in the book that stated "A cat shall be tied before the door during vespers."

Naturally this is a joke and an extreme case, but so long as we keep in mind what the origins of traditions are and what they are for, they are quite useful. They are anything but ridiculous. They are complicated, but they are not ridiculous. And of course we should always try to keep in mind what those origins are, by researching them. I think traditions are good things to be upheld and maintained and well-oiled, adjusted when necessary, not tossed on the dustheap. We stand on the shoulders of giants not just in science, but in religion and philosophy as well. Our ancestors knew to respect creation far better than we ever did, and I think those religious laws are a good way to understand how to do it by living it.

The similarity, by the way, with the US tax code is this: it too was set up to achieve a social purpose, ended up being quite complex, much of the origins of its provisions have been forgotten and it often seems onerous, but people obey it anyway. The advantage to religions traditions, though, is at least we have something of a choice in obeying them.

Two posts from the excellent Ask The Priest blog:

First, a brief video from Sir John Polkinghorne, a quantum physicist and Anglican priest, who discusses his own beliefs and how they intersect with science:



Second, an exchange between the blog owner, The Very Rev. David Simmons (vicar of an Episcopal church in Kentucky) and the maintainer of the Blasphemy Challenge. Interesting stuff -- part of an ongoing dialog between the team of AskThePriest.org and the Blasphemy Challenge RRS. (Unfortunately, the RRS people haven't been covering themselves in glory with some of their responses. "And acordingly to the bible, Earth is 6k years old." Ouch.)

In the Times, Richard Dawkins replies to criticism, much of which is very much like things I've said, in particular the fact that Dawkins tends to chase after the likes of Falwell, but not the Archbishop of Canterbury or Pope Benedict. His (rather curious) response:

If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.

The funny thing is that hard on the heels of his response, William Rees-Mogg replies with a dead-on answer:

This seems rather odd. As in all social institutions, there are good and bad church members, and good and bad church leaders. But Professor Dawkins has not written a book to tell us that Osama bin Laden is a bad man, but to persuade us that God does not exist. He makes an assertion, that is contrary to common experience, that the vast majority of religious believers are closer to the beliefs of American evangelists or of bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists than to quiet and rational religion. That is a sociological judgment.

I believe it to be false. It is certainly false in England, where Professor Dawkins presumably meets most of his theist acquaintances. It is not true of Anglicans; it is not true of Roman Catholics. It is not true of their leaders. Whatever else may be said of the archbishops of Canterbury or Westminster, they do not bear the faintest resemblance to the personality or doctrine of bin Laden.

Yet it would seem that we've deserved the full force of Dawkins' attack merely by dint of being believers, by being "deluded". He now says in this latest response that he didn't mean the more moderate ones such as yours truly. Well, that's pretty curious, because he made no such distinction in his books, and he's opened himself wide for the charge of fundamentalism -- and he isn't retracting or qualifying what he wrote, either.

He is also on extraordinarily shaky ground when he says: Most Christians happily disavow Baal and the Flying Spaghetti Monster without reference to monographs of Baalian exegesis or Pastafarian theology. While on the face of it true, it is also very misleading. Comparative religion is actually a very vital part of theology. He specific examples may be somewhat silly, but there is indeed a lot of work in comparative religion that is of great importance to understanding theology and thus understanding God.

It would be wonderful if Dawkins were to actually come back around to what Sagan and Gould already figured out with regards to the interaction between atheism and belief, and maybe he is coming around, slowly. Unfortunately the touchy tone of his response doesn't give me much hope of that. What is striking to me is that his passion -- a passion he readily admits to and revels in -- has clouded his judgement. He's still so stuck on his premise -- that there is no point in studying or examining theology further because he's concluded there is no God -- that he's prejudiced all further study. And prejudice in study, as we all know, is bad science.

In another online forum -- unfortunately one that is closed to the public -- the topic of Dawkins, Harris, et. al. came up. Naturally yours truly was drawn into it (surprise, surprise). Most people there are of the agnostic, non-religious sort. A few are of the strong atheist sort. I am the only active believer type (as in, part of a specific religious group). I did, of course, mention my fandom of Sagan (including linking to that video I mentioned not long ago). Some others mentioned surprise that a believer like me could be a free thinker, but that didn't seem to make an impression on some others...for:

I have just been informed by one of the atheist types that I have no right to teach my children about my beliefs or that I should not take them with me to church, even if they express the wish to come along*. Furthermore, society (according to this fellow) has an overriding interest in protecting my children from my so-called superstitions (without of course bothering to examine just what it is I believe or why).

Welcome to fascism, 21st century style. I won't mince words. That's just what it is.

Yep, Smooch. Now you know why I'm worried by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and the rest. It's one thing to want a secular, neutral state (something I happen to think is a good idea). It's totally another to tell me how I should raise my children or even where I'm allowed to take them, just because someone doesn't like what I believe.

I don't think I have ever been so angry in my life.

* - I have never once made the Confessor go to church with me against his will. I generally go alone. Sometimes he asks to come along, and if so, I take him (but only on Sunday mornings -- vespers has has to stay home, because it's past his bedtime). Gloriana only comes along if BoE also wants to come; often BoE prefers to stay home anyway. And if the Confessor wants to leave the service, which he sometimes does, then we leave. The notion that I am forcing anything on him or Gloriana is infuriating and wrong.

God, I miss him.

Rest in peace, Carl.