| I would argue several modern problems trace to the collapse of churches as a social institution: - loneliness - lack of dating/marriage - lack of community infrastructure - lack of elder care If you look at existing charities, much of the rubber meets road work gets done by churches or church affiliated groups. You don’t have to like the message or the people, but I think it’s pretty obvious ditching churches without a replacement was a mistake. Edit: reply here since rate limited // > Yes, this can obviously vary by church--but it's a fallacy to claim that churches as a whole prevented loneliness. No, you’re the one making a fallacy: your mothers singular bad experience doesn’t refute that churches made a statistically positive impact, which was my claim. You just told an emotional anecdote then declared that I’m wrong due to a straw man. (I never made a universal claim.) > an entire generation growing up in the shadow of the 2008 financial collapse, as well as unprecedented debt from college Okay? The downwards trend in dating and marriage didn’t start in 2008 and doesn’t seem to hold across cultures — there’s a clear cultural component related to social changes in the US. If you’re saying you think the collapse of churches is on par with excessive college debt as to why two-ish generations aren’t flourishing: I agree. That’s my point. > it's a self-selecting population that inherently echochambers, making it difficult to relate to outside groups, thus further damaging community This sounds like a stereotype more than a fact — and is exactly counter to my experience, where multiple churches collaborate on things like homelessness charities. That fine grained social structure is a necessary layer of how governments distribute resources effectively, one very poorly replaced by private actors. (In my experience.) > you don't give any supporting arguments for them I must have missed yours. > you quite nicely fit the churchgoer stereotype in that way Here’s the crux of it: you’re making faulty arguments because you need me to be wrong for your stereotypes to be right. Eg, calling me a “churchgoer stereotype” when I don’t attend church and you made similarly unsupported arguments. You’re just a bigot: factually wrong and stereotyping people. |
> - loneliness
I'm not convinced churches ever solved this meaningfully--my mother left her church specifically because they never treated her as an equal adult, being a single parent. She was lonely _within_ the church. Yes, this can obviously vary by church--but it's a fallalcy to claim that churches as a whole prevented loneliness.
Especially not for those subjugated *by* the church (LGBT, single parent, unmarried, women [depending on doctrine]...)
> - lack of dating/marriage
* an entire generation growing up in the shadow of the 2008 financial collapse, as well as unprecedented debt from college, climate change, etc. driving down the desire to start a family
> lack of community infrastructure
This is much more influenced by increasing polarization and tribalism, which churches have helped cause by providing a platform and existing insular in-group--it's a self-selecting population that inherently echochambers, making it difficult to relate to outside groups, thus further damaging community.
Overall, you make these claims that churches are significant in these ways, but you don't give any supporting arguments for them--you quite nicely fit the churchgoer stereotype in that way.