The Instigator
shay.walsh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hirakula
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Is secularisation happening within the UK?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Hirakula
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,212 times Debate No: 39102
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

shay.walsh

Con

I for one will be arguing that secularisation is not happening, and in fact religion within the UK is increasing.

Wallis suggests seculariastion is a decline in institution, i do however believe that this is true. However I believe that on an individual basis religion is still very much strong, and that people still have religious, if not spiritual practices. Hanson suggests a Broad and Narrow approach. The Broad approach does suggest that religion is losing its social significance, but the Narrow approach suggested does say that in fact religion has simply become much more privatised- this means that religion is not in decline, but in fact that people are practicing religion at home rather than attending churches. This means therefore that secularisation is not happening, as people do still have these sacred and spiritual beliefs.
Hirakula

Pro

Hello, I'll be accepting this challenge. I'll be arguing against my opponent's claim that "secularisation is not happening, and in fact religion within the UK is increasing".
My opponent has given me all I need in his first Round.

As my opponent wants -
Secularisation: decline in institution.
Institution: a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose [1].

My opponent is arguing that, to sum up his first round, religious institutions are "losing [their] social significance", but, because "religion has simply become much more privatised", religion itself "is not in decline". He claims that "people are practicing religion at home rather than attending churches", and so "secularisation is not happening, as people do still have these sacred and spiritual beliefs".

This is very easy to rebuke. Because of the definitions of secularisation and institution, if organized religion is declining, then secularisation is occurring. My opponent conceded that, yes, organized religion is declining, so my opponent accidentally conceded that secularisation is occurring.
I'd like to conclude with some supporting sources to solidify the the decline of religion in the UK (and also worldwide).

http://planetivy.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 1
shay.walsh

Con

Despite I may of accepted instutionally it has declined, Wallis also suggests that belief and practices are also a keypart in religion. These however have evidentally not declined due to NRM's and NAM's that have come into play, which studies such as the Kendall project show that privatised religion is in fact evidently increasing. Meaning new religions are in fact increasing.
And church attendance may of declined, but whose again to say that this means that original church go-ers were there as they truly believed? Davies suggests a belonging without believing, the idea that people went purely to fit in with the norms of the society. Therefore religion has not declined, as statistics on this is incredibly unreliable and do not show an accurate picture of religion years ago.
Hirakula

Pro

My opponent continues to assert that religion has not declined, when I have clearly shown that it has. My opponent has even admitted that it has declined. Allow me to simplify my first round, and address my opponent to say that I recommend, for the sake of his argument, that, when replying to me, please do not ignore what I have decisively said, and continue to assert that you are correct. I offered you a rebuttal on your first round. You lightly touched on it, and admitted that you were incorrect (unintentionally, it seems), then simply re-wrote your first round.
Once again, this is a matter of definitions. Allow me:

Secularization is happening in the UK. (My argument)

Secularization: To make secular (I think this is a basic but perfectly suitable definition to use) [1]
I prefer, however, the more useful: decline in institution.
Secular: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis. [2]


Therefore, I can prove that secularization is happening in the UK if I can prove that the UK is becoming increasingly disconnected to religion, religious activities, or religious institutions.

My opponent has conceded that religion has declined institutionally. Therefore, secularization is occurring. Done.

If my opponent desires to continue debating, I ask three things:
-actually address what I've said.
-cite sources.
-use grammar, etc.

Now, if you want to make another argument, please present to me where I or my logic failed here.

1.http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 2
shay.walsh

Con

Unfortunately you have resorted to a case of Ad Hominen, a case of steering of task and have yourself only touched on the matter slightly. You have not posted a valid point on the second round, but instead posted arguments aimed at the arguer. Re-read my point. Then post a valid argument.
Hirakula

Pro

Ad Hominem involves a case of one who simply insults or otherwise gives derogatory statements about the opponent rather than giving an argument, in an attempt to fool less fallacy-aware readers into believing one's point. For example, if my response was: "My opponent's profile picture is that of an extremely heavy individual, and so he should not be trusted, therefore I am right", then I would have committed Ad Hominem. While I critiqued my opponent's response, I certainly did not insult his person, as I have no knowledge of it. Look back. 'Ad Hominem' means 'to the person'. Nothing I said even slightly refers to my opponent's characteristics, only the failure in argumentation, writing, etc., which I feel are valid, and are either detracting from the debate, irritating, or worth noting. If my opponent's response had been written by Jesus, my response would be no different.
There is a fallacy that refers to a case in which one claims that their opponent is committing a fallacy in order to avoid making an argument. Here, this is interesting:


In conclusion, I feel that the real definitions of the words show that Con's arguments are false, due to his apparent incorporated belief that an apparent increase in private spiritual practices (despite a cited source - however, much to my chagrin, I will assume, for Con's sake, that it is true) equate to an increase in religion (institutional), and therefore secularization (decrease in religious institution) is not occurring.
I'd like to conclude by going through my opponent's second round piece by piece, more for fun and thoroughness than anything else.

"Despite I may of accepted institutionally it has declined,"
Umm ... what? Okay. Religion has institutionally declined.

"Wallis also suggests that belief and practices are also a keypart in religion."
A) Source please
B) You say yourself that it is his suggestion, only.
C) That does not mean that they are the end all be all of religion.

"These however have evidentally not declined due to NRM's and NAM's that have come into play, which studies such as the Kendall project show that privatised religion is in fact evidently increasing."
A) Grammar/spelling
B) Cite sources

"Meaning new religions are in fact increasing."
A) This should be part of the last sentence.
B) No - new religions are not increasing. They're not new.
C) They're not institutionalized - private.

"And church attendance may of declined, but whose again to say that this means that original church go-ers were there as they truly believed? Davies suggests a belonging without believing, the idea that people went purely to fit in with the norms of the society."
A) Grammar/spelling (*may have declined)
B) Your entire argument is that some statistics may have, in your opinion, been exaggerated?
C) Cite source.

"Therefore religion has not declined, as statistics on this is incredibly unreliable and do not show an accurate picture of religion years ago."
A) Once again, you have admitted that everything here is based on suggestions that you have allegedly read, despite refusing to cite sources THREE TIMES.
B) What statistics? Oh right, no sources.
C) Why are they "incredibly unreliable"? Because of your hunch that some people might have exaggerated a little due to an extreme desire to fit in. Even in the most extreme case of this, if it happened, it would not make much difference, certainly not enough to make false the idea that secularization is occuring in the UK, which you seem to intend it to.
D) "They do not show an accurate picture of religion years ago,"
i. Yes they do, almost certainly.
ii. Why do they need to, and how does their supposed failure to do so change whether or not secularization is occurring?
iii. What 'years ago'? This is really very vague and undeveloped.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Hirakula 4 years ago
Hirakula
Apologies. I forgot the one source that actually matter, in my first round.

https://www.google.com...

I'd also like to add:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by MysticEgg 4 years ago
MysticEgg
You've deviated from "within the UK" to "across the spectrum"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
shay.walshHirakulaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Ad hominem...ridiculous. Anyway, Pro argued quite well, and provided sources for his claims, unlike Con, who failed to even post a counter-argument in his final entry.