WHITENED SEPULCHRES?.
Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 07:22AM 
In what one way, you could look upon this as good news.
Church attendance in Britain is declining so fast that the number of regular churchgoers will be fewer than those attending mosques within a generation, research published today suggests.
The fall - from the four million people who attend church at least once a month today - means that the Church of England, Catholicism and other denominations will become financially unviable. A lack of funds from the collection plate to support the Christian infrastructure, including church upkeep and ministers’ pay and pensions, will force church closures as ageing congregations die.
In contrast, the number of actively religious Muslims will have increased from about one million today to 1.96 million in 2035. The number of actively church going Christians will decline to 899,000. Islam becomes the faith of choice in the UK.
Why might this be a good thing? Well, because the established Churches are more about themselves than about Christ. They have abandoned much of the Christian gospel and so deserve to die - with the Anglican Church as the worst offender. Christianity is about much more than going along to a whitened sepulchre each week and so perhaps it is a good thing that these former shrines to Christ are allowed to run empty.
The problem of course is NOT the decline of these established Churches, but the decline of faith itself. THAT is the key issue for me. It is said when people stop believing in God they start believing in anything. But with the rise of Islam, that may be a little luxury denied to them. As a nation, Britain has turned its collective back on God, and so who can be surprised that we wallow in degeneracy?
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (57)
Faith can be defined as "Belief without doubt in what is told to you by people without knowledge of things without parallel". Therefore, a reduction in the number of practicing Christians could indicate a growing maturity amongst what formerly were known as the faithfull and a more sceptical approach can only be regarded as a good thing.
Unfortunately, the Islamic Faith is a younger religion than Christianity and most of its adherents would be incapable of even beginning to recognise this possibility. Indeed, many Islamic teachings appear to be grounded in what we would regard as a Medieval mind set. This will change but only slowly.
The growth of evangelical Protestant and traditional Catholic congregations does show that the Word can still inspire when presented in the right way.
What people are rejecting when they leave the modern church is the drivel and waffle that they hear from those who have hi-jacked the faith. The tragedy is that the experience often closes their hearts and minds to the real deal.
Either a Church helps you to bring Christ into your life or it has no function whatsoever.
It is not about the helping environment or belief in social justice or even charity. Those are a consequence of the change that Christ brings.
Henry94 -
The decades of kumbaya Christianity espoused by the Church of England have achieved one thing only: it's increasingly hated by the faithful and despised by those others who can be bothered to watch.
Whilst not exactly a flood, islam has been attracting Western converts. A few British, American, Australian, French and Belgian converts are known because of terrorism, but there are more. My view is that most or all are attracted by islam's uncompromising philosophy. Despite internal debates, it is certain of itself and tolerates no dilution of its message. This iron certainty alone (whatever the message) is very seductive.
Since it now has a presence in a morally degraded, value-free and narcissistic West, the attraction of islam is irresistible to some.
Our societies are due a moral renaissance. Christianity's recent decline is by no means certain or irreversible. Christian churches must place themselves to lead that renaissance and reap the rewards. If they do not, islam will.
>>Well, because the established Churches are more about themselves than about Christ. They have abandoned much of the Christian gospel<<
So what's new? When in the past 2000 years did any Christian churches - established or dissenting - even attempt to live up to the teachings of Jesus?
>>Whilst not exactly a flood, islam has been attracting Western converts.<<
Still totally insignificant compared to the real flood of Muslims in the West abandoning their faith.
Contrary to what some here on ATW choose to believe, I'm not against religion. And certainly not against Christianity.
I'm fully cognizant of the innumerable good works done by Churches, especially by their lay members: the Salvation Army and Trócaire being two such that readily come to mind. It would be a shame if a falling off in church attendance were to have a negative impact on those admirable organizations.
Noel Cunningham -
Yes, there are many more leaving islam than joining, which doesn't detract from my point at all. In fact, if Western institutions (government, the judiciary, churches, cultural institutions etc) displayed a self-confidence similar to islam, instead of their usual self-hatred and abasement in the face of anything foreign, islam could be gutted as a force within a generation.
That there are many apostates, yet we hardly know of them, proves the point. Who publicises this? Who welcomes apostates? Who defends them? No-one, because authority doesn't dare challenge islam. When we give muslims something to convert to, islam is stuffed.
If people are concerned with the attitude of priests how do they balance that with the decline in numbers taking up the priesthood? Which will also have more of a significant impact on the Church.
The upper echelons of the Church success in decades past was down to spreading Fear, petty mindedness and indulging ignorance.
Bottom line though. It is impossible for the Churches to compete with Consumerism.
My view of Islam is that since 9/11 it gives young men the scary factor kudos they all like and is like being part of the Best Gang on the Planet.
It comes with the same gang culture elements that most like: the Big I AM on opinion, control of women (by both sexes), a uniform and something to make them feel special and part of something.
Rather than any belief in God or a strong uncomprosmising spiritual message it conveys.
It's philosophy is fear.
This is all terrific for a kid who isn't sure if he is British or Pakistani and for whom the concept of Britishness has been transfered to mean: rotten to the core.
Suddenly everyone respects you.
If you read up on the kids who followed into militant Islam it is clear that they were caught between a rock and hard place with their parents whose own religion was a milder version spiritually but came with all the restrictions that religion so often embues - only twenty times more backwards and twenty times less changeable than christianity.
Dawkins - don't start getting reasonable all of a sudden!
Alison,
Mon Dieu, I never thought I'd be taking up the cudgels in defence of the Churches! Consumerism is an evil as any other and IMHO it can be combated. Difficult, yes; impossible, no. For starters it can be shown that consumerism cannot bring happiness. Show me the woman with 100 pairs of shoes and I'll show you the woman who's unhappy she doesn't have a pair of shoes to match her new outfit. Or as one of the characters in Wall Street was heard to ask Gordon Gecko: "How many airlines do you need?" The answer of course is "never enough".
I don't think this is a lesson that's impossible to teach to children.
Mahons,
LOL!
Alison,
Despite the spectre of the kindergarten getting together to write abusive messages defending you, I must disagree with you.
9/11 does not give anyone a 'scary factor kudos', - neither does it engender 'respect', all it did was to give anyone who wanted one, a valid reason for disliking anyone with a black beard, dark skin and a funny taste in headgear.
Your second paragraph just about sums up any adolescent, or young person from anywhere in the world, and, without wishing to be rude, could include yourself...
We all, and particularly when in our youth, have a desire 'to belong', to feel otherwise runs the risk of being considered 'a loner', and conversely be considered some sort of social risk, or outcast.
Beside which, how does that explain the large proportion of the supposedly, better educated and older people who have such explosive tendencies. I know that many of the suicide recruits in Gaza are pre-teens, but that wasn't the case in 9/11, nor any of the bombings in the UK.
Surely, as many have asserted here on ATW, the better educated are less likely to believe in all that 'religious stuff', - it just isn't the fashion...but it doesn't seem to be that simple.
What may be the attraction with a strict religious background, of whatever denomination, is that the younger members although resenting and rebelling against the restraints and disciplines imposed, when presented with a freedom of choice, get disorientated and scared, and return to the fold, but with a renewed and stronger belief than existed before. By that time they are usually older and have access to more incendiary means of proving their 'faith'.
Maybe it is the absence of discipline or guidelines in the West, that is the cause of both their fanatacism, and of our equally troublesome, but slightly less explosive youth.
Simply put - they just can't live without it.
Perhaps it is a 'before and after' example that should not be ignored...
Otherwise, I agree with everything you said!...:-)
"It is impossible for the Churches to compete with Consumerism."
Is there anyone here that would say that consumerism has brought them happiness? I doubt it. But like drugs and public money, consumerism has the happy knack of posing as the solution to the problems it creates.
Henry,
Good post @ 10.48...
There may be a lot of truth in the saying; 'Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.!...especially if the AGW crowd are to be believed..:-)
Henry,
"What people are rejecting when they leave the modern church is the drivel and waffle that they hear from those who have hi-jacked the faith. The tragedy is that the experience often closes their hearts and minds to the real deal."
Probably just as many people leave because they find that it's all drivel and waffle. And no, that's not a flaw in them or their hearts. Nor do they substitute it with consumerism or Islam.
Ernest
I posted a joke on Saturday which, totally and possibly deliberately misinterpreting, you felt gave you carte blanche to discuss me on a very personal level.
My character, my confidence, my ability to relate to others, what is or is not in store for me and so on. All way too personal for a blog thread in my view, unless of course i had invited comment on them - which in posting an inocuous joke i most certainly did not.
Not content with hints at my personal life or your view of it, or sneering quips about my relationship with my parents, you curiously resorted to a rather spiteful mention of a blog I have not publicised openly.
Your angle was a particularly catty, overbearing and spiteful reaction over what essentially amounted to nothing.
You were clearly not above indulging "kindergarten" yourself. So I am astonished to see you here prefacing another comment with all of this.
I've waded in to defend you from unfair criticism previously for which i recall i used the odd unasterisked expletive and well hell Ernest, you weren't too bothered about my language then.
I guess what happens when you get old and bitter is that you feel you are above criticism and constantly in the right and can pick and choose when you feel behaviour is just.
I've apologised for the few times on this blog when I have been overheated about the odd point of view. Noone here apart from maybe one is able to say hand on heart they haven't ever lost it.
But actually I think i was relatively restrained on Saturday with the level of crap directed at me from you in particular. If you got a lot of that back at you well bad luck.
I'm certainly not the least bit interested in what you have to say about freakin' Islam!
No, they go in search of other alternative religions such as science fiction, and AGW.
Frank, we all know of your dislike of any sort of 'faith based' belief, and you reasoning behind that dislike, - and that's fine, but why are you forever trying to drag others, never seeming to miss an opportunity, to your way of thinking? Is it some sort zealotry, or perhaps you feel that by 'spreading the word', you are somehow attempting to improving the lives of others?
Isn't that what religious fundamentalists do?
Alison,
None of which is true. You have advertised your now defunct log on several occasions, but so what.
I did ask if you swore when in the company of your parents, which you affirmed.
I did suggest - and quite impersonally, that girls who swore as a matter of habit, tended to attract the sort of company that would have equally poor respect for others.
I certainly don't feel above criticism, and am quite able to defend my corner, and certainly against the 'troll' contingent. As for your various apologies, - I must have missed them, - if they ever were!
So glad my opinion means nothing to you, then surely I cannot be guilty of giving offence - why then are you so miffed?...
Oh no ....
Lovely weather, eh?
Ernest,
"No, they go in search of other alternative religions"
Some do, not all. But I suppose it is easier for a believer to insist that everyone needs supernatural religion than to face up to the idea that maybe they themselves wasted much of their lives on nonsense.
"such as science fiction,"
Why are you forever mocking my Jedi beliefs? Must you take every opportunity to try and lead people to the dark side? Aren't you just like a fundamentalist? Obviously the reason the force is not with you is that you haven't got enough faith, and your mind and heart is closed.
"and AGW"
The greenhouse effect has been established science for over 100 years and it is no more a religion than Boyle's law.
"but why are you forever trying to drag others, never seeming to miss an opportunity, to your way of thinking?"
I don't. I do what you do, I post my opinion or where I know of a factual error, I correct it.
May the force be with you.
And the relevance? I mean my parents?
They are there Ernest, said apologies. Including one to Pete Moore on one occasion a while back.
Something you feel above despite in particular abusing a level of trust on one issue i raised above.
I invite anyone to read the thread Ernest. You were bang out of order.
Frank,
And with you!
I only asked about the atheists apparent concern for those who have more traditional attitudes to any religion, as it does seem to bother most of them that others do not share their viewpoint. It is almost as though they need the company to justify their enlightenment...
Alison,
Your Parents, only mentioned as I would have thought they were the people you would have the most respect for.
I must have missed those apologies, but then I seldom read your comments when you are in rage mode, or even when you aren't...!
Ernest,
"I only asked about the atheists apparent concern for those who have more traditional attitudes to any religion, as it does seem to bother most of them that others do not share their viewpoint. "
It doesn't bother me, although it is a little unsettling to encounter grown men and women who believe in witches and ghosts and the like. It mainly bothers me when they go on to make silly claims about atheists, or when they want to pass their beliefs into law. I feel perfectly entitled to respond to such. That is what I do here and it is not preaching to do so. Indeed it is amusing that you consider my response in this thread preaching and are oblivious to the remark it was in response to.
"It is almost as though they need the company to justify their enlightenment..."
Seems unlikely. I find no shortage of company in most countries. It is actually quite rare to bump into believers these days - but then I don't frequent churches much, and nor do most people bring religion up in social situations. Perhaps it is the believers who focus on perceived flaws in atheism and atheists in order to avoid dealing with the responses to their own arguments?
Well you do else why respond above?
Unfortunately I have to read your comments when you are in full on catty, sour, humourless and bitter mode Ernest - which is usually all the time - otherwise i would never get to the bottom of your "arguments".
My parents, how I speak with them, my character, my relationships etc and your opinion of any of those are irrelevant to the posting of a joke on a blog Ernest.
As an atheist I couldn't give a **** what people choose to believe in, whether it's a sky-god or the tooth fairy.
It's when they choose to slaughter others in the name of their belief that I get angry. Let's not forget the words of the 9-11 hijackers as they flew the planes into the towers: "God is great!"
And before the christians get too holier than thou, maybe they should reflect on the blood-stained history of that
superstitionreligion (in its various guises) throughout the centuries - the crusades, the inquisition and the religious wars after the reformation are just the three most obvious episodes of mass bloodshed. And no, that does not for a second excuse the genocidal atheist butchers of the twentieth century.Alison,
Just when did I discuss your character? certainly not lately, if ever.
Funny how you feel it ok to discuss all sorts of things about your personal life, - as and when it suits you, and feel upset when reminded of them. If you want something kept private, then don't discuss it on a blog...
The blog mention was hardly catty, or sour, it was true, - is it still a sore point with you?
Enough of this nonsense, - if you can't take it, then don't dish it out, or otherwise provoke a hostile response...
Peter,
As I said to Frank - why be so overly concerned for what anyone else thinks? And just for the record, I am more of an agnostic than an atheist, believer or fundamentalist.
Surely you aren'trying to make any self declared Christian feel in someway guilty for those things that happened centuries ago? - or expect them to issue an apology?
Why not 'live and let live' as we are so often told by those of a liberal persuasion? Personally I can listen to either side of the argument, and feel little sympathy for either.
Frank,
I don't think I accused you,in this instance, of preaching per se, and yes I did get the context of your opening remark.
Yup. Only when pertinent to a discussion or light hearted banter and precisely as you say of MY choosing - as is anyone else free to do (including David), without inviting such nasty minded pettiness because it suits YOU.
What did i "dish" exactly Ernest to invite comments on me, my blog or how i talk to my parents, you ignorant little man. An old joke?
You talk about dishing it and not taking it and you certainly felt entitled to dish away on Saturday - then start your comment as you did here already whining about the fall out and inviting further remarks on the issue.
Bite me Ernest
Frank
People don't usually leave the Church to become atheists. They leave because the Church fails them not because they don't believe in God. Even many who claim to be atheists will admit they pray from time to time.
Doubt is part of the human condition for believers and non-believers alike.
Henry,
I don't know if it is usual but it is pretty common. The fact is that many people leave the church simply because they don't believe any of it is true.
As for doubt, nothing wrong with that but only one worldview makes it a virtue. Most religions consider it a vice.
I'd say people leave a particular Church for a variety of reasons - lack of faith, change of faith, anger, intellectual differences, boredom, laziness, courage, weakness, strength, ambivalence and rebellion to name a few. Reasons that are good or bad or mixed. Oddly, the same reasons prompt others to stay, or to join.
True, mahons.
But membership of a church often has nothing to do with faith at all. People continue outward observance because of social pressure to conform, or because of the social advantages it brings (friendships, being part of the local community, but also social and career advancement in many societies). And they then leave when these social factors no longer apply.
As late as the 1980's in Ireland, you could see the strange phenomenon of about 60 p.c., sometimes more, of the congregation at Mass packed up against the back door of the church, impatiently waiting for the Communion when they would be able to dash out again. They were present only physically and very reluctantly. It was clear that when the social pressure to attend disappeared so too would this large group of church-goers.
It was also interesting to read Pete Moore's admission today that his Christianity is nothing more than a cultural or ethnic statement.
I'm sure he is in good company.
No thanks Alison, I'm not into food poisoning!....especially from eating stuff well past it's sell-by date...
Noel: What you say is true as there are many who go for social or conformist reasons. I suspect some folks left or don't attend because of the new social pressures. I really think people should be free to do as the choose, and thankfully they are.
Frank,
That is profound—and quite likely true.
Earnest, what are you doing? Alison has been a good friend to you here, you jumped her stuff Saturday, blamed her for ac1's comments, and came right back at her again today. Don't you think you may have hurt her feelings the other day and again this day? I don't think she has ever minded you disagreeing with her point of view. She's angry with you because you've been personally mean to her with the intent to humiliate, she never expected that from you. She has always liked you.
Yes, I'm butting in to mediate. Why don't you try to fix this breach? If you reach, she'll probably respond.
--Still totally insignificant compared to the real flood of Muslims in the West abandoning their faith.--
I'd hope that this is true, but I've never heard this before. Can you provide a source for that?
Anecdotally, there would appear to be some here in my part of Brooklyn who are drifting away. Especially young second generation males, unless appearances deceive. A lot of them give you the impression that they wouldn't be caught dead in a mosque.
--It gives young men the scary factor kudos they all like and is like being part of the Best Gang on the Planet--
But for some of those going the other way, to tough guy Islam--yes, that's exactly and precisely it for some of them, Well put.
>>Anecdotally, there would appear to be some here in my part of Brooklyn who are drifting away. Especially young second generation males,<<
Phantom, that's all I'm going on too - my own experience. I've met scores of (ex-)Muslims through my job and socially and I would say something like 4 out of 5 are now less religious than they used to be, or have abandoned their faith entirely.
It's very hard to be sure, of course, and it will no doubt also depend on the country you're in and, especially, the country the immigrants come from.
I'm sure several studies have been done on this here in Europe at least. If I find anything I'll let you know.
The intertwined nature of church and state in England has done religion no favors in the UK.
Frank
As for doubt, nothing wrong with that but only one worldview makes it a virtue. Most religions consider it a vice.
Christianity has never considered doubt a vice. St. Thomas famously doubted and it was not considered a vice even in the room where the risen Lord had been. If I may quote Pope Benedict
"The case of the apostle Thomas is important for us for at least three reasons: first, because it comforts us in our insecurities; secondly, because doubt can lead to an enlightened outcome beyond all uncertainty, and finally, because the words spoken by Jesus remind us of the true meaning of mature faith, encouraging us to persevere, despite the difficulties, in our walk of devotion to Him."
If you want to look for the persecution of doubters you need to look closer to home
Some environmentalists and commentators have suggested that global-warming “denial” be made a crime, much as Holocaust denial is in some countries. Others have proposed that climate-change dissidents be prosecuted in Nuremberg-style trials. The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen has suggested that television meteorologists be stripped of their American Meteorological Society certification if they dare to question predictions of catastrophic global warming.
One also recalls the forced resignation of Harvard President Lawrence Summers as an example of the inability of so-called progressives to tolerate any questioning of their own dogmas.
The atheistic dictatorships such as China and the former Soviet Union saw doubt as treason. Yet those involved in all the above claim to be of the same scientific world view.
No world view can detach itself from the nature of man. Those who think they can should make us nervous.
>>Christianity has never considered doubt a vice.<<
Not very convincing, Henry. Jesus chastised his followers several times for showing doubt.
In any case, Christianity never promoted doubt in authority - whether towards scripture or church leaders.
Doubt is on the other hand at the centre of the scientific method.
Noel,
This is the crux of the matter. We must always doubt ... question ... doubt ... question, and never take anything at face value. If we do, we shall never progress as a species. The secrets of the universe will for ever remain inaccessible to us.
This is the point at which faith leaves its adherents baying at the moon. To believers on ATW: I don't like to state this so baldly, for I don't wish to offend, but once a chap takes something on trust—read "faith"—reason goes out the window and superstition gains a foothold.
How do you know all of us believers just took it on faith Dawkins?
Stop generalizing about people on a subject that you have no knowledge of.
Dawkins: You might be a smart fellow, but don't underestimate me and mine. I'm not one to bay at the moon as you apparently think. I am fairly certain I am not as ignorant or confused as you imply. You want to think what you think, I have no problem with that. Pretend you are more enlightened than me and the rest of us folks who happen to have some religous belief, please.
"Doubt is on the other hand at the centre of the scientific method."
It doesn't appear to apply to MMGW - but that belief system is a new religion, is it not?
Allan,
No, it is not.
Noel
Jesus chastised his followers several times for showing doubt.
You need an example to support that point. There is no doubt that Jesus exhorted his followers to have greater faith. In Matthew chapter 6, verses 25 to 33 there is the beautiful explanation of how we can trust in God to provide and that we should not be unduly concerned for material things. That is the teaching. Indeed you could accept the premise that materialism is not a road to happiness without any belief in God.
But he knew Peter would deny him. He understood that we are creatures of doubt and of fear. Christ was human too and asked his Father on the cross why he had forsaken him.
In the lives of the Saints doubt is a recurring theme.
So there is no basis for claiming the Christian faith seeks to exclude doubt. How could it?
>>"Jesus chastised his followers several times for showing doubt."
You need an example to support that point. <<
Matthew 8:25 And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.
And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?
Luke 12:27 (lilies of the fields) If then God so clothe the grass, ...; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Matthew 14:30 But when he [Peter] saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
------
>>we should not be unduly concerned for material things. That is the teaching.<<
Indeed, and it is a fine one. And - like almost all the finest teachings of Jesus - it's one that has been totally ignored by almost all Christians over the past 2000 years.
>>In the lives of the Saints doubt is a recurring theme.<<
The point is that doubt is considered something to be avoided or overcome in religion, whereas in science it is encouraged and is in fact a necessary part of the method.
The religious says the way to the truth is through faith.
The scientist says the way to the truth is through doubt.
Noel
It is a complete misunderstanding to see doubt as an evil or a vice. It was never looked at that way. Otherwise there would have been no need for theology. Doubt is not necessarily something to overcome. Many never do. Few if any completely do. You misunderstand us if you think there is a state of blind obedience that we are all striving for.
I can only assume that the point of all this is to pretend that believers are all brainwashed automaton while non-believers are dedicated followers of the scientific method. The new elect. Funnily enough even non-scientists can bask in the warm glow of satisfaction when they regard themselves as objective and rational creatures.
But people are people and by making an ideology out of a method you will end up with something with far more in common with an ideology than with a method.
I'm old enough to remember when Marxism fancied itself as a scientific method. In the name of progress it slaughtered many millions. The problem wasn't Marxism which was merely wrong but Marxists who killed with abandon to try and make it right. Atheists all. Believers in science all.
You point out that Christians often ignore the teachings of Christ. And that's a fact.
Just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't make him any less human. Likewise just because someone claims to believe in science doesn't either.
What I see, not from the scientific method itself, but from those who make a banner out of it is a mob mentality.
Ascribing false characteristics to those they consider outsiders is an early symptom of a potential disaster to come.
Calm down, Henry :)
For a start, you can't equate Marxism with the scientific method. Marxism was also an ideology (and a quite emotional one betimes; ever read Capital?). The scientific method is by definition the lack of ideology (or lack of prejudice as to the most likely explanation for a phenomenon).
Second, I am not turning a method into an ideology. I just think that the method of empirical science - and the willingness to discard any formula that is found not to work - if fundamentally different from the religious approach. I don't know how orthodox you are when you say "Doubt is not necessarily something to overcome", but it's certainly something quite different to what I was brought up to accept: that the blessed shall live alone by faith and that one should pray for "the gift of faith".
If a priest exhorts his flock to pray to a certain saint for a remedy, and the next week a woman comes up to him and says: "Father, I prayed night and day to St. NN, but Johnny still failed his exams", the priest doesn't say: "Hmmm, well obviously that's not working, Why don't you try instead ...."
That would be the scientific approach.
Another thing is that the vast majority of us accept the scientific method as best for the most vital things of live - our health, survival, making a living. When we move into the religious sphere, however, people seem to suspend this approach entirely.
Science says, for example, that when a person dies certain irreversible processes always start in the brain. If they don’t, the person is not dead. All of us accept this, along with most of medical science, when it really matters. Yet when they open the Bible, the religious suddenly stop accepting it, and instead believe a man came back to life after he had been dead for a few days, i.e. he must have been dead and not dead at the same time.
People don't want scientific enquiry interfering in their religious lives. Their faith is in fact their will. They believe because they want to believe (for various reasons).
<>I can only assume that the point of all this is to pretend that believers are all brainwashed automaton while non-believers are dedicated followers of the scientific method.<<
I don't think anyone would claim the first, and definitely nobody would claim the second!
I think faith is not so much good or bad as necessary. Religion has been around almost for ever and in almost every culture that ever existed. It seems to be an inevitable product of the human mind. There are obviously very good reasons for religion, good reasons for believing.
And that's what it's all about: belief. A person who has absolutely no doubt is a full Christian, a person who has only doubt isn't.