Why Atheism Will Replace Religion
Offline Atheism is a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Why do modern conditions produce atheism? Does this mean that religion is on the way out?
First, as to the distribution of atheism in the world, an instructive pattern emerges. In sub-Saharan Africa there is almost no atheism.1 Belief in God declines in more developed countries and atheism is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64% nonbelievers), Denmark (48%), France (44%) and Germany (42%). In contrast, the incidence of atheism in most sub-Saharan countries is below 1%. (The U.S. is more religious than other developed countries with only about one person in eight expressing disbelief).
The question of why economically developed countries turn to atheism has been batted around by anthropologists for about eighty years. Anthropologist James Fraser proposed that scientific prediction and control of nature supplants religion as a means of controlling uncertainty in our lives. This hunch is supported by data showing that the more educated countries have higher levels of non-belief and there are strong correlations between atheism and intelligence.
Atheists are more likely to be college-educated people who live in cities and they are highly concentrated in the social democracies of Europe. Atheism thus blossoms amid affluence where most people feel economically secure. But why?
It seems that people turn to religion as a salve for the difficulties and uncertainties of their lives.2 In social democracies, there is less fear and uncertainty about the future because social welfare programs provide a safety net and better health care means that fewer people can expect to die young. People who are less vulnerable to the hostile forces of nature feel more in control of their lives and less in need of religion.
In addition to being the opium of the people (as Karl Marx contemptuously phrased it), religion may also promote fertility, particularly by promoting marriage.3 Large families are preferred in agricultural countries as a source of free labor. In developed "atheist" countries, women have exceptionally small families and do not need religion helping them to raise large families.
Even the psychological functions of religion face stiff competition today. When people experience psychological difficulties they turn to their doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. They want a scientific fix and prefer the real psychotropic medicines dished out by physicians to the metaphorical opiates offered by religion.
Moreover, sport psychologists find that spectatorship yields much the same kind of social, and spiritual, benefits as people obtain from church membership. Precisely the same argument can be made for other forms of entertainment with which spectators become deeply involved. Indeed, organized religion is striking back by trying to compete in popular media, such as televangelism and Christian rock and by hosting live secular entertainment in church.
The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in daily life and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached.
The market has spoken. It is predicting more empty pews but only in developed countries. Religious belief continues unabated among poor countries. Ironically, these are the places with the highest fertility so that the number of religious people on the planet will increase along with the population explosion.
In the end, though, as African countries develop, they will become as godless as Europe.
Ultimately, organized religion is on the way out. The only thing that could prevent this from happening would be a sharp decline in global standards of living. That would require some form of ecological collapse. Think a very large asteroid, a very nasty epidemic, extreme global warming, or derivatives traders rum amok.
1. Zuckerman, P. (2007). Atheism: Contemporary numbers and patterns. In M. Martin (ed.), The Cambridge companion to atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This book is not held by any U.S. Library.
2. Barber, N. (in press). A cross-national test of the uncertainty hypothesis of religious belief. Cross-Cultural Research.
3. Sanderson, S. K. (2008). Adaptation, evolution, and religion. Religion, 38, 141-156.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/why-atheism-will-replace-_b_741042.html
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
in this piece such as intelligence and atheism being linked. I do think that atheists and theists think differently but it's more like facets of a cognitive hologram than a completely different mental state.
For instance, the godly will use rational procedures to argue furiously over some conceptual point and then airily admit they accept Noah's Ark at face value.
It is interesting that in the sub sahara there is just 1 per cent atheism. Maybe this business of looking for some control does have merit from that point of view.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Yah, the whole package of the article seem off to me even if some of the points have some validity.
For example, why state that atheism is better because it offers some form of whatever that theism can't manage?
As an atheist, I live in a world that more or less sucks. It is my job to find the ways to do things that make the world suck a whole lot less. If I have a problem and someone tells me to deal with it, well, that is exactly what I need to do.
Theists don't have that as an issue as far as I can see. Sure, the whole world is full of sin. You really ought to try not to sin but at the end of the deal, you will have sinned in many ways. The thing is that all of your sins end up not being that big of a deal. When your time comes, god will do his god thing and whatever you did do is erased from your permanent record.
From what I understand, theists are supposed to not end up at the pearly gates with a file that is so thick that it takes a few drawers to hold it all. Even so, whatever happens to be in that file does not matter because it is all getting shredded anyway.
We have to deal with stuff here and now.
=
This is, because even psychologists themselves have problems, and remarkably common problems, on top of that. Even a professional psychologist does not have the education to set her relationships right - without a skilled astrologer's help. The more renown expert, the less he or she can seek any advice with any other colleague in field. But my group is always open and doesn't talk names.
And of course, customers want best service available, so instead of visiting psychologists, they go for help to whom even psychologists themselves go for help. The word spreads. Medicine is expensive and doctors have bad reputation.
This coin has two sides. We keep our inner core full of intelligent, qualified or educated, ethical people who know each other for years. But at the same time, majority of other people is not interested in really fixing their life. They go for whatever feels good, and they keep at that no matter how many physical, mental, relationship and economical problems they develop. These people are not religious, they're simply emotional. Watching sports perhaps works as a regular hobby for men, for ...let's say, intellectually passive men, but what about women? Women visit "spiritual" semminaries and seances. They fill the halls, even together with some number of men. Men are usually the gurus, the semminar leaders, the mediums, lecturers, and so on. This is a dirty business, again repeating that ancient lie which says, that someone else can enlighten you (for a financial price, of course). This is in the middle of relatively atheistic post-communistic state. You won't find that in media, of course. I guess the non-tax-payers want to keep it that way. But I really don't like this tendency, our group always was for making people independent, self-reliant and having their lives in order, before they can approach the inner circle and cooperate with others from their own initiative.
And please someone help me with grammar. "Majority of people is", or "majority of people are"? I can't ask that my english teacher, she would scold me for not knowing that.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I think that voluntary religion is on it's way out. The more people learn about other religions and science, science the more religion will disappear. But religion has always evolved in order to survive.
The problem is involuntary religion, namely Islam. Where there are these pockets of atheism replacing Christianity, there is also Islamification. One big problem is the high birth rates vs. secular people, the welfare state supporting large families. Because these one person one vote democracies, they will eventually vote out secularism.
Also there is the asymmetry of terrorism. A few can kill many and terrorize all.
The only thing that can stop Islamification is mandatory birth control and people taking a stand to stop terrorism.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Who has an ethic other than doing "whatever feels good"?
Don't all people just do religion because it feels good? Isn't the only difference in how holy and pious one group can act vs. the other? But you're all just doing what feels good.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I have perhaps 3 issues I might raise:
1.) It assumes that the status-quo will remain the same--that is in the future things will continue to progress towards godlessness in Europe.
2.) But if trends do continue, I'd consider the low birth rate in Europe and the outflux of people from religious countries (such as the Middle East and North Africa) into Europe, religion will have its place, albeit it will likely be Islam rather than Protestantism or Catholicism.
3.) The optimistism of the article seems to suggests a move to development means a move to atheism, but the opposition could cite the correlation between countries with high development high levels of atheism/agnosticism and suicide rates and depression rates in the same countries while they are rather low in countries with religion. I'm not suggesting this is because of atheism, but rather I don't like to make correlative jests without considering the full field of view...
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
developed world through islamisation. There are 60 islamic nations in the world - only one is considered modern - that's Turkey - and it's a fairly nominal position.
Islam cleverly keeps 50 per cent of its brainpower in the kitchen. No real taxation, no lending. Virtually no spending on infrastructure. Education hamstrung by dogma. Creativity stifled by threat.
But there'll be stuff blowing up all over as the various factions fight over whose subaru WRX is the fastest. Neato.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Here the problem isn't that people give up their life for going to heaven when they die. They give up a lot of time, money and effort for something they're supposed to attain in their lifetime, but which is not real. For example, that you learn to control your merkaba and will be able to teleport around n' stuff.
Yeah, organized religion is probably on decline. The militant tendencies can be interpreted as death throes. (not only in religion, but economy, politics and so on) But nobody can say that for non-organized religion or spiritual beliefs in general. I don't know where the pure atheism is supposed to come from. Most of people I know have a typical saying: "Something is."
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Overwhelming scientific evidence that we only do what we expect makes us feel good. We don't have freewill for anything else. But theists endlessly make arguments that deny this reality.
So for many it feels good to do your duty and be accepted by peers.
So humans are capable of long term planning to feel good, not just short term pleasure.
Why is one form of the pursuit of pleasure better than another? Some forms are socially acceptable, some are not. And social approval brings good feelings for many.
Like heaven and hell? So only an atheist can have a non-primitive value system? We would oppose a genocidal, racist, homophobic, sadist god even if it means eternal suffering. Whereas a theist can only do what the guy that gives eternal pleasure or pain wants one to do.
People conditioned properly can derive pleasure from demonstrating empathy and control impulses for short term pleasure and plan for the long term. But you can't change we are all motivated by what we believe will make us feel better.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
If people can do exactly opposite things, like violence and love just to feel good, then this does not help to distinguish the motive, it's vain thinking and I'm almost sure it's some kind of fallacious argument. It's simplification ad absurdum, I'd say.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Isn't every experience of pleasure and pain a bio-chemical reaction to stimuli in the brain? Therefore there is only physical experiences? What makes something "civilized"?
The hope of a better future makes them feel better in present. Religion is always telling adherents to not worry, be happy in present because the future circumstances will be way better. It is an opiate for present painful circumstances. The same painkilling effects can be achieved through drugs, TMS and other 'physical' changes to how the brain works.
You can only experience what goes on in your own head not someone else. Having empathy for others can produce pleasurable feelings, it's also a survival tacktic.
The priciple that this will feel better.
Not really, there is mapping of various stimuli to the experiences of pleasure and pain in the brain. This mapping is different for everyone depending on genetics and conditioning. Why is this so complicated to understand?
There is great purpose in understanding how the mapping develops. It is one of the most exiting areas in science, unlocking the mysteries of the brain.
If we eat a food I like, but you hate. Then, we examined our brains we'd see my pleasure centers activate and your pain centers activate. It's just that we have a different neural pathways from taste receptors to these pleasure/pain centers. Sure the pathways are incredible complicated but that is the basic principle.
Science can now look at our brains and measure the pleasure/pain levels correlated to various stimuli.
Why does this reality seem absurd? An dog can be trained to attack or show affection to a get a reward, it is just creating neural pathways that correlate behaviors with pleasure/pain.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I'd say the majority of people are funny looking with purple heads.
It's an issue with singular and plural and I think in this case 'a majority' remains plural even without the word 'people' attached to it.
I'd thought you could say a majority is funny looking with purple heads but written out you can see it doesn't work.
So it's is for singular and it's are for plural.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Muslim Demographics
Person is singular. People are plural. A person is funny looking and people are funny looking. Majority implies multiplicity - so a majority of people are plural twice.
How's that for confusing?
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
When in doubts, I borrow from my language, in best english tradition. When in big doubts, I ask someone else. Thanks, I'll remember that.
You remind me of one girl from my school. When she was asked if she writes manually or on keyboard, she argued, "writing on keyboard is manual too!" Yeah, that IS the basic principle, but who cares about that? The purpose is to promote responsible and ethical behavior in society and you won't do that by setting up booths in the city where people can get an electric shock into their pleasure centers.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Why not? The scientific facts should affect how we educate children and interract with other people. These notions of people doing things out of duty or morality are wrong. Religious morality doesn't work so let's go with proven science.
People are controlled by the threat of death. So they don't need this technology, just more drones and assasination tools.
I was thinking more like a helmet one could wear all the time, connected to WiFi.
So for example, we want students to study math, science, logic, etc... But the students want music, art, sports, goofing off, things that are more pleasurable. The technology can remap what the student experiences as pleasure and pain. As it is now, we use social approval/disapproval to control behaviors. Electronics can motivate/demotivate so called moral/immoral behaviors better more efficiently than the current means.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
So much so I had to look it up in my Collins English Dictionary:
Majority: Noun - Plural.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I agree that over time as our minds or intelligence evolves there will be no need for religion. The question is how much time will it take to evolve out of religion?
~~Be Real~~
I know some really smart theists who burrow so deep into the conceptuality of first cause I'm surprised I can still see their hind legs poking out. Our BobSpence has cleverly described their efforts as "defining god into existence" and I think in the absence of complete knowledge there will always be people who cleave to a supernatural world order. Some because it's a comfortable cognitive slide and others because they need to know now.
It's the raving fundies I dislike and you will take pleasure in meeting them around here, I'm sure. Fonzie for instance and Gramps - each have their own diabolical threads. Fonzie's is probably the worst. He will veer from not so subtle threats over your looming demise to platitudinal preachings about embracing the one true father and coming to him (ahem) as a child.
One thing we can say is that science has given us the Internet and the Internet has given us free spirited types who would never go to a church without beer, music, gadgets or motorbikes in it, a place to grow as real human beings, and to share the burden of the false doctrine we were inculcated with when we were too small to defend ourselves.
And one thing is true - there do seem to be more and more of us and that growth mirrors the growth of knowledge by repeatable experiment.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck