Thursday, May 20, 2010

Why atheism will replace religion

http://holtz.org/Library/Images/KnowingHumans/atheism%20outlives%20all%20gods.JPGAtheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries, particularly the social democracies of Europe. In underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists. Atheism is thus a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Why do modern conditions produce atheism?

First, as to the distribution of atheism in the world, a clear pattern can be discerned. In sub-Saharan Africa there is almost no atheism (Zuckerman, 2007). Belief in God declines in more developed countries and 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 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 (see my earlier post on this).

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. 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, according to copious data reviewed by Sanderson (2008). 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. In modern societies, 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 sports spectatorship provides much the same kind of social, and spiritual, benefits as people obtain from church membership. ...

via Why atheism will replace religion | Psychology Today.

23 comments:

Ann said...

About time! God died a long time ago, according to Nietzsche and bunch of others before the beginning of the 20th century.

Actually, it's not that "God died" in the metaphysical sense, but it's that Western culture has displaced Him, according to these thinkers, with materialism ... etc. - you know it's like money, consumerism and technological gadgetry (which include mind-altering pharmaceuticals) is more important to us than anything spiritual or supernatural (except for the paranormal on the internet - HA! our new spirituality: It's UFOs, ghost hunters and parapsychology not atheism, but a kind of animism!).

So,why shouldn't the next step be complete denial of any kind of deity?

Karl Marx talked about religion as the opiate of the masses, not spirituality. A BIG difference! He was actually more "love your neighbor as yourself" type of thinker than many of his contemporaries or people since. For a long time, a lot of writers (Christian and non-Christian) have found a lot of Christian values in Marxist thinking (which has very little to do with Communism as it was practiced in the former U.S.S.R., Americans). A big part of being Christian should be how one lives one's life, not waiting to be rewarded in the present, or after one dies. It's suppose to have something to do with love ... huh?

Cole said...

Atheism IS a religion.

Intrachresodist said...

Presumably you are religious, or you would not misrepresent atheism so.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. It is very likely that you are an atheist with respect to at least 10 of the deities mentioned in the post's image.

From the Wikipedia page on religion, first sentence:

"Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship[1], usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Atheism has no belief in a god, does not worship a god, has no devotions, no rituals, nor a moral code. So atheism is the definitional opposite of religion.

Intrachresodist said...

Atheism well predates technological society as you should know.

If there's a common thing to being religious, other than believing in a god, it's that they lie and misrepresent to protect their belief system. They misrepresent opponents' positions; they misrepresent scientific conclusions; they spin their own beliefs to avoid being caught out in logical contradiction.

Fact is, you have no evidence for the existence of your god. Right-minded people won't accept that your god exists without such evidence.

I have some quotes from famous, intelligent people on the subject:

Bertrand Russell - "I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."

And again - "The objections to religion are of two sorts - intellectual and moral. The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow."

Clarence Darrow - "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose."

Clark Adams - apropos to Cole below - "If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!"

Daniel Dennett - "The kindly God who lovingly fashioned each and every one of us and sprinkled the sky with shining stars for our delight -- that God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not anything [that] a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in. That God must either be turned into a symbol for something less concrete or abandoned altogether."

H.L. Mencken - "Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration--courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth."

Mark Twain - "During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for 800 years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry."

Cole said...

Dictionary.com

1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beliefs:

-Most atheists believe the universe and everything in it created by a "Big Bang."
-Most believe in evolution.


I support the Wikipedia project 100%, but that article has been changed so many times, the definition switched back over and over again, it's had to be semi-protected. I wouldn't trust that particular page's content at the moment.

Look, atheism is a religion whether you want to believe it or not. Look at what the atheist movement has been doing, they're trying to convert people. Why else would they be trying so hard to disprove other religions? It even has a great religious leader like the Pope. Richard Dawkins has all these "conventions" and such for atheists. You know why this is similar to what religions do? Because atheism is a religion. Face it, you might not want to say you are, but in all sense, you are one.

Mirlen101 said...

Amen ;-)

Xeno said...

I know it is a bit devilish of me to bait conversations with posts like this but the optimistic side of me thinks that both sides of this debate need something the other side has.

Getting together in a community once a week to talk about feelings, to sing, to celebrate, to help each other, to discuss problems, to learn and share good advice ... these are good things! Religion has the disorganized atheists beat here.

On the other hand, science has made significant progress in the past 2000 years and selectively ignoring parts of what we now know in favor of stories people invented 2000 years ago is really weird.

Cole said...

@Intrachresodist:

I'm pretty sure that most dictionaries arrange definitions of a word in order of relevance. I picked the first two. Please notice how the definition you claim I failed to attribute atheism to states "esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Especially when, is what it says. That means the parts following are not necessary, yet most religions have them. Atheism fits fine within that definition.

Now, evolution is NOT proven fact. It is a theory. There are many holes in it. I don't want to get into that, but here is one of many links that could explain some:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

Would you not agree that most well-established atheists believe in the Big Bang and evolution? There aren't too many alternate theories out there.

You're statement that Islam's penalty for rejection is death is entirely false. Nowhere in the Qu'ran does it say that. That is only believed by a minority of extremists who are misinterpreting their own religion.

This is the first time I've heard of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, Inc. or Atheist Alliance International. But now I realize they exist atheism seems even more like an organized religion! You've got foundations and organizations, like a church body!

Ann said...

Yes, I know, Xeno. But it's interesting to me to understand why religion is so interesting to so many, Christian and atheist alike.

Why? I wonder. Is it because we're afraid of dying? of suffering? of our seemingly meaningless world? Is it because we're looking to find out if religion may help us, save us, or do us some good? Is it something about world we don't like and religion offers a solution?

In reply to the above comment:

Of course, I know "atheism" is an old idea. I said that "God was dead" quoting thinkers from the turn of the century. He or She is dead, they say, because our culture has denied His/Her existence. Why? Because of OUR materialism.

My personal beliefs has nothing to do with any of this. It was not me that said Karl Marx was more Christian than a lot of others. The people have been saying that for over 100 years.

Just think about it. Do you really think Jesus was joking when He threw the traders out of temple? It is one of the few times Jesus actually got angry.

Modern Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with being "Christ-like" or even wanting to try to be "loving your neighbor as yourself."

Intrachresodist said...

Atheists can sing and celebrate too; they just don't need to do so because of atheism. There are plenty of secular ways to do all of those things.

Where religion really succeeds is in indoctrination of children, rejection of inconvenient truths, promulgation of superstitious thinking throughout generations and special dispensation against tax and criticism.

Science made almost no progress in the thousand years while religion ruled the roost. It's only the last 300 years or so in which scientific thought and the scientific process has been able to drag mankind out of the murk of ritual, superstition, deference to ancient writings and vast quantities of wishful thinking.

Xeno said...

Can, but don't. Why not? Religion wins there. Also, there are ideas in science that held science back. Scientists can be dogmatic and narrow minded too, for example, if you aren't an expert in my field, I won't listen. But that is starting to improve. The faults are in ouselves, not in our stars.

Sent from my iPhone

Xeno said...

Cole, i agree, in a few ways, it is like a religion. Science "followers" place faith in peer review, for example. I personally have no radio telescope, so I place faith in the findings of those who do. Human nature is to be lazy and to trust experts rather than verifying things for ourseves and that goes for both science and religion.

Sent from my iPhone

Cole said...

I noticed the x-y chromosome mix-up too. But I didn't think you would use an honest mistake like that to try to prove a point.

I COULD bring up other problems with evolution, but I won't. We aren't talking about whether evolution is true or not, we're talking about whether or not atheism is a religion.

You got me on the death for desertion of Islam thing. I did not know that. Yes, some religions have punishments like that, but not all do. Most do not.

A foundation alone can't be a religion, it has to have a religion behind it, and not all religions have foundations at all. A lot do though.
Anyways, the Wikimedia Foundation and the AAA don't constitute religions particularly because they don't fit within the criteria sating a religion must have a collective belief in the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Cole said...

Yeah, I think that's a good point. But even those who do have radio telescopes could fit into the religion. "Enlightened ones" in certain religions, that are said to have a higher connection to their god and whose responsibility it is to relay messages between the god and the followers is similar to that, but I guess not too much. In another way, experts have to have faith in each other as well, to compare findings and to be told of things that they themselves have not seen.

Ann said...

"Progress" is a funny word. It is often associated with development and growth, and we're supposed to understand what these terms mean? Yes, because it is like an unspoken understanding. It is very cultural, Western, and also trendy. In the 19th century it was used to defend social Darwinism, slavery and what we today might call genocide - following Hobbes and his notions of brutish savages. Today it is still, obviously, used to defend science ignoring our global environmental devastation on a scale unprecedented in history, much of which is the result of the partnership of science and technology. This use of the term often ignores that more often than not "science" is a commodity, bought and paid for by industry, which, of course, slants its "objectivity" - so much for science!

When people use the term, they usually have some ideal in mind about what it means, but often don't say exactly what they're talking about. Progress from what? Progress towards what? And why? And, how?

Xeno said...

Define progress, eh? Well, we've greatly reduced the burning to death of nonexistant witches ... how long a list do you require?

Cole said...

I hope you realize, Xeno, that the fact that "witches" aren't burnt at the stake anymore isn't a result of there being less religion, it's a result of people knowing better now.

Cole said...

Why are you ignoring what I say? You're arguing that I have failed to show how atheism has devotions, rituals, moral code, deity, or pope; meanwhile my argument has been that it doesn't NEED to have those to be a religion. Stop coming back to an issue I've already showed isn't an issue at all.

I have not failed, sir. You are simply ignoring my argument.

Atheism, by definition, means the doctrine or belief that there is no god or supreme being.
Religion, by definition, is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

See? Believing in a god isn't a requirement.

Xeno said...

How did they know better? When I read about the end of the witch hunts, it seemed to me that logic was responsible, which is a foundation of science, a part of our awakening out of superstition, which is progress... But we can toss that out and go with the understanding that bacteria exists and causes disease as a better example.

Ann said...

That's another word: "superstition" that's loaded with all sorts of connotations, but means what? To whom? Or, better, to whom does it refer?

Ann said...

From time immemorial the present was always "modern," better than the past. Silly isn't it? You'd think we would "evolve" to the point to realize, at least that.

Intrachresodist said...

You have tried several gambits, and they didn't work. I answered them all:

- inability to meet the dictionary definition of religion;

- claim that belief in the Big Bang theory makes atheism a religion;

- claim that belief in the Theory of Evolution makes atheism a religion;

- claim that atheism is a religion because atheists try to disprove religions;

- claim that atheism is a religion because Richard Dawkins is its pope;

- claim that conventions make atheism a religion;

- that evolution has holes (and so is false);

- that death isn't the penalty for apostasy in Islam;

- that foundations and organisations make atheism a religion.

For a one-sentence jibe at atheism you sure have made a lot of claims.

At the last you selectively quote two definitions and hope I won't notice the omissions. The dictionary doesn't say "esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs" just to make a fat book. It's important context to understand the term being defined. If you are unable to show how atheism encompasses these attributes of religion as stated in the dictionary, then your correlation of atheism with religion is weak.

You tried to show trappings with talk about how Richard Dawkins is the atheist pope and stuff about conventions, but it fell flat. Your argument in a nutshell was "religions have foundations and atheists have foundations; therefore atheism is a religion". You said that, and when I pointed out the Wikimedia Foundation you said a foundation "has to have a religion behind it", and it's a complete non-sequitur. If a foundation has to have a religious body behind it to be a religious foundation, then you can't point to the mere existence of a foundation and say it proves that the body behind it is a religious one.

Cole said...

Way to completely twist all my points by taking them out of context so they can work for you. Let me show you:

– inability to meet the dictionary definition of religion;
*Ridiculous. The "esp..." part is there because dictionaries, as they should, try to describe as many variables as they can. Plus, when it gets down o it, "especially" means "especially." Dictionaries are supposed to be easy to use, Why would they use that word if they meant "always?"

– claim that belief in the Big Bang theory makes atheism a religion;
*Well, there aren't many non-creationist alternatives are there. I'm pretty sure MOST believe there was a Big Bang. The people with other ideas that believe in no god would still be part of that religion due to the fact that they don't believe in a god.

– claim that belief in the Theory of Evolution makes atheism a religion;
*Same as my above point. Not universal, but it doesn't need to be anyway.

– claim that atheism is a religion because atheists try to disprove religions;
*Not "because" they do. It already is a religion without that, it fits the definition. This merely adds to it. This is a practice that many religions do: convert people. While already a religion, by doing this they reinforce it by ACTING like a religion as well.

– claim that atheism is a religion because Richard Dawkins is its pope;
* Complete misquote. He is LIKE the Pope in a way that he heads many atheist movement campaigns.

– claim that conventions make atheism a religion;
*Again, complete misquote. This, like the two above, it adds to it.

– that evolution has holes (and so is false);
*Irrelevant, nothing to do with atheism's definition as a religion.

– that death isn’t the penalty for apostasy in Islam;
*Also irrelevant, ad hominem.

– that foundations and organisations make atheism a religion.
*Like the conventions, the leadership, and the conversions, this just makes it seem more and more like a religion, but is not a vital part.


The omission in those definitions is justified by it not being vital. Atheism fits the definition as give perfectly.

As I just showed, having affiliated foundations is not necessary, and is only part of what SOME religions have.

Your arguments so far have consisted of twisting what I say to make me appear ignorant or outright dumb. You have also taken things said on the side and turned them into arguments of the main discussion.


I think I see the main impasse. We both interpret the following definition of religion differently:

"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Let's drop everything else and say what we think and why, and then end the discussion if no further agreement is reached.