Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Arcus Arrow

Why Atheism will replace religion.
Published on July 14, 2011 by Nigel Barber, Ph.D. in The Human Beast

Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries, particularly the social democracies of Europe. In underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists. Atheism is a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Why do modern conditions produce atheism? In a new study to be published in August, I provide compelling evidence that atheism increases along with the quality of life (1).

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 (2). 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 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. 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. Hence my finding of belief in God being higher in countries with a heavy load of infectious diseases.

In my new study of 137 countries (1), I also found that atheism increases for countries with a well-developed welfare state (as indexed by high taxation rates). Moreover, countries with a more equal distribution of income had more atheists. My study improved on earlier research by taking account of whether a country is mostly Moslem (where atheism is criminalized) or formerly Communist (where religion was suppressed) and accounted for three-quarters of country differences in atheism.

---

Since Ireland is in hock for the next few generations the CCL could even get stronger. There is also the possibility that atheists organisations could replace religions ones or some other hierarchical type systems will evolve. It might be in the nature of human competition and psychology that no matter how much organised religionism recedes, systems of the same type might arise. They'll be the next stage but it's organised religionism that they will have evolved from.

Turtwig

Religion is like Hydra, cut off its head and two will grow back. What will grow back might not be religion as we know it, but rest assured in Human Nature superstition and belief in the supernatural will always strive to prevail. God might disappear from belief in society, but irrational thinking won't.

cavedave

In economically developed countries who has children? Fundamentalist Christians and Mormons in The US have larger families than secular Athiests.

This sort of thinking can rapidly lead to the evil of eugenics. But if in developed countries the religious have children that might skew the calculation.

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

Religion is like Hydra, cut off its head and two will grow back.

I incline to the view that if one denomination disappears, it's replaced by two -- take a look at what's happened in the US which has no state-sponsored religion, but a million free-market variants.

The Vatican's in trouble because it propagates best in the kind of state-sponsored environment it can no longer rely upon. While the free-market variants from the US simply don't fit in the kind of countries which expect religions to be state-sponsored.

In time, I suspect that religion will be a massively minority activity within the next one hundred years or so in Europe. Assuming that some religiously-inclined nutter doesn't put paid to us in the meantime.

Arcus Arrow

The Vatican is the nuclear power cell of organised religionism. Until it suffers a major schism or gets broken up it will always have the power to survive. It makes Coca Cola and the cigarette companies look like mildly well organised farmers. It's an advantage to see Muslims, Mormons, Scientology and american Christian groups operating here. The more diluted the religious groupings the less any individual one can influence.

In Ireland the Vatican would suffer a great hole below the waterline as soon as popular and alternative ways of facilitating births, deaths and marriages took hold. That combined with them being hunted out of the schools along with their bishop appointed lackeys would be like sawing through one leg of the table they stack their bull**** on.

But......today in one newspaper Bish "oath-of-silence" Brady is reported as writing to GAA clubs to tell them not to be fixing junior matches at times that would interfere with Mass times on Sunday.

What planet is he on?

They didn't tell him to go **** himself as far as I know.

Are they one the same one?

CiaranMT

Title reminds me of Eoin Colfer's children's book, "The Supernaturalist".

The book is set years and years into the future, where Christmas is only celebrated by a few hundred people, and where there is little or no religion.

They also have pazza (open to corrections on spelling), a mix of pizza and pasta

It's something I'd like to see happen.

KPSWebsites

The reason people are becoming atheists is because the church are making no effort to have debates and state the reasons why God is real. I am an atheist and I would love to be catholic, who wouldn't want eternal life right? But there is too much evidence that god dosen't exist and I haven't really heard any convincing evidence that god is real apart from causality.

robindch

CiaranMT wrote: »

They also have pazza (open to corrections on spelling), a mix of pizza and pasta

Whazzat, some kind of FSM-tribute deity?

CiaranMT

robindch wrote: »

Whazzat, some kind of FSM-tribute deity?

Twas written before that lark started, so I doubt it :pac:

Mistress 69

So Rich guys forget about God wHile poor sub sAharan Africa are still hopinG to hop on boats to Europe to live and maYbe get riCh and pray To GoD to do so:D twaddle and dum dums

CiaranMT

Mistress 69 wrote: »

So Rich guys forget about God wHile poor sub sAharan Africa are still hopinG to hop on boats to Europe to live and maYbe get riCh and pray To GoD to do so:D twaddle and dum dums

Forget about their gods? That's one way to put it...

Chuck Stone

I'm jealous of all those kids in the future who won't be forced to go to mass the lucky gits.

The act of being forced out of bed to go to mass as a hungover adolescent is clear proof that a benevolent diety doesn't exist.

Logical Fallacy

Hmmmm....in 2000 years when people are digging through the bones of our current Civilization there will be a new religion based on the fact that a drop in faith led to the destruction of us.

Religion doesn't die...it just adapts.

Doctor DooM

Malty_T wrote: »

Religion is like Hydra,

Does that make Captain America an atheist?











(that'll be funny for about three people but I thought I should say it.)

smokingman

Doctor DooM wrote: »

(that'll be funny for about three people but I thought I should say it.)

...make that 4

...although I'd love to see his religion questioned in the same way the Civil War questioned his patriotism...probably not gonna happen though

Thinkingaboutit

People in the main might cleave towards agnosticism in most European countries, but the funny appeal of ghosts, tarot cards, and a mix and grab of various religions, the adaptability and versatility of Christianity, low to vanishing European birthrates, and the need for some measure of inward migration from states with surplus labour, will mean a conscious belief that there is no God or gods will be a minority opinion. Always. When people come close to death an implicit Pascal's Wager will often see some reversion to the faith of past times.

Consider this, there is a theory that Christianity took hold in the Roman Empire as it opposed infanticide (a father could reject a weak baby meaning death or slavery for the child), abortion which then was an incredibly dangerous procedure, and it cared for the sick. This ensured both natural increase and conversion from the poor and adrift, and women particularly. Clever and adaptive Envangelicals and Penecostals, even some Catholic and Episcopalian clergy have been able to adapt that approach for a new age.

Remember that a very high portion of the legions of mass-goers simply went for social reason and to conform, which is a very powerful human trait. Not going there, and choosing the garden centre for a Sunday, might be the popular choice now, but that can change.

And consider finally that one of the earliest form of urbanism was the temple city or settlement of Mesopotamia, the Levant and Asia Minor. It is a powerful stimulus to activity.

The belief in some form of higher power, whether a literal seven day creator, or the instigator of the complexity of live, or some other belief in the supernatural has a power that some don't understand.

So no.

Arcus Arrow

The problem of religion is not what people believe in, it's the harm that comes from organised religions exercising power to maintain their status. People with or without religion believe all sorts of things: lots of atheists don't walk under ladders.

The world economic system is hovering on the brink of collapse. The failure of "human" systems to provide consumer goods and a "better life" is fertile ground for religions. It lets them back in because their bulls**t is based on feeding hope with intangible promises. You can tell when you have less money this week than last: you can't tell if your points in heaven went down because the Pope is discovered to be a lying little scut.

Atheists organisations, once they increasingly become another individual path to prominence (power and income), will form their own quasi dogmas and compromises. To compete in replacing religion the magnate of success will pull on atheism to imitate religion in it's promise. Individuals who question what becomes standard and as such the common linkage that binds the group will be out of fashion and marginalised. There might even be proposals to set aside holidays in the year to commemorate (give thanks and praise) to the founders (gods) of atheism. As atheists organisations become more powerful and larger there could even be splits. You could have the Darwinian Evolutionists in schism with the Wallace Evolutionists. There might even be a war in another few hundred years between competing versions of atheism. The Great War of How Not to Believe.

Atheism may well replace religion but possibly not in the way that people think it will.

All religions were probably founded by atheists.

The future won't be quite the same as the past but it's never far off.

recedite

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

There might even be a war in another few hundred years between competing versions of atheism. The Great War of How Not to Believe.

I doubt it.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

All religions were probably founded by atheists.

I doubt it.

Arcus Arrow

recedite wrote: »

I doubt it.


I doubt it.

When people were afraid of lightning or thought a solar eclipse was the end of the world, who would have been best placed to take advantage?

CiaranMT

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

When people were afraid of lightning or thought a solar eclipse was the end of the world, who would have been best placed to take advantage?

Relevance to atheism?

dlofnep

It will replace it because it's rational. The Human race is stubborn, but will inevitably warm up to the reality of the world.

paddyandy

In developed countries people are healthy and comfortable so Atheism is common.Where there's suffering a new kind of dimension to reality is common.When a person is sick he sees life very differently.As the saying goes" the devil when sick a saint would be".There are i've heard very few atheists in dying rooms.Comfort dulls the critical faculty.

Sarky

paddyandy wrote: »

i've heard very few atheists in dying rooms.

In my experiences it's because they're drowned out by the elderly relatives reciting the rosary over and over again, as if praying louder will help.

Logical Fallacy

dlofnep wrote: »

It will replace it because it's rational. The Human race is stubborn, but will inevitably warm up to the reality of the world.

lol, that's just funny. You have far more faith in Humanity that i do.

If there is one constant about humans it's that they will readily embrace just about anything that makes them feel even slightly better and distract them from their absolute insignificance.

paddyandy

Sarky wrote: »

In my experiences it's because they're drowned out by the elderly relatives reciting the rosary over and over again, as if praying louder will help.

Try and quote me correctly.

paddyandy

If religion is the opium of the people then Atheism is quite a good narcotic too.

CiaranMT

paddyandy wrote: »

If religion is the opium of the people then Atheism is quite a good narcotic too.

Wut?

dlofnep

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

lol, that's just funny. You have far more faith in Humanity that i do.

If there is one constant about humans it's that they will readily embrace just about anything that makes them feel even slightly better and distract them from their absolute insignificance.

And yet, atheism is gaining pace. It will happen, slowly but surely.

Dades

paddyandy wrote: »

If religion is the opium of the people then Atheism is quite a good narcotic too.

Makes no sense. Athiesm offers nothing because it's not a religion. Maybe intellectual honesty, but that's it.

A Primal Nut

The original post assumes that the world is getting richer, which will result in more atheists.:P

I think atheism will eventually take over, because for me there is very little going back from atheism. Once someone becomes atheists, his kids, grandchildren, etc will also be atheist, with minor exceptions!! I think people growing up in religious environments are more likely to convert to atheism than the other way around!

paddyandy

There are the "i feel good therefore it must be true" Religions.I once belonged to one myself and they would visit a shrine and feel good afterwards without understanding the active ingredients.It is an extremely serious and sober subject with some people who are always suspicious of the feel good factor.Religion for the masses is just that.But don't dismiss it just yet it can be very subtle, oblique and many layered and you must find your own way.

branie

So how will religious leaders deal with this when it happens?

robindch

branie wrote: »

So how will religious leaders deal with this when it happens?

Holland seems to be coping quite well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14417362

Daftendirekt

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

If there is one constant about humans it's that they will readily embrace just about anything that makes them feel even slightly better and distract them from their absolute insignificance.

This is it, in a nutshell. While I wouldn't be surprised to see a serious decline in organised religion, a complementary rise in some other form of supernaturalism wouldn't shock me either (crystals, psychics, God-is-the-universe, general 'woo').

sonicthebadger*

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

All religions were probably founded by atheists.

Well I suppose the monotheistic religions were all founded by people who didn't believe in all the other gods. Still, it's tough to have a religion where the end of game boss is always right if there's no end of game boss.

[-0-]

I'm currently in Tennessee for a week. Trust me when I say that atheism will never replace religion here. Religion for people here, is a way of life. There is a HUGE social aspect to it. It's not like Ireland. They dance and sing in church, it's a completely different way of life here. They put god before their families, and if "god" told them to go Bangladesh for the rest of their lives (even if they were married with kids) they would leave everyone and go do it.

This is definitely a society that atheism, or rational thinking will never reach.

antiskeptic

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

If there is one constant about humans it's that they will readily embrace just about anything that makes them feel even slightly better and distract them from their absolute insignificance.

Am I to assume you include atheistic ethical systems (which ascribe less than absolute significance to people) on your list of salves?

Or is it that atheists alone bravely embrace the truth in spite of the discomfort it must cause them?

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Am I to assume you include atheistic ethical systems (which ascribe less than absolute significance to people) on your list of salves?

Or is it that atheists alone bravely embrace the truth in spite of the discomfort it must cause them?

I don't know what to make of you're post whether it's serious or not, but there couldn't be a better example of the appeal to consequences fallacy.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Am I to assume you include atheistic ethical systems (which ascribe less than absolute significance to people) on your list of salves?

Or is it that atheists alone bravely embrace the truth in spite of the discomfort it must cause them?

I'd say option B given there's no such thing as an atheistic ethical system. Needs more options really.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Am I to assume you include atheistic ethical systems (which ascribe less than absolute significance to people) on your list of salves?

Assuming you're not trolling, I believe that most atheists are humanists.

Humanism ascribes the highest significance to humans. It's no doubt one of the reasons it's called "humanism", btw

CerebralCortex

robindch wrote: »

Assuming you're not trolling, I believe that most atheists are humanists.

Humanism ascribes the highest significance to humans. It's no doubt one of the reasons it's called "humanism", btw

Most, but I'm a post/trans-humanist. I see no significance to civilisation as it stands, we could do/become a lot better.

ed2hands

robindch wrote: »

Assuming you're not trolling, I believe that most atheists are humanists.

Humanism ascribes the highest significance to humans. It's no doubt one of the reasons it's called "humanism", btw

I hope that this doesn't come across as trolling, as i really believe what i'm about to say is true and it's not aimed at you, more a general point.

A lot of outspoken athiests i feel look down their nose at people who believe in a God.

They label themselves with all sorts of flattering qualities.
They generally call themselves "scientists" aswell, usually after three short years studying some science-based course or other.

With this self-appointed authority they give themselves to look at everything with cold hard logic, some of these people then take pleasure in labelling others as daft or stupid or unintelligent for their beliefs.

Now of course many members of organised religion have been doing that since the year dot. Just wondering do these outspoken atheists realise they're doing the same thing in trying to ram their beliefs down other peoples throats?

Just my two-cents and am sure it's been said a thousand times on this forum. Just pisses me off when i hear someone banging on about it in the pub. I usually say to them "wait till you're on your death-bed son; bet you'll be saying a prayer or two just in case":)

liamw

ed2hands wrote: »

Now of course many members of organised religion have been doing that since the year dot. Just wondering do these outspoken atheists realise they're doing the same thing in trying to ram their beliefs down other peoples throats?

Atheists don't inherently have 'beliefs' to ram down anyones throat. We just don't buy into religious claims. And yes, I think your religious beliefs are stupid - until you can back up your outlandish claims I will continue to do so. I won't bring it up unless you start the conversation though.

Just my two-cents and am sure it's been said a thousand times on this forum. Just pisses me off when i hear someone banging on about it in the pub. I usually say to them "wait till you're on your death-bed son; bet you'll be saying a prayer or two just in case":)

And I'd say back to you - read up on 'Pascal's Wager' and check out this video and come back to me with a decent argument so you don't embarass yourself next time.

ed2hands

liamw wrote: »

Atheists don't inherently have 'beliefs' to ram down anyones throat.

Wrong. Yes they do. They believe in the rejection of belief of the existence of a diety. I've had these beliefs rammed down my throat so i should know.

liamw wrote: »

And yes, I think your religious beliefs are stupid

Which ones would they be?
Maybe you could find these religious beliefs in my previous posts somewhere.
Can't find them? Wonder why:rolleyes:. Maybe it's because you're automatically assuming things you shouldn't be.

liamw wrote: »

- until you can back up your outlandish claims I will continue to do so.

What outlandish claims?

liamw wrote: »

come back to me with a decent argument so you don't embarass yourself next time.

It seems you are embarassing yourself with your silly assumptions. You need to take a chill pill there pal. I don't "argue" with people for the sake of it. You obviously just got offended by my views and that's not my fault is it?

recedite

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Most, but I'm a post/trans-humanist. I see no significance to civilisation as it stands, we could do/become a lot better.

What did you have in mind for us?

Sarky

Flying cars and robot wives, I'd imagine. Who wouldn't want that for civilisation?

I'd be all over some biotech and nanotech post-humanism, myself. More durable skeletons, photosynthetic skin, teeth that rebuild themselves or are just plain immune to cavities, retractable bone claws, all that good stuff should be possible in a century or so.

liamw

ed2hands wrote: »

Wrong. Yes they do. They believe in the rejection of belief of the existence of a diety. I've had these beliefs rammed down my throat so i should know.

You're close. They reject the belief in the existence of a deity, or the belief in simply absent.

Which ones would they be?
Maybe you could find these religious beliefs in my previous posts somewhere.
Can't find them? Wonder why:rolleyes:. Maybe it's because you're automatically assuming things you shouldn't be.

What outlandish claims?

It seems you are embarassing yourself with your silly assumptions. You need to take a chill pill there pal. I don't "argue" with people for the sake of it. You obviously just got offended by my views and that's not my fault is it?

Ah we're playing this little game which means you can make implications, stereotype all atheists and then not have to defend against a response.

So I take it you can't defend your hypothetical use of Pascal's Wager in the pub.

recedite

Sarky wrote: »

Flying cars and robot wives, I'd imagine. Who wouldn't want that for civilisation?

I'd be all over some biotech and nanotech post-humanism, myself. More durable skeletons, photosynthetic skin, teeth that rebuild themselves or are just plain immune to cavities, retractable bone claws, all that good stuff should be possible in a century or so.

These are merely shiny trinkets to play around with. I look forward to the day when I exist purely as a brain in a glass jar, with absolute control over...er something.
Maybe the TV, or the DVD player.

robindch

ed2hands wrote: »

A lot of outspoken athiests i feel look down their nose at people who believe in a God.

I'm sorry that you feel that way.

What we actually object to is occasional posters who drop by and begin to criticize one or more beliefs that nobody here holds. Very often, these beliefs are very silly indeed and the poster is quite right to criticize them. The only thing that we're short of here is anybody who might hold such silly views. And so, one or two people might try to correct the occasional poster, by trying to explain in simple terms, what the majority of A+A posters actually think so that the poster might save their time and effort to refuting a point of view that somebody here might actually hold.

ed2hands wrote: »

With this self-appointed authority

Authority? Which side is the one who thinks they're in regular telepathic contact with the creator of the universe?

CiaranMT

You're not trolling ed2hands, you just have a poor conception of what atheism generally entails.

ed2hands

robindch wrote: »

What we actually object to is occasional posters who drop by and begin to criticize one or more beliefs that nobody here holds. Very often, these beliefs are very silly indeed and the poster is quite right to criticize them. The only thing that we're short of here is anybody who might hold such silly views. And so, one or two people might try to correct the occasional poster, by trying to explain in simple terms, what the majority of A+A posters actually think so that the poster might save their time and effort to refuting a point of view that somebody here might actually hold.

Well there's no arguing with that.
No understanding it either.
I'm sorry but you'll need to be clearer than that. I've read it twice and still don't quite understand what you're getting at.
What i think you're saying is that most posters on here are not the one's i'm referring to. That's fair enough.
My beef as i said originally is with those outspoken people i've come across regularly. I'm not stereotyping anyone really or i would have just left out the word outspoken and lumped all athiests together. I'm specifically referring to those who like to proclaim their views as religiously as any believer. It's offensive to some is it not that they so nonchalantly claim some sort of ridiculous scientific intellectual high ground. It's offensive to me anyway.

robindch wrote: »

Authority? Which side is the one who thinks they're in regular telepathic contact with the creator of the universe?

:)Yes, well you see this is the sort of thing that is thrown out as an off-the-cuff put-down and it's grand to have a joke about it.

I have no problem with that on this forum personally.
It seems some like to dish it out, but are quite put out when it's returned at them. And that's not referring to you or anyone here as such.