Will Atheism Replace Religion?

[Interbane]

Belief in God, eternity, and other basic religious assertions are questions that have dominated public opinion surveys for some time, but there are some who now believe that non-belief may become the new default. According to a recent American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) of more than 54,000 adults, the number of people willing to identify themselves as atheist and agnostic rose from under 2 million in 2001 to 3.6 million in 2008. When you leave out the labels "atheist" and "agnostic," ARIS found that over 18 percent of Americans (as many as 40 million) do not profess a belief in God.

Looking over the data, evolutionary psychologist Dr. Nigel Barber attempts to argue that atheism will actually replace religion sooner rather than later: "Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries, particularly the social democracies of Europe. In underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists," he recently wrote in Psychology Today. "Atheism is thus a peculiarly modern phenomenon."

Why are modern societies fertile ground for blossoming unbelief? With a flair you would expect from a psychologist, Barber gives four reasons:

1) Religion is a comfort blanket for the fearful. In modern societies, social welfare programs abound. These programs reduce public fear, and therefore, reduce the need for religion.

2) Religion may promote fertility since it exalts marriage. But large families are more valued in agrarian societies, not modern ones.

3) Religion is therapy. As Karl Marx famously said, religion is the opium of the people. Modern societies, however, turn to psychologists, psychiatrists, and medical doctors to cope with their emotional and psychological needs.

4) Religious communities are social organizations. In modern societies, however, there are other ways to meet one's social needs (e.g., sport spectatorship).

"The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms," Barber contemptuously concludes. "First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives 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 and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs."

Is Barber correct, or is there more to the story? Is religion, specifically the Christian faith, nothing more than a comfort to coddle, a pacifier to meet our innate human needs that can be easily replaced? While he may be correct that there are some sociological forces at work that promote religious majorities, there may be more to this story that Barber overlooks.

For example, Barber mentions that modern societies provide other avenues for social expression. While true, he seems to brush over the fact that pre-modern societies had many alternative avenues, as well. In fact, one might argue that in a technological age that promotes isolationism where teenagers play video games for hours on end, modern societies actually do the opposite.

Most notably, Barber ignores the unrivaled work done by people of faith throughout history. No other social organization can report the miracles, life-change, healing, and hope produced by faith communities. There is a new generation rising up to meet the brokenness of the world with innovative and, one might say, supernatural solutions. No sports team or therapy group can claim that.

Non-belief may become normative in the near future, but that doesn't undermine belief itself. As we engage in conversations about faith in the 21st century, we must be realistic about where things seem to be headed, but we should also judge faith fairly. Faith is more than a comfort blanket, a fertility enhancer, a therapist, or a community group. Unfortunately for believers, that may not be enough to maintain the majority.

Have you witnessed a growth in unbelief in your lifetime? Does the possibility that non-belief could become normative scare you, sadden you, or excite you?

From Huffington Post

[Azrael]

Anything that replaces religion will be better than what we have now. Greed, self serving, self centered and a few other words that fit religion as well.

[johnson1010]

for the most part nothing will change.

People mostly dont think about their religion. When confronted with a moral choice they choose according to their own preference, which is for the most part the moral choice. They choose that way because of the value associated with behaving good and the penalties associated with bad. That is quite apart from any notion of heaven and hell.

"Should i steal this parking space? If i do, i will get to go where i am headed faster, but i will produce animosity from the person i am screwing. They may try ton confront me, or vandalise my car while i am away, or perhaps it will just ruin their day and i would have been the cause of that mental anguish."

For most people, courtesy wins out. Not always the case, but nowhere is the bible consulted in this choice, nor is there call for it.

In the future, post religion, those type of people who now practice religion will find other venues for their need of community, and a feeling of incorporation in something larger. This pack mentality can be satisfied by any number of affiliations which could focus their efforts more fruitfully.

[President Camacho]

That's why I think economics will be the next true religion.

[WhimsicalWonder]

That's why I think economics will be the next true religion.

Probably the funniest thing I've heard all week! Perhaps because it's seated so firmly in truth.

The world will never be free from belief. Would you want to live in a world without imagination, anyway? I fear a world where the folks who don't think heavily about the basic foundations of existence live without their "moral compass". Truly. While it's true that organized religion can be accused of things like greed and selfishness, the basic believer believes for a reason. Take that cozy blanket away and watch the world fall into collapse. I would imagine anyway.

People seem to need to follow something. People will always want for something to provide them with absolution. People seem to need to not fear the great unknown and death. I think most people would drive themselves mad without a religion to cushion the blow.

To hope for a world of atheism is no more ridiculous (and dare I say bigoted) than to hope for a world of Islam or Christianity.

I hope for a world of harmony. Pipe dream. I know. But if we were all secular humanists I think it might be terribly boring, or absolutely wonderful. Obviously, I've yet to solidify an opinion.

[geo]

Why are modern societies fertile ground for blossoming unbelief? I'd say a big part of it is education. Just as there is less fear and uncertainty due to better science and government safety nets, people are less likely to buy into the supernatural myths propagated by religion. Science offers much more plausible explanations for a great many mysteries about our natural world and there simply isn't a need to engage in fantasies about demons and and gods any more. As such, religion is becoming irrelevant in the modern world.

I've been looking at the world of advertising lately and one of the more interesting changes that has taken place in the industry during the last thirty years or so is that advertisers no longer hawk their products so much as brand them. For example, Nike is a sports company whose mission is not to sell shoes but to "enhance people's lives through sports and fitness" and to keep "the magic of sports alive.” So Nike has been able to tap into the cultural zeitgeist and create a brand "essence" that resonates karmically with its target market. Other runaway success stories like Apple, Microsoft, and Starbucks have done the same. It's the modern equivalent of the Holy Grail to achieve such a status. And companies are constantly struggling, spending billions of dollars on advertising, not just to achieve this holy essence of mystique and charisma, but to hold it once they get it.

So to some degree I think we are only switching from religion to consumerism. We've only switched opiates, and as much as I dislike organized religion, I don't think we're any better off because of it. We seem to have an underlying need to belong and I'm not sure it matters whether our tribe of choice is involved in the mutual worship of a mythical deity or the mutual fanaticism for a brand. In the final analysis we are only short-sighted creatures being guided by unconscious impulses.

[WhimsicalWonder]

Excellent points, Geo. I keep thinking about the mountain folk. The country folk. I dwell in a very small town where the churches play a major role in the community and even the school system. It is difficult for me to imagine a world free from religion because of my daily experiences with the very religious. I'm thrust into a bias that I simply can not be removed from. It matters not, when at the end of the day "we are only short-sighted creatures being guided by unconscious impulses."

[DWill]

for the most part nothing will change.

People mostly dont think about their religion. When confronted with a moral choice they choose according to their own preference, which is for the most part the moral choice. They choose that way because of the value associated with behaving good and the penalties associated with bad. That is quite apart from any notion of heaven and hell.

"Should i steal this parking space? If i do, i will get to go where i am headed faster, but i will produce animosity from the person i am screwing. They may try ton confront me, or vandalise my car while i am away, or perhaps it will just ruin their day and i would have been the cause of that mental anguish."

For most people, courtesy wins out. Not always the case, but nowhere is the bible consulted in this choice, nor is there call for it.

In the future, post religion, those type of people who now practice religion will find other venues for their need of community, and a feeling of incorporation in something larger. This pack mentality can be satisfied by any number of affiliations which could focus their efforts more fruitfully.

This is interesting in terms of a couple of books we've read here. Frans de Waal, in Primates and Philosophers, argued that we are "good by nature," that our morality isn't simply a product of a moral code imposed by a god or a human authority. We became equipped, through evolution, with social instincts that are the root of morality. We could not have survived without social cooperation, and of course the care of our young that we call love is ingrained as well. But de Waal also says that beyond our own kin group and immediate social group, we are likely to regard others as other, so that a wider morality, a regard for humanity in general, is something that we cannot reinforce as easily or effectively. This raises the possibility that we can be "good" within our group while appearing to be the opposite in our actions towards others outside. Good Mafia members, gang members, and even terrorists do exist.

It seems pretty clear that we promulgated god-based moral codes to extend our moral concern, as societies became more complex. How successful these efforts were is hard to judge without an alternative history as a comparison. My own opinion is that codes such as the 10 Commandments were extremely important and until recently, necessary. I also think that it's unlikely that people will "naturally" extend the circle of their moral regard. Social institutions are necessary to counteract our tendency to get what we want, without regard for the effect on others whom we can't see. It doesn't appear that religion is the only--or even the best--delivery mode for morality, which, by the way, consists largely of simple honesty and consideration, as in your example of the parking space. Dan Ariely, in Predictably Irrational, cites agnostic, atheistic Denmark as the most honest country in the world.

Ariely also cites experimental results that show how reference to a moral code makes people behave more honestly in the short term. When subjects are asked to write down the 10 Commandments before answering questions and collecting money for correct answers based on the honor system, they act more honestly than when they are not asked to write the commandments--even when they can't remember what most of the commandments are. Ariely believes this suggests that ethics of all kinds must be continually and formally reinforced, rather than being left to chance or the natural goodness of people.

Looking at the topic Interbane started, isn't it true that in the past 40 years or so we've seen not only an increase in what might be called unbelief, but also a big increase in fervent or evangelical belief? So I'm not sure we can count on agnosticism or atheism as a tide that will sweep away religion.

[tat tvam asi]

Take that cozy blanket away and watch the world fall into collapse.

I guess that's where your location factors into your thought here. I'm in the southern US and it's still very religious oriented here too. So I can relate to what you're getting at.

But the point of the thread is that the more developed nations do not utilize this cozy little blanket and they have not fallen into collapse. The chaos is actually limited to the lesser developed nations who do use the cozy little blanket of religion. The topic of the thread requires a bit of a shift in perspective for those of us who are unfamiliar with such an environment. We tend to think in terms of 'if there were no religion morality is out the window and chaos will follow', but I tend to think that's just our buying into exactly what certain religionist's want everyone to believe. It's a sort of mental job security oriented scare tactic as I see it. And because there are more developed nations in the world proving the religionless world scare tactic wrong, dead wrong as it were, it may well assist in the spread of atheism (Not + God Belief) and freethought oriented living because there's isn't really anything to be afraid of in reality and examples have been made of it.

Morality is what it is - as Johnson pointed out - not because of religion but because of basic reason and logic oriented thinking. I do precisely what Johnson pointed out. I'll consider the consequences of a given action and decide what the logical choice should be. When it comes to something like, say, nailing one of my best friends girlfriends because she's coming on to me, for instance, what should I do? If I do it, then we'll probably have to physically fight over it and things will get ugly and we won't be able to hang around anymore. I might get the girl but the best friend is gone. Do I really want that? If the logical choice is no, then I simply don't do it (Bro's before Ho's if you know what I'm getting at). It's very basic and reason oriented morality. There's no sense of a mythical deity watching in on my actions from afar or the threat of eternal damnation if I do choose to do it. The same applies to killing, stealing, and just about anything really. Religion, in my case, is completely unnecessary and so I've dropped it like a bad habit over the years. Apparently so have the more developed nations of the world in likewise fashion. I think that in due time the same will come to the US as a majority if we continue to develop and superstition gradually fades. There shouldn't be any more chaos than there is right now, perhaps the chaos would lessen as it were.

[tat tvam asi]

"Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

(It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian)
http://www.alanlawrencesitomer.com/tag/ ... hlesinger/