why atheism will replace religion

• january

  6 Jun 10, 08:47

  Why atheism will replace religion

  The Human Beast

  Why we do what we do.

  by Nigel Barber, Ph.D.

  Published on May 18, 2010

  Why atheism grows faster than religion

  
  

  
  

  Atheists 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. In a previous post, I made the case that sports is replacing religion. Precisely the same argument can be made for other forms of entertainment with which spectators become deeply involved. Indeed, 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 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.

• january

  6 Jun 10, 08:49

  References
  Sanderson, S. K. (2008). Adaptation, evolution, and religion. Religion, 38, 141-156.
  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

• TTFU

  6 Jun 10, 08:57

  Originally posted by january:

  Why atheism will replace religion

  The Human Beast

  Why we do what we do.

  by Nigel Barber, Ph.D.

  Published on May 18, 2010

  Why atheism grows faster than religion

  
  

  
  

  Atheists 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. In a previous post, I made the case that sports is replacing religion. Precisely the same argument can be made for other forms of entertainment with which spectators become deeply involved. Indeed, 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 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.

   i think this should be in one of the religion forums. Atheism will never replace religion unless the ''god'' thing is proved. And if there is a slight chance in proving god existance, it will not be in your era or my era. Maybe few hundred years in the future. Furthermore, even if there is prove, it can be argued in a way that it is false. So no matter what the case, atheism will never replace religion.

• Samuel Lee

  6 Jun 10, 11:23

  Originally posted by TTFU:

   i think this should be in one of the religion forums. Atheism will never replace religion unless the ''god'' thing is proved. And if there is a slight chance in proving god existance, it will not be in your era or my era. Maybe few hundred years in the future. Furthermore, even if there is prove, it can be argued in a way that it is false. So no matter what the case, atheism will never replace religion.

  It can be, but by force. Learn how communism works then can le.

• TTFU

  6 Jun 10, 12:29

  Originally posted by Samuel Lee:

  It can be, but by force. Learn how communism works then can le.

  No again. If you have some knowledge on how holocaust works, you will know what i am talking about.

• january

  6 Jun 10, 13:20

  My prediction- by 2020 the statistics will be this

  atheist - 80 percent

  other religion - 20 percent

  Lets check this again in 2020 in sgforums

• TTFU

  6 Jun 10, 17:24

  Originally posted by january:

  My prediction- by 2020 the statistics will be this

  atheist - 80 percent

  other religion - 20 percent

  Lets check this again in 2020 in sgforums

  Hmm... its just 10 years later. You know 10 years isnt that long of a period for a big change, unless something big happens

• Veggie Bao

  6 Jun 10, 17:39

  Wrong.

  Atheism replace religion simply because in major developped Western countries, there is a lack of community spirit.

  Due to lack of community spirit and a prominence of individualism, materialism, and consumerism, in a hectic modern life, there is no channel for communal gathering and spiritual activities.

  Churches, mosques, temples, are centres of community, where people gather and worship together. They are avenues for strengthening and passing down cultures, values, and norms.

  I am surprised some anthropologists didnt look at this aspect but proposed ridiculous theories instead.

  As a case study,

  I suggest looking at America as a case study.

  In major cities especially in coastal region urban areas, people lack religious fervour. However, in inner hinterland and rural areas (what they call MidWest and also Bible Belt region), there exist a stronger religious fervour.

  How does this happen? Because people in those areas still go to Church on Sundays and they go together as a family and as a community. One church usually covers one neighbourhood and the people inside knows one another. The pastor or preacher performs important social ceremonies such as marriages or death ceremonies.

  Now, is it true that they lack modern technology? They lack scientists, or psychologists? They lack modern equipment such as TV set ? They lack social security programmes from the government ? None of this exist. But the real true difference which exist between rural hinterland and the urban areas is at the social level. Urban residents tend to be busier, more individualistic, materialistic, and consumeristic, and most importantly, due to the highly transactional relationships they engage in daily, and lack of bond or glue with the surrounding environment, this condition results in the gradual weakening and finally dispersal of the center of community in the form of church, mosque, and temple. They simply go to bar instead and dance for a communal activity.

  I see people and "experts" who proposed ridiculous theories such as the one in the article quoted above, as misguided ideologues and radicals. They have an aversion towards religion because they focus too much on the mythicism aspect and irrationality aspect of it. Therefore, they have a deep-seated prejudice and academic bias and tendency towards condeming religion. They see it as something backward and antithetical to science, and they want to ditch it and confine it to history, and make another leap towards a progress in European enlightenment. However, this excessive motivation brings to a surface their ridiculousness when they go searching for justifying factors or reasons. This is quite regrettable because thruthfully they are being dishonest to themselves, and also not to mention, I'm tired at looking at factionalist / ideological arguments.

• TTFU

  6 Jun 10, 18:20

  Originally posted by Veggie Bao:

  Wrong.

  Atheism replace religion simply because in major developped Western countries, there is a lack of community spirit.

  Due to lack of community spirit and a prominence of individualism, materialism, and consumerism, in a hectic modern life, there is no channel for communal gathering and spiritual activities.

  Churches, mosques, temples, are centres of community, where people gather and worship together. They are avenues for strengthening and passing down cultures, values, and norms.

  I am surprised some anthropologists didnt look at this aspect but proposed ridiculous theories instead.

  As a case study,

  I suggest looking at America as a case study.

  In major cities especially in coastal region urban areas, people lack religious fervour. However, in inner hinterland and rural areas (what they call MidWest and also Bible Belt region), there exist a stronger religious fervour.

  How does this happen? Because people in those areas still go to Church on Sundays and they go together as a family and as a community. One church usually covers one neighbourhood and the people inside knows one another. The pastor or preacher performs important social ceremonies such as marriages or death ceremonies.

  Now, is it true that they lack modern technology? They lack scientists, or psychologists? They lack modern equipment such as TV set ? They lack social security programmes from the government ? None of this exist. But the real true difference which exist between rural hinterland and the urban areas is at the social level. Urban residents tend to be busier, more individualistic, materialistic, and consumeristic, and most importantly, due to the highly transactional relationships they engage in daily, and lack of bond or glue with the surrounding environment, this condition results in the gradual weakening and finally dispersal of the center of community in the form of church, mosque, and temple. They simply go to bar instead and dance for a communal activity.

  I see people and "experts" who proposed ridiculous theories such as the one in the article quoted above, as misguided ideologues and radicals. They have an aversion towards religion because they focus too much on the mythicism aspect and irrationality aspect of it. Therefore, they have a deep-seated prejudice and academic bias and tendency towards condeming religion. They see it as something backward and antithetical to science, and they want to ditch it and confine it to history, and make another leap towards a progress in European enlightenment. However, this excessive motivation brings to a surface their ridiculousness when they go searching for justifying factors or reasons. This is quite regrettable because thruthfully they are being dishonest to themselves, and also not to mention, I'm tired at looking at factionalist / ideological arguments.

  Yes true, these are some of the reasons why atheism is rising. They simply misunderstood religion in way. Religion doesnt have to be in conflict with science, logic and faith should go hand in hand, dont you think so ?

• littlemissbonkers

  6 Jun 10, 18:25

  Originally posted by Veggie Bao:

  Wrong.

  Atheism replace religion simply because in major developped Western countries, there is a lack of community spirit.

  Due to lack of community spirit and a prominence of individualism, materialism, and consumerism, in a hectic modern life, there is no channel for communal gathering and spiritual activities.

  Churches, mosques, temples, are centres of community, where people gather and worship together. They are avenues for strengthening and passing down cultures, values, and norms.

  I am surprised some anthropologists didnt look at this aspect but proposed ridiculous theories instead.

  As a case study,

  I suggest looking at America as a case study.

  In major cities especially in coastal region urban areas, people lack religious fervour. However, in inner hinterland and rural areas (what they call MidWest and also Bible Belt region), there exist a stronger religious fervour.

  How does this happen? Because people in those areas still go to Church on Sundays and they go together as a family and as a community. One church usually covers one neighbourhood and the people inside knows one another. The pastor or preacher performs important social ceremonies such as marriages or death ceremonies.

  Now, is it true that they lack modern technology? They lack scientists, or psychologists? They lack modern equipment such as TV set ? They lack social security programmes from the government ? None of this exist. But the real true difference which exist between rural hinterland and the urban areas is at the social level. Urban residents tend to be busier, more individualistic, materialistic, and consumeristic, and most importantly, due to the highly transactional relationships they engage in daily, and lack of bond or glue with the surrounding environment, this condition results in the gradual weakening and finally dispersal of the center of community in the form of church, mosque, and temple. They simply go to bar instead and dance for a communal activity.

  I see people and "experts" who proposed ridiculous theories such as the one in the article quoted above, as misguided ideologues and radicals. They have an aversion towards religion because they focus too much on the mythicism aspect and irrationality aspect of it. Therefore, they have a deep-seated prejudice and academic bias and tendency towards condeming religion. They see it as something backward and antithetical to science, and they want to ditch it and confine it to history, and make another leap towards a progress in European enlightenment. However, this excessive motivation brings to a surface their ridiculousness when they go searching for justifying factors or reasons. This is quite regrettable because thruthfully they are being dishonest to themselves, and also not to mention, I'm tired at looking at factionalist / ideological arguments.

  
  Wow veggie bao, that actually makes sense!

  lol

  I didn't know you were an intellectual!

  =X

  

• Herzog_Zwei

  6 Jun 10, 18:25

  Science and logic go hand in hand, obviously faith does not.

• ~PEPPER~

  6 Jun 10, 18:26

  Got such ppl, my frenz all religions also reject and dun believe in.

  Hes an atheist ,freethinker and not religious.

  Hes anti religious I think.

• TTFU

  6 Jun 10, 18:29

  Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:

  Science and logic go hand in hand, obviously faith does not.

  O.o So what is faith and logic to you ?

• BanguIzai

  7 Jun 10, 01:18

  Originally posted by Veggie Bao:

  Wrong.

  Atheism replace religion simply because in major developped Western countries, there is a lack of community spirit.

  Due to lack of community spirit and a prominence of individualism, materialism, and consumerism, in a hectic modern life, there is no channel for communal gathering and spiritual activities.

  Churches, mosques, temples, are centres of community, where people gather and worship together. They are avenues for strengthening and passing down cultures, values, and norms.

  I am surprised some anthropologists didnt look at this aspect but proposed ridiculous theories instead.

  As a case study,

  I suggest looking at America as a case study.

  In major cities especially in coastal region urban areas, people lack religious fervour. However, in inner hinterland and rural areas (what they call MidWest and also Bible Belt region), there exist a stronger religious fervour.

  How does this happen? Because people in those areas still go to Church on Sundays and they go together as a family and as a community. One church usually covers one neighbourhood and the people inside knows one another. The pastor or preacher performs important social ceremonies such as marriages or death ceremonies.

  Now, is it true that they lack modern technology? They lack scientists, or psychologists? They lack modern equipment such as TV set ? They lack social security programmes from the government ? None of this exist. But the real true difference which exist between rural hinterland and the urban areas is at the social level. Urban residents tend to be busier, more individualistic, materialistic, and consumeristic, and most importantly, due to the highly transactional relationships they engage in daily, and lack of bond or glue with the surrounding environment, this condition results in the gradual weakening and finally dispersal of the center of community in the form of church, mosque, and temple. They simply go to bar instead and dance for a communal activity.

  I see people and "experts" who proposed ridiculous theories such as the one in the article quoted above, as misguided ideologues and radicals. They have an aversion towards religion because they focus too much on the mythicism aspect and irrationality aspect of it. Therefore, they have a deep-seated prejudice and academic bias and tendency towards condeming religion. They see it as something backward and antithetical to science, and they want to ditch it and confine it to history, and make another leap towards a progress in European enlightenment. However, this excessive motivation brings to a surface their ridiculousness when they go searching for justifying factors or reasons. This is quite regrettable because thruthfully they are being dishonest to themselves, and also not to mention, I'm tired at looking at factionalist / ideological arguments.

  Good answer, Veggie Bao

• ~PEPPER~

  18 Jul 10, 12:34

  Originally posted by january:

  My prediction- by 2020 the statistics will be this

  atheist - 80 percent

  other religion - 20 percent

  Lets check this again in 2020 in sgforums

  
  U think Islam believers/ Muslims will decline. They cant renouce their religion.

  Once Muslim forever muslim.

  Islam is become world largest religion soon.

  U think hinduism will decline? I think not.

  Buddhism will still be around although buddhism is atheist. Shintoism will be around too.

  Christianality will still be around by 2020. It has spread globally.

   

• Samuel Lee

  18 Jul 10, 12:41

  Originally posted by ~PEPPER~:

  
  U think Islam believers/ Muslims will decline. They cant renouce their religion.

  Once Muslim forever muslim.

  Islam is become world largest religion soon.

  U think hinduism will decline? I think not.

  Buddhism will still be around although buddhism is atheist. Shintoism will be around too.

  Christianality will still be around by 2020. It has spread globally.

   

  But what if World War 3 happens, when overpopulation happens and the scarce of natural resources, and "hopefully" killed half of the world's population. (Hey, in animal / insect kingdom, that happens when the climate is not right and overpopulation happens). In this case, most likely 1/3 of the muslims might be killed due to heaviest war hit zone is in the Middle East, while 1/3 ~ 1/2 of the chrisitans might be killed due to the wide spread of christanity (Probably heaviest at Korea) etc...... Oh yeah, that is unlikely by 2020, but 2050 or 2100? I think it is possible.

• ~PEPPER~

  18 Jul 10, 12:46

  Originally posted by Samuel Lee:

  But what if World War 3 happens, when overpopulation happens and the scarce of natural resources, and "hopefully" killed half of the world's population. (Hey, in animal / insect kingdom, that happens when the climate is not right and overpopulation happens). In this case, most likely 1/3 of the muslims might be killed due to heaviest war hit zone is in the Middle East, while 1/3 ~ 1/2 of the chrisitans might be killed due to the wide spread of christanity (Probably heaviest at Korea) etc...... Oh yeah, that is unlikely by 2020, but 2050 or 2100? I think it is possible.

  
  I not sure when world war 3 comes? How u know atheist wont die in the war.

  I tell u surely the world will have ppl who believe in God.

• Samuel Lee

  18 Jul 10, 12:48

  Originally posted by ~PEPPER~:

  
  I not sure when world war 3 comes? How u know atheist wont die in the war.

  While this is my loophole, but then some will then think back and find religion is evil, so they will replace the killed atheist.

• ~PEPPER~

  18 Jul 10, 12:54

  Originally posted by Samuel Lee:

  While this is my loophole, but then some will then think back and find religion is evil, so they will replace the killed atheist.

  
  R u an atheist?