Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

[Iwanci Profile]

Here is an article written and published in Psychology Today on 18 May, 2010 by Nigel Barber, Ph.D

Not sure if it has been posted before.. so apologies if it has...

Why atheism will eventually replace religion... makes some compelling and thought provoking points. Can’t agree with all of it, however, most of it I think is right on...

Take from it what you will...

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.

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.

[Nakchopoe Profile]

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Taking the standpoint that there are no deities, when you can't really be 100% sure, is just another kind of belief, another kind of religion.

There's a small difference between being Atheist and being Non-religious.
I expect the group of non-religious people to grow largest. They just can't be bothered by the question of there being a deity or not.

Atheist = I do not believe there is a god.
Non-religious = I do not feel the need to practice a religion.
Agnostic = I don't think it is possible to say whether or not there is a god.
Theist = I believe in a god or gods. All the gods I don't believe in do not exist.
Evangelist = THERE IS A GOD AND EVERYONE ABOVE ME IS GOING TO BURN IN HELL!

Just for the record



Edit:
I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one that's thinking that fanatic sports supporters differ very few from fanatic religious supporters.

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.

[Iwanci Profile]

nak agreed mate..

I personally 'believe' that if you question these 'atheists' you would likely find that they do have some form of belief. Even 'non belief' is beleif in nothing, me thinks.

Just posting the article as it does make some valid points about affluence and its affect on the belief system.

[Nakchopoe Profile]

Yeah, we need to become more open to the fact that other people do not always think the same as yourself. In fact, they more often do not think the same as they do think the same.

I quoted this in the "would anything actually prove the existence of god to you" thread too, but it's a very striking illustration, so I'll post it here again

Six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.

A king explains to them:
"All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned."

This resolves the conflict, and is used to illustrate the principle of living in harmony with people who have different belief systems, and that truth can be stated in different ways.

But you are right. It does make some valid points about affluence.

[Iwanci Profile]

Nak, I read that in the other thread.. I liked and agreed with it. ‘Tolerance’ is needed the world over and we must start to see that no matter what our beliefs it is everyman’s right to believe/ not believe. No one person ‘knows’ any better, regardless what anyone tells me, without proof of anything, both everything and nothing is possible.
At the end of the day, it is all part of the same animal, we are just seeing different sides, like your story.

[Nakchopoe Profile]

Nak, I read that in the other thread.. I liked and agreed with it. ‘Tolerance’ is needed the world over and we must start to see that no matter what our beliefs it is everyman’s right to believe/ not believe. No one person ‘knows’ any better, regardless what anyone tells me, without proof of anything, both everything and nothing is possible.
At the end of the day, it is all part of the same animal, we are just seeing different sides, like your story.