When will atheism replace religion?

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Just to say, to be a christian you have to belief in Adam and Eve, otherwise Jesus died for no reason. He died for our sins. What sins? - The sins that the first people did when they ate an apple from the tree of knowledge. Now through Jesus people can go to paradise again. That's the christian story. If someone beliefs in Evolution and in Jesus their ideology would get caught in contradictions. My point is that many people are a lot less theists than they think.

Your understanding of what you have to believe to be a Christian is woefully misinformed.

 

[miss fortune]

never- religion has a flexible enough definition that there will always be something that people believe in, even if it is the power of science

 

[cascadeco]

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.[/url]

While I think this is true, in that a lot of people [perhaps understandably] turn to religion because of difficulties in their lives, and I think it can therefore provide a large psychological benefit, I also view everything in a rather cyclical manner. I think it's why I like sci fi too. I think religions will come and go over the centuries, as humanity/society ebbs and flows from one philosophical extreme to the other.

So I do think religion, whether institutionalized or more personal, will always be a part of humanity; it may not cover a wide breadth but there will always be pockets of it even when the majority don't believe; then it'll shift to the majority believing and minority not, and so on. New religions will come into being, others will fade.

I'm not even sure I'd place emphasis on education vs. not. More the prevailing societal philosophies. (Yes, I'm saying that most people are going to follow the ebbs of society (i.e. Smart Phones), without putting a whole lot of thought into what they are doing or believing or investing in or caring about (to OP, this can go both ways, towards religion or towards atheism). )

 

[Coriolis]

never- religion has a flexible enough definition that there will always be something that people believe in, even if it is the power of science

That is not belief, it is acceptance.

 

[miss fortune]

That is not belief, it is acceptance.

some believe, some accept... I've met people who swing either way- plenty of people don't understand gravity but accept that it keeps us from flying into space, for instance

and who says that religion isn't accepted by some as opposed to believed?

 

[KDude]

That is not belief, it is acceptance.

I read her post as meaning a religious type of worldview informed by science. Not that science itself is a belief.

Some forms of pantheism, for example, are open to being expressed in scientific terms.. yet they have a sense of spirituality or mythology to them. Or something similar to Star Trek's Vulcan religion (which is never actually described in detail afaik, but you get the idea)

 

[Coriolis]

some believe, some accept... I've met people who swing either way- plenty of people don't understand gravity but accept that it keeps us from flying into space, for instance

and who says that religion isn't accepted by some as opposed to believed?

I do. "To accept" is to treat a claim or argument as true based on supporting evidence. "To believe" is to treat it as true without evidence. This is the essential difference between science and religion. Science does not operate on faith, and beliefs are unconstrained by the requirement for scientific validity.

(See also many thoughtful materials on the nature of science at www.sticksandshadows.com.)

 

[kyuuei]

Replace religion in what? Most people's lives? All people's lives? Civilization? Law and order? Governments?

As far as I can ever tell religion will not die. It may ebb and flow... and many types of religions go extinct every day.. But religion as a whole will not die.

Besides.. Has anyone noticed how much influence religion has on a person? It is the difference between junkies getting clean, wars vs peace (the crusades being the major example of that naturally), helping 3rd world countries, people crying or completely breaking down at funerals, the way they act, view others, treat others.. Almost every facet of one's life can be entirely influenced by having religion or a lack thereof. I would be a bit scared to see everyone thinking the exact same way.. Variety is a key element in survival.

 

[miss fortune]

I do. "To accept" is to treat a claim or argument as true based on supporting evidence. "To believe" is to treat it as true without evidence. This is the essential difference between science and religion. Science does not operate on faith, and beliefs are unconstrained by the requirement for scientific validity.

(See also many thoughtful materials on the nature of science at www.sticksandshadows.com.)

I'm basing my assessment on the average person here, not the well educated ones

most people can't understand the proof behind a lot of the basic laws of how things work- I don't understand some of them, but then again, I didn't ever really study them- I trust that they work though. Anything that a person doesn't thoroughly understand but accepts is a leap of faith- who knows if scientists are playing a trick on the less educated with some explanations

I'll have to check out the site though, looks like it could be interesting

 

[KDude]

Anything that a person doesn't thoroughly understand but accepts is a leap of faith- who knows if scientists are playing a trick on the less educated with some explanations

Well.. if science claims anything, it always gives you the means to reproduce the results. So it's no trick (in some cases, it's impossible to recreate experiments for the layman.. unless you have a multibillion dollar lab and the samples they worked with, but... I'm sure if you "begged" enough, some university might let you observe).

 

[miss fortune]

Well.. if science claims anything, it always gives you the means to reproduce the results. So it's no trick (in some cases, it's impossible to recreate experiments for the layman.. unless you have a multibillion dollar lab and the samples they worked with, but... I'm sure if you "begged" enough, some university might let you observe).

and how many people would understand what they saw?

and the last part was a joke

 

[Qlip]

Atheism is a negative 'belief', I'm unsure how it could replace religion (which is an incredibly general word, and I wish people would be more sophisticated using it). Religion is a codified form of values and world-view based on varying ideas of the supernatural ineffable. Atheism is just the denial of the belief in god. It doesn't inherently include a system of values, or imply the ends to aim for with societal structure. It's just not the same class of 'object'.

 

[Mole]

Religion like art will never die because both are based on the suspension of disbelief.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

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.

E.O Wilson had an interesting answer to this question, he documented it in "On Human Nature". http://www.amazon.com/On-Human-Natu...id=1359450297&sr=8-1&keywords=On+Human+nature

Religion serves fundamental human needs in the following respects and it often does so more efficiently than alternative institutions.

1. It provides its practitioners with powerful socio-cultural incentives to preserve group cohesion and solidarity.
2. On a fundamental level, it is an expression of optimism about the destiny of mankind because most religions strongly emphasize the premise that their adherents will reap the benefits of eternal joy. In most cases, optimism enhances the quality of life of most people who display this attitude in abundance. (See Martin Seligman's Learned Optimism, http://www.amazon.com/Learned-Optim...d=1359450457&sr=1-1&keywords=Learned+Optimism)
3. Religion provides a comprehensive ethical framework, the basis for conventional morality and even etiquette. Although certain modernized, well-developed societies formally disavowed religion, their collective consciousness has been influenced by doctrines of religious ethics. Had religion not existed at all, it would have been questionable that these societies could have become socially, politically and culturally sophisticated enough to preserve order without any explicit reference to a religious dogma.
4. The elites of most societies have a vested interest in preserving the ethos of religiosity because most creeds defend a vertical social order that calls for the presence of a hierarchical power-structure and centralized authority. As a general rule, when the elites abolish the institutions of one religion, they swiftly replace them with institutions representing a different creed that serves the same political purpose. Consider how the deeply religious Russian society quickly accepted Marxism-Leninism as its de-facto state religion.

 

[Coriolis]

Well.. if science claims anything, it always gives you the means to reproduce the results. So it's no trick (in some cases, it's impossible to recreate experiments for the layman.. unless you have a multibillion dollar lab and the samples they worked with, but... I'm sure if you "begged" enough, some university might let you observe).

Moreover, the explanations and supporting data are generally published in the open literature, often including their replication by other research groups. So, one needn't conduct the experiment oneself to be able to learn enough about it to decide whether the results support the conclusions.

 

[FDG]

Not in Europe.

Yeah really. Even standard figures grossly overestimate the number of religious people since they rely on who has been baptized.

 

[KDude]

The only way the two go away (at least, practically speaking) is through oppression and control of all information. I don't think any sane people of either side want that though.

 

[UniqueMixture]

E.O Wilson had an interesting answer to this question, he documented it in "On Human Nature". http://www.amazon.com/On-Human-Natu...id=1359450297&sr=8-1&keywords=On+Human+nature

Religion serves fundamental human needs in the following respects and it often does so more efficiently than alternative institutions.

1. It provides its practitioners with powerful socio-cultural incentives to preserve group cohesion and solidarity.
2. On a fundamental level, it is an expression of optimism about the destiny of mankind because most religions strongly emphasize the premise that their adherents will reap the benefits of eternal joy. In most cases, optimism enhances the quality of life of most people who display this attitude in abundance. (See Martin Seligman's Learned Optimism, http://www.amazon.com/Learned-Optim...d=1359450457&sr=1-1&keywords=Learned+Optimism)
3. Religion provides a comprehensive ethical framework, the basis for conventional morality and even etiquette. Although certain modernized, well-developed societies formally disavowed religion, their collective consciousness has been influenced by doctrines of religious ethics. Had religion not existed at all, it would have been questionable that these societies could have become socially, politically and culturally sophisticated enough to preserve order without any explicit reference to a religious dogma.
4. The elites of most societies have a vested interest in preserving the ethos of religiosity because most creeds defend a horizontal social order that calls for the presence of a hierarchical power-structure and centralized authority. As a general rule, when the elites abolish the institutions of one religion, they swiftly replace them with institutions representing a different creed that serves the same political purpose. Consider how the deeply religious Russian society quickly accepted Marxism-Leninism as its de-facto state religion.

Yeah, I more or less agree. David Sloan Wilson (an evolutionary biologist and professor of Biological Sciences and Anthropology at Binghamton University) argues something similar in his book The Neighborhood Project: Using Evolution to Improve My City, One Block at a Time. though his focus is not religion as much as it is the evolutionary basis for social cohesion/networks. He also notes that similar benefits can be achieved through other similar organizations such as community organizations (school, work, extracurricular activities programs like sports, fraternal organizations, charitable organizations, etc [note: he does not argue for those specifically, but sees all of them as part of the larger whole of society, the examples were mine]). Personally, I don't see why other similar organizations (therapists instead of confession, joining together for charitable work instead of to sit in a room on a sunday morning, etc) couldn't or shouldn't replace those kinds of activities. I think in time they will, because they will be more beneficial to the individual and the whole.

Here is an interesting link to an interview he had where he spoke about 7 rules of prosociality that he came up with through observation of wasps and water striders and how they can be used in cities to create richer communities.

Replace religion in what? Most people's lives? All people's lives? Civilization? Law and order? Governments?

That is a very good question. Basically, I am asking when will we take organized religion as seriously as sacrificing goats to Zeus. You know, scratch that because I am not opposed to groups of people coming together and having abstract experiences that we don't quite understand that might be connecting us to some higher power. In fact, I think stuff like that can be a benefit for many, but I hate namby pamby bullshit religion that is just there to make everyone feel like they're "doing their part" without actually having to do anything worthwhile.

 

[kyuuei]

That is a very good question. Basically, I am asking when will we take organized religion as seriously as sacrificing goats to Zeus. You know, scratch that because I am not opposed to groups of people coming together and having abstract experiences that we don't quite understand that might be connecting us to some higher power. In fact, I think stuff like that can be a benefit for many, but I hate namby pamby bullshit religion that is just there to make everyone feel like they're "doing their part" without actually having to do anything worthwhile.

This is the mentality of society--not religion. Apathy is a disease that ravages our world, imo. This happens regardless of religion existing or not.

 

[KDude]

In fact, I think stuff like that can be a benefit for many, but I hate namby pamby bullshit religion that is just there to make everyone feel like they're "doing their part" without actually having to do anything worthwhile.

Like I said, religion won't end unless you oppress them. When people take one step further than your sentiment above, and decide they should control and/or meddle with what they hate (the same goes the other way around towards atheists). When they think, "This bugs me so much, I want it out of the world." That's the main idea behind "cultural revolutions" and whatnot.

If you think people are going to just automatically move towards one path (as if we're all being directed towards some higher state of being), then that's not science either. More like pseudoscience, "transhuman" bullshit. Evolution is always an experiment. It goes down many paths.