Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

Pushtrak

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/atheism-to-defeat-religion-by-2038_b_1565108.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=2849238,b=facebook

Countries with the best standard of living are turning atheist. That shift offers a glimpse into the world's future.

Religious people are annoyed by claims that belief in God will go the way of horse transportation, and for much the same reason, specifically an improved standard of living.

The view that religious belief will give way to atheism is known as the secularization thesis. The specific version that I favor (1) is known as the existential security hypothesis. The basic idea is that as people become more affluent, they are less worried about lacking for basic necessities, or dying early from violence or disease. In other words they are secure in their own existence. They do not feel the need to appeal to supernatural entities to calm their fears and insecurities.

The notion that improving living conditions are associated with a decline in religion is supported by a mountain of evidence (1,2,3).

That does not prevent some serious scholars, like political scientist Eric Kaufmann (4), from making the opposite case that religious fundamentalists will outbreed the rest of us. Yet, noisy as they can be, such groups are tiny minorities of the global population and they will become even more marginalized as global prosperity increases and standards of living improve.

Moreover, as religious fundamentalists become economically integrated, young women go to work and produce smaller families, as is currently happening for Utah's Mormons.

The most obvious approach to estimating when the world will switch over to being majority atheist is based on economic growth. This is logical because economic development is the key factor responsible for secularization. In deriving this estimate, I used the nine most godless countries as my touchstone (excluding Estonia as a formerly communist country).

The countries were Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. These nine countries averaged out at the atheist transition in 2004 (5) with exactly half of the populations disbelieving in God. Their gross domestic product (GDP) averaged $29,822 compared to $10,855 for the average country in the world. How long will it take before the world economy has expanded sufficiently that the GDP of the average country has caught up to the average for the godless countries in 2004?

Using the average global growth rate of GDP for the past 30 years of 3.33 percent (based on International Monetary Fund data from their website), the atheist transition would occur in 2035.

Belief in God is not the only relevant measure of religion, of course. A person might believe in God in a fairly superficial way without religion affecting his or her daily life. One way of assessing the depth of religious commitment is to ask survey participants whether they think that religion is important in their daily lives as the Gallup Organization has done in worldwide nationally representative surveys.

If fewer than 50 percent of the population agreed that religion was important to them, then the country has effectively crossed over to a secular majority. The godless countries by religiosity were Spain, South Korea, Canada, Switzerland, Uruguay, Germany and France. At a growth rate of 3.33 percent per year it would be 2041 before the average country in the world would be at an equivalent level of affluence as these godless nations.

If national wealth drives secularization, the global population will cross an atheist threshold where the majority see religion as unimportant by 2041.

Averaging across the two measures of atheism, the entire world population would cross the atheist threshold by about 2038 (average of 2035 for disbelief and 2041 for religiosity). Although 2038 may seem improbably fast, this requires only a shift of approximately 1 percent per year whether in religiosity or belief in God. Using the Human Development Index as a clock suggests an even earlier arrival for the atheist transition (1).

Is the loss of religious belief something fear? Contrary to the claims of religious leaders, Godless countries are highly moral nations with an unusual level of social trust, economic equality, low crime and a high level of civic engagement (5). We could do with some of that.

So, AH, what do you make of it all? Me? I think it places too much emphasis on economics and how it might effect religion. The early point about the existential security hypothesis is interesting, but people will still ultimately be ruled by emotion in that they are still going to die. There doesn't have to be an imminent sense for a fear of not existing after this life. Or, this being all there is. Or reality.

Anyone think there may be merit to the article? If so why, and if not, why not?

hooradiation

Are we talking a regular one-fall match or something exotic like a cage match?

davet82

Kum Ba Yah, My Lord

smash

A tenner says David Silverman will beat the pope in the first round!

stovelid

Ah to defeat fucking religion threads by 2013.

Please.

maximoose

Pushtrak wrote: »

h
Anyone think there may be merit to the article?

Yes. But I really doubt it'll be that quick. Unfortunately.

BBDBB

Even if the Athiests win Im sure they'll be forgiven

philologos

I heavily doubt it. The article is very Western centric. It also presumes that faith will make a continued decline within the Western world, something which I'm not sure is true. Given the nature of history there have been rises and falls in respect to atheism and religion in centuries past. It is a fluctuation.

People two hundred years ago made proclamations about the demise of belief within society, but its never happened. In fact in some parts of the world, faith has been growing. A case in point would be the growth of evangelical Christianity in China despite the fact that the State is curbing it, or South Korea. From what I've heard there are also encouraging signs (depending on your interpretation) in Central Asia, and from what limited information that we can receive, in the Middle East.

Also, there's something deeply ironic about moral subjectivists talking about what is "highly moral". What standard do they determine what is "highly moral" by? If what is good is anything we want it to be, anything can be highly moral.

I think the article is premature triumphalism.

Bullseye1

Awesome....oh wait I'll be dead and those ****ers will insist on bringing me to the church before sending me to Valhalla.

JerryHandbag

Snickers to change back to Marathon by 2029

southcentralts

its not a competition, and if it were, would it really be fair to put faith in something unchangeable up against faith in "show me how it works, or explain how it works, or lets together figure out how it works".

We would need to give religion some kind of a head start, like "2 X jesus = 42 scientific theories" just to be fair, although maybe 420 scientific theories, or 4200?

prinz

Odd choice of thread title to be fair.

smash

philologos wrote: »

People two hundred years ago made proclamations about the demise of belief within society, but its never happened.

Well I'm pretty sure we've stopped burning witched and staking vampires...

philologos

southcentralts wrote: »

its not a competition, and if it were, would it really be fair to put faith in something unchangeable up against faith in "show me how it works, or explain how it works, or lets together figure out how it works".

We would need to give religion some kind of a head start, like "2 X jesus = 42 scientific theories" just to be fair, although maybe 420 scientific theories, or 4200?

This is presuming that faith in God and faith in science are mutually exclusive. This is a fallacy.

In reality science is no more the handmaiden of atheism than anything else.

smash wrote: »

Well I'm pretty sure we've stopped burning witched and staking vampires...

What does that have to do with belief in God exactly?

Pushtrak

southcentralts wrote: »

its not a competition, and if it were, would it really be fair to put faith in something unchangeable up against faith in "show me how it works, or explain how it works, or lets together figure out how it works".

Well, seeing how faith in something unchangeable has been lasting despite its mismatch with reality for a long time. It isn't really an underdog. Comforting illusions and all that.

In a more local view of the thread topic, it would be very interesting to see what the census results would be like if all the "cultural catholic" (people who don't believe in god but put down catholic) were to accurately represent themselves in the census. It would result, I should think in a dramatic alteration to the running of the education system here. Or I'd like to think it would anyway.

smash

philologos wrote: »

What does that have to do with belief in God exactly?

Well they were religious beliefs.

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

What does that have to do with belief in God exactly?

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. That sort of thing. Wholesale belief in religious text may be another way to put it. Or, a realisation that holy texts are inaccurate. A lot. When facts are concerned.


Oh, sorry, metaphoric in nature. Or poetic.

philologos

smash: Really?

I think a the vast majority of the claims made by atheists on boards.ie about Christianity in particular are actually baseless when one does some investigation into them.

Another example on this thread so far:

Pushtrak wrote:

Well, seeing how faith in something unchangeable has been lasting despite its mismatch with reality for a long time. It isn't really an underdog. Comforting illusions and all that.

It just shows me that people are more interested in making casual assumptions rather than probing into the truth. They just post about what they believe, without providing satisfactory justification for it.

The same goes for your previous post Pushtrak, are you interested in discussing this or are you just interested in posting your assumptions?

gurramok

Third world countries tend to have more religious faith where that faith was introduced to them by missionaries. The reason for this is that it gives them collective hope as there is no hope economically within their country so the article is true to that extent.

smash

philologos wrote: »

smash: Really?

Nearly all myths about "monsters" or "witchcraft" involve religious cures like holy water or holding a cross etc.

philologos wrote: »

It just shows me that people are more interested in making casual assumptions rather than probing into the truth.

You think the stories of the bible are not a mismatch with reality? They're just casual assumptions?

Pushtrak

The bible does have a bit on not suffering a witch to live. This is no longer a practice. Thus, progress. The point smash pointed out.

The Genesis account, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark... All these had to have their literal interpretation thrown out as reality showed them for the baseless assertions they are. So, holy texts do have a mismatch with reality. It is only with a modern interpretation of the texts whereby you alter it completely to fit reality.

I'm sure there are theologians even now trying to find evidence in the bible to try to come to some hasty reasoning for the bible having something to say about multiverses in case evidence comes to definitively prove it. Religion fits its time, not the other way around.

philologos

Pushtrak wrote: »

The bible does have a bit on not suffering a witch to live. This is no longer a practice. Thus, progress. The point smash pointed out.

The Genesis account, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark... All these had to have their literal interpretation thrown out as reality showed them for the baseless assertions they are. So, holy texts do have a mismatch with reality. It is only with a modern interpretation of the texts whereby you alter it completely to fit reality.

I'm sure there are theologians even now trying to find evidence in the bible to try to come to some hasty reasoning for the bible having something to say about multiverses in case evidence comes to definitively prove it. Religion fits its time, not the other way around.

I explained Genesis 1 and 2 to you in a previous thread. I also explained that this view of Genesis predates Young Earth Creationism if we're to look at Aquinas, Origen of Jerusalem and Augustine of Hippo. You can believe that you want, but on a historical level your position isn't accurate.

It just shows me that even when you are presented with good and sound reasons as to why Christians and Jews have understood Genesis 1 and 2 as a poetic text that you prefer to cling to your hobby horse.

You've no interest in knowing what Christianity actually presented from the beginning on this issue.

Your perspective seems to be that you have your presumptions already, and if anyone challenges those presumptions you claim that they are wrong without basis.

Oh and by the by, I agree that the Jewish law does refer to the paranormal. What I don't agree with is this:

Nearly all myths about "monsters" or "witchcraft" involve religious cures like holy water or holding a cross etc.

Very little of that is actually Christianity. It's more what people watch in a horror film.

hooradiation

philologos wrote: »

It just shows me that even when you are presented with good and sound reasons as to why Christians and Jews have understood Genesis 1 and 2 as a poetic text that you prefer to cling to your hobby horse.

Hmm, solid argument, and I see what you're saying, if only we had someone with the same philosophical chops as you to offer a counter point.

But who?
Ahh, yes, philologos from 8:32pm yesterday evening, you have something to say?

philologos wrote: »

1. The Biblical text isn't written as fiction

Burky126

Pushtrak wrote: »

Religious people are annoyed by claims that belief in God will go the way of horse transportation, and for much the same reason, specifically an improved standard of living.

How Cute. *pinches cheek*

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-causes-religious-reaction-in-brains-of-fans-say-neuroscientists/

philologos

hooradiation wrote: »

Hmm, solid argument, and I see what you're saying, if only we had someone with the same philosophical chops as you to offer a counter point.

But who?
Ahh, yes, philologos from 8:32pm yesterday evening, you have something to say?

And it isn't written as fiction. I don't believe Genesis 1 and 2 to be fiction. I believe that they are true. The Bible describes what is true using varying genres. There are historical books in the Biblical text, there is poetry (see Psalms for example), there are wisdom books, Gospels, and letters to churches. You do realise that truth can be explained through many means?

prinz

smash wrote: »

Well they were religious beliefs.

More to do with greed and power tbh. In many jurisdictions if you accused a woman of being a witch and she was convicted you inherited her estate... which explains why in many instances those burned was witches tended to be successful women.. Dame Alice Kyteler for example, Katherina Henot. Other "witch" cases were no such thing, like Bridget Cleary in Tipperary.

hooradiation

philologos wrote: »

And it isn't written as fiction.

It's just 'poetic', right?


You should go for the Olympics with the level of contortion you're able to pull off with apparently no effort whatsoever.

smash

philologos wrote: »

Very little of that is actually Christianity. It's more what people watch in a horror film.

Wrong!

With the arrival of Christianity in Greece, and other parts of Europe, the vampire "began to take on decidedly Christian characteristics." As various regions of the continent converted to Christianity, the vampire was viewed as "a dead person who retained a semblance of life and could leave its grave-much in the same way that Jesus had risen after his death and burial and appeared before his followers." In the Middle Ages, the Christian Church reinterpreted vampires from their previous folk existence into minions of Satan, and used an allegory to communicate a doctrine to Christians: "Just as a vampire takes a sinner's very spirit into itself by drinking his blood, so also can a righteous Christian by drinking Christ's blood take the divine spirit into himself." The interpretation of vampires under the Christian Church established connotations that are still associated in the vampire genre today. For example, the "ability of the cross to hurt and ward off vampires is distinctly due to its Christian association."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire#Christianity

feelgoodinc27

Athesism has already lost.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfRkcJ0BLS0

General Relativity

philologos wrote: »

It just shows me that even when you are presented with good and sound reasons as to why Christians and Jews have understood Genesis 1 and 2 as a poetic text that you prefer to cling to your hobby horse.

What's your mesuring stick to discern what's ment to be taken poetically, metaphorically and literally in the Bible?

wes

One thing about those who try predict the future, is that if actually get anything right, it tends to be due to sheer luck, as opposed to any actual insight that they may have.