The good life breeds atheists. The good life and a little fear breed strong atheists.
In a recent issue of New Scientist (March 28), Oxford anthropologist Jonathan Lanman summarizes newly emerging research on the rise of atheism in the West. From the outset, Lanman makes clear that scientific research on non-belief is in its infancy, so any conclusions must be regarded as tentative. With this in mind, however, current results challenge some standard assumptions about why people are religious or not. For example, the assumption that increased education inevitably leads to greater unbelief is at best oversimplified with some evidence actually pointing in the opposite direction. Furthermore, the assumption that atheism is a singular phenomenon is also a vast oversimplification. Instead, Lanman's own research reveals at least two distinct forms of non-belief. One, which he calls "non-theism," is a lack of belief in all supernatural agents. The second, which he calls "strong atheism," goes beyond just non-belief to an active moral opposition to all religion. E. O. Wilson is probably a non-theist but not a strong atheist (at least that's my reading of him). Richard Dawkins is a strong atheist.
What's interesting about strong atheism, non-theism and religious belief, according to Lanman, is that they all have a common sociological origin: perceived threat. Throughout most of our history, mortal concerns were ever-present. Predators, starvation, disease, war, childbirth, foreigners, enemies -- around every corner was something threatening life and health. Religion proved to be an effective response to these threats; and not because it offered supernatural comforts. Indeed, religion often exacerbated fears by positing a host of angry gods and vindictive spirits. Instead, religious beliefs and practices served as effective mechanisms for solidifying group cohesion and cooperation. One could not face lethal dangers alone; but together with kin, clan and tribe, one had a fighting chance.
Modern technology and extensive social welfare have effectively removed many of these threats for affluent Westerners. In the second half of the 20th century, religious belief and practice fell off precipitously in countries such as Sweden and Denmark, where governments enacted social welfare programs making life stable and secure for their (then) largely homogenous populations. Though religion may build quite seamlessly off of some of our natural cognitive tendencies (such as our tendency to see meaningful patterns or to assume agency behind natural events), it is not innate. If children do not see adults expressing religious sentiments or practicing religious behaviors (praying, going to church), then supernatural beliefs become as foreign to them as a different language. This appears to be what happened across much of Western Europe in only a generation or two. The good life made practices designed to enhance within-group solidarity superfluous. Those practices, the most costly of which were probably religious in nature, became increasingly rare and supernatural belief floundered.
This may explain the high rates of non-theism in many European countries, but Lanman finds something even more fascinating: very often, high rates of non-theism are negatively related to the prevalence of strong atheism. For example, while most Danes are non-theists, relatively few are strong atheists. By contrast, American non-theists are a distinct minority but far more likely to be strong atheists than Danes. Why the difference?
Again, Lanman points to perceived threat. In Denmark, there is little concern that politicians are inclined to govern by conservative religious principles. In the U.S., Christian fundamentalists are an active, influential political force. To American secularists, Christian conservatism represents an imminent threat to an enlightened, rational society. They are not just another player on the political landscape; they are a moral evil to be vigorously opposed. While atheist advocacy groups are present in Denmark, they are fewer and less active compared to the U.S. As the threat theory would predict, however, there was a spike in membership in the Danish Atheist Society in the wake of the violent reaction of some Muslims to the Mohammad cartoon controversy. As immigration increasingly transforms European society in ways perceived as threatening, one prediction derived from threat theory is that this would produce either resurgent Christianity or increased atheist activism (or both).
Both religion and atheism would like to lay claim to rational roots; and, indeed, each makes extensive use of rationality as a tool for defending its principles. However, a basic message of Lanman's and others' research is that group psychology, emotional defense and irrationality are inherent, undeniable aspects of both religion and atheism. This should not be surprising. Both are human phenomena and necessarily bear the imprimatur of the human mind. Cool-headed reason is usually inversely proportional to the belligerence with which groups confront each other. If we would like both atheists and religious folks to be more reasonable maybe we should start by turning down the threat levels all around.
Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism: What's the Difference?
The flowering of strong atheism | Wendy M Grossman | Comment is ...
Thou Shalt Believe -- Or Not (Jonathan Lanman) - Academia.edu
OR
after we feed enough xians to the lions conflict levels will go down?
I have a lot more to fear from progressive politicians, by contrast, who advocate more taxes, more regulations and restrictions on firearms ownership. Their agenda shows that they consider productive, responsible adults socially harmful.
This may be more due to the hypocrisy in the major religions regarding WWI and WWII and the plethora of child abuse rampant in the clergy. (not to mention other hypocritical acts around the world)
[[Using a simple illustration, Jesus showed that immediately after he planted the seeds of Christianity, an enemy, Satan, would interfere. (Matthew 13:24, 25) Thus, it was not a mere social phenomenon that caused Christianity to be transformed during the first few centuries after Jesus’ ministry. It was enemy action, Satan’s action. Today the churches of Christendom are perpetuating mistakes made in the past and are reaping the effects.—2 Corinthians 11:14, 15; James 4:4.
A Sneak Attack on Christianity
Jesus foretold that his teachings would be subverted. He said: “The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man that sowed fine seed in his field. While men were sleeping, his enemy came and over-sowed weeds in among the wheat, and left.” —Matthew 13:24-30.
As Jesus himself explained, in his illustration the man who sowed wheat in the field represents Jesus, and the seeds he planted represent true Christians. The enemy who sowed weeds among the wheat represents “the Devil.” The weeds represent lawless, apostate men who falsely claim to be servants of God. (Matthew 13:36-42) See also Acts 20:29, 30. ]]
http://www.watchtower.org/e/200702/article_01.htm
1 - Jesus would also be disgusted at the so-called "religious right" or fundamentalists that put politics, money, greed, war above the teachings found in the Bible...
2 - We should base our view of the Bible on what the Bible it self REALLY teaches.
3 - THUS - A true Christian can hardly blame the "non-theist" who becomes a "strong atheist" due to the rampant hypocrisy and evilness in Christendom (the major organized "Christian" religions as a whole).
[[Jesus said:
“Be careful of false prophets. They come to you looking gentle like sheep, but they are really dangerous like wolves.” (Matthew 7:15, New Century Version) Later he said: “Not everyone who calls me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but only those who do what my Father in heaven wants them to do.” (Matthew 7:21, Today’s English Version)
If someone is called a prophet or claims that Jesus is his “Lord,” it is reasonable to say that he is a religious person, not an unbeliever. Clearly, then, Jesus was warning that not all religions are good and not all religious teachers should be trusted. ]]
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20090801/article_01.htm
How would you describe or explain religion as an institution that has developed among all areas where humans developed (in all isolated cultures, independently) as it has evolved as well, with us, over the millennia? It seems to have provided some survival benefit, yet, now it's deemed destructive and a threat.
Just a thought...
"a-" (without) "-the-" (deity) "-ism" (philosophy or practice).
How do I get less than "without"?
If I don't believe in something...let's leave religion out of it...let's use Chupacabra. I don't believe in Chupacabra. What would make me a strong non-believer? I have to really really not believe in chupacabra? It's like asking asking me to provide a value less than zero using only whole numbers. By not believing, I'm already at zero. That's as low as it gets with whole numbers.
Now, let's say the government wants to start a $3B program to hunt down Chupacabra. I oppose this program...on obvious grounds. Is THAT what makes me a strong non-believer in Chupacabra? Because I'm not ashamed to say out loud what I believe? Because I feel the pro-Chupacabra crowd is wasting my country's resources and trying to get Chupacabra non-believers to support their beliefs? That just sounds like I'm an American exercising my rights.
Replace Chupacabra with any religious text you like. I'm not a "super" anything. Neither am I an antitheist. I simply don't believe in supernatural things. I'm a positivist, though. Give me data, and I'm right there.
What?! You can't be serious? Everyone knows there's such thing as a Chupacabra!
Seriously, I love this quote!
"I'm a positivist, though. Give me data, and I'm right there. "
I'm right there with you!
"Just to be clear, I only used Chupacabra as an example. Obviously, I totally believe in Chupacabra."
But I ran out of characters and had to edit down to serious stuff (what fun is that? I know). So, I really appreciate you adding it as an amendment.
That leads to a question of what we mean by "threat". Is the threat rational or not, abstract or not? How do you explain strong abortion position from both PZ Myers and Sarah Palin, as I doubt abortion is a daily concern for either (might be wrong)?
I think Lanman and Rossano's investigation is very superficial and doesn't quite prove what it claims. They hardly engage with the possibly hypotheses and nuances that I talked about.
If I understand the question correctly, we have some countries like Denmark with high non-theism but low anti-theism (note that "strong atheism" is the completely wrong terminology for this). Then you have countries with low quality of living and high theism. Then there is this odd ball, the United States, with high theism and higher anti-theism than Denmark. The question is why this overall pattern and in particular the US is as it is.
Let's BS about this for a while and see what hypotheses we could come up with. Simplest thing is to say low quality of life or at least high threats to well-being like economic threats, higher theism. The US without universal health care and low job security interestingly actually does fit this pattern once you look at the right threats. But that raises a question, why the atheism in the US at all? One possibility is varying degrees of security produce various ratios of theism to atheism. Perhaps some Americans have more security than others and are atheists. Maybe there are cultural factors, where certain towns and vocations provide more social encouragement to be atheist or theist. I could go on, but one must answer why there are both many theists and a small number of atheists in the US.
Maybe I would have been an atheist hundreds of years ago, but then, I wouldn't want to be burned at the stake either.
And so, when the people I meet say, "God bless you," I say, "Thank you."
I am proud in my atheism too. What the author says is offensive, primarily because some of it is intellectual rubbish about atheism. I am trying to be intellectual and even-handed to correct this rubbish. Just saying there is no god doesn't work and just is not an option for what I'm doing.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OrpsXccxgbkJ:www.cam.ox.ac.uk/research/cognition-religion-and-theology/+Jonathan+Lanman+templeton+foundation&cd=1&hl=es&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com
Matt J. Rossano, Ph.D. – Professor of Psychology, Southeastern Louisiana University (Hammond, LA); Former Templeton Foundation Science and Religion Course Competition Prize Winner
http://pelicanconnection.net/slp/
1. A hypotesis is made, groups under threat develop group cohesion strategies.
2. Religion is identified a group cohesion strategy.
3. Religion is regarded as irrational.
4. "strong atheism" is regarded as a group cohesion startegy.
therefore.
5 "strong atheism" is irrational.
Now lets review the flaw in this argumentative chain. In 3 there is not explicit mention of why religion is regarded as irrational, you must assume that is becuase is a group strategy, when actually the regards of irrationality are based in the adderence to spurious claims about reality. The corolary is actually not granted, one does not regard group cohesion strategies as "irrational"per se, therefore 5 is not granted while 3 is still holding grounds.
This mixing of the decision to take an strategy towards certain treat and the content of the strategy is not valid. I can say for example that is rational to seek cooperation in certain scenarios, but that is divorced from the strategy taken by the group, as for example group praying to a supernatural agency (like it happen in other recent post of huffpo).
Atheism is the belief that no god exists. There are no "others".
"anti-" means against.
I am without any believe in deities. Therefore, I am an atheist.
The prefixes have separate meanings and those meanings are not about degrees.
Then more than 2000 years later a guy named Aristotle founded formal logic.
Then more than 2000 years later, a man named Bertrand Russell wrote his Theory of Descriptions that shows problems with the NOT operator as is used in words like without or lack.
And you want me to return to the dark ages....
No sale.
Nothing is what it lacks. Nothing is what it is without. Catch up to the past 100 years if you can, and read On Denoting by Russell and note that the present King of France lacks belief in a god and is not an atheist. So do rocks, AIDS, murder and hate.... and oh ya.... theism is without belief in a god too so include that as to what atheism is.
Good thing we have improved logic so as to dismiss crap like what you just wrote. :)
Atheism is the belief there is no god and nothing else.
Theists believe there is a god, the complement set is nontheists... they are those who don't believe in a god.
Atheists are a new set, not the complement set to theists. Atheists believe there is no god and nonatheists do not believe there is no god.
If you do not believe there is no god you are not an atheist and if you do you should say so and come out of the closet.