About three-quarters of the world's population feels that religion is important. Yet, this large majority is set to dwindle into minority status within a generation. The reason is that affluence kills piety, as I explain in a new book (Why Atheism Will Replace Religion).
Religion as emotion-focused coping
Conversely, under development promotes religion. The basic human problem solved by religious belief systems may be coping with the stress of uncertainty in our daily lives. Whether it is natural disasters, hunger, warfare, diseases, the loss of the people we love, or any other psychological threat, religion offers a psychological security blanket. Indeed, religious rituals reduce stress and bring down blood pressure analogous to the calming effect of a child's security blanket.
Religion does not make a home earthquake-proof but allows the faithful to feel better about the experience of sitting down in the rubble of their dwelling after the quake hits. In the jargon of psychology, this is emotion-focused coping rather than problem-focused coping.
As countries develop, they devise ever better methods for dealing with practical problems that threaten our existence or well being. Whether it is earthquake-proof housing, piped water, sanitation, pollution control, food safety, inoculation against diseases, the rule of law, or social safety nets, residents of developed countries have much more reason to feel secure in their person, livelihood, health, and freedom.
With practical problems solved, there is less need for the solace provided by religion. Problem-focused coping obviates emotion-focused rituals and beliefs. That is why atheism crops up only in developed countries where most people experience a good standard of living, such as Japan, or Sweden.
As the world economy continues to expand, and as each country becomes more and more integrated in the global economy, the standard of living of the entire planet will eventually catch up with that of contemporary developed countries that produce a secular majority. It follows that the entire world community will become secular.
I estimate that with the levels of economic development characteristic of the past thirty years, the secular majority will arrive by approximately 2038. That is a doubling of contemporary secularism but an increase of only 1 percent on an annual basis.
The rising tide of prosperity
Despite continued misery in various parts of the world, the global economy rides a seemingly unstoppable tide of increasing prosperity.
Half of the world's population already resides in cities so that our future as an urban creature is pretty well settled. We no longer have a few isolated city developments, or a few prosperous countries but a world in which increasing economic activity in one country spurs development in many others. This level of mutual interdependence inhibits war and boils down to unprecedented global stability.
Skeptics may question whether prosperity will continue. Some point to the environmental unsustainability of rapid development with its nasty consequences for specific ecologies, such as rainforests, and for the entire global ecosystem. Yet, the impact of global warming on economic growth is likely to be too modest to prevent rapid economic growth and consequent secularization.
Spirituality may also be a basic feature of the human condition that cannot disappear. Yet, it seems that organized religions are increasingly irrelevant to modern spirituality. People in developed countries are more interested than ever in basic questions about the origin and meaning of human life and in exploring world religions. They are also open to supernatural themes in fiction that rests on magic spells, time travel, vampires, and so on. Yet, they are increasingly disconnected from churches, priests, and dogmas that offer less to affluent societies.
Formal religion no longer has a central place, or function, in Western Europe, for example. Non-attendance at religious services, non marriage, a declining demand for religious counseling, etc., boil down to religious weakness. Thanks to secure living conditions, organized religion is marginalized there and increasingly irrelevant to the mainstream secular population. Its decline throughout the entire global economy seems inevitable.
You seem to be using the terms "personality" and "spirit" in the same brain-dependent sense, if not actually equating the two.
"And sometimes, if we look really hard and don’t find something it is because it simply isn’t there – as much as we wish it was."
Sometimes, yes. But might a "wishful" conclusion not also prove to be a correct one?
"To suggest something exists if ‘no physical means of investigation would reveal it’ is a leap of faith that can carry little weight when it is possible to provide quite reasonable explanations..."
To you, it may reek suspiciously of self-delusion, but it is not thereby proven so. How much weight can scientific probabilities and likelihoods carry when tackling the mystery of existence?
"Walking up to a doorway and stepping through without looking is a poor move if there is nothing on the other side ;)."
Most look, but few see. Perhaps it could be likened to one of those two-dimensional patterns that conceals a three-dimensional image; some fail to alter their vision (perception?) and thus see beyond the appearance. The old expression, "Some can’t see the forest for the trees" might also apply.
Finally: "…the light of Allah’s truth will often penetrate much easier an empty head, than one that is so crammed with learning that many a silver ray is crowded out for want of space."
What -- too trite? ;)
Psst, don't tell them all that! They will realize that the only way to delay the inevitable extinction of religion will be a global catastrophe or a third world war. It'll give them something new to pray for, i guess.
Thank god there is no god to listen to their prayers.
but dogma transcends reason for these pious, zealous whacks.
They sing about "God's Mercy" and chant that "God is Great"
I hope I'll be around to cheer in 2038....
It is a basic flaw of humans that, while rational, we are capable of the most irrational behavior---religion aside. Statistically, we can end most misery in the world. But human nature makes it impossible.
One example: Old diseases are making a comeback: plague, measles, polio and such because supposedly educated people vote with their fears to refuse inoculation. The suburban mom becomes the suspicious village witch doctor--vaccination bad.
Food, water, other resources are hoarded or squandered rather than distributed and shared. Who or what is there that can say what we "ought" to do?
Granted, the formality of church has become a lifeless show in many instances, and attendance at rituals has been forsaken for a better good---acting on positive beliefs, a personal pursuit of purposeful behavior.
But we cannot discard all that can enliven what our nasty little minds and hearts ignore---namely something that draws us out or lifts us from a brutish life.
Really? So the worst cruelties in history have been committed by Walmart shoppers?
"Statistically, we can end most misery in the world. But human nature makes it impossible. "
And that is based on a statistics that you have authored yourself?
"Old diseases are making a comeback: plague, measles, polio"
Wow... I am beginning to tremble in fear. The case you are referring to is a girl with immune deficiency. She would harbor the polio virus, even if her parents were atheists. And she likely got the virus IN A HOSPITAL, from another immune-deficient patient.
"Food, water, other resources are hoarded or squandered"
How's your lawn doing? Nice and green?
"Who or what is there that can say what we "ought" to do? "
That should be your parents, usually, and if Mom and Dad are halfway smart, they can do it without reference to the great punisher in the sky who will kick your little tush if you don't listen.
"-namely something that draws us out or lifts us from a brutish life."
Well, I have found that humanism works really well for that. You know... the idea that people should be nice to each other, even if nobody is threatening them with a burning tar pit?
:-)
"The case you are referring to" -- What case?
"And that is based on a statistics that you have authored yourself?"
No. We have plenty of resources, but they are not distributed well.
"people should be nice to each other" -- Who decides or defines what "nice" is?
Owes more to maturity and education I'd say.
I long for the day when a President elect (or a hopeful British Prime Minister even) has the courage or ability to stand without needing to go to church to cynically prove something. Am I right in thinking that in some US states that's it's still illegal for an atheist to run for office? So much for freedom of expression.
Unfortunately because religion has been bastardized so many times over so as to serve only those who lead the religions. the point was conditioning. Space> already inhabited. Already universal law, and if people had simply done as told none of this would be neccesary.
Now, wel probably have to annihilate some of your nations. The three most powerful plus one more, assuming you last that long.
Cant win em all.
Quote :
"Now, wel probably have to annihilate some of your nations. The three most powerful plus one more, assuming you last that long."
Not following your train of logic, "Xoleuess"... What "nations" are you talking about ?
Quote :
"...if people had simply done as told none of this would be neccesary."
What people ?
Told what ?
What wouldn't be necessary ?
Help us...We're in the dark here !....We are Americans, you know.
...No need to explain that to someone as knowledgeable as you !
J.B.
The alternative is to start from the question of a possible existence of (a) deity/deities and go on from there using evidence, reason, logic and discussion. Even if a decision is reached either way, it will be an informed one, probably not an absolute certainty and still open to reasoned question and debate. When two such people meet a dialogue can emerge - of possible benefit to them both.
Please respond if you want to, but do look at past posts to see if this view is supported - and debate, don't dictate! It is both aggressive and arrogant to tell people either what they think, or what they should think.
Big difference. Too bad that some can't see it.
:-)
:-)
Lots can happen in a millennia....
Of all those cousins about 10 of us, we all have children......and not a single one of us are raising our kids with religion or religious practice, that is where a lot of the coming secularization will come from as well.
And none of are purposefully thinking about not raising our kids the way we were with religion, it's just not relevant to us. I asked one cousin about it and his response was. I don't know, I just don't care about it, who wants to go to church anymore.
"Humans are still humans.....Apes are still apes...." Humans ARE a kind of Ape, we didn't come *from* Apes, we ARE a type of Ape Human, Chimpanzees, Gorillas are all a type of Ape.
"dogs are still dogs not cats"
Thats right dogs are dogs cats are cats, Hyenas are Hyenas. And Dogs, Cats, Hyenas, all are different evolutionary BRANCHES of the same kind of animal, one branch evolved in what we call Canines, and different branch evolved into what we call Felines.
Go take a look at the spotted Hyena.....It kinda looks like a Dog, but it also kinda looks like a Cat........and there is a reason for that.
The progression and rapid growth of information technology has removed religions ability to isolate cultures, and ideas from one another. The average 13 yr old has access to more information than Ronald Reagan had as President in the early 80's
That infinite access to information is providing more ideas, more information to be used by average people. I personally think as we see secularization rise and religion declining, we're are going to start seeing fundamentalist religion appear to becoming more and more extreme.