Atheism is a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Why do modern conditions produce atheism? Does this mean that religion is on the way out?
First, as to the distribution of atheism in the world, an instructive pattern emerges. In sub-Saharan Africa there is almost no atheism.1 Belief in God declines in more developed countries and atheism 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 U.S. is more religious than other developed countries with only about one person in eight expressing disbelief).
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.
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.2 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.3 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. 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 spectatorship yields much the same kind of social, and spiritual, benefits as people obtain from church membership. Precisely the same argument can be made for other forms of entertainment with which spectators become deeply involved. Indeed, organized 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 daily life 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.
The market has spoken. It is predicting more empty pews but only in developed countries. Religious belief continues unabated among poor countries. Ironically, these are the places with the highest fertility so that the number of religious people on the planet will increase along with the population explosion.
In the end, though, as African countries develop, they will become as godless as Europe.
Ultimately, organized religion is on the way out. The only thing that could prevent this from happening would be a sharp decline in global standards of living. That would require some form of ecological collapse. Think a very large asteroid, a very nasty epidemic, extreme global warming, or derivatives traders rum amok.
1. 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.
2. Barber, N. (in press). A cross-national test of the uncertainty hypothesis of religious belief. Cross-Cultural Research.
3. Sanderson, S. K. (2008). Adaptation, evolution, and religion. Religion, 38, 141-156.
Amarnath Amarasingam: Are American College Professors Religious?
Though this assumes religious dogma does not result in the destruction of our planet first.
Also, Marx was not being contemptuous of religion when he called it the opium of the people. Read the quote in its context. Only people who haven't read Marx use this quote in the context of contempt.
Lastly, atheism is not a particularly modern concept. It has a rich tradition in ancient philosophical traditions throughout the world. Epicurus in Greece, Lucretius in Rome, the Carvaka tradition in India, early Buddhism, etc., all attest to the strength of atheist thought in ancient times.
Wasn't this already prophesized in the Bible?
Sorry. Probably everyone else understands your point.
Mr. Barber, the Judeo-Christian religions have been anticipating your thoughts since the writing of the book of Genesis:
"Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and SUBDUE it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
Or, as Ronald Reagan's infamous Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, was reputed to say: "When the last tree is cut down, Christ will come back."
In this context, the unholy alliance between scorched-Earth capitalism and Evangelical Christianity makes some sense. Oh, I'm sure that the Evangelicals plan to continue enjoying their OWN creature comforts. But where will the next generation of faithful come from? They know -- just as you do -- that poor, desperate people are their best recruits. The Evangelicals will be ready with food relief, wasting no opportunity to say, "would you like a side of Jesus with that?" as they dish out their gruel.
I propose to you that at least some of the rabid Christians who deny man-made global warming today actually DO BELIEVE in it -- and WANT it to happen.
It's too early to judge the impact of increasing disbelief in western Nations. Again article is misleading, as scientific fact can't be determined rejecting Retro-analysis.
The current trend of western nations, with economic woes, disease etc is actually more dangerously negative than positive. The Humansystem is more complicated than just the few factors measured in the word "development" or economic security as used.
There're more categories than just "atheism" and "religion". Indeed atheism is further divided into so many conflicting branches. I'ts more fit to call popular atheists "believers in disbelief", which automatically makes 'atheism' religion.
The current trend actually has it that there are more especially female professionals in Middle East Nations than theWest. Iran for instance has a much higher % of all educated and 2Xs the number of Phd holding females than the US. So in truth development is tied to education, as we see great development, advancement and economic security there, but education is not tied to atheism.
Development and economic security in the Northern nations is simply due to exploitation.
In conclusion- A more realistic and defensible study will be the tying of western education with greed and exploitation, resulting in transient and highly unstable, un-ecological economic advancement. I suggest such research
Please also review the religious views of the founding fathers. If you look at the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, you will find the Jefferson explicitly left out not just god, but also the idea of a "creator". The phrase "endowed by their creator" was added in a later draft.
Thanks.
The point being that to live a godless life is preferrable. Logically if we progress along this line we are free to experience what we wish and can achieve without outdated moralistic restraints. Life is truly our own. Why would we not prefer to live without moral restraints and no "god".
Who can rebut this obvious truth? Please try if you are able.
Buddhism can be said to be essentially atheistic, especially Theravadin Buddhism. Confucianism is also more-or-less atheistic. Both of these systems are deeply moral/ethical.
You assume the "choice" is either your xian mythology or debauchary (a godless life?).
You conflate xian mythology, morality and ethics; you appear unable to differentiate these.
You apparently do not know the ACTUAL CONTENTS of the mythology you endorse as morality or you would recoil in horror at the acts the god of your bible commands you, OT or NT.
Lip77 - "Why should we spend effort in support of a non-issue."
The results of religious ignorance, discrimination, bigotry, and intolerance are NOT non-issues.
Thanks
and
Be Well,
Bob Griffin
I believe Democritus was perhaps the best known of the Atomists. I am uncertain as to whether Hobbes was an atheist (he proposed a state church, but not from issues of faith). Hume probably was an atheist.
Bertrand Russell was perhaps the best known atheist of the early 20th century.
Be Well,
Bob Griffin
This may explain why those who stand to profit from religion's continued influence favor simplistic thought and pseudoscientific teachings in our education system... doing so helps to preserve (and sometimes even expand) their potential market share.
That does seem like an area I wouldnt expect to find many atheists.