…eventually.
Actually, a better way of stating that would be that eventually there will be no religion. When that happens, while technically we’ll all be atheists, we won’t need to differentiate between theist and atheist, so there will be no Atheism either. Here’s why:
Religion is just a drug, a way of making people feel better about the insecurities in their lives. It arose when life was full of uncertainty. Where will the next meal comes from? Will I be attacked and eaten by a wild animal? Will I be struck by lightning? Will I live through child-birth? etc, etc.There was no way to understand the forces of nature that caused these uncertainties, so religion arose with explanations that were, well, more comforting than not knowing the real answers. Those explanations were supernatural.
It is inevitable that the accrual of human knowledge will be the death knell of religion. The reason why the supernatural arose as a conceptual explanation for the natural, was because the natural was unexplainable. But with the advances in human understanding of the natural world, primarily through science, supernatural explanations became increasingly superfluous; indeed ridiculous and delusional. In other words, the more we know, the less we need gods.
There is a reason why there is a high correlation between atheism on one hand and intelligence and education on the other. As the article linked to above demonstrates, the poorer, and hence more ignorant nations, are also the most highly religious. One could reasonably extrapolate from this that the type of people who cling so firmly to their religious beliefs are also those that are not intelligent enough to fully understand the nature of nature, so to speak, and are hence less secure in their environment and world. In short, life scares them. Enter god(s).
Here’s the money quote in the Psychology Today article.
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.
And this:
…with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people’s daily lives and hence less of a market for religion.
Is there a connection between the recent attempts in the US by the Republicans to limit social welfare programs and health insurance, not to mention the blatant attempt at union busting we saw in Wisconsin and other states, with an effort to maintain a level of fear and uncertainty that facilitates control by those in authority? Is it coincidence that the current form of these same Republicans also happen to be extremely religious? I think not. Look at the statement by Rick Perry on the official website of the National Prayer Rally he’s planning in Texas next month:
“Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters.”
“Natural Disasters”? The official response of the Governor of Texas to tornadoes is prayer? Is this the statement of a man confident in his abilities to roll up his sleeves and solve the problems of society (something he was elected to do) or is it a sentiment of complete insecurity and impotence in the face of natural trials and tribulations?
I vote for the latter.
Education doesn’t seem to be high on the list of priorities of Republicans. Creating bogeyman for us to fear is, as is reliance on delusional thinking about non-existent gods. Intelligent design in science class, revision of textbooks to mirror theocratic sensibilities, appeals to massive church endorsed prayer events to solve our economic and social problems, opposition to widespread health care for the masses, reliance on guns to protect ourselves; all of these things tend to keep us stupid and fearful. And let’s not forget the horrors of gay marriage.
What I can’t figure out is whether this is a manifestation of a conscious plan of specific people in authority to manipulate and control us for their personal benefit, or is it just a natural outgrowth of the memetic characteristics of religion. If it’s the latter (which I’m leaning toward) then the inexorable advance of human knowledge and civilization will eventually win out, unless we destroy ourselves before we get that far. I’ll admit it’s a race with an uncertain outcome.
Either way, though, there will be no religion in the end.
SPANISH INQUISITOR 
Maybe this is why the right is trying to torpedo the economy…
And this gives you an idea of what the American people will tolerate.
Nice sermon! Seriously though, why does empirical evidence seemingly go right out the window the minute you want to bolster the superiority of your own worldview? Don’t you think it’s a little inconsistent to demand empirical evidence for any and every claim a theist makes, while you yourself make a litany of claims with no evidence whatsoever? How does that not get to you??
Evidence?
Any evidence please? Or, is this just your opinion?
Newsflash: life is still full of uncertainty, so spare us the rhetoric.
Any evidence? Or, is this just your opinion?
Ah, yes, that’s got to be it: all the atheists are super-duper, uber-confident, and rational, and those who disagree are uneducated, feeble and scared! LOL!
Any evidence for this alleged conspiracy? Or, are you just going with whatever seems to jibe with your own intuitions?
Any evidence for this alleged conspiracy? Or, are you just going with whatever seems to jibe with your own intuitions?
Years ago, in a past life, I was a rather right wing conservative. In reading a lot of their literature, I remember one of their themes was that prior to the New Deal, charity services was almost exclusively the domain of churches and religious organizations. The New Deal undermined that. Therefore, the New Deal had to be dismantled so that social welfare services could be restored to their rightful place. There was some element to that with George W. Bush’s faith based initiatives.
I wouldn’t go the level of calling it a conspiracy, but there is a segment of the Republican Party that wants to move in that direction.
Let me pull a cl here and ask — where did I allege conspiracy?
“Restoring” these programs is not the same as “limiting” them. What you describe sounds more like the old-school Republican ethic I can actually get down with. SI seems to be describing something different. At any rate, the point was just to ask for evidence, so I’ll wait to see if he has any.
My post speaks for itself.
You know, if you took the time to take it at face value, rather than parsing every word and sentence, we might have a good give-and-take discussion. But you’re not interested in that, so I’m not interested in responding to stupid questions.
If you disagree with it, say why.
Are you kidding? I did say why: you made all these claims, yet, I don’t see a single shred of empirical evidence to back any of them up. Then, if a theist so much as claims to have went #2, you’ll demand to know the precise coordinates of the bathroom, whether or not it was public or residential, right on down to the type of toilet tissue used and even the number of squares for good measure–but you apparently don’t hold yourself to such rigorous standards.
Now, if you’d cite some evidence, or even a decent argument, yeah, we might be able to have a good give-and-take, and I’m interested. If you ask me, the person who replies with foul language and juvenile insults is the person not interested in having a good give-and-take. So don’t pull that crap.
You disagreed with my supposed claim that there was a conspiracy afoot. I made no such claim.
Perhaps you didn’t notice the question marks. I made no argument. I asked questions. I’m sure you could arrive at some answers.
Do you even read before you respond? That was ONE of SIX claims I disagreed with. Now, you say you made no such claim, but if that’s the case, then why don’t you just clarify what you meant? Usually, when somebody makes a sentence of the variant, “Is it just a coincidence that X -> Y?”, then says, “I think not,” that implies that the person thinks there is a reason X -> Y. In this case, the only reason that seems to make sense would be an act of intentional maneuvering on behalf of the Republican party. If that is NOT what you meant, then, what DID you mean?
Yes, SI, you asked a question, a rhetorical question that was followed by an answer of, “I think not.” At any rate, the “conspiracy” issue is but one issue in a post with many issues. So, do you have any evidence for your claims here? If not, why should we believe them? More importantly, IMHO, why do you appear to hold theists to a higher evidential standard than yourself and your atheist pals?
No. “Fuckin idiot” is my middle name.
But that doesn’t mean I know what the reason is. It could be a conspiracy, but if you had read down further in the post, you would have noticed this:
Perhaps you should change your middle name?
I read the entire post, SI. I read that line, and when I got to it, I thought, “Well that’s weird… if he doesn’t know whether he thinks it’s a conscious plan or a memetic coincidence, why would he say ‘I think not’ after asking if it was ‘just a coincidence’?”
So, if you’re not sure, why did you say you thought it WASN’T “just a coincidence?” That’s the part that doesn’t make sense.
Oh, and while you’re at it, can you provide the evidence for those other claims?
Ha, that’s funny: “let me pull a cl here” … and then you ask a question in the interest of clarifying. Yeah, I suppose I’ll take that as an unintended compliment.
At any rate, you seemed to imply it in the paragraph I cited. If it’s not “just a coincidence,” then there must be some intentional maneuvering, right?
No. But you’re a smart guy, I think you can figure it out.
Please explain how a series of political moves can be neither the product of intentional maneuvering nor just a coincidence. It seems to me there are only two options, but maybe I’m overlooking something. If I am, I trust you can help me out by explaining in greater detail.
To paint it as a conspiracy is to conjure up images of a group of shadowy far right conservatives meeting in an undisclosed location plotting to destroy the social safety net or bust the unions so that they can get more people to become religious and go to church. I certainly don’t think such a thing is going on, though it wouldn’t surprise me if some movement conservatives mentally make the connection and see it as a beneficial outcome. Others, particularly among what I call The Wall Street Journal wing of the Republican Party, are averse to the government providing social welfare services and view churches and religious groups as a convenient dumping ground. Or, they view the social welfare as damaging to society and promoting dependency. While I have not read his book, Myron Magnet’s The Dream and The Nightmare (if I remember the title correctly), which blames welfate policies and a permissive culture in the Sixties for crime and social disintegration in the inner cities, was an influence on George W. Bush’s faith based initiatives policies.
As for whether or not religion will be supplanted by atheism, the problem with saying that is that “religion” is itself a vague term that can mean a lot of things. Religious beliefs and expressions change and adapt over time. For example, how will Muslim colonists on Mars handle the whole praying towards Mecca bit? Or observant Jews trying to keep the Sabbath? Assuming humans manage to colonize space, it is possible some religions will give birth to reform movements that reinvent them to adapt and survive.
One factor that at least in the short term works against the argument that atheism will supplant religion is demographic. I don’t have statistics at hand, but I think it is safe to say that devoutly religious people have more children than atheists and secularists. And orthodox religious communities tend to be more insular in nature, which results in a greater pressure to conform to community expectations. Thus, while it might happen from time to time that someone from an Orthodox Jewish community will leave that community and declare themselves to be an atheist, it does not occur enough to make a dent in the community’s growth, let alone threaten its survival.
In order for atheists to supplant that, there would have to be a unified atheist movement that encouraged its members to have lots of children, or alternatively, to adopt, thus raising ever larger generations of secular humanists who could demographically overwhelm religious people, thereby electing majorities to political office. Honestly, I don’t see that happening.
If history is any guide, humans wil always find some reason to engage in violent conflict with one another. There will be no utopian future where all humans become rational and peaceful atheists, or devout Muslims living in Islamic brotherhood, or devout Christians living in harmonious Christian fellowship. Rather, we will all have to manage to more or less coexist with one another in our diversity and work together to address common problems that affect us all.
I agree. That’s why SI’s comment took me aback. That’s what he seemed to be implying, despite his closing appeal to uncertainty.
Again, I agree. That’s why I didn’t react to SI’s post with too much favor. It’s just preaching, with emotionally charged keywords.
Yes, that’s one of many objections that could be raised. You’ve actually done a decent job of backing up what you say with logic and argument, and I like that you include disclaimers (i.e., “I don’t have statistics on hand”). That is all consistent with somebody thinking critically as opposed to simply pushing their unsupported views on others.
Well, when it comes to this Earth, I agree. That’s why I react so unfavorably to the whole haughty-taughty atheist thing, and by that I mean the subset of atheists who acts like their poo don’t stink and points the finger at believers for things they themselves do. Plenty of that around here!
At any rate, thanks for an intelligent and thoughtful comment.
That being said, I think there is a good case to be made that there are elements of far right conservatives plotting to destroy the social safety net or bust the unions.
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/alec-exposed-and-it-aint-pretty
Of course if ol’ Paul was right, there will be no atheism in the end (Philippians 2:9-11).
Of course if ol’ Siddartha was right, there is no end. 😉