Atheism: A Dying Belief?

[seer]

Very interesting, it seems that the religious minded are winning the evolutionary race: The materialistic process seems to be selecting out materialists. Go figure...

Question: Who will inherit the earth? Answer: Whoever has the most children, says Eric Kaufmann, professor of politics at the University of London.

"In the race for souls, demography counts for more than eloquence. And demographic reality is very much slanted against secularism: what no one has noticed is that far from declining, the religious are expanding their share of the population because secular birthrates have plunged below replacement," says Kaufmann's website regarding his research.

Others have also noticed these trends. "The world's Muslim population is expected to increase by about 35 percent in the next 20 years, rising from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030," says a summary of a Pew Forum study.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...the-earth.html

[shunyadragon]

Well, maybe lunacy will rule the earth. There is a ray of hope, secularism is growing in Europe, and the more universal view of the Baha'i Faith is growing more common.

[MWM958]

well the demographics says nothing about the validity of the worldview (and i dont think either of you are making that assertion), but its interesting to look at.

but as for secularism "growing in Europe", ehhh well it is in a sense but the secular cultures aren't having kids while the religious people are exponentially multiplying.

[Angra Mainyu]

Very interesting, it seems that the religious minded are winning the evolutionary race: The materialistic process seems to be selecting out materialists. Go figure...



http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...the-earth.html

Not sure what "materialistic process" means, but nearly all atheists in the West come from traditionally Christian families, and many – perhaps most – were raised as Christians of one denomination or another (in my case, Catholic).

It seems most versions of Christianity today aren't as strong as past versions of Christianity when it comes to passing from one generation to the next.

On the other hand, it seems nearly all descendants of Muslims are Muslims – Islamic societies tend to punish dissent much more strongly, so that might predispose people to persist in their Muslim beliefs.

So, Islam is poised to grow considerably. But many people raise as Christians could become atheists in the future. I don't see any reason to believe that that's going to stop happening.

That aside, most atheists in the world don't live in the West: China and Japan still have plenty of people.

In China, the one-child policy keeps population growth at bay, but on the other hand, they're not likely to be displaced even if Muslim population grows elsewhere.

Moreover, if the Chinese government were facing an influx of fast-breeding Muslim illegal immigrants, they would probably forcibly crackdown on illegal immigration. And if that were insufficient, then they would even lift the one-child policy, at least in the areas of the country in which Han Chinese are at risk of becoming a minority as a result of being outbred by another group – and Han Chinese are not converting to Islam or Christianity on a massive scale.

Also, one of the traditional tools for the expansion of religions (namely, conquest) is not available now, and there is no good reason to believe it will become available for the foreseeable future.

So, in short, I see no good reason to conclude at this point that atheism is a dying breed (well, eventually, everyone will be dead, so that's going to take care of it, but I mean for the foreseeable future).

[seer]

Well, maybe lunacy will rule the earth. There is a ray of hope, secularism is growing in Europe, and the more universal view of the Baha'i Faith is growing more common.

Actually Shuny, secularism is falling even in Europe, see the link. Kaufmann speaks on the issue.

http://fora.tv/2010/09/05/Eric_Kaufm...erit_the_Earth

Second, the Baha'i Faith is not secular, so I'm not sure what your point is.

[seer]

Not sure what "materialistic process" means, but nearly all atheists in the West come from traditionally Christian families, and many – perhaps most – were raised as Christians of one denomination or another (in my case, Catholic).

It seems most versions of Christianity today aren't as strong as past versions of Christianity when it comes to passing from one generation to the next.

On the other hand, it seems nearly all descendants of Muslims are Muslims – Islamic societies tend to punish dissent much more strongly, so that might predispose people to persist in their Muslim beliefs.

So, Islam is poised to grow considerably. But many people raise as Christians could become atheists in the future. I don't see any reason to believe that that's going to stop happening.

That aside, most atheists in the world don't live in the West: China and Japan still have plenty of people.

In China, the one-child policy keeps population growth at bay, but on the other hand, they're not likely to be displaced even if Muslim population grows elsewhere.

Moreover, if the Chinese government were facing an influx of fast-breeding Muslim illegal immigrants, they would probably forcibly crackdown on illegal immigration. And if that were insufficient, then they would even lift the one-child policy, at least in the areas of the country in which Han Chinese are at risk of becoming a minority as a result of being outbred by another group – and Han Chinese are not converting to Islam or Christianity on a massive scale.

Also, one of the traditional tools for the expansion of religions (namely, conquest) is not available now, and there is no good reason to believe it will become available for the foreseeable future.

So, in short, I see no good reason to conclude at this point that atheism is a dying breed (well, eventually, everyone will be dead, so that's going to take care of it, but I mean for the foreseeable future).

The numbers don't lie. It's not only the Muslims that are out breeding the atheists, it's also the fundy Christians and Fundy Jews - in the US and around the world generally.

This link gets into the actual numbers

http://www.sneps.net/

"View talk from Festival of Dangerous Ideas, Sydney Opera House, Oct 3, 2010"

[seer]

well the demographics says nothing about the validity of the worldview (and i dont think either of you are making that assertion), but its interesting to look at.

but as for secularism "growing in Europe", ehhh well it is in a sense but the secular cultures aren't having kids while the religious people are exponentially multiplying.

I just think this is interesting. It wasn’t that long ago that more than one atheist was writing the obituary for religion. That man no longer needs these beliefs. What is even more ironic is that the religionists will win on evolutionary grounds - by simply out breeding the opposition. That atheism is hoisted on its own petard. Through the operation of the very theory that they hold so central.

[Angra Mainyu]

The numbers don't lie. It's not only the Muslims that are out breeding the atheists, it's also the fundy Christians and Fundy Jews - in the US and around the world generally.

This link gets into the actual numbers

http://www.sneps.net/

"View talk from Festival of Dangerous Ideas, Sydney Opera House, Oct 3, 2010"

I'm not questioning the numbers, but rather, I'm pointing out that I see no good reason to conclude at this point that atheism is a dying breed, for the reasons explained in my previous post.

You seem to miss my points, so let me summarize (for more details, please read my previous post):

1) A lot of atheists live in China and Japan. Even if the number of Chinese and Japanese as a proportion of the world's population drops, it's still a lot of people, and they're not being outbred where they live as far as one can tell.

2) Nearly all atheists in the West come from Christian families. So, even if Christians have more children than atheists, and even if atheists have very few children, if previous trends continue (or if they don't change so much), there will be plenty of atheists who will be not the descendants of atheists, but of Christians.

I think there are other reasons to think that atheism will not disappear in the long run, but not reasons that I could persuade a Christian of, so I'm trying to use two that (I hope) Christians won't likely dismiss on faith.

[Angra Mainyu]

I just think this is interesting. It wasn’t that long ago that more than one atheist was writing the obituary for religion. That man no longer needs these beliefs. What is even more ironic is that the religionists will win on evolutionary grounds - by simply out breeding the opposition. That atheism is hoisted on its own petard. Through the operation of the very theory that they hold so central.

The fact that you're not taking into consideration is that the offspring of Christians or Muslims can be atheists.

In the case of Muslims, that's probably very rare (see my first post in this thread), but that's less common with Christians.

To use an obvious example: I'm an atheist. I was raised as a Catholic. My father was probably a Catholic, and my mother went from Catholic to (probably) agnostic. My grandparents were apparently all Catholic.

The point is that Christians parents does not only give you a Christian offspring.

In fact, a few centuries ago, atheism was a lot rarer in Europe than it is today, and Christianity a lot more common. The increased frequency of atheism and decreased frequency of Christianity did not result from faster breeding among atheists than among Christians, but from Christians having atheist offspring.

That's where the evolutionary analogy fails (well, there are some mutations in the evolutionary process too, but nothing like the likelihood that Christian parents would have daughters or sons who will become atheists).

On the other hand, it seems to be true that in Islam, that change from one generation to the next appears to be much rarer, so while we can't predict the end of atheism, we can predict that there will probably be a greater percentage of Muslims in the world, at least in the short and medium term.

ETA: If you're suggesting that atheism would disappear because theism will be favored by selection, you would have to assume that atheism and theism are mostly the result of genetics, which does not appear to be the case.

While a predisposition to acquire the beliefs of one's parents (or those present in the environment) already exists in humans, and maybe a predisposition to assume purpose, that's not the same as a "gene for God" (most people in most past civilizations didn't believe in God, but some other entities), or a gene that eliminates atheism.

One reason for that is that we also have a capability to reason and, based on the evidence, change beliefs we were predisposed to having (e.g, modern physics allows us to realize that our intuitive, pre-theoretical folk-physics is often wrong, when we consider phenomena very different from those that happened in the ancestral environment - i.e., the environment in which we evolved).

And so, people can reach atheism by reason.

Of course, I don't expect Christians to accept that, but in any case, let me stress the point that the atheists of today are, in many cases (nearly all in the West), the descendants of Christians, and the change from Christianity to atheism was not the result of genetic changes as far as one can tell.

The issues of religions, atheism, etc., seems to be cases in which cultural changes go much faster than evolutionary changes could, so an evolutionary model would not work.

Moreover, if we're talking long-distant future, then we need to consider genetic engineering, and then all bets are off.

[Teallaura]

Um, in the US only a tiny proportion of Christians ever become atheists. And atheists can become Christians - like I did. Conversion is likely a wash at present.

And Christianity is a growing religion in China...

[Angra Mainyu]

Um, in the US only a tiny proportion of Christians ever become atheists. And atheists can become Christians - like I did. Conversion is likely a wash at present.

And Christianity is a growing religion in China...

While only a tiny proportion of Christians become atheists in the US, the fact is that nearly all of the atheists living today in the US and Europe are the descendants of Christians (since they're mostly the descendants of Europeans and Europe was almost entirely Christian a few centuries ago).

So, the fact remains that atheism does not exist today in the West because atheists were reproducing fast enough, but because a number of people raised as Christians (yes, a low proportions since most people haven't become atheists, but still many enough to result in the picture we see today) became atheists when they grew up.

As for China, Christianity is growing but not at a fast pace, and Chinese nationalism (coupled with rejection to Western religions, including Christianity) is growing as well: we'll see where it goes, but there is no evidence indicating that atheism is at risk of disappearing in either China or Japan.

[Teallaura]

The US ain't Europe. China and Japan aren't good parallels. Arguing from conversion because China had it enforced, Japan is being Japan (namely weird, religion wise) and Europe adopted a strong left 60 years ago is just silly. Unless there's a high conversion rate atheism doesn't fare well in the passing it to the next generation department.

Mind you, predicting from pop growth is just as silly. We're all supposed to be starving now - according to what they taught us back in the 70's. Seer's article is an interesting bit of info but not much more.

[Angra Mainyu]

The US ain't Europe. China and Japan aren't good parallels. Arguing from conversion because China had it enforced, Japan is being Japan (namely weird, religion wise) and Europe adopted a strong left 60 years ago is just silly. Unless there's a high conversion rate atheism doesn't fare well in the passing it to the next generation department.

Mind you, predicting from pop growth is just as silly. We're all supposed to be starving now - according to what they taught us back in the 70's. Seer's article is an interesting bit of info but not much more.

That the US isn't Europe is irrelevant to the question of whether atheism is a dying belief. I used examples from different parts of the world in order to show that the belief that atheism is a dying belief, is unwarranted.

Your claim that China and Japan aren't good parallels is unrelated to my points. Good parallels to what?

In any event, I was not trying to make any parallels. Instead, I was using examples from different parts of the world in order to show that the belief that atheism is a dying belief is unwarranted.

The “argument from conversion” is not limited to Europe in the past 60 years, and is not even related to China – I wasn't making an argument from deconversion using China.

In the case of the West – not just Europe – the fact remains that the atheists of today are, in nearly all cases, the descendants of Christians of the past, which shows that there is enough deconversion to see the amount of atheism that we see in the world today.

In the case of China, lack of belief in God (i.e., “an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being) didn't need enforcing: Buddhism was already common.

The fact that the communists suppressed pretty much all religions doesn't change the fact that there already was plenty of atheism there.

Moreover, there is no indication of a trend towards extinction of atheism in China.

As for your claim that unless there is a high “conversion” rate, atheism doesn't fare well, that depends: how “high” do you consider high?

It's true that if there is not enough reproduction of atheists, then maintaining or increasing level of atheism depends on deconversion. My point is, precisely, that deconversions from Christianity have been enough in the past, and no evidence has been given showing that that will not be the case in the future.

Therefore, as I said, the belief that atheism is a dying belief is unwarranted: arguments from population growth don't show that - which you seem to agree, but you mistakenly characterize my arguments as “silly”: let me make this clear. I'm not saying that atheism will certainly not become less common: it might.

What I'm saying is that no good evidence or reasons in support of the claim that it will decline – let alone the claim it'll disappear - have been presented, since in the past, it wasn't reproduction but deconversions which led to the present situation in the West, and in other places, like China and Japan, no evidence that atheists are being outbred has been presented, either.

In short, I'm not claiming the claim is false, but that it's unwarranted.

And sure, if deconversion rates fall significantly in the West, that would be a problem for atheism in the West. But no evidence of that has been presented in this thread.

By the way, the fact that some people made bad arguments based on population growth because they failed to account for other variables does not invalidate arguments using population growth in general: given that we do have information about demographic trends, it stands to reason that that information can be used, so we can make predictions using that, but one needs to take into account other factors as well, as always.

[Angra Mainyu]

Just to add a point: even if the percentage of people raised as atheists who become theists is about the same as the percentage of people raised as theists who become atheists, or even if atheists never reproduce (which would be odd), atheism would not disappear unless the percentage of people raised as theists who become atheists drops to zero (no evidence that this will happen) ..

To put some numbers, if, say, just 0.1% of the children of Christians grow up to be atheists, atheists never, ever reproduce, and Christians make up at least, say, 10% of the world's population, there would be at least 0.01% of atheists in every generation.

If the global population is at least 6500000000, that would mean 650000 atheists per generation.

So, atheism would still not disappear in that scenario, regardless of how fast theists breed.

Real numbers probably wouldn't be that bad for atheism, but the point is that even in an extremely negative scenario, atheism would have a lower bound.

Of course, one can conceive of scenarios in which atheism disappears, but there is no good reason to believe that that's happening - at least, not based on the arguments/evidence presented here so far.

[phaedrus]

Again we seem to be using two kinds of numbers depending upon what we are arguing. If we are Christian and we want to argue that Christianity that is a growing faith, we include Catholics and anybody who ticks 'Christian' on a form regardless of spiritual practice. If we are Christians and want to argue the world is going to hell in a handbasket and Christians are a small persecuted minority in today's evil secular society, we point out that most people who call themselves 'Christian' probably aren't. I just wish you'd make up your mind.