|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why evolution is killing atheism
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
It's official. Atheists are a dying breed. At least that's the conclusion of this atheist geneticist. The argument (which I've referred to on other threads) is straightforward. Nations in which atheism is a strongly-held belief are not keeping up with the replacement rate for their dying adults. Theists produce more babies, particularly in countries where theism is the normal worldview.
Evolutionary forces, it seems, are destined to ensure the survival of theism and condemn atheism to a slow extinction.
One Christian commentator described this as "ironic".
How would you describe it?
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'd describe it as a fallacious assumption that the children of theists will be theists.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The logic also fails in that it relates birth rates in nations to relative acceptance of theism. The differences in birth rates between nations is complex, dependent strongly on factors such as economic strength, infant mortality rates etc.
A comparison between birth rates among atheists and theists within individual countries accounting for recognise co-factors such as poverty might be more informative - but would probably show a very small difference in birth rates.
The biggest fallacy of course is using a model of genetic inheritance for non-inherited traits.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
In fact, asking a geneticist about this, instead of someone like a sociologist, is spectacularly wrong-headed and shows that the person asking the question has headed down the route of treating religious belief as if it's carried on chromosome 15 (just next to the genes determining eye colour) without any justification for doing so.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's ridiculous - and wrong.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Spurious correlations and ideas of relationship between things abound. For example, the correlation of per capita consumption of mozzarella cheese (US) correlates with civil engineering doctorates awarded (US) at the level of 0.96.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
People who eat chocolate live longer; therefore, eating chocolate makes you live longer. Well, no.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It gets even more ridiculous if one thinks through the observations. Suppose there IS a God gene that is a reliable predictor of theism. How does one explain the severe drop in the presence of the gene in European populations in recent centuries? It can only have been because those lacking the gene were outbreeding those who had it. That's the very opposite of the claimed theory.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Spurious correlations and ideas of relationship between things abound. For example, the correlation of per capita consumption of mozzarella cheese (US) correlates with civil engineering doctorates awarded (US) at the level of 0.96.
This thread may have just introduced me to the best website in the history of the internet.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It gets even more ridiculous if one thinks through the observations. Suppose there IS a God gene that is a reliable predictor of theism. How does one explain the severe drop in the presence of the gene in European populations in recent centuries? It can only have been because those lacking the gene were outbreeding those who had it. That's the very opposite of the claimed theory.
It's interesting that the English working class appears to have largely stopped going to church from about 1800, whereas the middle class carried on. I'm trying to square this with the OP - does it mean that the working class were having sex with their knees crossed?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
People who eat chocolate live longer; therefore, eating chocolate makes you live longer. Well, no.
Tell you what, let's test this. Dibs on not being in the control group.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
People who eat chocolate live longer; therefore, eating chocolate makes you live longer. Well, no.
Tell you what, let's test this. Dibs on not being in the control group.
I think it was a tabloid headline a few years ago. They regularly confuse correlation with causation. I'm OK with being in the control group, as at my age, one bar of chocolate = a larger jean size.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it was a tabloid headline a few years ago. They regularly confuse correlation with causation.
The flip side is, of course, that you get some who hear "correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation" and go too far the other way, interpreting it as "correlation doesn't mean causation" - that way can lead to denialism. e.g. with regards to climate change.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
Interesting. Where's the evidence that children of theists in African, Asian and South American countries are less likely to be theists than their parents?
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In fact, asking a geneticist about this, instead of someone like a sociologist, is spectacularly wrong-headed and shows that the person asking the question has headed down the route of treating religious belief as if it's carried on chromosome 15 (just next to the genes determining eye colour) without any justification for doing so.
That's really quite funny. In criticising an idea on the basis of its source you've just committed the genetic fallacy ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
I always understood Evolution to be a description of gradual change and differentiation as the result of the interplay between environment and genetic mutations.
So far, the contention seems to be that some people are having more children than some others - but not necessary better - in the sense of having an evolutionary advantage - children.
Given the escalating disaster that is the intersection between population, resources and climate change, I doubt if either numbers, or a confidence in a God who, alas, is not there to help, is going to be of much use.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
People who eat chocolate live longer; therefore, eating chocolate makes you live longer. Well, no.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd describe it as a fallacious assumption that the children of theists will be theists.
That's not what it is saying, is it? It appears to be saying that theists have more children, not whether or not their children will be theists.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd describe it as a fallacious assumption that the children of theists will be theists.
That's not what it is saying, is it? It appears to be saying that theists have more children, not whether or not their children will be theists.
Yes, you're right: it's not. That is what the OPer is assuming. Fallaciously, as Orfeo points out.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd describe it as a fallacious assumption that the children of theists will be theists.
That's not what it is saying, is it? It appears to be saying that theists have more children, not whether or not their children will be theists.
It's both Nick. Globally, the cultures that have the most kids also hold to theistic worldview. The article itself (which has other interesting stuff in you fancy a read) draws particular attention to cultures with a Christian worldview. The problem with some of the counter arguments to this (children will not necessarily share the faith of their parents) is that they overlay a Northern hemisphere individualistic cultural worldview on cultures that operate to fundamentally different principles.
It may or may not be the case that certain cultures replace their dead successfully because they are theistic. It's just a statistical fact that cultures that are more populous also hold theistic worldviews which are so strongly embedded in their societies that there is no indication that this will change in any foreseeable future.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
So far, the contention seems to be that some people are having more children than some others - but not necessary better - in the sense of having an evolutionary advantage - children.
Isn't that the point of evolution? If you produce more offspring you are evolutionarily "fitter"... the fact that those offspring are thick, weak, or whatever is really not relevant...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd describe it as a fallacious assumption that the children of theists will be theists.
That's not what it is saying, is it? It appears to be saying that theists have more children, not whether or not their children will be theists.
The scholar of demography and religion, Eric Kaufmann, has said that even in Europe, for example, religious people tend to have more children than non-religious people. Even though secularisation ensures that some of these children will abandon religious belief and/or practice, the higher birthrate - especially among the strictest religious groups - will ensure that religion will remain a force in society.
Moreover, the demographic decline specifically in secular Western Europe generates an ongoing need for immigration, which tends to be from much more religious countries. Immigrants do have smaller families over time, but they still have more children than the host population.
[ 29. May 2014, 20:26: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
So far, the contention seems to be that some people are having more children than some others - but not necessary better - in the sense of having an evolutionary advantage - children.
Isn't that the point of evolution? If you produce more offspring you are evolutionarily "fitter"... the fact that those offspring are thick, weak, or whatever is really not relevant...
Not necessarily. From an evolutionary point of view having more offspring isn't a success, having more offspring that survive to sexual maturity is. If thickness, weakness, or whateverness has a negative survival correlation higher than the positive boost associated with hyperfecundity, it's an evolutionary loser.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
So far, the contention seems to be that some people are having more children than some others - but not necessary better - in the sense of having an evolutionary advantage - children.
Isn't that the point of evolution? If you produce more offspring you are evolutionarily "fitter"... the fact that those offspring are thick, weak, or whatever is really not relevant...
The trouble with the Forces of Evolution and numbers is the subtext - 99.9% of these individuals will perish.
But as been pointed out already, the FoE are not in fact running this game. It is human societies we need to look at, not natural selection.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Moreover, the demographic decline specifically in secular Western Europe generates an ongoing need for immigration, which tends to be from much more religious countries. Immigrants do have smaller families over time, but they still have more children than the host population.
It appears that even in majority muslim countries that the birthrates are falling, just like the rest of the world.
I have a hunch about all of this: Urban families have fewer kids than rural and suburban families. Nations are becoming more urbanized. Does anyone have anything on this?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The trouble with the Forces of Evolution and numbers is the subtext - 99.9% of these individuals will perish.
Surely the number is actually 100%.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
It's just a statistical fact that cultures that are more populous also hold theistic worldviews which are so strongly embedded in their societies that there is no indication that this will change in any foreseeable future.
Sunday trading was long unregulated in Scotland because, it was reasoned, a nation so enthusiastically Sabbatarian needed no laws on the subject. Yes, well.
It's like men in hats. For centuries - millennia even - you wore something on your head: it was unthinkable not to. There were a whole set of behaviour and social signifiers which depended on it. And then you didn't.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The trouble with the Forces of Evolution and numbers is the subtext - 99.9% of these individuals will perish.
Surely the number is actually 100%.
I should have specified 'will perish before getting born/maturing/mating/reproducing'
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Moreover, the demographic decline specifically in secular Western Europe generates an ongoing need for immigration, which tends to be from much more religious countries. Immigrants do have smaller families over time, but they still have more children than the host population.
It appears that even in majority muslim countries that the birthrates are falling, just like the rest of the world.
I have a hunch about all of this: Urban families have fewer kids than rural and suburban families. Nations are becoming more urbanized. Does anyone have anything on this?
Well, it's all relative, isn't it? There is a prediction that the worldwide population is going to start to decline in the 2nd half of the 21st century, but the interesting question is whether the birthrate in 'the Muslim world' (which is huge and varied!) will fall to below replacement level, as is happening in several European countries.
Urbanisation obviously impacts on the size of families in the developing world. Children aren't needed to work on the farms, and contraception is more easily available than in rural areas. Education is also more accessible - and education for women is a large factor in reducing family sizes.
Kaufmann talks very interestingly about some of these issues in this video. It's a bit long, but worth listening to for those who have the time.
[ 29. May 2014, 21:20: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
I try to remember to watch it tonight after the pool and the Braves game.
You may also find this interesting, too.
Key facts:
Iran's fertility rate declined by more than 70 percent between 1975 and 2005. Its level is comparable with the New England states, the region in America with the lowest fertility.
A woman in Oman today has 5.6 fewer babies than a woman in Oman 30 years ago.
Algeria, Bangladesh, and Morocco all have fertility levels corresponding to the state of Texas, while Indonesia's is almost identical to Arkansas'.
Lebanon's fertility level is lower than New York State's.
--------------
I currently suspect the future will look more like Children of Men than Soylent Green. That is, unless it becomes the Walking Dead or Jericho.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Interesting. Where's the evidence that children of theists in African, Asian and South American countries are less likely to be theists than their parents?
Europe.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Interesting. Where's the evidence that children of theists in African, Asian and South American countries are less likely to be theists than their parents?
Europe.
Just to be clear, that isn't even the claim. The fact that you think that's the claim just demonstrates that you haven't understood what I or several others have said. Go back and read again. The claim is NOT that there's zero correlation between ones beliefs and ones parents beliefs. The point is that it's not genetically inherited. There is no evidence of a genetic difference between theistic countries and atheistic countries that would CAUSE THEISM OR ATHEISM. If there were, the European switch from theism to atheism becomes logically inexplicable as I've pointed out.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Interesting. Where's the evidence that children of theists in African, Asian and South American countries are less likely to be theists than their parents?
Europe.
Just to be clear, that isn't even the claim. The fact that you think that's the claim just demonstrates that you haven't understood what I or several others have said. Go back and read again. The claim is NOT that there's zero correlation between ones beliefs and ones parents beliefs. The point is that it's not genetically inherited.
And in that you are absolutely right. You need to have a look at the original article. The correlation between the decline of atheism and regional birth rates is sociological. The fact that the person raising the issue is a geneticist isn't the key point.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
It's just a statistical fact that cultures that are more populous also hold theistic worldviews which are so strongly embedded in their societies that there is no indication that this will change in any foreseeable future.
Sunday trading was long unregulated in Scotland because, it was reasoned, a nation so enthusiastically Sabbatarian needed no laws on the subject. Yes, well.
It's like men in hats. For centuries - millennia even - you wore something on your head: it was unthinkable not to. There were a whole set of behaviour and social signifiers which depended on it. And then you didn't.
Maybe you need a broader frame of reference. Throughout the history of humanity, atheism has been a minority worldview. It's a minority worldview today, with a few large geographical concentrations. Current demographic trends indicate that the numbers of people likely to continue to hold an atheistic worldview are in decline whereas those who don't are increasing. Basically, this minority view is starting to slide back towards its pre-enlightenment levels.
Come the next millennia, historians will be reflecting on why it was that there were a couple of hundred years when Northern hemisphere societies had such a fascination for atheism.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Candide
Apprentice
# 15755
|
Posted
If religious people have more children than atheists, this is constant over time, and if the faith / non-faith of parents by and large carry over to their children.... then this begs the question : why did atheism gain a substantial following in the first place?
Posts: 36 | From: Norway | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think a much more likely explanation for this correlation is that Christianity (at least) is growing fastest in emerging nations, which mostly have a modernist worldview.
I'm pretty sure it's an established fact that as nations develop (and, generally, head towards a post-modernist worldview), the birth rate declines and heads below the replacement level.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
If religious people have more children than atheists, this is constant over time, and if the faith / non-faith of parents by and large carry over to their children.... then this begs the question : why did atheism gain a substantial following in the first place?
Religious people =/= people who attend religious service out of social obligation
I think the second half of that equation describes a large number of Europeans in the early 20th century.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Interesting. Where's the evidence that children of theists in African, Asian and South American countries are less likely to be theists than their parents?
Europe.
Just to be clear, that isn't even the claim. The fact that you think that's the claim just demonstrates that you haven't understood what I or several others have said. Go back and read again. The claim is NOT that there's zero correlation between ones beliefs and ones parents beliefs. The point is that it's not genetically inherited.
And in that you are absolutely right. You need to have a look at the original article. The correlation between the decline of atheism and regional birth rates is sociological. The fact that the person raising the issue is a geneticist isn't the key point.
The fact that he's raising birth rates is the key point, because it is a false assumption that the children of theists will consistently remain theists. The children of European theists did not consistently remain theists, did they?
It's fundamentally flawed to look at the situation right here, right now, label Europe as 'atheist' and ignore that it hasn't always been 'atheist'. The failure of theism to be successfully passed down the generations in Europe is the most perfect demonstration I can think of that theism is not simply inherited, which disproves the thesis at one stroke.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
throughout the history of humanity, atheism has been a minority worldview. It's a minority worldview today, with a few large geographical concentrations. Current demographic trends indicate that the numbers of people likely to continue to hold an atheistic worldview are in decline whereas those who don't are increasing. Basically, this minority view is starting to slide back towards its pre-enlightenment levels.
For a large - possibly the greater part - of human history there was a view that unless you kept killing animals and frequently people on their altars, the gods would send plague, fire, flood and defeat in war on you.
That something has been believed widely and for a long time does not make it true: and conversely, that an idea takes time to be recognised and accepted does not make it untrue.
You also seem to lumping all theistic belief together as one (good) thing. Despite the fact that the various world religions are contradictory and antagonistic. Nor are they static: they are in constant interaction with society, influencing, but also a product. (And a good thing too, or we would still be setting light to heretics).
To me, the trend is irresistibly towards reinvention, attenuation and abandonment. Western European Christianity has gone through these. How things are going in other Christian populations, or within Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or the Cargo Cult I couldn't say - but all have to interface with the world we have, the world of science, technology, globalisation and inter connectedness.
In your speculative 100 years hence, my money is not only on the increase in atheism, but on the radical modification of religion.
[ 30. May 2014, 13:59: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
If religious people have more children than atheists, this is constant over time, and if the faith / non-faith of parents by and large carry over to their children.... then this begs the question : why did atheism gain a substantial following in the first place?
It's not that religion always makes people have more children; rather, the circumstances that make people religious may also make them have more children. Rural people who have a need for many children to work the land and to provide them with security may be religious because their lives are precarious; and the connection between their way of life and a God who provides is fairly direct.
European atheism was a product of urban life, and of an expanding middle class. Now, those values have spread throughout society as society has changed.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
If religious people have more children than atheists, this is constant over time, and if the faith / non-faith of parents by and large carry over to their children.... then this begs the question : why did atheism gain a substantial following in the first place?
It's not that religion always makes people have more children; rather, the circumstances that make people religious may also make them have more children. Rural people who have a need for many children to work the land and to provide them with security may be religious because their lives are precarious; and the connection between their way of life and a God who provides is fairly direct.
European atheism was a product of urban life, and of an expanding middle class. Now, those values have spread throughout society as society has changed.
I agree with this. At the very least, it is an argument of correlation and causation that fits observable history.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
If religious people have more children than atheists, this is constant over time, and if the faith / non-faith of parents by and large carry over to their children.... then this begs the question : why did atheism gain a substantial following in the first place?
It's not that religion always makes people have more children; rather, the circumstances that make people religious may also make them have more children. Rural people who have a need for many children to work the land and to provide them with security may be religious because their lives are precarious; and the connection between their way of life and a God who provides is fairly direct.
European atheism was a product of urban life, and of an expanding middle class. Now, those values have spread throughout society as society has changed.
Well done. You have carefully pointed out the 'confounds', which militate against a direct link between religion and fertility. It's like chocolate and longevity.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
The fact that the person raising the issue is a geneticist isn't the key point.
Just to return to this... why exactly would the newspaper advertise him as a professor and geneticist, then?
Why not advertise him as an amateur sociologist?
Answer: because it doesn't have a ring of authority to it.
The purpose of the article is to get you to listen to the views of an 'expert'. Only he isn't an expert. Not in the field of sociology. If you think he's putting forward a view in the field of sociology, why exactly is his opinion any more convincing than mine?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
]Well done. You have carefully pointed out the 'confounds', which militate against a direct link between religion and fertility. It's like chocolate and longevity.
I'm sure it was unintentional, but that came across as a bit patronising!
Kaufmann (the chap I referred to earlier) doesn't deny entirely that there may sometimes be direct links between religion and fertility; the American Quiverful movement is, after all, a deliberate religious attempt to change society by having large families. This movement obviously isn't typical, but Kaufmann's wider argument is less about 'typical' religiosity, and more about the gains to be made by certain ultra-strict religious groups. You could say that some of these groups have 'evolved' to survive and even thrive in particular conditions, whereas atheism hasn't.
It does look as though moderate forms of religion are likely to have the worst of both worlds, losing ground to stricter forms of religion in environments where religion has the most mileage, and losing out to non-religion in more secular environments. But there are lots of variables.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd describe it as a fallacious assumption that the children of theists will be theists.
Agreed! The more that young people learn about the universe , the more they will see that the answers are there, or being investigated, and that no invisible gods or spirits are required!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Candide
Apprentice
# 15755
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's not that religion always makes people have more children; rather, the circumstances that make people religious may also make them have more children. Rural people who have a need for many children to work the land and to provide them with security may be religious because their lives are precarious; and the connection between their way of life and a God who provides is fairly direct.
European atheism was a product of urban life, and of an expanding middle class. Now, those values have spread throughout society as society has changed.
I agree. Atheism, or at least lack of interest in religion, is at least partially the result of wealth, in particular reasonably well-divided wealth.
Some other people in the thread has shown that birth rates are dropping many places, not just the West. By being materially secure, then the need for security in the shape of organized religion, no longer has the same appeal.
(There might be other forms of spirituality explored, indeed the West has seen a lot of New Age-y stuff, but that becomes a somewhat different ballgame).
If that's the chief cause for growth or decline of religion, then whether or not atheism will fall, depends on the level of prosperity in society as a whole. Which makes the prophecy of atheism's "death" in the OP, a bit too hard to swallow.
Posts: 36 | From: Norway | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I would describe this as nonsensical. Ignoring the points made about theism not being a genetic linked attribute, you fundamentally misunderstand evolution.
Some species have very large number of offspring. Others have very few. Neither extreme is a figure of merit that prevents species from going extinct. In changing environments what was an extremely successful survival strategy can become a very unsuccessful strategy.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd describe it as a fallacious assumption that the children of theists will be theists.
Agreed! The more that young people learn about the universe , the more they will see that the answers are there, or being investigated, and that no invisible gods or spirits are required!
Or, as we learn more about the universe the more we will wonder at the marvel of it all, and the more questions will be raised. That's not guaranteed to drive people into the arms of atheism, though we may need to be clearer in describing our faith to avoid making it appear that we believe in an overly simplistic deity.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I would describe this as nonsensical. Ignoring the points made about theism not being a genetic linked attribute, you fundamentally misunderstand evolution.
Some species have very large number of offspring. Others have very few. Neither extreme is a figure of merit that prevents species from going extinct. In changing environments what was an extremely successful survival strategy can become a very unsuccessful strategy.
I wonder if this argument isn't about biological evolution per se, but rather is a thinly veiled version of social darwinism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Mouethief wrote:
quote:
I wonder if this argument isn't about biological evolution per se, but rather is a thinly veiled version of social darwinism.
Given that that writer seems concerend with simple birth rates, rather than physical changes wrought by natural selection, I'd say the culprit for him might be accurately described as malthusianism. Or, at least a sort of cultural malthusianism, focussed on supposedly undesirable behaviours among the fecund, instead of just the empty mouths.
But yeah, that probably has considerable overlap with social darwinism.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
