In an Edge article titled “Why the Gods are not winning,” Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman characterize the belief that religion is gaining ground in the 21st century as a myth. First, they present some real life statistics:
The evangelical authors of the WCE [World Christian Encyclopedia] lament that no Christian “in 1900 expected the massive defections from Christianity that subsequently took place in Western Europe due to secularism…. and in the Americas due to materialism…. The number of nonreligionists…. throughout the 20th century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900, to 697 million in 1970, and on to 918 million in AD 2000…. Equally startling has been the meteoritic growth of secularism…. Two immense quasi-religious systems have emerged at the expense of the world’s religions: agnosticism…. and atheism…. From a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, these systems…. are today expanding at the extraordinary rate of 8.5 million new converts each year, and are likely to reach one billion adherents soon. A large percentage of their members are the children, grandchildren or the great-great-grandchildren of persons who in their lifetimes were practicing Christians” (italics added). (The WCE probably understates today’s nonreligious. They have Christians constituting 68-94% of nations where surveys indicate that a quarter to half or more are not religious, and they may overestimate Chinese Christians by a factor of two. In that case the nonreligious probably soared past the billion mark already, and the three great faiths total 64% at most.)
Far from providing unambiguous evidence of the rise of faith, the devout compliers of the WCE document what they characterize as the spectacular ballooning of secularism by a few hundred-fold! It has no historical match. It dwarfs the widely heralded Mormon climb to 12 million during the same time, even the growth within Protestantism of Pentecostals from nearly nothing to half a billion does not equal it.
Then, they ask why and they come to a remarkable conclusion. It’s not that religion takes care of poverty and economic disparity. It’s the other way around. Substandard socio-economic activity is the fertile soil for the sprouting of religion. If you bring the people the chance to live the good life, religion withers away:
Rather than religion being an integral part of the American character, the main reason the United States is the only prosperous democracy that retains a high level of religious belief and activity is because we have substandard socio-economic conditions and the highest level of disparity. . ..
To put it starkly, the level of popular religion is not a spiritual matter, it is actually the result of social, political and especially economic conditions (please note we are discussing large scale, long term population trends, not individual cases). Mass rejection of the gods invariably blossoms in the context of the equally distributed prosperity and education found in almost all 1st world democracies. There are no exceptions on a national basis. That is why only disbelief has proven able to grow via democratic conversion in the benign environment of education and egalitarian prosperity. Mass faith prospers solely in the context of the comparatively primitive social, economic and educational disparities and poverty still characteristic of the 2nd and 3rd worlds and the US.
We can also explain why America is has become increasingly at odds with itself. On one hand the growing level of socio-economic disparity that is leaving an increasing portion of the population behind in the socially Darwinian rat-race is boosting levels of hard-line religiosity in the lower classes. On the other hand freedom from belief in the supernatural is rising among the growing segment that enjoys higher incomes and sophisticated education. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Richard Branson and Rupert Murdoch are typical upper crust disbelievers.
The practical implications are equally breath taking. Every time a nation becomes truly advanced in terms of democratic, egalitarian education and prosperity it loses the faith. It’s guaranteed. That is why perceptive theists are justifiably scared. In practical terms their only practical hope is for nations to continue to suffer from socio-economic disparity, poverty and maleducation. That strategy is, of course, neither credible nor desirable. And that is why the secular community should be more encouraged.
Their conclusion?
Disbelief now rivals the great faiths in numbers and influence. . . . The religious industry simply lacks a reliable stratagem for defeating disbelief in the 21st century . . . The more national societies that provide financial and physical security to the population, the fewer that will be religiously devout.
I'm a practicing Christian, I just need a bit more practice than average.
Is there some war going on between secularism and theism? The languaging of the cited texts presupposes an antagonism between the two.
Go ahead, disbelieve! Just don't pick fights over it, sounds like a crusade to me.
"Two immense quasi-religious systems have emerged at the expense of the world’s religions: agnosticism…. and atheism…." Aaargh! Won't people ever learn? That's not the kind of thing I expect from Edge writers. Agnosticism could, by a stretch of the imagination, be considered quasi-religious, but neither it nor atheism are systems. There seems to be an inexhaustible number of ways for theists to hide from the fact that atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods and that agnostics simply aren't sure.
Now that obviously secular practices heal the sick, feed the poor, mend the lame, predict the future, comfort the depressed, and so forth, Gods have less to do.
The Christians in the White House are doing something about it. Widespread strife is fertile ground for religion, and providing an occupying force in a large territory is a magnificent source of strife for both sides. But I'd hate to be a Christian missionary in the midst of Muslim fundamentalists vying for dominance in their nations.
They also are working to give taxes back to the big corporations and cut support for social programs (food and health for the poor) to pay for it. This increases strife.
There has always been a tension, if not outright antagonism, between religion and secularism. Naturally, as one makes a case for turning away from the world and its material concerns, and the other comes along with science, which is profoundly involved with that world. Psychologically, secularism concerns itself with the here and now of getting on and providing for the flesh while religion is chiefly concerned with preparing the flesh for departure, de-emphasizing the importance of comfort.
Indeed, there has always been an innate understanding exhibited in most religions about material comfort, that it is to be resisted as an enemy to faith.
I don't see why any of this ought to come as a surprise to anyone.
Religious strife begets more religion which begets more religious strife.
Is there some war going on between secularism and theism?
Yes, a war of (mis)information is being waged by a significant portion of Christians who are dead-set against teaching science and evIlution in school. Have you had any food this week Tim?
The data show a high correlation between socio-economic disparity and church membership. Maybe the church is partly to blame for that disparity, because it has recognized it has a vested interest: http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=418#comment-2….
All this debate about metaphysical belief is starting to sound to me like the sound of violins playing while Rome burns.
-Majjhimanikaya 63
Looking at the world today, I see so much practical WORK that could be undertaken by all people of "good faith" working together – believers and non-believers alike. In our own country we can reclaim the public square for civil debate, make our schools places of real learning, work to end this senseless war and break the unholy alliance of the neo-cons and the theo-cons…
I am only one Christian with only one voice, and I believe that God is interested in quality more than quantity. Every church that I have ever been to if people were to join because of knowledge of a members life or from some public outreach, they seemed to stay, but any large effort of building up the rolls, those people seemed to dwindle rapidly. Every Christian wants to hear of large conversion numbers but I always take it with a grain, who are these people, are they quality, are they just happy to make some new friends, are they going to help the church or hurt it?. The state of the world from a Christians point of view is the result of his life and every other Christian since the dawn of man, it is through our actions and efforts that anything happens. God is working through us and this is the best we have given him. No pointing fingers, i'm just like most and at the end of the day this is all I have done also. My point is that we are not going to convert the entire world, and there will always be " fair weathered Christians", who are there really when the weather is turbulent, because in this society and economy a little money and influence will push a huge wedge in between you and any need of a savior. But if we REALLY wanted to we could make this world a far better place and no Agnostic or Atheist would complain about that.
Persecution does not come from bad people trying to make other people bad, it comes from good people trying to make other people good.
Of course there's tension between the religious and the non-religious and dismissing this tension with a "go ahead, disbelieve" attitude doesn't make it go away. As long as rational people are subjected to policies and norms that grow not from logical perception of reality, but from a set of supernatural fairy tales, there will be tension and rightfully so. There is immense confusion on any number of hot button issues (as well as many quieter, more subterranean ones) not because of anything related to common sense, scientific evidence, or what's best for society and the individuals making up society, but because the sheep who make up the majority are confused about whether law should involve crime, sin, or both. Only when the last embers of religious irrationality are scrubbed out beneath our heel like a cigarette butt we will be free to grow as a species.
Accurate and powerful post with vivid metaphors, Bravo Alex!
Vicki – I take your comment about violins and Rome to means that you believe this: We are wasting our time debating religion while there are people in need and things that should be done to improve our communities.
Your comment implies that religion is harmless. We’ve discussed this topic a lot at this website, so I’ll try to cut to the chase. I agree that many religious folks are wonderful people. They strive hard to take care of their children, pay their taxes and volunteer for admirable causes. Many of them keep their religious beliefs to themselves. For them, religion is a private matter between them and their gods. Here’s my vote regarding those people: Applaud them for their good works!
But not all religious beliefs are harmless. Many of them are destructive. Here’s one example. We are living in a congested world. Resources are being strained to dangerous levels. Consider the issue of water, especially in the western half of the U.S. Consider soil loss. Consider toxic waste and global warming. These and many other issues pertaining to natural resources and pollution all point to the issue of whether this country can realistically support the number of people who currently live here. The problem here in the U.S. is dwarfed by the strain being placed on natural resources in many other parts of the world.
Yet the Catholic church (and many other churches) loves to use its bully pulpit to tell its followers that it is evil to use any form of birth control other than the laughably ineffective version it refers to as “natural family planning.”
The quality of life of people all over the world depends on making sure that we don’t jam irresponsible numbers of new people onto the planet. Life is not a contest (or it shouldn't be), as though we are trying to see how many circus clowns can ride on a bicycle. Putting too many people on the planet has real life consequences, many of them depression-inducing.
Yet the Catholic Church has advocated, and is continuing to advocate, dangerously irresponsible policy regarding family planning. This danger goes above and beyond generating excess numbers of human animals. The Catholic teachings on birth control are also responsible for causing many individuals to struggle to raise large families because they (as a result of Catholic teaching) consider it evil to actually plan the number of children they can support.
This constant flow of unplanned new humans is straining the supply of resources worldwide. Yes, the Catholic Church inspires many people to do many things to help large numbers of starving people, people who can’t afford diapers, and people who need counseling because they are overwhelmed with the need to take care of more babies than they can handle. But that same Church is responsible for creating much of this mess.
Thus, I don’t see my project as fiddling while Rome burns. I see it as trying to stop the Catholic Church from pouring more gasoline on that fire.
I’ll give another example. Religious talk is not an efficient way to run a society. Straight-faced assertions that dead people became alive and that virgins have babies lead to much confusion. Such talk wastes time. Instead of teaching our children and adults useful skills, many churches are taking up incredible amounts of time drumming up their fears of being burned in an imaginary afterlife and using that fear to justify hating gays and preemptively attacking countries like Syria and Iraq.
Again, religions do inspire many people to do good works, but why don’t we do less fear-mongering and, instead, spend our energy identifying real-life problems and taking real-life steps to address those problems? There’s better ways of addressing the duty to be nice to others than cherry picking ancient apocryphal texts for supporting passages, when those same texts are also loaded with violence and intolerance. Just proclaim that you believe that we should be nice to others, forget the unsupportable religious justifications and get to work being nice to others.
Clear conversation is a prerequisite for allowing society to work through its many challenges. Most public religious assertions gum up this process. I’d like religious folks to do this: Show, don’t tell. Do good things, but don’t distract the rest of us with your need to proclaim your own set of supernatural beliefs as the only true set. Don’t accuse those who belong to rival sects as being evil and damned. Don’t keep knocking on my door to proclaim that a man who was allegedly drained of every drop of blood while hanging on a cross started walking and talking three days later.
These inefficient proclaimers of the need to do-good are constantly imploring me (and all the rest of us) to say these same sorts of vague, ethereal, highly-questionable things, instead of spending their time to just get to work to make the world a better place. Better place? What do I mean? I’m not talking about a place where we hang crucifixes in every public building. I’m referring to a place where there is clean water and air, and where polar bears aren’t drowning and where we don’t steal from future generations so that we can drive SUV’s, eat out-of-season produce every day of the year and maintain numerous outlandish fun-palaces such as Las Vegas. I’m looking for sustainability. I’m looking for an enlightened ecology rather than a judgmental morality.
When I attempt to shine a sincere intellectual light on the outlandish assertions of those many glazed-eyed believers, they usually do one of two things: A) They tell me that they really meant them literally, that impossible things really happened and that they are happy to base their beliefs on the flimsiest of evidence; or B) They try to explain that they are talking some sort of metaphorical poetic I-believe-it-even-though-I really-don’t-know-if-I-do sing-song. Either way, I’d like to cut through it all and get busy to actually put out all of those raging fires.
Let’s talk clearly and with efficiency. Let’s look squarely at the problems (those fires). When you make assertions, base it on real evidence and mean what you say! Say what you mean! Lives are at stake. We’re in a perpetual state of triage and we need everyone to pitch in! It’s like our big lifeboat is listing and half of us are trying to bail out the water while the other half are squabbling with each other in the back about whose god is bigger and stronger, or sometimes they stop to chant and say rosaries. Gee, people . . . let’s go! The boat is sinking.
Vicki, you got me going so fast that I switched metaphors from fire to water!
I’m advocating that we take seriously Stephen Covey’s seventh principle, that we “sharpen the saw.” We are the saw. Sharpening the saw is about improving ourselves so that we are better able to deal with serious challenges efficiently. Collaboration. It means working together without wasting time, without staring fights, without talking in tongues. We sharpen the saw when we strive for clear and efficient communication. We should say things we mean and we should mean what we say. We can still have poetry and speculation, but we should have the courage to call poetry and speculation what they are. We should stop being afraid to say “I don’t know” about the things we don’t know. We can still laugh as we get the job done. I'm not advocating a dour existence.
But we should definitely plan our family size, both our immediate families and our world-wide Family. We should speak up for the rights of future generations and not treat the world like it is a huge disposable diaper that we will abandon when we all resurrect to some imaginary promised land in the sky.
Many (not all) followers of religions are contributing to the current inefficient cacophonous confusion that is preventing us from rolling up our sleeves, formulating a decent plan and then putting out that raging fire to which you referred.
I submitted this article to netscape, with proper citation (I think). It has about 21 (insightful) comments so far…
http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/05/03/why-is-…
"Religious belief is fading because intelligent people are tired of the intolerance. The mutually exclusive religions can't all be right, can they?
If everyone agreed on what was the "correct" religion, we most likely would not be in a war now.
God did not fly out of the sky and write the religious texts. People wrote them, mainly to serve their own ends. Some were more laudable than others.
Contrary to what he promised, Bush is also not helping Christianity in this country. It has become pretty obvious that his dominionist rhetoric was just another cynical ploy for votes and support for his Christian Jihad in the Middle East. It's pretty apparent by now that was a mistake."
-DoseASpinoza
"Religion has two basic functions that are dependent upon one another. The first basic tenant is spiritual. It works within the human mind, creating a frame of reference for understanding the world around them. However, once that frame of reference is established there is no room for the perception of any other frame of reference. Yes, the words are there, "I see what you're saying", but the fact is that unless the person loses the spiritual connection that built their individual frame of reference based on the religion of their choice, they can NOT see what you're saying, it simply isn't possible.
The second basic tenant is social, but further it is also, at least in the two largest monotheistic religions, exclusive. It does not tolerate well, the existence of other religions or frames of reference. "
-Bkumm
Erich, I've been involved in grassroots political movements around sustainable transportation, livable/sustainable urban planning, environment, and education for about 10 years now. In all those hours of meetings, precinct walks, mailing parties, and fundraisers, I can't recall a single discussion about the existence of God that I've had with a fellow activist. I know that they have been all over the place metaphysically, from New Age types to Catholics to Protestant ministers. I don't see anything preventing you from rolling up your sleeves and putting out the fire except an insistence that everyone needs to be on the same page metaphysically before we start.
I also have to ask – is our present environmental crisis not due in large part to the scientific-industrial technocracy that treats the entire world as a "substratum for domination?" (Adorno & Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment) It seems to me that we need some way to reconcile subjectivity and objectivity, the I/It and the I/Thou, uniting the poetic and scientific "as my eyes make one in sight" (Robert Frost)
More from the Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944):
In citing the problem with "instrumental reason" and the scientific-industrial complex, I was thinking specifically of industrial agriculture as described in Michael Pollan's book, The Omnivore's Dilemma By breaking the more or less closed soil fertility loop of a traditional farm into separate components "rationalized" to maximize economic productivity, modern scientific agriculture has created a system that mines nutrients from the soil, makes us sick with metabolic syndrome, makes our food animals sick by feeding them food they weren't evolved to digest, and creates huge "dead zones" in the oceans at the mouths of our major rivers.
Vicki: I recognize that there are many good-hearted do-gooder religious believers out there. I've met many of them and I am inspired by their good works (though not by their religious beliefs).
But don't forget about the many highly dysfunctional religious people out there who believe entirely in faith over good works. They spend great amounts of time praying about and worrying about obtaining new converts and invading the personal lives of total strangers regarding issues such as birth control, sexual expression and end-of-life decisions. What are they obsessed about? Not about improving the human condition. Rather they are obsessed with expressing their destructive power in ways that violate individual human liberties:
http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=364, http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=224 and
http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=51
I admit that many religious believers have their priorities straight–they fully realize that we need to be decent to each other and that we need to maintain a society that we can be proud of.
But it seems to me that you are reluctant to recognize the many massively dysfunctional religious believers out there, much of their mischief and destruction originating from fundamentalist literalist beliefs. They are out there in numbers that rival the many kind and gentle believers, and they are making it harder for the rest of us to make the world a better place. Adding to the dysfunction are beliefs of many religous moderates, such as many Catholics, whose attitudes regarding birth control are strangely and dangerously obtuse.
In short, religion is not always a matter of short, private inspirational prayer sessions that motivate intelligent behaviour geared to the short-term and long-term benefit of society.
I'll continue to praise the good works of praiseworthy believers and I will continue to criticize the ideas which dysfunctional people attribute as the bases of their conduct.
Perhaps the issue of strife between theism and secularity is intuitively obvious to some most causal observers but, if you pre-suppose eternal antangonism at even some de minimus level between believers and non-believers you see conflict as inevitable, perhaps war. I see that as dysfunctional thinking and dangerous.
"Can't we all just get along?"
"Adding to the dysfunction are beliefs of many religous moderates, such as many Catholics, whose attitudes regarding birth control are strangely and dangerously obtuse."
Not to mention the hate crimes against homosexuals propagated by vast numbers of idiots (Christians). Sadly, these idiots (Christians) think they are making the right moral choice by hating and bashing gays. Although in their defense, the Bible does *say* that being gay is a Sin, so maybe they are right…
The idiots (Christians) are even reluctant to accept medical improvements like stem-cell research, and scientific discoveries like evolution.
Erich: Are we agreed that we should judge people by their actions and not their beliefs?
Vicki: The gut answer would be yes, but it's not that easy. Thoughts smear into actions–thoughts are pre-actions. I don't see a clear line, though in many situations it seems to be the case. Most of the time, I would say show, don't tell. But there are situations where it appears that someone is showing kindness, but they are doing it for ill-motives (saying nice things to someone all as a part of manipulating them).
Generally, I would judge a person's lifetime by what they've accomplished rather than their beliefs. But there are also well-intentioned people who are terrible on the execution and end up bungling things that were motivated by kindness.
I'll put it this way: the people I admire most are those who have kind-hearted motivations who actually succeed helping both their own families and others in their communities but strangers too, people they've never before met.
Those who inadvertently do harmful things, though with good motives, are not in my most admired class. Those who inadvertently do good things while trying to do harmful things are at the bottom, coupled with those who intentionally and successfully do harm.
Doing good to other people for the purpose of trying to keep one's own ass out of hell is, perhaps, not admirable at all. To me, it is not as admirable as helping fellow humans because one recognizes that they are sentient beings in need.
But this comment is getting to be meandering. I'd better think about your simple sounding question some more. If fear, though, that it is not a simple question. Or perhaps it is a vague question.
Vicki: Maybe the answer is not to rush to judgement until you understand the motives behind the actions.
Once I am comfortable that I know a person's beliefs, I think it is safe for me to judge them at that point. I propose that we judge people no matter how much we know about them. I have made judgements about you Vicki, and I suspect that you have made judgements about me. Is typing a blog considered an action? If it is, you are quite an activist, not that that is a bad thing.
Start with "First, do no harm"
If one presupposes conflict by way of their "beliefs" and attacks others for their "beliefs", I assert that is dysfunctional thinking not of the type which the evolution of human animals has chosen by natural selection.
Perhaps those which attack others because of their beliefs are a separate subspecies destined for the ash heap of history ala the Neandethals
I apply this theory to those which would oppress others for their beliefs, or lack of same. As for their continued evolutionary development, I don't hold out much hope. Perhaps the mutaully intolerant will blot each other out and cause little collateral damage. The rest of us may seek a detente and find new vistas of human development in guiding philosophies so as to meet the newest challenges we face as a species.
Vicki asks, "Are we agreed that we should judge people by their actions and not their beliefs?"
My answer: we should, of course, judge people by both their actions and their beliefs. Here are two examples.
1. A good friend says she is going to pick you up at the airport. You arrive, but she is not there. So, you wait and wait, but still she does not appear. If you were to judge her solely by her actions, you might think she was thoughtless in forgetting to pick you up. Instead, you call her. "Oh," she says, "I thought your flight arrived tomorrow." Were you to judge her solely by her actions, and not her beliefs, you would do her a serious injustice.
2. Today is Cinco de Mayo. It celebrates the Battle of Puebla, in which Mexican forces drove back an invading French Army. The reason why French troops were in Mexico was ostensibly because Mexico was slow in paying a debt it owed to France. However, Napoleon III, the Emperor of France, actually hoped to depose the Mexican constitutional government and set up a monarchy favorable to France, with the ultimate goal of expanding French influence into Central and South America. Thus, Napoleon III's actions did not reveal the full scope of his ambitions.
There are, of course, many other examples, but I think most would fall into one of the above two categories: a friend's actions might be judged more harshly than they deserve, or an enemy's actions might be judged less harshly than they deserve.
Wise words Tim. That is basically how I run my life too. I started as a newborn, with no conscious knowledge of right or wrong or *harm*, my only conflicts being diaper rash and naptime. You on the other hand were luckier than I, you were born as a True Christian. God reached down and annointed (tainted?) you with faith, the very moment you were conceived. That is not too hard to believe, since the God of Jesus is all knowing and all powerful, as stated numerous times in the Bible.
Don't forget that atheists are THE most hated and misunderstood "religion".
I believe that a solid defense may not be enough to stop an offensive onslaught. In some cases, like in the battle of evolution vs creation and the pro-choice/pro-life debate, and the gay bashing, I (feel like I) have been FORCED to go on OFFENSE.