What Causes Atheism?

Strongly felt religion has always been around; what needs explanation is its absence rather than its presence.

- Peter Berger

Religion had a stranglehold on humanity until the 20th century, when it suddenly lost its grip on nearly a billion people in the course of a single century (non-believers skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900 to 918 million in 2000, or 0.002% of world population in 1900 to 15.3% in 2000). What happened, so suddenly? What causes atheism?

Part of what happened is that a few atheist dictators took control of populous nations, burned all the churches, and wiped out religion as much as possible. The people in these nations did not choose atheism. As soon as the dictators were gone, religion sprung right back up again.

But in other places, Scandinavia in particular, people just stopped believing. Why?

One theory is that Scandinavians were never really that religious in the first place. But that’s hard to swallow. All the evidence suggests that Scandinavians were just as fervent in their beliefs as everyone else, until recently.

Another theory is that atheism can be caused by lacking the need for a cultural defense. The idea that when a society’s cultural identity is threatened, religiosity increases to strengthen cultural bonds (as with Catholicism and Irish nationalism). For centuries, Scandinavia has lacked the need for a cultural defense. They have not been dominated by a foreign conqueror with a significantly different culture or religion, and there have been no other popular religions to challenge Lutheranism’s dominance. However, many other isolated societies throughout history have not needed a cultural defense, and yet they did not secularize.

A third theory is that wherever one religion has a monopoly, it doesn’t need to compete for believers, it gets lazy and lets religiosity decline. This certainly fits Scandinavia, where Lutheranism has been state-supported for many decades. But many other religions have enjoyed a national monopoly for much longer than that and never gone secular.

A fourth theory is that it’s simply a matter of education. Denmark was the first country to provide free, compulsory elementary-school education, in 1814, and the rest of Scandinavia soon followed. Polls have shown a strong correlation between higher education and religious skepticism.

A fifth theory is that women are to blame. It has long been known that women are, on every measure and in every society, more religious than men. So it is plausible that it is women who have done the most to keep families interested in religion. But in the 1960s, women saw a dramatic shift in their identity and possibilities and moved into the paid workforce, leading to a “de-pietization of femininity.” Now that women were working and pursuing their own interests rather than keeping their families religious, religion declined. But then why did religion not decline in all the countries that saw a mass movement of women into the workforce, such as the United States?

Societal causes are complex things, and not easy to measure. Perhaps all of the above have contributed to the rise of atheism in some very complex way with other factors we can’t yet measure. But now let me turn to the explanation I find most persuasive of all.

Security

In Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (a great read, by the way; stuffed to the brim with charts, tables, statistics and careful analysis), Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart argue that when people experience less security, they tend to be more religious. This is what Marx said 170 years ago – that when things get tough, people turn to religion for comfort. But Norris and Inglehart actually provide thousands of data to support the theory.

And what about when times are not tough? When people have food to eat, clean water, adequate housing, jobs, cheap medicine, safety from natural disasters, political stability, and general contentment, they tend to be less religious.

This certainly fits with Scandinavia. Scandinavian countries consistently rank among the healthiest, most peaceful, stablest, and safest nations in the world. Thanks to the best-developed welfare systems in the world, Scandinavia boasts the smallest gap between rich and poor in the democratic world. Unlike the United States, nearly everyone in Scandinavia has access to health care and higher education. Moreover, the Scandinavian states all rank among the top 5 most peaceful societies in the world (the United States ranked 83rd).

Simply put, Scandinavian society is the most secure society in the history of our planet, and this may explain Scandinavians’ abandonment of religion. They just don’t need it anymore.

In Society Without God I showed that there are strong correlations between atheism and societal health. But I don’t think atheism causes societal health. Rather, I suspect that societal health causes atheism.

(Via What Causes Atheism?)
lukeprog
Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:49:44 GMT

The Golden Rule and Christian Apologetics

(Via Debunking Christianity)

"Almighty God and Christianity and the Bible professes 'DO unto others,' not, 'do NOT do unto others."--An Evangelical Christian explaining why he thinks Christianity alone is positive while all other teachings appear negative
I have run across not a few evangelical Christian apologists who have argued that their religion is "superior" because Jesus preached the Golden Rule, "All things therefore that you want people to DO to you, DO thus to them" (Matthew 7:12), while other ancient teachers merely taught the negative version of that rule: "Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT like done to yourself."
Christian apologists such as C.S. Lewis and William Barclay even cited numerous quotations of the negative Golden Rule from ancient sources to make the contrast appear more stark between what Christianity taught and what the rest of the world taught:
"Do not impose on others what you do not desire others to impose upon you." (Confucius, The Analects. Roughly 500 BCE.
Hindu sacred literature: "Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself." (Mahabharata, bk. 5, ch. 49, v. 57)
"Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful." (Udana-Varga, 5.18)
Zoroastrian sacred literature: "Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." (Dadistan-I-Dinik, 94:5; in Muller, chapter 94, vol. 18, p. 269)
Buddhist sacred literature: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udanavargu, 5:18, Tibetan Dhammapada, 1983)
The Greek historian Herodotus: ". if I choose I may rule over you. But what I condemn in another I will, if I may, avoid myself."
(Herodotus, The Histories, bk. III, ch. 142. Roughly 430 BCE.)
Isocrates, the Greek orator: "What things make you angry when you suffer them at the hands of others, do not you do to other people."
Christian apologists add that it is not (in their opinion) difficult to honor a negative Golden Rule, but it is "exceedingly" difficult to live by the positive Golden Rule Jesus taught. Such apologists seem to forget that a lot of Judeo-Christian morality is based on the "Ten Commandments," which are almost all negative rules, "Thou shalt NOT..." etc. Such apologists even forget that Jesus and Saint Paul are said to have struggled hard to resist temptation and resist sinnning, i.e., to NOT do things they were tempted to do, again a negative task. The whole story of Job is about a man tempted to "curse God," but he resists. So, for Jesus, Paul, Job and other Biblical heros, there appears to be just as much "difficulty" involved in avoiding sinful behaviors as practicing positive ones, (perhaps even greater "difficulty") regardless of what the apologists state.
Indeed, the so-called "negative" Golden Rule is itself a part of Christianity. It is found in pre-Christian Jewish writings as well as in the Catholic Bible and in a textual variant in the Book of Acts, see these examples:
Philo, the great Jewish Hellenistic philosopher of Alexandria, wrote, "What you hate to suffer, do not do to anyone else."
Hillel, a great Jewish rabbi who lived just before Jesus' day, taught, "What is hateful to thee, do not to another. That is the whole law and all else is explanation." (b Shabbatt 31a; cf. Avot de R. Natan ii.26)
Even earlier than the saying by rabbi Hillel, the negative Golden Rule is found in Tobit, an apocryphal book that is included in the Catholic Bible: "What you hate, do not do to anyone." (Tobit 4: 14-15. 2nd century BCE.)
And in the Book of Acts: "Textual variants in Acts 15 :20,29 & 21:25 are quite involved... various Western texts add the Negative Golden Rule, 'Do not do unto others...' which is first attributed to the first century Jewish rabbi Hillel but also quoted in The Didache (a second century Christian text believed to consist of teachings of the earliest Christian Fathers and used to teach new converts) i.2." [from Tim Hegg and Beit Hallel's online article, "Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council: Did They Conclude the Torah was Not For Gentiles?" copyright 2001 www.torahresource.com]
And what about another claim made by Christian apologists, such as William Barclay, who argued, "The very essence of Christian conduct is that it does not consist in not doing bad things, but in actively doing good things." Was Barclay unaware of the fact that teachings that advocate "actively doing good things" are found in other ancient literature besides the New Testament?
Ancient Babylonian sacred teaching from two thousand years before Jesus was born: "Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy." (Akkadian Councils of Wisdom, as cited in Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts)
Buddhist holy teaching: "Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good, falsehood by truth." (written centuries before Jesus was born)
Buddhist holy teaching: "In this world hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate. This is the law, ancient and inexhaustible." (The Dhammapada)
Taoist holy teaching: "Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain. How can this end in goodness? Therefore the sage holds to the left hand of an agreement but does not expect what the other holder ought to do. Regard your neighbor's gain as your own and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. Whoever is self-centered cannot have the love of others." (written centuries before Jesus was born)
The Greek poet Homer: "I will be as careful for you as I should be for myself in the same need." (Calypso, to Odysseus, in Homer, The Odyssey, bk. 5, vv. 184-91. Roughly late 8th century BCE.).
Excerpts from a pagan's prayer: "May I be the friend of that which is eternal and abides...May I love, seek, and attain only that which is good. May I wish for all men's happiness...May I reconcile friends who are wroth with one another. May I, to the extent of my power, give all needful help to all who are in want. May I never fail a friend in danger...May I know good men and follow in their footsteps." ("The Prayer of Eusebius," written by a 1st-century pagan, as quoted in Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion. Interesting Note: A few Christians on the internet have incorrectly attributed this prayer to a 3rd-century Christian also named Eusebius. They should read Murray's book instead of assuming that everything positive has to be "Christian.")
Islamic holy teaching: "That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind." (Sukhanan-i-Muhammad, 63)
The Positive Golden Rule is also found in Jewish literature (Mishneh Torah ii: Hilekot Abel xiv.I)
Lastly, there appears to be a flaw in the Golden Rule itself. If you simply try to "do unto other as you would like them to do unto you" then you could wind up doing things to others they might not enjoy as much as you do! Do you like listening to rap music? Then do it to others! Crank up those speakers so others can enjoy it as well! Do you like having sex? Then go out and initiate sex with others! Do you love your particular religious beliefs? Then initiate conversations with others about your favorite beliefs. Worst case scenario is that if someone fears they will be sent to eternal hell for doubting a particular religious belief, they might welcome being coerced and tortured to "correct" their beliefs and assure them eternal heaven, in which case the Golden Rule would imply that other people would be equally appreciative of being "corrected" rather than "risk eternal hellfire." So we need both the Golden Rule and also the "negative" Golden Rule, working together, to avoid the kinds of excesses mentioned above.
An even more "finely tuned" rule might be what some call "The Platinum Rule," namely, "Do Unto Others as They Would Have You Do Unto Them." In other words, take time to learn about your neighbor's tastes, their mood, their nature, and their temperment, before you start "doing" things "unto them." Treat others the way they want to be treated.
In all three cases -- the Golden Rule, the negative Golden Rule (also nicknamed the "Silver Rule"), and the "Platinum Rule" -- our similar biological and social/psychological structures ensure that our desires and fears will also be similar. And such similarities are what allow each of us a window into each others' inner self. Very few people enjoy being lied to, called names, stolen from, injured, or otherwise provoked. While almost every last one of us loves having friends, sharing experiences, good health, good meals, etc. Those are part of who we all are. So you can and should look within to sense the truth of what we all share. Hence, "you" have an inner window on what other people would like done to them. Just keep in mind that the exact "scene" that is displayed most prominently inside each person's "inner window" may differ from person to person, and you have to take that into account as well, before you "do unto them" as "they" would like.

The Golden Rule and Christian Apologetics
Edward T. Babinski
Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:45:00 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ancient Science in the Bible? Really? (thehiddenatheist.com)
• The Christian Proselytizer Questionnaire (godless.biz)
• The Jewish View Of Jesus (anatheist.net)
• The bones of the Apostle Paul (lifewithoutfaith.com)

the compassionate kid

My god and me

Biblical Family Law - Cartoon

Should we really follow biblical family law?

Ten Signs you are an Unquestioning Christian

Google – Religion is

Google can be so much fun. Just look at what google thinks about religion.

Ancient Science in the Bible? Really?

(Via Dr Jim's Thinking Shop & Tea Room)

Ed Babinski, who contributes to Debunking Christianity and has scribed a chapter or two for the book, The Christian Delusion, reported on in an earlier post, emailed me the other day to tell me about an essay posted on BeliefNet in its weekly guest essay section.

Image linked from Beliefnet

In “Ancient Science in the Bible” Denis O. Lamoureux discusses the biblical view of a rather flat earth. I have no quibbles with his depiction of Biblical cosmology. On the other hand, he concludes:

So what’s the bottom line? Don’t go to the Bible to find scientific facts; go to Scripture to meet Jesus. In the same way that the Lord personally meets each of us wherever we happen to be, the Holy Spirit came down to the level of the ancient biblical writers and employed their understanding of the physical world in order to communicate as effectively as possible life-changing spiritual truths. By using an ancient science in the Bible, God revealed the inerrant Message of Faith that He created the world, not how He created it.

And that kind of bugs me.

Lamoureux is an assistant professor at St. Joseph’s College in Edmonton AB, a Catholic school attached to the secular University of Alberta. He is “assistant professor of science and religion” and has published two books through Wipf and Stock. Here are parts of the blurbs:

Evolutionary Creation

In this provocative book, evolutionist and evangelical Christian Denis O. Lamoureux proposes an approach to origins that moves beyond the “evolution-versus-creation” debate. Arguing for an intimate relationship between the Book of God’s Words and the Book of God’s Works, he presents evolutionary creation—a position that asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process. This view of origins affirms intelligent design and the belief that beauty, complexity, and functionality in nature reflect the mind of God. Lamoureux also challenges the popular Christian assumption that the Holy Spirit revealed scientific and historical facts in the opening chapters of the Bible. He contends that Scripture features an ancient understanding of origins that functions as a vessel to deliver inerrant and infallible messages of faith.

~~~~~~~~~

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution.

In this thought-provoking book, born-again Christian Denis O. Lamoureux argues that the God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolution—an ordained, sustained, and design-reflecting natural process. In other words, evolution is not the result of blind chance and our creation is not a mistake. Lamoureux challenges the popular assumption that God disclosed scientific facts in the opening chapters of Scripture thousands of years before their discovery by modern science. He contends that in the same way the Lord meets us wherever we happen to be in our lives, the Holy Spirit came down to the level of the inspired biblical writers and used their ancient understanding of origins in order to reveal inerrant, life-changing Messages of Faith. Lamoureux also shares his personal story and struggle in coming to terms with evolution and Christianity.

Lamoureux’s work has been poo-pooed by some in the completely anti-intellectual wing of Evangelical Christianity here in Alberta, and presumably beyond.

Both the Big Valley Creation Science Museum and the Red Deer based Creation Truth Ministry have on their websites a big black and yellow image of dangerous looking waste barrels with a label promising a debunking of “Dangerous Theology in Alberta”. The link goes to a now defunct website, www.emperorswithoutclothes.com, where apparently once resided an “expose” of Lamoureux by a certain Mike Biehler. Alas, a very quick google could not find a new home for the piece.

(Also, see my posts on these two “museums” BVCSM and CTM.)

As far as I’m concerned, it is nice that Lamoureux is convinced of the overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, and anything he can do to minimize the damage to education in Alberta at the hands of the creationist fringe, the better. On the other hand, he hardly seems a champion of academics in general, and his program to convince evangelical Christians of the reality of evolution and an old earth should not be taken as too much of a victory for those interested in comprehensive educational standards.

I’ve gotten used to the idea that the University of Alberta (where I graduated in 1993 from Religious Studies a BA and did post-doctoral and sessional work from 1998-2002) has affiliated Christian colleges. I don’t like it, but what is one going to do? At least their courses are not transferable to a degree in Religious Studies (well, they weren’t when I attended). When I finished my BA, however, the university was facing massive budget cuts. There was some talk of farming parts of Religious Studies off to the Christian colleges. Fortunately, nothing came of this and although the dept. of Religious Studies eventually disappeared, the program of R. S. retained its academic integrity.

What really bugs me about Lamoureux’s article is the way the biblical cosmology is called a “science”.

In fact, Holy Scripture features an ancient science of the structure, operation, and origin of the universe and life. The diagram presents the world as conceived by ancient Near Eastern peoples, including God’s chosen people, the Hebrews. It may come as a surprise to most Bible-reading Christians, but a 3-tier universe is found in the Word of God.

I really don’t think that term “science” is at all applicable to ancient cosmologies, biblical or otherwise. It seems to be an effort to cash in on the prestige “science” has in the modern world (at least among most folk). He seems to say that even though the Bible is to remain relevant without being a science book, it can still be a kind of science all the same. The Bible’s cosmological passages (along with a whole lot more) are myth. Why not call them that?

The Bible has virtually no “science” or “engineering” in it. Christian scripture has no astronomical treatise. There is no detailed taxonomy of different kinds of animals, insects or plants. No discussion of metallurgy, animal breeding, or the appropriate soils for each kind of crop. There is nothing on designing an irrigation system. Not a thing.

Lamoureux is right, the Bible is a book of religion. But rather than analyze the ancient religion from which the diverse biblical texts derived in its own right, he reads his own religion into it. None of the writers of any of the creation accounts in the Old Testament had a clue about the doctrine of the trinity let alone the myth of Christian salvation. They were not Christians. His is a deliberately anachronistic view of the Bible routed in Evangelical doctrine. God has to work behind the scenes, leading ancient scribes to write what they could not understand.

For Lamoureux, the ancient cosmology might be seen as a product of its own time, but the religion behind it must be Christianity. Folks concerned with the incursion of creationism in schools might be encouraged in some respects by Lamoureux’s writings, but if his books are reflective of his professional work, then he is really as far away from academic work on religion as creationism is from real science.

Ancient Science in the Bible? Really?
Dr. Jim
Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:17:00 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• A few good questions for my Pastor: The Reply. (reddit.com)
• An Atheist's Alpha Weekend (thedamned.iansbrain.com)
• The power of prayer (guardian.co.uk)
• A question for Christians.... The latest estimate is there are 38,000 forms of Christianity. What makes you so sure you engage in the "right" version? (reddit.com)

We Need To Take Our Religion More Seriously! (Pic)

(Via Godless Blogger)

Well maybe that’s not such a great idea…

We Need To Take Our Religion More Seriously! (Pic)
Jake Collyer
Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:44:19 GMT

Leprechauns and Gods

(From: Proud Atheists)

Can you prove that leprechauns exist? Can you prove your god(s) exist(s)?
As a religious person, you may laugh at someone that believes there are leprechauns or elves. Do you realize that many of us atheists view your belief in God as silly or deluded or irrational? It’s not because we hate your god or are just simply rebellious. To hate something requires acknowledgment of its existence. It’s not because a priest molested us or some bad childhood experience. We simply do not believe in deities as most people do not believe in leprechauns.

The typical silly response from some believers is, “You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist!” No, we cannot prove that any god does not exist, nor can we prove that leprechauns do not exist. Does that make their existence as true as the existence of a god?

* No god or leprechaun has ever left any physical evidence of their existence on earth. Scriptures, temples and idols are man made.

* Tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and earthquakes continue to happen with no response from a god or leprechaun. Human response is needed to aid victims of these events.

* The Holocaust, the Inquisitions and other atrocities have occurred with no response from a god or leprechaun.

* Knowledge or belief in any god is based on ancient texts or scripture, not on an initial relationship before the learning through doctrine or one’s environment.

Leprechauns and Gods
Mark
Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:55:51 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• I may not be perfectly rational, but my magic invisible monkeys are! (scienceblogs.com)
• Can science kill god? (radicalatheist.com)
• *Your Religion is False* (marginalrevolution.com)