http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...place-_b_741042.html
Nigel Barber says

quote:

First, as to the distribution of atheism in the world, an instructive pattern emerges. In sub-Saharan Africa there is almost no atheism.1 Belief in God declines in more developed countries and atheism is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64% nonbelievers), Denmark (48%), France (44%) and Germany (42%). In contrast, the incidence of atheism in most sub-Saharan countries is below 1%. (The U.S. is more religious than other developed countries with only about one person in eight expressing disbelief).

The question of why economically developed countries turn to atheism has been batted around by anthropologists for about eighty years. Anthropologist James Fraser proposed that scientific prediction and control of nature supplants religion as a means of controlling uncertainty in our lives. This hunch is supported by data showing that the more educated countries have higher levels of non-belief and there are strong correlations between atheism and intelligence.

Atheists are more likely to be college-educated people who live in cities and they are highly concentrated in the social democracies of Europe. Atheism thus blossoms amid affluence where most people feel economically secure. But why?

It seems that people turn to religion as a salve for the difficulties and uncertainties of their lives.2 In social democracies, there is less fear and uncertainty about the future because social welfare programs provide a safety net and better health care means that fewer people can expect to die young. People who are less vulnerable to the hostile forces of nature feel more in control of their lives and less in need of religion.

I can't quote the rest of it here. Read it.

I'm intrigued by the correlation found between education and intelligence and atheism... and how belief is related to ignorance and fear.

Jeff

Jeff

Thanks for this string.

I have another idea, because of close association with an educated Muslim family down the street. I had the honor to visit them with members of their mosque at the end of Ramadan.
About 40 men were present for prayers and food. They did their head to the ground prayers, were very hospitable, and shunted me ahead in the food line.

My suggestion is where there are two or more strong faiths practiced in the community, that the positive aspects of both tend to get intertwined in one's brain. Since both have likeable aspects, the conflict can result in rejection of both faith bases, even if both are rational.

My understanding is that this is a mechanism for the atheism in many interfaith marriages.

The figures for atheism in Europe may well thus be related to the strong influx of Muslims.

This does not mean any people of faith should reject their faith, but there certainly is a need for mental readjustment to strengthsn one's current faith.

Points to consider:
Monotheism began with Abraham, was developed by the Hebrews, and weakened with Ishmael.
Christ came to enforce the power of love, still exemplified in the U.S. but challenged.
Muhammed was enlightened to reject polytheism, and to spread monotheism by force.

If a solid religion of law and/or love cannot remain strong in a chaotic, overheated world, there is a religion of greater discipline.

Donald

You say monotheism began with Abraham. Perhaps for you. First, Abraham is simply a character in the Old Testament, without any historical basis known to me. Second, if you're saying that the Old Testament is the first mention of monotheism in world history, you're quite wrong. Many cultures had variations of monotheism. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
for some history.

The notion that two strong faiths in a region produce atheism is ridiculous on the face of it. Sorry, but that makes no sense whatever. It's the weakness of faith that causes atheists. Your contention is that two people with strong faiths who marry will give up their faiths and become atheists to avoid conflict. If that happens, how strong were their faiths to begin with? Many people with strong faiths wouldn't marry outside their faith.

Jeff

Part of what pushes people toward atheism is the highly vocal groups that proclaim that theism is inconsistent with various conclusions of science, many of which are very strongly supported by documented evidence. Sensible people who keep hearing that those two areas are inconsistent are mostly going to pushed away from religion by such "arguments".

Henry

quote:

Monotheism began with Abraham, was developed by the Hebrews, and weakened with Ishmael.
Christ came to enforce the power of love, still exemplified in the U.S. but challenged.
Muhammed was enlightened to reject polytheism, and to spread monotheism by force.

EQ,

Every single item in your string of assertions is ridiculous, although I don't have time to express my objections adequately now. But the last one is especially ridiculous: "Muhammed was enlightened to reject polytheism, and to spread monotheism by force."

"Spreading monotheism by force" is what has killed it, is killing it and will kill it--and in my opinion, deservedly so. The idea it's even possible to spread faith in God (TM) by force is evil in itself, and the many attempts by all three of the Abrahamic faiths to do so have resulted in more evil than polytheism could even begin to imagine.

--Linda

     My impression is that nearly every one of us believes (or disbelieves) in
the God most cogent to our needs. Since we all differ, somewhat, our Gods are
variable as well. However, in the hearts of true believers and in the
minds of atheists as well, the basic God appears to be much like Michaelangelo
depicted Him.
     I have tried—from time to time—suggesting that the Universe itself
is God and that Its cognitive abilities are evolving in the course of passing time.
Despite the attractiveness of this logical proposal, it is inevitably ignored.
I really wonder why.
Seán

quote:

Originally posted by Raksha:
"Spreading monotheism by force" is what has killed it, is killing it and will kill it--and in my opinion, deservedly so. The idea it's even possible to spread faith in God (TM) by force is evil in itself, and the many attempts by all three of the Abrahamic faiths to do so have resulted in more evil than polytheism could even begin to imagine.

--Linda

I happen to agree with you.

Re my synthesis, I simplified it on purpose, looking for an interesting response. Thanks to all.

It appears that the Jews became more suspect since World War II, with scientists helping develop the atomic bomb.
Christians used that bomb, after also helping to develop it, but the tendency goes back to the non-believing Roman Emperor Constantine, who with a Christian army conquered under a sign saying "In hoc signo vinces", followed centuries later with the Crusaders.
Muslims, of course, especially the militants, are in full military swing, from Iran and associates to Osama bin Laden, and arguably with Obama at the helm in Afghanistan.

What I am driving at is the splitting in three parts of the Revelation Babylon based on differences in the political monotheisms. Israel is in Aliyah, the ingathering. Christianity is focusing on political pressures in the U.S.
Islam is smothering Europe, focusing on Turkey entering the European Union.

Again, oversimplified, but there is a lot of reality there.

I really wonder if the atheists have lost touch of the overal picture provided by monotheists. Atheists don't really care, nor believe in such.

Donald

quote:

I have tried—from time to time—suggesting that the Universe itself is God and that Its cognitive abilities are evolving in the course of passing time. Despite the attractiveness of this logical proposal, it is inevitably ignored.
I really wonder why.

Sean,

For some of us, it isn't so much ignored as taken for granted. It goes without saying, although I do say so whenever it seems appropriate. But since it isn't an idea of God anyone would consider killing for--and would very much prefer NOT to die for!--we don't talk about it too much in a combative environment.

I do talk about it with people who share my world-view--endlessly, as a matter of fact! That's what I've been doing all day on Facebook, and why I haven't spent much time at the Anthill today. The discussion started on my home page and it's a pretty good one if I do say so myself. There were basically three of us involved--me and two others. One of them is Rosa Ikshvaku Miller, the "High Priestess" I've mentioned more than once on this board.

--Linda

Sean, I have no problem with calling the Universe itself God--that's just verbiage and is perfectly consistent with being an atheist. Basically, that eliminates the idea of God as understood by most people. When you start talking of the Universe as having cognitive abilities (sentience for the Universe itself?) we part ways.

quote:

Muslims, of course, especially the militants, are in full military swing, from Iran and associates to Osama bin Laden, and arguably with Obama at the helm in Afghanistan.

Donald, are you really stating it's arguable that Obama is a Muslim? It isn't, if you're reality-based.

And are Muslims REALLY "in full military swing"? Here's a list of countries which are predominantly Muslim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...m_majority_countries

Not one of them is at war with any other country. (Although the U. S. may have wars going in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, by some definitions, these countries themselves are not at war with anyone, and the U. S. is not warring against the countries themselves but against factions within the countries.) Most of the countries are either too poor to be "in full military swing" or simply are not very militaristic.

There are nearly two billion Muslims worldwide. Very few are in "full military swing." Islam is a peaceful religion.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Sean:
I have tried—from time to time—suggesting that the Universe itself
is God and that Its cognitive abilities are evolving in the course of passing time.
Despite the attractiveness of this logical proposal, it is inevitably ignored.
I really wonder why.

Sean, the universe/multiverse as you say is God but just from the physics I like I think it's more an always is/was/will be kind of Multiverse. We sentient riders on the Multiverse kind of go from primordial big bang inanimate matter to something more organized (like via DNA) to something cognitively humanish to something using conformal degrees of freedom to something massless but vacuum connected to something Clifford algebra simplex physics all is one, one is all. We start/end as God. Possible future versions of each of us are already there as God in both the cyclical and is/was/always will be sense.

quote:

When you start talking of the Universe as having cognitive abilities (sentience for the Universe itself?) we part ways.—CompGuy

Jeff,
     I think not. We humans do have limited cognitive abilities and are integral with the universal whole. Thus the universe is cognizant, at least to a limited degree. I am not saying every pebble contains a scintilla of awareness but I see no reason to deny it either.
Seán

Bluelamp,
     As I have said: My impression is that nearly every one of us believes (or disbelieves) in the God most cogent to our needs. For my purposes, the Universe as God is a logical necessity. You go further, adding details to the picture of the universal whole; I have no quarrel with your doing that but see no utility in those additions.
Seán

quote:

I am not saying every pebble contains a scintilla of awareness but I see no reason to deny it either.

I deny that non-living things have awareness. I think you at least have to be alive to have awareness, regardless of how you define that concept. And I don't think the Universe itself is alive, although of course it contains life. How to define life is a separate problem.

There are concepts of the Universe as a living thing (sort of an extended Gaia Hypothesis)--I can't accept that.

Jeff

quote:

I deny that non-living things have awareness...etc.—CompGuy

Jeff,
     Therein we may truly differ. You well may be correct in your opinion, but I view as rash the categorical rejection of any possibility unless denial is compelled by evidence or by logical necessity. What is you basis for denial and what purpose does it serve?
Seán

quote:

Originally posted by CompGuy:
Sean, I have no problem with calling the Universe itself God--that's just verbiage and is perfectly consistent with being an atheist. Basically, that eliminates the idea of God as understood by most people. When you start talking of the Universe as having cognitive abilities (sentience for the Universe itself?) we part ways.

quote:

Muslims, of course, especially the militants, are in full military swing, from Iran and associates to Osama bin Laden, and arguably with Obama at the helm in Afghanistan.

Donald, are you really stating it's arguable that Obama is a Muslim? It isn't, if you're reality-based.

And are Muslims REALLY "in full military swing"? Here's a list of countries which are predominantly Muslim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...m_majority_countries

Not one of them is at war with any other country. (Although the U. S. may have wars going in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, by some definitions, these countries themselves are not at war with anyone, and the U. S. is not warring against the countries themselves but against factions within the countries.) Most of the countries are either too poor to be "in full military swing" or simply are not very militaristic.

There are nearly two billion Muslims worldwide. Very few are in "full military swing." Islam is a peaceful religion.

Jeff

Jeff

A Universe governed by scientifically demonstrated laws still has interactions, but the laws are already written.
I would still not call the Universe God, and if it were, I think it is a cop-out.

I just payed homage to the thoughts of many citizens about Obama. If he were once a Muslim and converted to Christianity, my understanding is that that is a cause for assassination. When he asserted that he became a Christian after he was an adult, same thought.

In many ways my Muslim friends do appear peaceful, but the ease with which the militants adopt jihad suggests to me that warfare is very close to the surface of their psyche.

Even the McConnell quotes in a prior political campaign about China taking over the US, which rings with other sources, means peace in the world is a very fragile thing. China has not been too kind with its Muslim population.

In my estimation atheists are more self centered that theistic religions. How can atheists have roots to handle the restlessness of the world?

Donald

quote:

In many ways my Muslim friends do appear peaceful, but the ease with which the militants adopt jihad suggests to me that warfare is very close to the surface of their psyche.

Donald, there's no reason to suppose that a Muslim, Christian, or atheist have any consistent differences as far as warfare is concerned. You're expressing a prejudice, and a hateful one at that, although I don't think that's either your realization or your intention.

Obama never thought of himself as a Muslim. A religious belief is not inherited. Those are choices humans make for themselves.

quote:

How can atheists have roots to handle the restlessness of the world?

Morality is independent of religion. Sam Harris calls the belief that morality depends on religion a "moral pretension" in his new book. Read the October 1st review from the NY Times here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10...Appiah-t.html?src=me

Harris goes even farther than I would, saying that moral values can be uncovered by the scientific method. I haven't read his new book yet, but that's certainly an interesting idea.

Sean, you wrote "You well may be correct in your opinion, but I view as rash the categorical rejection of any possibility unless denial is compelled by evidence or by logical necessity. What is you basis for denial and what purpose does it serve?"
My denial is simply my opinion and it doesn't serve any purpose. I thought the evidence for it was self-evident--awareness requires life on some level. A rock has no awareness as I understand the word. How can you possibly say otherwise?

We might, of course, differ on what "awareness" means...

Jeff

quote:

A rock has no awareness as I understand the word. How can you possibly say otherwise?—CompGuy

Jeff,
     I have disclaimed intention to defend the thought that all matter, at some level, is aware. Still, there is the fact that "lifeless" matter has evolved into living things. What was the driving force for that? Could it be that matter, even at its state most primitive, is imbued with some property that impels it toward the complexity that we identify as life? If not present from the onset, when do you think the thrust toward consciousness began?
Seán

I think awareness is much lower than consciousness. A plant is aware, but I doubt a plant is conscious. I don't think life "evolved" from dead things. Evolution implies reproduction--and a rock does not reproduce. As to how life began in the universe--that very first spark of life, if there was a first spark--there are many theories but I have no firm idea on that subject myself yet. I'm pretty sure, though, that no matter how many centuries you watch, a rock will stay a rock.

Jeff

I think this has to do with what scientists call "emergent properties" - which basically is that relatively simple things interact in complicated ways to cause stuff that doesn't appear to be implied by the components when they're examined individually; i.e., an emergent property is a side effect of the more basic principles. In this case, chemistry (which is of course elementary).

Henry

quote:

Originally posted by CompGuy:

quote:

I am not saying every pebble contains a scintilla of awareness but I see no reason to deny it either.

I deny that non-living things have awareness. I think you at least have to be alive to have awareness, regardless of how you define that concept. And I don't think the Universe itself is alive, although of course it contains life. How to define life is a separate problem.

There are concepts of the Universe as a living thing (sort of an extended Gaia Hypothesis)--I can't accept that.

Stuart Hameroff of Penrose-Hameroff quantum consciousness model fame has the view that at the smallest level (say a string), consciousness just like physicality is built in. Consciousness just builds up to noticible levels differently.

quote:

Originally posted by Sean:
As I have said: My impression is that nearly every one of us believes (or disbelieves) in the God most cogent to our needs. For my purposes, the Universe as God is a logical necessity. You go further, adding details to the picture of the universal whole; I have no quarrel with your doing that but see no utility in those additions.

Basically it's just making sure the physics model I like for reasons other than just consciousness fits with my overall view of consciousness that I've picked up from many sources. It has a God-like totally connected simplex physics at the top (above the Planck energy) and at low energies worldline strings that could have consciousness built in. In between there is hyperdimensional physics for angels/demons as well as quantum consciousness model brains for animals and humans.

quote:

quote:

In many ways my Muslim friends do appear peaceful, but the ease with which the militants adopt jihad suggests to me that warfare is very close to the surface of their psyche.

Donald, there's no reason to suppose that a Muslim, Christian, or atheist have any consistent differences as far as warfare is concerned. You're expressing a prejudice, and a hateful one at that, although I don't think that's either your realization or your intention.

As it happens, I started re-reading the Qur'an a few days ago. (The first time through was probably around 20 years ago, I guess; the receipt-as-bookmark says I got it in 1987.) My copy is "The Meaning of the Glorious Koran" by Pickthall, which includes an intro with historical background and brief explanatory intros to each chapter. Anyhow, I'm only 100-some pages in, so I don't have the whole thing fresh in mind yet, but I do have some preliminary thoughts.

One thing I see is a similarity to the origins of Mormonism. Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith saw various competing religious factions around them, and they ended up rejecting those and picking a different way which they each claim is more ancient and authentic than the others which had gone astray over time. Each also claimed to be literal prophets with visitations from angelic/divine beings to teach them their beliefs. Both taught ongoing revelation, including the overturning of some of what was previously revealed. Both religions were rebuffed and persecuted by those around them, which partly shaped their view of themselves. Both founders were both religious and civil authorities, and both religions have theocratic tendencies; Islam didn't really take off until Muhammad and his small band of followers in Mecca moved to Medina where he became the political leader, and the early Mormons also hit the road to found their own society even before the trek to Utah. There are of course many, many differences between the two religions, but these broad strokes of similarity in their origins interested me.

Regarding jihad, it seems that the earliest Muslims were pacifists. It was only after Muhammad moved to Medina that he got a new revelation saying that being persecuted is even worse than death, and that Muslims under persecution are basically obligated to fight back until the persecution ends. Those early Muslims who were capable but held themselves back from joining in the fight--and especially those who were only lukewarm and waffling about Islam--are specifically criticized in the Qur'an. (BTW, mocking Islam and trying to convert Muslims to something else are counted as forms of persecution, and people who do it are declared deserving of the fires of Hell. There's a whole lot of such declarations in my reading so far.)

Now one might think that the persecution would have been over after Muhammad had set himself up in Medina, but it's not that simple. There were still political conflicts between the cities and tribes, and the Meccans even tried to attack Medina to eliminate Muhammad and the Muslims (and nearly succeeded at one point, wounding Muhammad in the field). Also Muhammad couldn't leave Mecca well enough alone, because Islam believes the Ka'bah in Mecca was originally built by Abraham and is the prototypical and essential place for worship of God--so he had to get access to it for Muslims.
--
Stephen

I almost forgot -- There was a program on the National Geographic Channel last night about Islam, specifically the Qur'an. I haven't watched it yet, but the little preview video online looked interesting.

(Sorry for going astray from the original subject of this discussion. The previous comment just seemed to fit the immediate context.)
--
Stephen

Jeff and Henry,
     Terms like awareness and consciousness defy precise definition and are not essential
to understanding abiogenesis, the evolution of inorganic matter into living cytoplasm. What seems indispensable is some inherent property of matter that drives evolving substances persistently in the direction of increasing order (i.e., diminished entropy).
     The only property germane to this requirement I can think of is the tendency to form crystals, which are orderly arrangements of molecules held in place by binding factors, such as polar forces. Since there are no time constraints for evolution, it seems reasonable to suppose the crystallizing process could lead eventually to nucleic acids and proteins, both of which are crystalline by nature.
Seán

Jeff

The problem is not only Obama's adult decision to be a Christian, but the public perception of what they perceive is his religious history. Muslims here were very conscious of Obama's middle name of Hussein, and they voted in mass for his election. I think it safe to say that their attitude reflects confusion, but also a look for his leadership. He certainly has gone to extremes to show his support for Muslims.

I am really wondering how long it will take for American atheism to be a force in national politics, especially as the national picture gets more confusing.

Donald