To What Degree Has Scientific Knowledge Pulled Mankind Away From Religion?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Other than the fact that science has increasingly provided competing interests with which people further divide their time, thus cutting into time and attention for religious considerations and pursuits, have the findings of science themselves pulled mankind away from religion?

.

I think increased communications afforded by telecommunications and broadcast entertainment, as well as cheap, freely available long distance transport has done more to reduce the importance of religion than science per se.

Remember that 100 years ago, communities were small, self contained and largely self regulating, and often built around a religious hub as a religious, social and political centre. Today, I'm friends with people on the otherside of the planet, but have never spoken to my neighbours. I have tv, radio, books, computer games, and more entertainments at my fingertips that don't require anyone else's imput. 100 years ago, there was less leisure time, and what there was was usually based on communal activities, often centred on a church run social group. Religios organisations just used to be so much more central to live than today, and so general religiosity just naturally followed. There was no great anti-religious movement, just the nonreligious aspects of religious centred communities became less important. Essentially, religion went from a social necessity to an optional extra, and people have responded accordingly.

That's my theory, anyway.

 

[Mindmaster]

Exactly what "universal model" do you think I feel is more acceptable?

Have no idea, actually. Some of the questions I asked were probing in that direction to somewhat tease how subjective even things like science really are. Religion at least has to admit it has subjective components, science hasn't even come to this juncture as a whole yet. Really, the only point I was making...

Really?

Please note the considerable positive change in "Nonreligious."

I don't know how you'd actually count this at all, so what do these numbers mean? Faiths all report numbers that make them look good, many people will not discuss these topics with strangers, and many people answer atheist when they simply don't want you to know. (Me!)

For example, where are Pagans? There are more pagans than Jews in the world, and it shows Jews but zero pagans. Jews experience no additional members? You ever seen a Jewish typical family? No kids? Pfft... Even if half of the new kids stayed in the faith and half didn't, there'd be a positive net. Anyway, projections... Hmm, so how do you forecast something that is so personal and changes rapidly with our _subjective_ value of them? Most of these data values don't even seem to track with population gain, and that makes such a forecast immediately suspect to me. Nearly all religions experience a linear gain just through child birth, and this chart says none of those kids are signing up under their parents religion - this is _so_ unlikely, most people join into their parent faith, and that deal is done. You're a "special one" if you do anything contrary to this. I'd be far more interested to see a location based sorting of real data rather than a forecast, because this data seems cooked up by a religious group to induce panic in their following and everyone else seems to take it and run with it like it's golden. I'd not consider "World Christian Encyclopedia" an unbiased source without third party information to support their notions, and many Christians are embroiled in this "war on Christianity" bull**** trying to gaslight people and confuse them.

 

[Trailblazer]

One problem with those statistics is that atheism appears to be poorly defined. Most agnostics are also atheists. Since the word atheist still has some undeserved stigma attached to it a better number to use is that of the number of generally non-religious.

You are correct. I doubt those statistics truly reflect atheism. In the United States religion is on the decline but belief in God is holding stable, so many formerly religious people now call themselves spiritual. Probably because the United States is still about 70% Christian there is a stigma attached to atheism, so there is false reporting. I see no shame in atheism, it is an honest position, but I am not a Christian.

In Europe and the U.K, atheism is more the norm than the exception so the United States is the odd man out when it comes to industrialized nations.

According to these statistics, 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

According to a survey by World Religions Religion Statistics Geography Church Statistics, people who are "secular, non-religious, agnostics and atheists" account for about 14% of the world’s population.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-believe-in-God-2

All of those 14% of people are not atheists. Some of them are agnostics or have no faith, but they do believe in God.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course just because most people believe in God does not mean God exists, since what people believe or disbelieve does not prove anything.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is also fallacious.

So either believers or atheists could be right about God. Whether God exists or not is all about the evidence, not about what people believe or disbelieve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are correct. I doubt those statistics truly reflect atheism. In the United States religion is on the decline but belief in God is holding stable, so many formerly religious people now call themselves spiritual. Probably because the United States is still about 70% Christian there is a stigma attached to atheism, so there is false reporting. I see no shame in atheism, it is an honest position, but I am not a Christian.

In Europe and the U.K, atheism is more the norm than the exception so the United States is the odd man out when it comes to industrialized nations.

According to these statistics, 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

According to a survey by World Religions Religion Statistics Geography Church Statistics, people who are "secular, non-religious, agnostics and atheists" account for about 14% of the world’s population.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-believe-in-God-2

All of those 14% of people are not atheists. Some of them are agnostics or have no faith, but they do believe in God.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course just because most people believe in God does not mean God exists, since what people believe or disbelieve does not prove anything.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is also fallacious.

So either believers or atheists could be right about God. Whether God exists or not is all about the evidence, not about what people believe or disbelieve.

But once again, most agnostics are atheists. Agnosticism is a statement on what one thinks can be known, atheism can range from a lack of belief in a god or gods to the claim that gods do not exist.

 

[columbus]

Multiple factors have conspired to reduce the appeal of religion, not just science,

I voted "reasonably", and this post helps explain why I didn't vote "significantly". If anything, I could go to "marginally".
All the things you listed we're western, Christendom, much better educated and informed than the human norm. The majority of the Human Family doesn't know about all that, much less care.
Religions still play the same roles it always has for the majority of humans.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

But once again, most agnostics are atheists. Agnosticism is a statement on what one thinks can be known, atheism can range from a lack of belief in a god or gods to the claim that gods do not exist.

I always used to think that agnostic are those who say they do not know if God exists and atheists say God does not exist. Then an atheist told me there was no such thing as an agnostic and that people who call themselves that are just cowards who won't take a side. Now I guess that is what you are saying, that one is either a believer or a nonbeliever, theist or atheist. Boy is this confusing!

Anyhow, I guess what it is is that there are different kinds of atheists, ones who do not believe in a God or gods and ones who say they know that a God or gods does not exist. So the first kind of atheist might believe if there was evidence or proof that God exists. I call that an agnostic but I guess I could call that an agnostic atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I always used to think that agnostic are those who say they do not know if God exists and atheists say God does not exist. Then an atheist told me there was no such thing as an agnostic and that people who call themselves that are just cowards who won't take a side. Now I guess that is what you are saying, that one is either a believer or a nonbeliever, theist or atheist. Boy is this confusing!

Anyhow, I guess what it is is that there are different kinds of atheists, ones who do not believe in a God or gods and ones who say they know that a God or gods does not exist. So the first kind of atheist might believe if there was evidence or proof that God exists. I call that an agnostic but I guess I could call that an agnostic atheist.

Actually an agnostic can be an atheist or a theist. Think of it this way, one either believes in a god or one does not. Most agnostics lack a belief in any gods. But that does not mean that applies to all agnostics. One can be an agnostic Christian, Muslim, Hindu or even general theist. An agnostic would say "I don't know if a god exists, but I believe in ...." if he was a theist or "I don't know if a god exists and I do not believe in any gods that I know of) if he was an atheistic agnostic. Most atheists fit in that category. If reliable evidence for a god was given they would change their minds and believe.

Of course belief and worship are two totally different concepts too. I have heard more than one atheist say that if they were convinced that the God of the Bible exists they would still not worship such an evil being.

 

[columbus]

Then an atheist told me there was no such thing as an agnostic and that people who call themselves that are just cowards who won't take a side.

That's not really true. There are lots of thinking people who have more nuanced views than that.
Agnostic isn't really a position on theism. It's not about God. It's about humans and their limitations. We simply do not, maybe can not, know about God. That's not Atheism, exactly.

There's a broad spectrum of worldviews people hold. You'll find lots of them here on RF.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually an agnostic can be an atheist or a theist. Think of it this way, one either believes in a god or one does not. Most agnostics lack a belief in any gods. But that does not mean that applies to all agnostics. One can be an agnostic Christian, Muslim, Hindu or even general theist. An agnostic would say "I don't know if a god exists, but I believe in ...." if he was a theist or "I don't know if a god exists and I do not believe in any gods that I know of) if he was an atheistic agnostic. Most atheists fit in that category. If reliable evidence for a god was given they would change their minds and believe.

Of course belief and worship are two totally different concepts too. I have heard more than one atheist say that if they were convinced that the God of the Bible exists they would still not worship such an evil being.

Now you throw in another monkey wrench! Are you saying that believers are agnostic because they believe God exists but they do not know God exists? Or are you saying that there agnostic believers (ones that believe God exists) and confirmed believers (ones that know God exists) just as there are agnostic atheists (ones that don’t know and don’t believe God exists) and confirmed atheists (ones that know God does not exist)?

I do not believe God exists, I know God exists, but not because I have objective proof. There is more than one way to know.

Yeah, I know all about that. I just came from a forum that had mostly nonbelievers and most had formerly been Christians and are not too fond of the Bible God. I was never a Christian so I do not know the Bible very well at all. However, I do not believe the Bible is an inerrant representation of who God is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you throw in another monkey wrench! Are you saying that believers are agnostic because they believe God exists but they do not know God exists? Or are you saying that there agnostic believers (ones that believe God exists) and confirmed believers (ones that know God exists) just as there are agnostic atheists (ones that don’t know and don’t believe God exists) and confirmed atheists (ones that know God does not exist)?

I do not believe God exists, I know God exists, but not because I have objective proof. There is more than one way to know.

Yeah, I know all about that. I just came from a forum that had mostly nonbelievers and most had formerly been Christians and are not too fond of the Bible God. I was never a Christian so I do not know the Bible very well at all. However, I do not believe the Bible is an inerrant representation of who God is.

If you parse the terms you will see that being an agnostic is a statement on what you think can be proven, atheism and theism are merely beliefs or a lack of belief in deities.

And your use of the term "confirmed atheists" is incorrect. A person that denies the existence of a god or gods is an antitheist.

And sorry, if you "know" that God exists then you believe that God exists. By the way, in reality all you have is belief. Knowledge is demonstrable. If you cannot demonstrate why God exists all that you have is belief.

 

[Skwim]

That's not really true. There are lots of thinking people who have more nuanced views than that.
Agnostic isn't really a position on theism. It's not about God. It's about humans and their limitations. We simply do not, maybe can not, know about God. That's not Atheism, exactly.

There's a broad spectrum of worldviews people hold. You'll find lots of them here on RF.
Tom

As an agnostic I have to disagree. Agnosticism is no less a position on theism (belief in the existence of a god or gods) than is atheism or theism. Whereas agnostics remain seated on the fence of belief/disbelief, atheists and theists simply choose to stand on one side of it. The agnostic looks at the definitions of god and says; I remain unconvinced there is such a thing (an atheistic position if you wish) and also remain unconvinced there isn't such a thing--the evidence for god, while compelling, just isn't strong enough to agree to it, yet remains too intriguing to dismiss it out of hand.

.

 

[Trailblazer]

Subduction Zone said:

If you parse the terms you will see that being an agnostic is a statement on what you think can be proven, atheism and theism are merely beliefs or a lack of belief in deities.

Okay thanks, that keeps it simple. An agnostic does not think it can be proven either way, but they believe or disbelieve.

And your use of the term "confirmed atheists" is incorrect. A person that denies the existence of a god or gods is an antitheist.

Oh, a new term. So they claim to know a God does not exist even though they cannot prove it.

And sorry, if you "know" that God exists then you believe that God exists. By the way, in reality all you have is belief. Knowledge is demonstrable. If you cannot demonstrate why God exists all that you have is belief.

Not necessarily so. A person can know without objective proof because they have good evidence.

One person’s knowledge is not always demonstrable to everyone because one person’s evidence is not evidence to everyone.

Definition of know:
transitive verb

1. 1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself(3): to recognize the nature of : discernb(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of
2. 2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write
3. 3archaic: to have sexual intercourse with
4. intransitive verb
5. 1: to have knowledge
6. 2: to be or become cognizant —sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech

Definition of KNOW

 

[Trailblazer]

As an agnostic I have to disagree. Agnosticism is no less a position on theism (belief in the existence of a god or gods) than is atheism or theism. Whereas agnostics remain seated on the fence of belief/disbelief, atheists and theists simply choose to stand on one side of it. The agnostic looks at the definitions of god and says; I remain unconvinced there is such a thing (an atheistic position if you wish) and also remain unconvinced there isn't such a thing--the evidence for god, while compelling, just isn't strong enough to agree to it, yet remains too intriguing to dismiss it out of hand..

That is the way I always thought of it, you are on the fence, a respectable position.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone said:

If you parse the terms you will see that being an agnostic is a statement on what you think can be proven, atheism and theism are merely beliefs or a lack of belief in deities.

Okay thanks, that keeps it simple. An agnostic does not think it can be proven either way, but they believe or disbelieve.

And your use of the term "confirmed atheists" is incorrect. A person that denies the existence of a god or gods is an antitheist.

Oh, a new term. So they claim to know a God does not exist even though they cannot prove it.

And sorry, if you "know" that God exists then you believe that God exists. By the way, in reality all you have is belief. Knowledge is demonstrable. If you cannot demonstrate why God exists all that you have is belief.

Not necessarily so. A person can know without objective proof because they have good evidence.

One person’s knowledge is not always demonstrable to everyone because one person’s evidence is not evidence to everyone.

Definition of know:
transitive verb

1. 1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself(3): to recognize the nature of : discernb(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of
2. 2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write
3. 3archaic: to have sexual intercourse with
4. intransitive verb
5. 1: to have knowledge
6. 2: to be or become cognizant —sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech

Definition of KNOW

An antitheist will quite often claim that they can prove the nonexistence of a god. I do not agree with them on all points, but some gods can be proven not to exist.

And your use of definitions of knowledge did not help your case.

 

[Trailblazer]

An antitheist will quite often claim that they can prove the nonexistence of a god. I do not agree with them on all points, but some gods can be proven not to exist.

I do not know which gods those would be. As far as I know there is only One God, the God that created the universe.

And your use of definitions of knowledge did not help your case.

I do not have a case, I just know God exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not know which gods those would be. As far as I know there is only One God, the God that created the universe.

Really? Man has invented a countless number of gods.

I do not have a case, I just know God exists.

Nope, you merely believe. Knowledge is demonstrable, that is one of its traits. You may have convinced yourself, but if you can't convince others what you have is belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

Really? Man has invented a countless number of gods.

I agree that man has invented all the "gods" but how do you think man could invent a Real God, the God that created the universe? That seems like backwards logic to me.

Nope, you merely believe. Knowledge is demonstrable, that is one of its traits.

Definition of knowledge

1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding

• answered to the best of my knowledge

c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition

d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned

• a person of unusual knowledge

2 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

b archaic : a branch of learning

3 archaic : sexual intercourse

4 obsolete : cognizance

See knowledge defined for English-l

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

I guess you are referring to definition 2 a, but not all knowledge is not the sum of what is known, thus not all knowledge is demonstrable..

You may have convinced yourself, but if you can't convince others what you have is belief.

It is not my job to convince anyone of what I know to be the truth. Everyone has to do their own independent investigation and come to their own conclusions about God. That is one reason why God endowed everyone with innate intelligence..
It is not even logical to expect one person to convince everyone else of anything, no matter how true it might be.

 

[Valjean]

Science is doing its best to become a religion itself... Is there really much difference at this point, other than the universal model you feel is more acceptable?

No. Science and religion are pretty much diametric opposites.
Science remains skeptical, investigative, evidence based, tested, and falsifiable -- none of which apply to religion, at least Abrahamic religion.

As far as mankind leaping away from religion, not really. Urban populations are, the rest of the world isn't following them.

Urban and secure populations are. The insecure and isolated still cleave to them as havens of familiarity and conventionalism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree that man has invented all the "gods" but how do you think man could invent a Real God, the God that created the universe? That seems like backwards logic to me.

There may not be a "Real God". There are countless versions of man made gods.

Definition of knowledge

1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding

• answered to the best of my knowledge

c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition

d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned

• a person of unusual knowledge

2 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

b archaic : a branch of learning

3 archaic : sexual intercourse

4 obsolete : cognizance

See knowledge defined for English-l

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

I guess you are referring to definition 2 a, but not all knowledge is not the sum of what is known, thus not all knowledge is demonstrable..



It is not my job to convince anyone of what I know to be the truth. Everyone has to do their own independent investigation and come to their own conclusions about God. That is one reason why God endowed everyone with innate intelligence..
It is not even logical to expect one person to convince everyone else of anything, no matter how true it might be.

Now you are making an equivocation error, the usage of a term is apparent from context. And if you claim to "know" that God exists you are putting the burden of proof upon yourself. No one that can think rationally will believe someone that makes claims and then runs away from supporting those claims. Your actions tell me that you merely believe in a god.

 

[David T]

Science is doing its best to become a religion itself... Is there really much difference at this point, other than the universal model you feel is more acceptable?

As far as mankind leaping away from religion, not really. Urban populations are, the rest of the world isn't following them.

That is an emperical fact that would be denied by its rabid followers..