I wonder if religion is somehow inherit in our evolution.

[Random_Australian]

****Disclaimer: I am certainly not trying to inflame, and nothing said here is meant to be derogatory - if it seems that way then either 1) We have a failure of communication or 2) You have my apologies. /Disclaimer****

(Note: This boils down to 'why do we have religion')

Anyway, this question actually takes two different tacks (or more) depending on your belief.

Basically, nothing happens for no reason at all^, and we have religion.

Therefore there is some reason that we have it. To the atheist, this is most likely something inherit to our processing ability or our evolution or our (your thoughts here). To the assembled theists, did God make us that way? - (thought if not it defaults to the non-theist viewpoint, I should think but as always I cannot define your beliefs for you)

^Yep, that is my scientific mind at work. You can well say that what we think happens for no reason at all, and that is fine as a personal opinion.

In other words, this post is asking about the component of religion that exists in our minds.

Feel free to tack on how much you think religion is brain-based, and how much external to the brain.
(Please clarify if necessary how much the mind is independent of the brain in your beliefs).

Edit: independent, independant, what's the diff!

Edit 2: What about the spiritual feeling we get? Strong religous experiences? Food for thought.

[Kagemusha]

1. It comes down to, would humans invent God to explain the unknown?

Learn a little about humans and the answer jumps out: absolutely.

In the minds of some, that is reason enough to distrust the veraticity of gods of any religion. Most, however, embrace the concept, if sometimes for no other reason than to fit in with the "little people" so as to avoid the kind of resentment that can lead to the overthrow of elite types less prone to blind faith.

[monarch]

2. Read "Why God Won't Go Away"

It's a fairly recent book proposing that the idea of god is hardwired into our brains.

[murray hill farm]

3. all societies, i once read...

no matter how large or small and tribal have an equilivant of the 10 commandments as a measure ond guide on how to live together in their society..and from these basics, all laws are formed. I believe all humans have within them a knowing of what is right or wrong and the ability to choose their actions from that knowing..so, it that sense, yes...the basics of religion are inherent.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. but religion today has little to do with right or wrong

it has to do with money, control and greed.

In fact, just taking christianity, that has always been the case. morality is not the same thing as religion. And the ability to understand right and wrong, to create a set of rules to live by and to govern others' behavior to the good of all society has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religion simply fills a void of data, understanding and knowledge.

[murray hill farm]

14. all socital institutions act to reinforce.

the basic beliefs of what is right or wrong or what is good or bad. religion as an institution exists in a society as one of those reinforcers, just as does govt,education,the economics and work, etc. they all exist to reinforce those basic beliefs about what is expected in the way of individual behavior and belief within the society.

[notadmblnd]

15. religion is not god

and that is where I think some people become confused. If we can peel away what organized religion has taught us and then seek a devine creator, we just might be able to get somewhere. But IMO religion is used to control and manipulate weak people.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. Not all religion

I have to defend my denomination. I am Episcopalian. There are NO weak Episcopalians!

Just kidding. Of course there are. But our little branch of craziness is as far as you can get from repressive. We are not controlled by our priests or a pope. We get together weekly to worship together and we enjoy ritual and music. We are there for each other when the going gets tough. I've gone to church all my life and it has been a great blessing to me. It is where I make my friends..it has been a musical and artistic (I make stained glass windows for churches..or I used to) outlet. It is a wonderful cycle, the liturgical year. I feel a part of something and in our isolated suburban lifestyle, that is a good thing. I love church. I am happiest in church. I feel the prayers of the people who went before in the wood, in the plaster, everywhere. It is a sacred space for me.

Now, I will be the first to admit that some churches over-reach and intrude way too much, and personally I think the whole televangelist schtick is fraudulent and pitiful.

I realize my perspective is narrow in this regard. But it has worked for me, so I see that with moderation organized religion can be a positive thing. But it isn't for everybody.

[notadmblnd]

22. The woods is a sacred place for me

I can get the rest.. ritual music.. friends at a social club.

I'm not putting you down..but after being raised southern baptist.. it's just not my cuppa.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

23. I have been to a number of Southern Baptist

services and it doesn't do much for me, either. But I know a lot of SB's who are into it.

I used to like the woods up north, but down here there is major bug problems, except in the winter. (which is about three weeks long)

But I can see how the woods would be sacred to you. Social clubs are too noisy for me. And that's one difference between my church and some others I have been to. It is very, very quiet. As a teacher I CRAVE quiet. I want contemplation and silence. I don't want shouting and clapping.

But again, I know a lot of folks dig that. Different strokes!

[notadmblnd]

53. agreed

nt

[hunter]

32. I'm not controlled by my Priests or my Pope...

... I don't know anyone in my family who is.

A good many of us have been seen arguing with Nuns, Brothers, Deacons, Priests, and yes, even Bishops. I'm sure we'd argue with the Pope too.

They haven't kicked us out yet.

On my wedding day I was terrified that my brothers and my dad and my future brother-in-law were going to have some terrible theological altercation with our Priest before the ceremony. The whole lot of them are very outspoken; I'm the quiet one.

Instead they talked about... fishing.

Praise God!

[unblock]

16. very astute. just because religion mentions morality doesn't mean

that religion is all about morality.

i've always been baffled by the claim that morality is derived from religion. i'm not religious at all and i have a very clear sense of morality, and am fully capable of analyzing the complexities therein.

i think religion simply inserts itself in the process and claims credit for something that was already there.

[ngant17]

4. monotheism evolved from sun worship

It is clear to me that monotheism evolved from sun worship. Moreover, there is some speculation in the scientific community that the Sun can be viewed as a living organism. The Hungarian astrophysicist Grandpierre has postulated that the Sun is a lifelike system. See this link:

http://www.geocities.com/ngant17/sun1.htm

I would not depend on theocrats for a rational explanation of God. An irrational explanation based on faith, yes. But not a rational one.

[Random_Australian]

5. Stars are fascinating, did you know that they oscillate with giant

compression waves? My third physics lecturer works on it.... apparently the sun goes through an oscilllation every I don't know how many years. I'll have to look it up.

Just an aside.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

33. Wouldn't it be amazing

and rather funny, I think, if the sun turned out to BE God?

just saying...

[trotsky]

6. Awareness came before knowledge.

We humans evolved to wonder and ask questions looooong before we figured out a system to answer them (science). Because we also evolved as pattern-recognizers, I think if you combine that with an ignorance of what's causing the pattern, you get primitive religion.

By the way, the word you want to use is "inherent."

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. A thought on the types of gods people have

that I've just read in a book ("In Search of Zarathustra"):

Much of the story told in the Bible is an account of the clash between two attitudes to life. For faith and physical geography are always inextricably intertwined. Belief always takes on the face of its earthly environment. To the inhabitants of fertile and hospitable valleys and plains, every river and stream, every wood and forest, every hill and dale has its own, different, spiritual presence. Pure monotheisms, on the other hand, have always burst out of the desert, the mountains, the steppe, the waste places of the earth, where every spot is the same as every other and one God rules over all.

Is this an over-generalisation? Or is there something to this idea of the gods we pick? It seems to make some sense to me.

[trotsky]

20. Dang, that's interesting.

Never thought of that before. It does make a lot of sense.

[greyl]

28. How many pure monotheisms are there?

I really don't think that theory makes sense. Where on Earth was there ever a place that could sustain human life long enough to allow the idea of monotheism to take hold, in which its features are non-descript and void of biological diversity("where every spot is the same as every other")? I can't think of any, and I can't imagine how it would be possible. Considering the visibility of heavenly bodies in the sky, the theory makes even less sense.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. The author is thinking of the major monotheist religions

Zoroastrianism (Persia), Judaism (the dry semi-desert of siuthern Judah, as opposed to the more fertile northern Israel, where they seem have had much more time for other gods), Christianity (its offshoot, with some desert action for John the Baptist and Jesus, though it's mainly a form of Judaism), and Islam (Arabia).

[greyl]

43. Current deserts used to be the Fertile Crescent, though.

I still can't imagine a place that can sustain human life where every place is like every other. I think that premise is faulty.

The speculation that the monotheistic idea arose because of a relatively featureless geography just doesn't make sense. Relatively featureless geography that can sustain life is still full of features, including the sky. Did any monotheisms develop in the plains and deserts of the Americas or Africa?

Something that does make sense, is the possibility that a culture that outstrips the resources of its originating land because of poor agricultural practices is compelled to overtake the territory of other cultures. Iow, a culture that is living the myth that God created the Earth for them to conquer and rule is destined to overuse their resources, thus creating relatively barren local geography.

I'm trying to put myself in the mind of a human 15,000 years ago, and even if there were an area where every geographic place is like every other, I just can't imagine how any view of the entire environment would be seen as monolithic.

Is the author of that book saying that monotheism was a somewhat sensible conclusion based on geography?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

35. What do the Inuits believe?

They certainly don't have a very diverse environment. Are they monotheistic?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

34. That is absolutely fascinating

and makes perfect sense to me.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. for many thousands of years, we had these huge brains, quizical, curious,

adaptive and uneducated.

If you realize that the first plane patent was taken out 100 years ago, in 1906, and only 63 years later (not even a present day generation) we landed people on the moon, you begin to see that we are finally escaping our cloud of ignorance. But it has not been an easy path.

The growth of technology continues to increase, as does our understanding of the universe. But 300 years ago, much of what we knew to be true was in fact, myth, erroneous, and faith-based. 500 years ago it was illegal to do research that conflicted with religious dogma. 1000 years ago, literacy - that one critical technology that allows efficient storage, retrieval and analysis of information and discoveries barely existed, and then only in small numbers.

We are hard-wired to investigate and to learn. Without data, we go nuts, or we make things up. We see patterns where none exist, and we create and concoct explanations to answer our curious minds' need for an answer. Without hard scientific answers to these questions, we made things up. These days, we call it religious faith.

Today, we look at lightning and realize the electrical forces generated by storms, temperture differences and high and low pressure areas colliding. 10,000 years ago, knowing a lot less about the universe, they saw something scary, so they had to come up with an explanation. That is how religion started, out of ignorance and fear. And unfortunately, religion continues to maintain its stranglehold and monopoly on ignorance and fear, for that is precisely how it continues to thrive and damage our society. That is why so many religions hate education and preach that their instruction manual contains all the answers that they need. (what a silly concept, when you view it properly) Their bible is a nice historical piece of fiction. Pity that it has harmed so many and caused the deaths, torture, slavery and destitution of so many for so long.

In sum, Religion = blissful ignorance. Our brains are at fault, or they were, until we started applying them in a proper direction.

[unblock]

9. there have been twins studies on "religiosity"

they looked at twins who grew up in separate families (separated at birth).

the upshot was that if one twin had a high religiosity score, so did the other one.

which religion was a function of environment. for instance, the twin of a priest was a rabbi.

but the fact of being very religious is apparently genetic.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. and do not forget the high incidence of mental illness measured

in those people who describe themselves as having the highest levels of religious beliefs.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

36. As some point

religion becomes delusion. Exactly WHEN is debatable!

[HereSince1628]

12. This is a good example of how easily one can slip into the adaptationist

programme. It's also interesting that you attempt to pose this within the domain of evolutionary psychology an area that is rather replete with the sort of "just-so stories" used to establish hypotheses on the existance of mental mechanisms that Gould so very much disliked...

It is also possible that religion isn't an adaptation per se, and that some neurology of religious behavior wasn't targeted by selective forces acting on the brain.

If we are speculating it's just as possible, that religion is an incidental cultural by-product (i.e. things learned and handed down) that stems from behavioral characteristics and learning biases associated with an intelligent ape's life in social groups that manifest an awareness of not only self, but "us."

Religion may simply fall out of behaviors that reinforce recognition of membership within a group and that group's distinction from "them;" as well as the capacity for recognition of an individuals position within dominance hierarchies. Because humans are animals that rely heavily upon learned cultural endowments it isn't much of a flight of fancy to see these things interplay to yeild the recognition that parts of the group's social structure are accepted/authoritative sources of information.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

37. Okay...I feel like the donkey in Shrek

here, but I have to at least add...could not religion be so prevalent because..ta-da! God exists?

DON'T HIT ME!

[HereSince1628]

54. Sure, if you allow gods and such in your system of explaining evolution

I think that's the main reason God seems to be missing in the thread to this time.

The OP cast his/her question in terms of evolution. As an evolutionary scientist I added my perspective, but honestly, gods and such are metaphysical and as such are outside the way evolutionary science, my training and my thinking are bounded around the physical universe.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

60. My personal view of evolution

is that it IS part of some universal power that is past my finite understanding. Generally I look to evolution to explain just about everything in human behavior. It just makes sense. Where I would assume we differ is in a metaphysical framework.

I guess we can speculate forever...and it won't help.

[zeemike]

13. I think you need to define religion

Because the religion you are most familiar with is the western kind and that is much different than most of the basic ones.
For instance the Native american religion was a believe that there was a great spirit that animated all things on the earth and that spirit was in all things from rocks to man.
But they had no priest or preachers that created dogmas that had to be followed, but passed on there knowledge from the wise men of the tribe.
The Eastern religions and most primitive religions are much the same but have in the more developed countries, a priestly class that create and preach the dogmas that the followers are to follow.
Western religion has a week understanding of spirituality but is highly dogmatic and is mostly power driven, punishing those that stray from the dogmas, and rewarding thous that uphold it's power.
So what I think most people have a problem with is western religion which has little to do with spirituality and more to do with control.

[enigma000]

17. Religious belief might be an evolutionary advantage

Consider that the birth rates of the secular countries in the Western World are almost all below the replacement level but countries with greater religious belief (Latin Africa, Africa, the Middle East) have a birth rate above the replacement level.

Even in the US, Red states have a higher birth rate than Blue states.

Religious belief may be an evolutionary advantage.

[greyl]

31. Over-population isn't a sustainable advantage.

In fact, it's ultimately the opposite.
How can you reconcile the correlation between local education and local birth rate? (Lower birth rate goes with higher education)
When the three million years of human history are compared with the several thousand year history of the religions that you're speaking of, some distinct disadvantages become clear.

Food production is more directly related to population growth than religion is.

[enigma000]

38. but neither is population decline

Certainly there are other factors: food production, local education, culture; that have a greater effect on the birth rate. But religions have always stressed the "be fruitful and multiply" approach in life - it has to be a factor.

In the last Presidential election, Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates. Bush took almost all of the 25 states with the highest.

In 50 years, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans and 100 million more Americans (and mostly red-state Americans) But who is really getting the short end of the stick?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

39. Good article I just read today

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12888599/site/newsweek/

[enigma000]

41. That is a good article

In 2000, one in six people in Germany and Japan were 65 or older; by 2050, the projections are for one in three.

What happens then? They could try large scale immigration but where would they find immigrants from? So far Europe has been getting immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East, but too many and Western Europe could look like an Arab state by the 2040s. And as a progressive, that doesn't fill me with much joy.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

42. I believe Eurabia is already a given.

[greyl]

44. There is no population decline in secular societies.

There may be found a decline in birth rate, but that does not begin to equal population decline. Where are you getting the extrapolation that Europe will have 100 million fewer people, that it will be due to a lack of religion, and that reducing the population of Earth by 100 million people will harm our chances for survival?

Humans never needed religion to tell them to have sex, did they?

There's a difference between evolutionary advantages to humanity at large, and a local group that thinks its members should all have 12 children, damn the global effects on sustainable life.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

47. According to the article I posted above

decline in birthrate will eventually most likely produce a decline in population.

"There's no more population "explosion." In wealthier countries, motherhood is going out of style and plunging birthrates portend population loss. This is a hugely significant development, even if we don't fully understand the causes—experts didn't predict it—or consequences. One way or another, the side effects will be massive for economics, politics and people's well being. Indeed, they may already have started. Is it a coincidence that Germany and Italy, two countries on the edge of population decline, are so troubled.'



"Low fertility rates don't instantly lead to population declines. They can be offset by immigration, longer life expectancies and greater numbers of young mothers. But ultimately, low fertility rates suggest falling populations."

T-Grannie

[greyl]

48. Yes, I've been looking at that carefully. (edit: re Ben Wattenberg)

It isn't happening now, and the speculation is local.
The projected figures for world population in 2050 by the Census Bureau and the UN are over 11 billion. Others are over 15 billion. I can't find any sources that say Europe will have fewer people in 2050.

Spain: 40,077,100 (July 2002 est.) ---- 40,397,842 (July 2006 est.)
Italy: 57,715,625 (July 2002 est.) ---- 58,133,509 (July 2006 est.)
Japan: 126,974,628 (July 2002 est.) ---- 127,463,611 (July 2006 est.)
Germany: 83,251,851 (July 2002 est.) ---- 82,422,299 (July 2006 est.)

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2119.html

When the carrying capacity of a local area is exceeded by its population, it's highly probable that the population will decrease, usually to a point of balance, unless the resources have been decimated. That's a good thing. I think Samuelson is spinning the data for the sake of a mildly sensational story while being oblivious to the fact that the Earth is a global community.


edit: btw, Samuelson references Ben Wattenberg who is associated with The American Enterprise Institute and PNAC. He is a conservative who wrote The Birth Death in 1997 in which he voiced concern about white population vs others. fwiw.

"The Birth Dearth
by Ben Wattenberg

This is one of the most important books of our time. Wattenberg shows clearly the lie of the population explosion myth, and the utter danger of birth-control over the long term. Using census information, Wattenberg saw and predicted the inevitable fall of the Soviet Union, and warns that the same thing can happen to the USA. Every Christian should read this book."

http://www.eternalsalvation.org/Demographics.html

[TallahasseeGrannie]

56. I appreciate your take

on the source. I agree now it needs to be looked at more carefully.

[enigma000]

49. Well, I doubt its just from a lack of religion

I don't recall where I saw the numbers, but I found statistics here:

http://www.geohive.com/global/geo.php?xml=idb&xsl=idb2

European population will go from 728 million in 2010 to 650 million in 2050.

[greyl]

51. Fair enough.

However, those are projected populations, and the current population of Europe is higher than their stats for 2000 and 2010 which indicates the fallability of projections I suppose.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/vitstats/serATab2.pdf

So where are we on the topic of religion being an advantage to human survival in the long run? ;)

[hexola]

18. Inherent...Julian Jaynes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Michael Shermer has some interesting ideas on the matter

You might be interested in reading, "How We Believe."

[varkam]

24. There is a psychological researcher...

who is doing research currently on how the brain is "wired" for some type of dualism (which is the notion that the universe is comprised of both physical and non-physical material such as souls). His name escapes me at the moment, but suffice it to say that there is evidence to suggest that we naturally strive for meta-physical experiences.

More compelling though, at least in my opinion, is what your parents believe. Generally speaking, people believe whatever their parents told them to believe when they were little. From a psychological perspective, the act of accepting a belief is a one-step process - someone tells you something and you automatically accept that claim unless you make a further step of rejection. In other words, it takes more work to reject a claim someone tells you than it does to just accept it. When you're a small child, you generally have little reason to distrust your parents, so you generally accept the claims they tell you about how the world operates. If one of those claims involve God, then you tend to accept that claim as well. Then, you start going to church regularly and internalize and strengthen that claim. By the time you come to an age where you can begin to critically think and analyze information, it's a very tough task indeed to reject a claim that has been so central to your conduct. In other words, if you reject the claim at that point, then that would mean so much of your other beliefs about the world that you had formulated since you were little would go by the wayside as well.

And about spiritual experiences? I have those a lot - experiences that I would term as beautiful and good to have, but that I can't quite necessarily explain in words. It's a psychosomatic sort of thing - I feel very serene and warm all over. That's bastardizing the feeling, but it's as best as my poor literary ability will allow me to do. I tend to have them if I am listening to a really good piece of music, or seeing a beautiful painting...things like that. But, I'm also a materialist - but that doesn't mean I deny that "spiritual" experiences exist.

[ozone_man]

25. God is a projection of our desires.

I think God was perhaps a necessary stage in the development of the human race, but is a concept that will eventually give way in the same way that other creation mythologies have. A few appropriate Freud quotes:

"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires". - Sigmund Freud

"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be." - Sigmund Freud

"The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind." - Sigmund Freud

[TallahasseeGrannie]

40. I think perhaps you are looking at the progressive

movement when you say that religion will eventually die out. If anything, right now, we have the opposite problem. And throughout history there is no evidence (that I know of and I'm no historian) of a culture that has completely eschewed spirituality, if not religion. And when you have the former you are vulnerable to the latter.

I don't think it will go away. Just my gut feeling. However, I am a believer, so my perspective might be skewed, but I'm trying to look at it globally.

T-Grannie

[ozone_man]

45. Spirituality exists apart from religion.

Spirituality will never die out, but religion may. I think most atheists will say that they have spiritual feelings, but then we have to be clear what we mean by spiritual feelings or spirituality. It is a human thing to feel spiritual in response to certain stimuli such as meditation, praying, but also love, enjoying nature, music, reading, etc.

We have to move beyond (my opinion, also Sam Harris') basing spirituality on antiquated myths, and base them on more realistic foundations. Meditation is one such technique. I think Buddhism is an example of a religion that is more of a philosophy, that is well founded on reason and spirituality, but not God. It seems compatible with a peaceful future, while Christianity doesn't since it's foundation is critically flawed by the preposterous myth of the Trinity and a knowable God. Unfortunately, many have died because they didn't believe in this religious concept as are many in the Mid East today with those who don't believe in Islam or believe a different version.

Spirituality must not be based on blind faith, rather it must exist in the full presence of reason. Religion can't exist in the full presence of reason, so ultimately will atrophy. In Europe, it already is.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

46. I can deal with religion going away

although for me and millions of others, the Christ story speaks to us. The Trinity makes infinite sense to me, as does a knowable God. But that's another thread!

One point about Europe, however. I think you are referring to white Europe. It is rapidly being overtaken by Muslims and they are not dying out by any means. White Europe is not just dying out religion-wise, it is dying out, period. My husband is from Germany. Our two children are the only two offspring from his generation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12888599/site/newsweek/

This is a good article I just read about population trends in Europe.

[ozone_man]

55. Here are some numbers.

I'm sure the influx of immigrants changes things some, as does the influx of predominantly Catholic Mexican immigrants into the U.S., but religious beliefs also change with time. Will the immigrants change Europe's beliefs or will Europe change the immigrants beliefs?

It is true that educated, affluent societies have fewer kids. You might have read of the Pope's comments that people aren't having enough kids. But I think the world is already overpopulated. Two is enough for a family, we don't need ten kids like the church would prefer. 6 billion people is plenty. I think they're afraid that if people become too educated and affluent, they will cease to believe in their silly religion, which is the basis for their power. Keeping believers barefoot and pregnant seems to be the way of the RCC. No contraception, sex other than to make babies is a sin.

Country Total Pop.(2004) % Atheist/actual # Agnostic/Nonbeliever in God (minimum - maximum)
1 Sweden 8,986,000 46-85% 4,133,560-7,638,100
2 Vietnam 82,690,000 81% 66,978,900
3 Denmark 5,413,000 43-80% 2,327,590-4,330,400
4 Norway 4,575,000 31-72% 1,418,250-3,294,000
5 Japan 127,333,000 64-65% 81,493,120-82,766,450
6 Czech Republic 10,246,100 54-61% 5,328,940-6,250,121
7 Finland 5,215,000 28-60% 1,460,200-3,129,000
8 France 60,424,000 43-54% 25,982,320-32,628,960
9 South Korea 48,598,000 30%-52% 14,579,400-25,270,960
10 Estonia 1,342,000 49% 657,580
11 Germany 82,425,000 41-49% 33,794,250-40,388,250
12 Russia 143,782,000 24-48% 34,507,680-69,015,360
13 Hungary 10,032,000 32-46% 3,210,240-4,614,720
14 Netherlands 16,318,000 39-44% 6,364,020-7,179,920
15 Britain 60,271,000 31-44% 18,684,010-26,519,240
16 Belgium 10,348,000 42-43% 4,346,160-4,449,640
17 Bulgaria 7,518,000 34-40% 2,556,120-3,007,200
18 Slovenia 2,011,000 35-38% 703,850-764,180
19 Israel 6,199,000 15-37% 929,850-2,293,630
20 Canada 32,508,000 19-30% 6,176,520-9,752,400
21 Latvia 2,306,000 20-29% 461,200-668,740
22 Slovakia 5,424,000 10-28% 542,400-1,518,720
23 Switzerland 7,451,000 17-27% 1,266,670-2,011,770
24 Austria 8,175,000 18-26% 1,471,500-2,125,500
25 Australia 19,913,000 24-25% 4,779,120-4,978,250
26 Taiwan 22,750,000 24% 5,460,000
27 Spain 40,281,000 15-24% 6,042,150-9,667,440
28 Iceland 294,000 16-23% 47,040-67,620
29 New Zealand 3,994,000 20-22% 798,800-878,680
30 Ukraine 47,732,000 20% 9,546,400
31 Belarus 10,311,000 17% 1,752,870
32 Greece 10,648,000 16% 1,703,680
33 North Korea 22,698,000 15% ( ? ) 3,404,700
34 Italy 58,057,000 6-15% 3,483,420-8,708,550
35 Armenia 2,991,000 14% 418,740
36 China 1,298,848,000 8-14% ( ? ) 103,907,840-181,838,720
37 Lithuania 3,608,000 13% 469,040
38 Singapore 4,354,000 13% 566,020
39 Uruguay 3,399,000 12% 407,880
40 Kazakhstan 15,144,000 11-12% 1,665,840-1,817,280
41 Estonia 1,342,000 11% 147,620
42 Mongolia 2,751,000 9% 247,590
43 Portugal 10,524,000 4-9% 420,960-947,160
44 United States 293,028,000 3-9% 8,790,840-26,822,520
45 Albania 3,545,000 8% 283,600
46 Argentina 39,145,000 4-8% 1,565,800-3,131,600
47 Kyrgyzstan 5,081,000 7% 355,670
48 Dominican Rep. 8,834,000 7% 618,380
49 Cuba 11,309,000 7% ( ? ) 791,630
50 Croatia 4,497,000 7% 314,790

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

[TallahasseeGrannie]

58. My gut reaction

which is totally unresearched is that the Islamic culture is so strong and cohesive that the declining European culture will give way to it. One reason is the declining birth rate, of course, but I think there is more at work there. My source of this impression is my German inlaws who believe this will happen, as well. They believe the German race is disappearing.

[ozone_man]

63. Islam is more intolerant,

still a medieval religion, but Europe has already had it's fill of medieval Christianity. I think even Islam will moderate, probably in 50 years, what it took Christianity 500 years to do, but maybe not without further bloodshed.

Along with the liberalization of Islam and further liberalization of Christianity, will come advanced education and prosperity, and with that, a lower birth rate, which can best be seen in prosperous countries like Japan, Sweden, Britain, France, Germany. The trick is to eventually float all boats, liberalize and educate the world, not to have an impoverished, uneducated, and religious underclass working for the secular upper class. The church with it's contraception policies promotes overpopulation, and perpetuates a vast underclass to work for the upper class, and keep the church in power at the same time. Religion feeds directly into capitalism. God and socialism don't agree with each other, which is a major reason why Europe is not very religious, or is it the other way around. Which is cause and which is effect? Maybe neither, but one can at least say that socialism is compatible with secularism, while capitalism is compatible with God. The latter relationship is especially pronounced in the U.S., being the most capitalist and the most religious nation in the developed world.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

64. You are very optimistic

and I'll hold onto your words. I often teach future studies to my students and I need to stay positive about the future, but with climate change and global AIDS..well, I hope you are correct.

[greyl]

26. Absolutely not. (depending on definitions of inherent and religion)

If inherent means intrinsic and essential, no.
If inherent means natural consequence, yes. Of course using the latter definition, Ferrari Motorsports and PBS are inherent in our evolution.
-I think you're probably using the first definition.

If religion means a static system of non-rational beliefs in a supernatural hierarchy in which humans are separate from and above every other living creature on the planet, no.
If religion means the dynamic oceanic feeling that 'the universe has taken notice of you' when you're hungry and your rock flies true the head of a deer, when you hit the lottery, when all the traffic lights are green, when a meteor streaks across the sky at the second you happen to glance up, yes.
-I think you're using both definitions.

Non-rational static systems of thought are totally separate from our dynamic physiological evolution, and indeed resist, if not thoroughly disqualify themselves from, evolution because of their inherent immunity to respond to new information.
On the other side of the talisman, evolution toward more viable forms isn't inherent in non-rational belief. Non-rational belief systems may splinter and become more complicated, impenetrable via lingo, and especially protected from intellectual scrutiny(!) but by definition, they don't relate to reality in a way that is proven to be ultimately beneficial to (sustainable) human evolution.



To summarize, I think the five major organized religions on this planet will continue to prove that they are the mortal enemy of sustainable evolution of the diverse community of life.
...Barring unforeseen acts of god, that is. ;)

If everyones personal religion were essentially that the Earth is a sacred place, that all life is equally sacred, that there isn't one right way to live, that the wisdom of the gods is written in the community of life and not revealed to prophets, and that a distinction between the gods knowledge and scientific knowledge is a false one...I'd buy everyone a Coke®. (Coke® is also not intrinsic to our evolution)

[Random_Australian]

50. Neither definition, but closer the latter, actually.

Or intrinsic natural consequence - such that if humans evolved an infinite number of times then it would occur in some large percentage of the sets.

under suchh a definition, PBS would not be, TV would be, lalalalalalalala et cetera.

[greyl]

52. So, you're saying that ButtCandles™ are intrinsic to human evolution? nt

[Random_Australian]

57. Considering what has been going on just now in SSP, that was in EXTREMELY

poor taste. I recommend a bit of reading.

(Shit hit fan)

[greyl]

59. Gee, sorry I offended your beliefs surrounding Buttcandles :) nt

[Random_Australian]

61. Did you even read the message? I said it is in bad taste now. Have a

look at the Skeptics, Science and Pseudoscience before posting this shit.

FYI, if you think I am referring to my normal reaction vs. the fucking candles, think again and have a look at how fucked things have got over this. Your post is in very poor taste.

Bad form.

[greyl]

62. Uhh, I've been well aware of the situation for a few days now.

I thought you had gotten over the oversensitivity to it. I was wrong.

[Random_Australian]

65. At that time I was trying to mend things with Bmus, so sorry about the

snark.

Anyway, it all worked out fine, which is wonderful!

[greyl]

67. Yes, I was teasing you good naturedly, trying to lighten the mood about it

and help make you feel welcome. Glad it's worked out. :)

[Random_Australian]

68. You know the other thing that would make me glad?

Would you care to not actually mention the candles again, as in ever?

I think I've made my views pretty clear..........

Look, they really irritate me is all.

Oh well free country.

[Finder]

27. Spirituality--Definitely!

Religiosity is different, however, our tribal nature is what is at work as far as wanting to be part of a group.

Our gender, genes, environment, education all contribute to how we form our worldview.

Read "The God Part of the Brain" and "The God Gene" for some insight.

[mccoyn]

30. A child asking "Why"

I've seen many children repeatedly asking "why" and I think this may be the source of religion. It seems that at this point in life a child is seeking to know everything from an authority figure (whom the child mindlessly assumes knows everything already.) Of course, the authority figure is doomed to fail at satisfying the request, especially early in the development of the human species. Some adults might postulate that perhaps there is a god that does it. A generation later, the child has grown up and is now the authority figure and the earliest knowledge comes out, but enforced by a lifetime of beliefs built up on it. Over a great many generations this builds into a religious framework with a forgotten originator. The only solution is to claim that god originated it.

I think religion is the solution for the conflict of a rational world mapping mind that can't know everything.

[NMMNG]

66. I believe that we, as humans, dislike unanswered questions

We like to know why things happen, and how things work. If we are not able to find the answers to our questions via methods we have at hand we speculate and even make things up. Our minds are geared to find patterns in things that please us, and make us feel safe. We feel the need to ascribe order to our lives and have standards by which to live. We might even want an eternal parental figure who can watch over us forever, making us feel loved and secure all our lives. This is how religions have been born.