I wouldn't trust Conservapedia at all; consider how they "butchered" the theory of relativity. According to many polls, atheism is on the rise, and although one factor is that "closet atheists" see atheism as being more socially acceptable now compared to ~10 years ago, that factor alone won't explain the rise.

thats mainly in western countries though

'In addition, currently the Western World population is aging in terms of its demographic makeup, particularly in secular Europe, and it has been found that belief in God grows as a person's death nears'

'Using academic studies, survey data and other information, supporters of the Question evolution! campaign maintain that there is a lack of sound leadership within the agnostic/atheist and evolutionist communities in dealing with the global decline of atheism and agnosticism. '

'In May of 2012, it was pointed out by supporters of Creation Ministries International's Question evolution! campaign that from a global internet perspective the public's interest in the views of the agnostic/weak atheist Richard Dawkins and the atheist PZ Myers and in atheism are on the decline while interest in Jesus and Christianity are on the upswing'

'In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.[26] Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at Creation Ministries International.[27] Generally speaking, creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates. '

Damn, where has Conservapedia been all my life? So many lols, and that's just from the 1 page.

Maybe it's more accurate to say that atheism is on the rise outside of China or in Western Europe or in North America.

According to this 2012 report:

http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/up...sm-25-7-12.pdf

On page 5, "there is a rise of 3% in atheism" based on comparing data between 2005 and 2012 WIN-Gallup International Polls from 39 countries listed on page 12. I would think this is based on some weighted average for the 39 countries, so even considering the large population of India ( for which polling data showed a 1% decrease in atheism ), overall, this seems accurate based on substantial rises in atheism according to the data for these countries ( no surprise, most are "Western" ):

France: 15%
Czech Republic: 10%
Japan: 8%
Netherlands: 7%
Ireland: 7%


Unfortunately, what is absent, is data from the country with the greatest proportion of atheists: China; on the other hand, it's unclear whether the obvious growth of Christianity in China would "offset" the rise in atheism in the rest of the world. The major difficulty is obtaining good polling data for China, since not all "churches" are sanctioned by the government.

Is it too simplistic to suggest that the change in focus of current education is not the result of what's fashionable or favoured but that our understanding of the natural world has improved to the point that older forms of education have become redundant? We won't ever return to them as they have been superceded by a superior understanding.

I realise that I'm covering a lot of ground in that sentence but I'm gonna wait to see how it floats before digging any deeper.

What about the theory that a group united in a spiritual belief system were more likely to succeed and pass on the genome for the ability to believe? If there's any weight to that, and if we accept that there's a genetic element to spirituality, it makes perfect sense that Atheists would be in a minority at this point in our evolution. The question is whether or not the behaviour that we've selected for actually has any longevity.

This is something you can claim - but you'd have to make a supporting argument. What, exactly, is redundant about being able to cite Cicero and Plato at will, having studied Kant, Leibnitz and Herder before you turn 20?

Thanks to WN, I think we can structure the discussion a bit. So let's try to do that - it'll help focussing on where the crux is. I'll divide it into three parts: Facts, Narratives, Conclusions.

I Facts

These are undisputed by both sides and include:
- Atheism is on the rise (at least in western civilizations)
- there seems to be a meaningful corellation between atheism and education
- there's a lot more that'd go here for a comprehensive account of the issue, but as we're agreeing on the facts being facts, I'll leave it at that.
- Part of the facts is also that science is a very potent tool at explaining the world, that "being educated" means something different now than "back then" etc.

II Narratives

There are at least two; we'll focus on one which is taking the above facts and interpreting them as a sucess-story of reason and logic, and one that is taking them and intrepreting them as the results of a verdict about epistemological preconceptions and utilitarian motives.

Sucess story

As our understanding of the world grows, we realize that the entirety of our wold can be explained by perfectly natural means - no appeal to supranatural realities is necessary. This is not only showing us that the scientific model of gaining understanding about the world is vastly superior to other models tried so far, it also suggests that knowledge and insight that is not justifiable within the framework of science is likely inconclusive at best.
As we see the scientific model move forward, we understand more and more that religious accounts of reality rely (almost?) exclusively on a notion of reality and evidence that is not compatible with the boundaries set by an epistemology that is highly influenced by modern natural sciences.
In short: We don't need theology to explain the world, and as more and more people become interested in explanations of the world (aka they become educated), that realization leads them to dismiss theological explanations. Hence atheism soars.

Reorientation Story

An alternative interpretation of the same facts was given by WN above. I'll just quote him:

Furthermore:

III Conclusions

1. Both stories account for the facts as roughly outlined under I.
2. Neither story, so far, really argued, why their story is correct or better than alternatives. So far, both are just accounts that take a number of facts and present a(!) coherent explanation of them.***
3. Unless one can suggest, why the Reorientation Story is systemically flawed, it seems the facts will always just be the facts, not lending support to either story.
4. At best, obviously, the systematic gain of this argument is a negative one: if valid, it shows that it is possible to take the rising level of atheism as sign of a more liberated, educated and non-gullible society, yet that this is by no means an interpretation that is without alternative.


***This is where your suggestion also falls short. Essentially you're just supporting the original claim with one further claim: We have settled on modern epistemology by finding it more viable/potent than all other approaches. This, for one, would have to be substantiated, and is, for two, subject to the same counter as the first claim: What we consider viable and potent is likely influenced by our current understanding of the world and simple utilitarian (read: "what works, works") principles. That is all the opening the Reorientation Story needs to get the ball rolling.

Holy cow, no pun intended. If I was scoring posts based on how many rereads they required and how many phrases and concepts I had to look up just to try and understand what was being said this one might be the winner I should probably go back and reread some older posts from 'before'.

No answer to this post currently, just going to digest the concepts discussed for a while. Thanks.

Meh, it's mostly just verbal wanking... I probably misapplied half of them.

Is it just me who doesn't see the difference between the narratives, at least in terms of explanations? I mean, it's not just that they are empirically equivalent, they are identical in content. The only difference is the commentary (e.g. "...therefore we are justified in atheism cos science" vs "...but you are not justified cos faith")

You guys are way above me on this subject. I'm not big time religious, because too many human beings have been slaughtered in the name of religion and religion is such a huge business. I just try and follow the teachings of Jesus, and try to be a good human being. If religion does nothing more than give "Hope" to mankind, it has served a great purpose . The greatest gift you can give a human being is hope.

I don't think so. The 2nd account suggests conclusions that the first doesnt. For example (and by way of exaggeration): Scientists lean atheists. That's because they're conformists, who mistakenly take a heuristic that works for a heuristic that is true.

And since I could corroborate that assertion, for example by suggesting that our conceptions of what means "better educated", what we accept as substantiating evidence (in your poll, lack of evidence is pulling ahead) for claims about the world are subject to "evolutionary pressure" just like anything else, it wouldn't be just polemics but actually some kind of argument.

But besides of what further arguments one could construe once we accept those two accounts as empirically equivalent, the mere fact that they are (if we agree on that) is worthy of note, imo. I think that many would find it quite counterintuitive that the corellation between education and atheism has no argumentative force whatsoever either way.

I'm pretty close to just completely losing interest, but I'm going to give it one last shot. Narrative 1 and Narrative 2 posit exactly the same 'explanation' for the facts.

Narrative 1: The success of science leads us to believe that the methods of science are the best path to knowledge.

Narrative 2: The success of science leads us to believe that the methods of science are the best path to knowledge.

The only difference I can see is that Narrative 2 adds "From the theist's standpoint, it's a mistake because the theist posits that there exists knowledge and truth that are not accessible via scientific empiricism."

I also don't think either narrative has included an actual explanation of how we get to "science works, yay!" to "let's be atheists!", though Well Named says that it's (superficially) reasonable to do so. For example, the success of science hasn't caused a decline in, say, art appreciation, or consumerism. Given that most theists posit NOMA as a given, why should the success of science affect religion but not art, or sport, or whatever?

Why do you think there is a correlation between education and atheism?

By adding that, Narrative 2 establishes a differentiated notion of "knowledge", as it would, for example only say "... the methods of science are the best path to scientific knowledge". Furthermore, as I said above, it's not so much the fact that you can shrink both narratives to a "shared nucleus", so to speak - that's basically a given once both sides accept the facts as being facts. Rather, one narrative is accepting the facts within a broader scoped view of "societal conduct", wheras the other narrative is implicitely arguing that it is (when all is said and done) the scope of enquiry into societal conduct.

I would think this needs to be substantiated, though I agree that this will get messy, as the baseline of comparison would have to be established and once we "go back" far enough, we'd have vast uneducated masses that didn't really appreciate art at all. To claim that we appreciate/consume art in the same vain/quantity/same appreciation it was consumed in, say, 1920, I think is not clear to me at all.

I don't know what noma is?

Studies suggest that. See the poll MB referenced in post 8 or here.

(wtf are you doing here? )

I have no idea what I'm doing here, I was just clicking randomly and saw a thread you started.

I don't think that is what the studies suggest. I think you need to clarify what you mean by "education" (and "atheism").

For instance, mathematicians are twice as likely to believe in God and immortality than astronomers and physicists (according to the nature correspondence article). Are they better educated? lower IQ? play more piano? play less piano? more likely to be black? etc.

That's because they deal with truth and beauty rather than (star) dust and quarks. (You got a link for that, btw?)

You're right. Part of my whole point is that "education" and "being educated" in itself is a fluid notion that changes with society.

The definitions we use here are rather rough and ready. Partially because of the inconclusive nature of the available data***. However, since I dont doubt/question the overall verdict of "On average, as the level of education increases, so does the likelyhood of actively not-believing in god/higher powers/life force/what have you", rough definitions are ok as they're not the matter of dispute.


***Apart from the points you raise, the studies further only focus on natural scientists, for example, and I have little reason to believe that the same phenomenon they observe in the nat.sci. is true for the humanities while obv. holding a literature prof for a highly educated being.

Mathematicians attempt to deal with truth in the most abstract and general way and many tend to have a Platonic concept of "existence" ( at least with respect to the context/framework of axiomatic set theory ). They surely realize that Hilbert's program is quite limited, so they often look for truth in other disciplines such as philosophy or theology.

I am not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with this, but my bible in math is The Mathematical Experience, by Philip J. Davis and Reuben Hersh. In Chapter 7, "From Certainty to Fallibility: Platonism, Formalism, Construcivism," they say:

Of course, they also say that "a mathematician is an empirical scientist" in that "he cannot invent anything, because it is all there already. All he can do is discover." So I would be curious to hear why math, if it does, would lead someone to embrace methods of discovery that do not hold empirical consistency.

OK here it is.

I think the big themes touched on this thread ("why is atheism on the rise?", "why are scientists disproportionately atheist?") have potential to be interesting, but you aren't really engaging with them very well. Partly this is because you are presenting the atheist viewpoint very naively, and partly because your proposed theistic explanations are weaker than the theistic arguments that you COULD make.

For example, Well Named is presenting an argument that the success of science has lead to some sort of logical positivism. I don't think that is the case (logical positivism has been dead for decades) but even if one were to present the much more common inductive argument takes the success of methodological naturalism to the conclusion of metaphysical naturalism, it ignores the fact that the majority of atheists don't consider themselves metaphysical naturalists or strong atheists.

So while you have presented a brief and simplistic argument that science and religion are in a zero-sum game where any perceived success in one field subtracts plausibility from the other (oh, and here's a link to NOMA), it seems that you haven't engaged with the proposition that it is not just the general success of science but the specific 'truths' it has uncovered that may have contributed to the decline of theism. For example, evolution is not merely a successful theory, but undermines literalist readings of the scripture of the Abrahamic faiths which has had a direct impact on the plausibility of certain kinds of theism. To what extent the sophisticated theists have failed to convey more science-positive theology to the masses is another topic that would be interesting but you have not engaged with ITT.

Additionally, Well Named's counter argument that theists consider there to be another valid epistemology doesn't really have the argumentative force that the tone of your OP requires; obviously atheists don't accept that theistic epistemology is valid, and you will have a hard time winning them round given the apparent lack of success of faith-based epistemology. We can go there of course but, despite bringing up this topic several times myself over the last few months, I find that it doesn't really get a lot of traction.

The other arguments from the OP fare even worse. You have provided no data to indicate that we should take seriously your assertion that society is 'dumbed down', nor that the natural sciences are outliers in the wider field of academia, with specific reference to the humanities. As a counter, I can link you to data that indicates that a majority of philosophers are also atheist. This also undermines your point that the fact that science can only rule out falsehoods rather than discover truth; the same can not be said of philosophy, so this is another surprising observation that you need to explain.

Tl;dr - you'll get more responses from the sort of people you want to respond if you take a bit of time to present the best arguments and counter-arguments from both sides.

The church imo has failed dramatically in this regard, and has been for centuries really. In general, the Christian churches responsesto advances in scientific knowledge, or even just cultural changes (e.g. civil rights in various forms) have been too rigidly institutional, traditional, dogmatic, and legalistic. For me, this is a lot of why I've never been very good at "belonging" to churches as institutions.

Also I absolutely agree that the brief sketch of an opinion I laid out isn't any kind of persuasive argument to an atheist. I suppose I have been interested for a decade or more in the possibility of making a persuasive argument that would proceed from assumptions that a naturalist would accept, but I am fairly sure I lack much that would be required to even make a worthy attempt. Maybe in 20 more years, if I read enough. For now I just play around at it a little bit.

Yes exactly, though it's a double failing where some churches/denominations have persisted in denying the facts of reality revealed by science (which is untenable) and those that have accepted the facts of reality have not successfully won the PR war in the wider theistic community.

I'm not really having a dig at your argument as much as Freteloo co-opting it when it doesn't really seem to convey the same arguments as he is putting forward in the OP. On the other hand it has the advantage of being a concise and intelligible argument even despite the slight flaws in understanding the atheists position.

I'm curious what you define success to be? If it is success in comparison to science in explaining the natural world, then I think it's the wrong definition. That's not the kind of "non-scientific knowledge" I have in mind.

For me, the evidence of the success of the epistemology I'm trying to outline is found in the quality and way of life of Christians, and is most easily seen in the lives of the great monastic Saints. It's the peace and joy that they exhibit that are the best evidence of the value of Christianity.

The most obvious counter-argument is in all the things that Christians do and say in the world that do not demonstrate the love that Jesus said would be the evidence of discipleship. ("By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another").

There's probably a lot of different ways of responding to that criticism, but two responses, very briefly are

1) Christian dogma also emphasizes the difficulty of the path, and the weakness of human beings. Finding evidence from human examples is complicated because human beings are complex, but insofar as the evidence of the value of Christianity is not ubiquitous among Christians, this is not unexpected from the Christian point of view. The fact emphasizes the importance of the religion as a way of life versus just a set of adopted beliefs.

2) Beyond that, at the risk of falling into a "no true scotsman" fallacy, I think it's reasonable to presume that not everyone who self-identifies as Christian necessarily does so out of a very deep understanding or commitment. Religious identification is also a group identification, is tied to culture or nationality, and is influenced in a tremendous number of ways that aren't really tied to Christianity-as-religion per se, because of the psychological and sociological elements involved.

This is why I asked about NOMA. The arguments presented ITT seem to suggest that scientific explanations are replacing theistic explanations in a zero-sum way, which I've asked Fret to clarify because it seems contrary to the usual theistic position which you outline above.

I mean, I don't decide what a 'faith-based epistemology' or 'spiritual truths' might be defined as, but if you want to argue that the success of science epistemology explains the decline of theistic it seems weird to now say that they have different success-criteria. Clearly if the success of faith-based epistemology is warranted on subjective feeling w/r/t quality of life it becomes odd to argue that science can impact such feelings. Can you clarify?

Well, I think you have to distinguish between the logical idea that it's "zero-sum" and the psychological way in which people develop beliefs, and I also think the aforementioned failures of the church to adapt to new science, or maybe more precisely the way in the churches have chosen to present "religions vs science" plays a large role. To the extent that it's the religions themselves who are disputing the idea of NOMA (by opposition to evolution, or climate science, or just being conspiratorial about education, intellectualism, or science in general) it doesn't really matter if I say NOMA is better theologically, it's clear that a lot of smart people are going to see a choice presented to them between religion and science and choose science. I know if I thought my only options were atheistic naturalism and <insert very conservative evangelical protestant church here>, I'm fairly sure I'd be an atheist.

And when I mentioned cultural changes I think that plays a role as well. If people feel that being religious entails being prejudicial and hateful towards groups of people, and the predominant culture is moving in the other direction (thankfully, imo), that concrete reality probably plays a larger role than the rather abstract philosophizing that I'm engaged in about knowledge in their choices.

Beyond that, I think in a general way it's also true that taken as a way of life to strive after, Christian teaching is not easy, requires a great amount of commitment, is not always immediately fulfilling, and is based on a self-understanding that is supposed to be self-emptying and repentant. That self-understanding is often at odds with the individualism of modern western culture, and that also matters, although I think if Christians lean on that excuse overly much they are letting themselves off to easily.

To try to cliffs, if you're a young agnostic-ish person in the United States, who hasn't necessarily spent much time delving deeply into religion, it's very possible that far from seeing some "zero sum game" between science and religion, you instead see some people telling you that you are sinful and you must repent and make dramatic changes to your way of life, which is hard enough to accept, psychologically. If they are also telling you a bunch of nonsense about science and you're smart or educated enough to realize it's vacuous, that's another point against them. And if they tell you the benefits of following their teachings but you don't see any concrete evidence of any of those benefits in the ones evangelizing you, well, it's not surprising to me if such a person did not see much point in investigating Christianity any deeper than that.