Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed
countries, particularly the social democracies of Europe. In
underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists. Atheism is
thus a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Why do modern conditions
produce atheism?
First, as to the distribution of atheism in the world, a clear
pattern can be discerned. In sub-Saharan Africa there is almost no
atheism (Zuckerman, 2007). Belief in God declines in more developed
countries and 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 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 (see my earlier post on this).
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. 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.
In addition to being the opium of the people (as Karl Marx
contemptuously phrased it), religion may also promote fertility,
particularly by promoting marriage,
according to copious data reviewed by Sanderson (2008). Large
families are preferred in agricultural countries as a source of
free labor. In developed "atheist" countries, women have
exceptionally small families and do not need religion helping them
to raise large families.
Even the psychological functions of religion face stiff competition today. In modern societies, when people
experience psychological difficulties they turn to their doctor,
psychologist, or psychiatrist. They want a scientific fix and
prefer the real psychotropic medicines dished out by physicians to
the metaphorical opiates offered by religion.
Moreover, sport psychologists find that sports spectatorship
provides much the same kind of social, and spiritual, benefits as people obtain from church
membership. In a previous post, I made the case that sports is
replacing religion. Precisely the same argument can be made for
other forms of entertainment with which spectators become deeply
involved. Indeed, religion is striking back by trying to compete in
popular media, such as televangelism and Christian rock and by
hosting live secular entertainment in church.
The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can
be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with
government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear
and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market
for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being
offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic
entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not
require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs.
i think this should be in one of the religion forums.
Atheism will never replace religion unless the
''god'' thing is proved. And if there is a slight chance in proving
god existance, it will not be in your era or my era. Maybe few
hundred years in the future. Furthermore, even if there is prove,
it can be argued in a way that it is false. So no matter what the
case, atheism will never replace religion.
