Do you think that smart society of the future (by Eugenics) will be more atheist?

[LeBrok]

they do suggests to me not only the importance of early training and of cultural norms, but that there is something in people that makes them want to believe

,
It looks to me that the big part of spirituality is hardwired. I have it too, form of feeling of awe in front of extraordinary events. Fortunately (my mother says otherwise, lol) my logical part of brain overwritten spirituality long time ago.

either because they don't want to think that human life is just the result of random chance, or because they want to believe there will someday be some form of justice, and perhaps a reunion with loved ones, and/or they're just hard-wired that way.

Hope is a powerful emotion and I agree it is hardwired. Also in face of complicated world our ancestors gave many natural phenomenons human quality of control. Who controls thunders, who wakes the sun for its daily journey, why angry see sinks ships?
Life in the past sucked big time, short life, diseases, parasites, dying kids, few pleasures etc. There was no way atheists could indulge so much pain and soldier forward. It is understandable to envision spirituality, hope, anthropomorphism and eventually religion were leading forces helping humankind survive.

There's no getting around the fact that there are advantages to being religious, as numerous studies have shown...religious people are happier, have more stable and fulfilling marriages, they're healthier, they live longer, they have greater mental stability, and on and on. Even the most recognized and successful, by some accounts, addiction treatment program, AA, recommends reliance on a "higher power".

I guess it is true, that religious people can fight addiction stronger. They don't do it for themselves, they do it also for god or others. They will also easily sacrifice themselves for a cause.
Surprisingly atheists can enjoy health benefits (as religious people do) if they belong to strong social group, or have many good friends. It is not much religion aspect, but more of social one, to belong to a strong group and rip health benefits.

I'd also argue that religion has two components: spirituality and ethics.

Big part of ethics, as social justice, empathy, working hard for group, and few more, must be genetic and it affects religious people equally as atheists. We can find ethics in any group animals, even ants. They work hard for the community, they feed their young, they defend and give their lives when colony is in danger, they clean the nest. Even by human standards, ants are very ethical and moral, though none of it is learned, it's all inherited in DNA. Surely our social structure and interactions are more complicated than ants, and big part of ethics or moral conducts are learned, but I swear, the base of our morality and ethics must be genetic.

It's my own personal opinion that young people in the post-modern, Judeo-Christian countries, who have more often been raised in non-religious households, and more broadly speaking, non traditional households, are far less ethical in all their relationships, whether it be with a significant other, or friends, or family members, or whether it concerns business or general societal contacts.

Well, it is actually not my observation. I know many atheists and many very little religious and very religious people and I must say that I don't find one group less ethical than other. My rough guess would be, there is no difference. To my understanding if someone is born just, the person will die just, regardless of religion or lack of it.

[Templar]

There's no getting around the fact that there are advantages to being religious, as numerous studies have shown...religious people are happier, have more stable and fulfilling marriages, they're healthier, they live longer, they have greater mental stability, and on and on. .

Sources? You sound like a Christian fundamentalist. By the way, religious people aren't healthier. A big part of being healthy is maintaining a proper BMI (body mass index). Religious people are much more likely to be obese than the irreligious.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42256829/n.../#.UjLQx9LTxQg

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/fa...ry?id=13204624

Since religious people tend to generally be less intelligent than atheists, self-control problems are the likely culprit for this correlation.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/religious-p...3.html#NZ7hWVF

http://www.humanreligions.info/files...igence_god.jpg

[ElHorsto]

Mind you that only war in Europe (since WWII) we had was in Yugoslavia between 3 religions.

In Yugoslavia there was ethnic cleansing, not religious cleansing. Religion played maximally a role as part of ethnic categorization like language, history, look etc. That's why also atheists were going to church back then, waving national flags at the same time. Only the mudjahedeen were religious.
Future wars will be more haplogroup based I guess.

[Templar]

In Yugoslavia there was ethnic cleansing, not religious cleansing. Religion played maximally a role as part of ethnic categorization like language, history, look etc. That's why also atheists were going to church back then, waving national flags at the same time. Only the mudjahedeen were religious.
Future wars will be more haplogroup based I guess.

The "ethnic" lines were drawn by religion.

[ElHorsto]

The "ethnic" lines were drawn by religion.

I thought the ethnic lines were drawn by history (rome, byzantinum plus earlier by separate serb-croat tribes, later Turks, Austrians, England, Russia,....). Slovenes and Croats are both catholic, yet separated from each other.

[Templar]

I thought the ethnic lines were drawn by history (rome, byzantinum plus earlier by separate serb-croat tribes, later Turks, Austrians, England, Russia,....). Slovenes and Croats are both catholic, yet separated from each other.

In Bosnia they WERE drawn by religion. The majority of the population considered themselves Bosnians until the late 19th century.

[LeBrok]

The "ethnic" lines were drawn by religion.

I agree. It wasn't strictly religious war but the lines were drawn by religious denomination. Otherwise people look the same and speak same language.

Did religious leaders appeal for peace, or were warming troops for a fight with enemy?

[Templar]

Did religious leaders appeal for peace, or were warming troops for a fight with enemy?

I don't know the details (since I am not old enough to really remember the war well), but I've heard many stories of SOME priests telling soldiers that to kill a Muslim isn't a sin, and that therefore they shouldn't. Or something along those lines. This is just something I've heard, I cannot confirm its authenticity.

[Ike]

That's because communist regime kept all in check for years not letting things to play out in free way, natural way.

Not necessarily, in the west we have so much (even during this recession, and generally speaking) that not many wants to go and fight for piece of land or some ideas. Why would you risk and lose good life, kids, family, etc for who knows what? We only fight if someone wants to take it away. :) This is unprecedented 70 year peace trend in the West.

In fact, I don't understand your post. You're saying two opposite things.
First you say the war in a natural thing, but then you say there is no war in the west. All I can deduce from there is that West is under the communist regime for 70 years.

[LeBrok]

All I can deduce from there is that West is under the communist regime for 70 years.

It didn't need to be communist regime to keep things in check. GB kept in check separatists in Northern Ireland or Spain and France kept Basques quiet. But people in the West being more free played their separatist cards for few decades now, with some sort of violence but not fully blown domestic war. These conflicts defused in natural way through time and new generations, referendums and some autonomy.

Too bad Yugoslav regime didn't let Croatia and Bosnia separate in peaceful way. If it did, then probably right now they would be back with Serbia in some sort of economic union, working and helping each other.

I'm sure with time more and more regions will separate from existing countries, like Catalonia, Scotland, Basques, Belarus, etc. under umbrella of European Union. It means that regions will never get full autonomy, but at least they will belong to bigger entity as free and willing partners. And that's the beauty of an union.

First you say the war in a natural thing,

Yes, it is very genetic for boys. All they want to do all day is to play war games, either on computer or outside. Also the team sports like football are based on two opposing sides "fighting" for a win/domination. That's way it is so difficult for humankind to escape wars and live in peace, when we are hardwired for wars.
Hopefully our good standard of life, freedoms, friends around the world, and mass media showing human face on people in neighboring countries, will appeal to our compassion and logic and make wars the thing of the past.

[Angela]

Sources? You sound like a Christian fundamentalist. By the way, religious people aren't healthier. A big part of being healthy is maintaining a proper BMI (body mass index). Religious people are much more likely to be obese than the irreligious.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42256829/n.../#.UjLQx9LTxQg

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/fa...ry?id=13204624

Since religious people tend to generally be less intelligent than atheists, self-control problems are the likely culprit for this correlation.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/religious-p...3.html#NZ7hWVF

http://www.humanreligions.info/files...igence_god.jpg

How on earth did you deduce that? I don't make a habit of discussing my personal beliefs, or lack of them, or any other very personal information on this site. Knowing some basic facts about the sociology of religion and being familiar with the research doesn't equate to religious affiliation. It equates to a certain level of education. You might want to pick up some relatively recent textbook on the subject, if it interests you.

As to the articles you cited, I'm afraid they don't support your position. It helps to read the *entire* article if one is going to post a link to it. For example, in the above nbc news link that you posted for the proposition that religiously affiliated people are more prone to obesity, the article concludes with the following:

"Feinstein says while obesity appears to be an issue for religious people, previous studies have shown that the faithful tend to live longer, be less likely to smoke, and to have better mental health status."

Likewise, the abc article that you cited about the same Feinstein study concludes that while several studies have found this link to obesity, they did not find "an association between religiosity and negative health outcomes, such as markers of cardiovascular disease. Indeed, several studies link faith to an increased lifespan, more positive mood, and avoidance of unhealthy behaviors like drinking and smoking."

These statements are totally unremarkable summaries of years of research into the subject.

I don't believe I addressed the issue of education level or intelligence level with regard to levels of religious belief...in fact, I thought the premise of the thread was that scientists, who are among the most intelligent and educated members of our society, have far lower levels of belief in a divine being. However, since you have raised the issue, I found this statement in your article intriguing:

“Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme—the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who “know better.”

The answer may, however, be more complex. Intelligent people may simply be able to provide themselves with the psychological benefits offered by religion - such as “self-regulation and self-enhancement”, because they are more likely to be successful, and have stable lives. "

Someone also raised the issue of divorce among religiously affiliated people. I believe that the study that was referenced showed that Catholics have a divorce rate of about 28%, Atheists 30%, and members of Protestant denominations 33%. Since atheists tend to marry at a lower rate, and cohabit more frequently, one wonders what effect these factors have on the divorce rates. Might it be that as they are less likely to marry, they are more thoughtful and less impulsive in their marriage choices, and therefore the marriages are more stable? As they also tend to have higher education levels, and higher levels of education also correlate with lower levels of divorce, that might also be a factor.

As for your comment about religious people having a problem with self control...it very much depends on the group...you've obviously never spent much time in Utah among Mormons.

[Ike]

Too bad Yugoslav regime didn't let Croatia and Bosnia separate in peaceful way. If it did, then probably right now they would be back with Serbia in some sort of economic union, working and helping each other.

Why would it let 'em? It was against the Constitution.

Hopefully our good standard of life, freedoms, friends around the world, and mass media showing human face on people in neighboring countries, will appeal to our compassion and logic and make wars the thing of the past.

Well, we had very high standard in Yugoslavia, but it didn't help.

[LeBrok]

Why would it let 'em? It was against the Constitution.

I guess your constitution was very stupid then. Look at results. Without US help you unleashed hell in your own home. Bravo.

Well, we had very high standard in Yugoslavia, but it didn't help.

I guess you have low expectations from life. It is easier this way. ;)

[Ike]

You made two wrong statements, and drawn one false conclusion from wrong opinion... Don't know what else to say.

[Templar]

How on earth did you deduce that?

Christian fundamentalist are always trying to show "evidence" for benefits of religion.

As to the articles you cited, I'm afraid they don't support your position. It helps to read the *entire* article if one is going to post a link to it. For example, in the above nbc news link that you posted for the proposition that religiously affiliated people are more prone to obesity, the article concludes with the following:

"Feinstein says while obesity appears to be an issue for religious people, previous studies have shown that the faithful tend to live longer, be less likely to smoke, and to have better mental health status."

There are many different kinds of health. Cardio-vascular health, muscle endurance, BMi, etc. My point in showing that religious people were more likely to be obese was to counter your claim that religious people were more healthy. You made a huge generalization: "religious people are happier, have more stable and fulfilling marriages, they're healthier, they live longer, they have greater mental stability, and on and on."

I believe that the study that was referenced showed that Catholics have a divorce rate of about 28%, Atheists 30%, and members of Protestant denominations 33%

Most religious Americans are Protestants, therefore the divorce rate point is valid.

[kromon]

In Yugoslavia there was ethnic cleansing, not religious cleansing. Religion played maximally a role as part of ethnic categorization like language, history, look etc. That's why also atheists were going to church back then, waving national flags at the same time. Only the mudjahedeen were religious. Future wars will be more haplogroup based I guess.

More like politic cleasing.

[Twilight]

Assuming that scientists are the smartest of us all, their spirituality or rather lack of it, can point us to the character of future society. I'm almost certain that in future people will make kids in hospitals or labs by gene manipulation, rather than risking sick or mediocre child made natural way. In future everybody will be smart, healthy and beautiful.
So, when all society is smart or super smart like today's best scientists, will society become more atheistic?
Will it bring the end of all religions?

There is more atheists among scientist than other occupations or general public.



It means that there is 10 times more atheists amongst scientists than in general public. This is huge difference.
Interestingly, the older one gets the less spiritual one becomes. At least as a scientist.



http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-...nd-Belief.aspx

Interesting, although the moral philosophy might say otherwise look at Albert Einstein for example a while back I remember watching a documentary about him talking about philosophical stuff on his death bed but I could be wrong yet he claimed to be agnostic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...ral_philosophy

[toyomotor]

A very recent poll in Australia indicates that church attendance is falling, one could well extrapolate from that, that people are losing faith and therefore interest in religion. But I think the poll would only reflect the traditional Christian religions. I would not expect the same decline, for instance, in Islamic communities. I also think that young people often fail to see the relevance of religion in their lives, if in fact there is a relevance. I'm not religious and I can easily see that religion will decline into the future.

[amenhotep]

there will always be a thing similar to religion, if there won't be todays religions i am sure people will make new one, perhaps more scientificly one

[Diomedes]

Religion is going to be replaced by science--even that part of it that it is still hypothetical and, thus, not proven by data.

[Diomedes]

Check some videos of Laurence Krauss and Richard Dawkins.

[LeBrok]

Check some videos of Laurence Krauss and Richard Dawkins.

Great short and to the point speech of Krauss, and yet it touched subject from every direction.

[Bergin]

It is all about our behavior once we know we are close to death - a terminal person.
From a game theory, one has nothing to lose and should become a rabid psychopath not sparing murder and rape to get whatever one wants.
Well, that is not really nice for the rest of the people, and we invented 2 systems: - the afterlife, and - the greater good.

-The afterlife is the typical religious/spiritual medicine so that we don't kill each other when all is lost. India is perfectly resembling such behavior.

-The greater good is the hive-mentality atheistic solution that we belong to a bigger entity and our contribution relies within it. SO no point to destroy the hive as you are part of the hive. China is a great example.

Both are lies, in my view, but welcomed ones because if not it would be the end of society. There is a lot of people that have nothing to lose and yet keep calm and peacefully (quasi) accept their destiny - sad but better than the zombie horde.

[LeBrok]

It is all about our behavior once we know we are close to death - a terminal person.
From a game theory, one has nothing to lose and should become a rabid psychopath not sparing murder and rape to get whatever one wants.
Well, that is not really nice for the rest of the people, and we invented 2 systems: - the afterlife, and - the greater good.

-The afterlife is the typical religious/spiritual medicine so that we don't kill each other when all is lost. India is perfectly resembling such behavior.

-The greater good is the hive-mentality atheistic solution that we belong to a bigger entity and our contribution relies within it. SO no point to destroy the hive as you are part of the hive. China is a great example.

Both are lies, in my view, but welcomed ones because if not it would be the end of society. There is a lot of people that have nothing to lose and yet keep calm and peacefully (quasi) accept their destiny - sad but better than the zombie horde.

Not really. Our basic morality is genetic, for that reason atheists are as moral as christians or buddhists. There was a lot of research done on kids, before they could be "doctrinated" in morality, and yet they already behave ethically. For example, they will avoid playing with you if you cheat, or they will help you if they see you are hopeless or sad, etc.

The simplest example how morality could be genetic is from observation of simple group animals who can't learn much or at all, like ants. From the moment of being born to end of their lives, they help all the group to collect building material and food, defend own tribe, feed infants and carry them to safety, work for common good, sacrifice own life fighting enemy. All very ethical behavior even by human standards.

Of course, human social life is much more complicated, and especially modern societies have lots of rules, laws and regulations to direct our complicated lives, but basic moral and ethical instincts are very genetic.

[Edward_J]

Wasn't there a South Park Episode that tackled this concept?