UKC

Interesting article in New Scientist.
Using the above as a starting point (Sunday Assembly takes place in Conway Hall, London home to the world's oldest free-thought organisation and is a secular gathering for those who like the trappings of religion without the god bit) it speculates on the demise of religion world wide (current estimates are that 59% of the world's population is religious) as social standards improve. A global analysis by Zuckerman in 2009 compared levels of religiosity in various countries with measures for societal health, wealth, equality, women's rights, educational attainment, life expectancy, infant mortality, teenage pregnancy, STI rates, crime rates, suicide rates and murder rates. The conclusion was that "on just about every level the more secular a country or state the better it does". The same held for US states.

Rather than saying that secularism makes people less religious though, it speculated that improved social conditions brought about by secularism made people more apathetic to religion and drew a distinction between four kinds of atheist.

Mind-blind - people who can't comprehend religion
Apathetic - people who can't be bothered about religion
InCREDulous - People isolated from extreme acts of faith
and
Analytic - people who have thought about it and explicitly rejected religion

In countries with less social stability they tended to be more religious (though even here the global trend is to less religious).

It should be noted before somebody brings it up that Zuckerman drew a distinction between countries with coercive secularism (ie communist countries) imposed from above and organic secularism that emerges in free societies.

However the final analysis (in the article) said that even without god people still had powerful natural intuitions towards the supernatural with things like karma, astrology, aliens etc filling the void. Suggesting that humanity will never fully lose its love for Woo.

I felt that the article summed up my view on things that generally a godless secular society is better than a strongly religious one but that really you are never going to convince a lot of people to turn their backs on their basic instincts.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:




To quote G. K Chesterton '"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything.''
The whole mix of new age , aliens , star signs and healing crystals is probably less evidence based than many theistic belief systems . It is interesting to note that secular humanism is recognised as a religion by many organisations and governments . People don't embrace Nihilism happily , so creating moral codes and structured beliefs (although they lack any solid basis , and cannot claim to be the sole truth ) is what humans tend to do .
I'll stick with my God stuff ( No , I am not neutral , I presuppose God's existence and take a faith position ) . As yet , our the UK remains a place where no one except Richard Dawkins will actually lose their temper because of my beliefs . Coercive secularism would be a grim and unhappy business .

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Godless churches quite popular in these parts, Especially with younger folks

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Godless-church-proving-popular-Bristol/story-1...

In reply to SethChili:


tend to agree with you there.


Certainly has been in the past, though one might say coercive anything is grim. I think there is a big difference between social repression of beliefs as in some countries and insisting that the mechanics of government remain secular. I am all for separation of church and state

In reply to SethChili:


Yes, true, in the sense that the sort of people who need to have a belief in God would have a belief in something similar if it wasn't God.


Well, just as un-evidenced perhaps. You're right that "believer" types tend to fall for such things.


No it is not, and it is not a religion. What some governments recognise is that philosophies such as secular humanism deserve the same protections as conveyed by the phrase "religious freedom". That's not saying they are "religions".


Indeed so.


Honest of you to admit it.


Not even Dawkins, you mean.


I suspect you're misinterpreting the word "secularism" there. Coerced *atheism* would be "grim and unhappy" -- obviously -- which is why absolutely no-one advocates it. "Secularism" means that the *government* stays neutral and treats everyone equally, allowing *people* to believe and pursue their religion or not believe as they see fit. Why on earth would that be "grim and unhappy"? It sounds ideal to me.

"As for religion, I hold it to As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith." -- Thomas Paine.

In reply to Choss:

interesting. I would prefer that a move away from religion was marked by a move into a celebration of life and community as these people seem to be doing rather than into more hocus pocus

In reply to SethChili:



Not necessarily so. Those who believe in Aliens, for instance, tend to cite "first hand" accounts and "film footage" as evidence, most of which would not stand scrutiny but is "evidence" notheless. Likewise a lot of New Age stuff is actually based on Old Age stuff so if you ask you will find people willing to cite studies (The Dragon Project) and personal accounts that "prove" that dowsing, crystal healing, ghosts etc are real or work. For the practitioner of any belief system there is always a host of "evidence" to back it up in their mind.

In reply to SethChili:


That's a bit weird. Did you believe in Father Christmas when you were little? When you stopped believing in him did you just then start believing in anything?

In reply to tlm:

It is weird. It's an example of how fluffheads like Chesterton and C S Lewis get credit for saying non sense that is given a veneer of respectability because it's faith, innit?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Apparently most atheists are Apathetic rather than Analytical (from the above categories) which is probably where most of the woo comes in.

In reply to SethChili:


As Rob Exile Ward says, that's just pretty-sounding nonsense with a veneer of respectability. I stopped believing in god several decades ago but definitely don't believe in any of the new-age "woo". Nor do I believe in "ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggity beasties and things that go bump in the night". I do believe that the human mind is capable of fooling itself brilliantly and inventing all kinds of phenomena to explain things it can't immediately categorise.


I'd say that there's about the same level of evidence for the "woo" and for "theistic" systems....ie very little that stands up to proper scrutiny. A belief in one or more "invisible friend(s)" and a belief that some crystal you hang on a chain round your neck is giving off helpful "vibrations" is, to me, showing exactly the same level of faith in something for which there is little evidence.


I agree with you about coercive secularism, but disagree that Dawkins would lose his temper over your beliefs. He'd lose his temper if you tried to propagate those beliefs to youngsters as something for which there is scientific evidence, and he might privately think you were a bit odd for holding them, but the mere fact that you have them wouldn't cause him to get angry.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

could it not equally be that "the better a country or state does, the more secular oit becomes"?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


I'm not sure about that. Most atheists I know (as opposed to those who are just totally apathetic to religion) seem to have thought long and hard before making their minds up. I grew up in a "somewhat" religious family, went to a C of E primary, did Sunday school etc, but started to really question it in my early teens. I spent a lot of time in my teens and early 20s looking into religions, searching for something that "made sense". I went into various "flavours" of christianity, islam, hinduism and buddhism and eventually decided it was ALL mainly "woo", but with some decent philosophical ideas embedded here and there.

I also looked into things such as UFOs. I remember at uni being quite into UFO/alien stuff. I'd read all the books and thought there was "probably something in it". I was asked to give a talk to "Astrosoc" about UFOs, and it was while researching for that (without benefit of internet!) that I realised how much all the various authors fed off and exaggerated each others' stories. I managed to trace a couple of the most interesting reports back to their origins and saw how far things had been mis-reported or exaggerated, so had to do a quick "flip" of the thrust of my talk and surprised everyone by giving my talk from a very skeptical viewpoint.

I guess I'm the same with all the new-age "woo" stuff too....I try to keep an open mind, but not "so open that your brain falls out" (to quote a phrase that's been attributed to many people).

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Depends what you mean by "better". Economically better off doesn't necessarily follow...Saudi's a very rich country, but its increasing wealth over the last half century definitely hasn't turned it more secular. If however "better" is defined as being "more open/ better educated" then maybe so. Secularism tends to grow where societal pressure to conform to a "norm" is less strong.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


I wonder what they sing at these dos. "He hasn't got the whole world in his hands"? "Onward post-Christian soldiers"? "It is historically unclear whether there actually was a green hill far away"?

Oh, and obviously this, which I really like actually:

youtube.com/watch?v=gBZ8UuxuLcE&

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Non religious songs don't have to be depressing! youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ&

In reply to SethChili:


Any evidence for that?

jk

In reply to Rob Naylor:


I think one can argue that some people have a "believer" mentality, and if such people don't believe in gods then they believe in new-age woo. Other people have a more rational, evidence-based mentality.

(Of course any simplistic division like this is way too simplified, but there will be a spectrum of this sort.)

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I think one can argue that everyone has a need for God, and that it surfaces in some surprising ways.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Rather, one can assert it rather than argue it.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Give it a go, we can see how the argument stacks up.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


And yet if you look at the history of religion, God or monotheism represents only what, 2-3% of it?

Whatever the need is, it seems unlikely it is a monotheistic God.

In reply to winhill:


Yep, religion is essentially anthropomorphism, projecting human-like agency onto nature. This is understandable since our large brains evolved precisely to interpret the other humans, and thus they have a tendency to over-do it. ("If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail", and what humans have is a hair-trigger agency-interpretation device.)

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

One of the organisers of the Brighton Sunday Assembly and all round good egg states here why he's quit...

Looks like a good idea may be turning sour.


http://www.simonclare.co.uk/site/?p=522

In reply to Coel Hellier:



"One can assert it rather than argue it".

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I think this is employing a ''no true scotsman'' attitude to religious belief ( ''no rational person believes and if they do , they cannot be a true rationalist '') . I don't need to go into detail about how many scientists ( Thousands of PH.D holders ) of good standing are happy to admit that attempting to explain everything naturalistically has failed to provide any meaning purpose to human existence . Obviously you can reply to this by saying that an equal or greater number of scientists would disagree with any supernatural ideas at all .
To quote Thomas Nagel : ''I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.''
I really would like it if people were to agree with me on matters of faith , but whilst I like to share what I think to be true , I have no interest in forcing my views on others . Fundamentalism ( or over simplification , as it would be better called ) rarely increases the credibility or respectability of anyone , regardless of their worldview .

In reply to Tim Chappell:


It's entirely obvious that god was created in man's image, as a disembodied "tribal elder". Just read the Old Testament.

In reply to SethChili:


I'll simply quote you here: "I presuppose God's existence and take a faith position".


Note your own wording! You did not say that such people had found good, objective evidence for a god, you said that they yearned for a "purpose" and "meaning" for their life, and so they adopt a faith-position that gives them that. Scientists are humans also, and have the same emotional needs as other humans.


See my last sentence. Scientists are humans also, and have the same emotional needs as other humans. There is no mystery to this. (Anyhow, Nagel is widely considered to be rather batty.)


Excellent. I hope, then, that you would disapprove of the laws that coerce religion in schools, forcing children to worship gods?

In reply to SethChili:


You could equally reply that seeking "meaning purpose" is missing the point, unless of course it is to question whether such a thing (a 'meaning of life') makes sense at all rather than simply presuming it must and deciding it therefore must be found somewhere.

In reply to SethChili:

'I don't need to go into detail about how many scientists ( Thousands of PH.D holders ) of good standing are happy to admit that attempting to explain everything naturalistically has failed to provide any meaning purpose to human existence .'

Probably best if you don't because the question is nonsense - it makes as much sense as saying what colour is loud? Or how deep is imagination? Just because you can formulate a question doesn't means to say that it automatically has meaning.

There is no meaning or purpose to human - or any other - existence. It just is. Get over it.

It doesn't stop it being (mostly) fun though, and good while it lasts, - and there are certainly good scientific reasons for that.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Now that Tim and Coel are in the ring, should I -

a) buy some popcorn

or

b) open a popcorn stand?

In reply to 999thAndy:

c) Get back to some useful work.

In reply to SethChili:


I wouldn't reply to it in that way, but ask what that's got to do with anything. As Coel says, scientists are human too and have psychological needs just like anyone else.

And failing "to provide any meaning/ purpose to human existence" may well be because there simply isn't one. Why should the fact that we exist need to have a "purpose" or "meaning" beyond the naturalistic?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I will, as soon as the geodetic data I'm processing has finished inverting its matrices . Until then there's booger all useful I can do!

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Why use a no true scotsman argument again ? ( Nagel an atheist , questions the all encompassing nature of materialistic philisophy . Therefore , he cannot be a proper atheist )


Yes , as my belief system explicitly condemns dogmatically preaching to people who have no interest . But I would like to see children educated in how to think for themselves . Critical thinking skills are hugely lacking in young people ( I'm one of them , so yes , I know ) . The best way of producing useful and well informed people (whatever their 'God stance" ) is to encourage them to observe all the evidence and make an informed choice .

In reply to SethChili:


Which is not actually the argument I used. I called him "batty", and that's because he uses very bad arguments. His latest book "mind and cosmos" was pretty widely panned by scientists for not understand science (especially evolution), and thus making complete non sequitur arguments.


On this we agree.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

my comment was a response to this in the OP: "A global analysis by Zuckerman in 2009 compared levels of religiosity in various countries with measures for societal health, wealth, equality, women's rights, educational attainment, life expectancy, infant mortality, teenage pregnancy, STI rates, crime rates, suicide rates and murder rates. The conclusion was that "on just about every level the more secular a country or state the better it does". The same held for US states."

Zuckerman appears to have found some kind of inverse relationship between the factors listed and religiosity but I'm wondering whether it is causal or, indeed, which direction the causality is

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Actually, as anyone who knows anything about philosophy could tell you, Thomas Nagel is one of the most widely respected philosophers of his generation.

Google him. If you do, you might discover that there's a slight irony in your choice of "batty"

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Respected by whom? I could suggest that being respected by other philosophers of a similar ilk is not that significant (a bit like a theologian being respected by other theologians). His ideas on naturalism and materialism are not respected by those scientists who can be bothered to take notice of him.


I'm glad someone got it!

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Not respected by which scientists who can be bothered to take notice of him? I could suggest that not being respected by scientists of Coel's ilk is not that significant. There are plenty of other ilks of scientist.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Here are some scientists reviewing Nagel's most recent book;

Jerry Coyne: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/irresponsible-journalism...

Sean Carroll: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/08/22/mind-and-cosmos/

Allen Orr: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/07/awaiting-new-darwin/ (pay wall, unfortunately)

For anyone interested, my own attempt at rebutting Nagel's basic argument:
"Nagel’s bat doesn’t demonstrate incompleteness in materialist science" is at
http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/nagels-bat-doesnt-demonstrate-inc...

In reply to SethChili:

Meaning or purpose to human existence? If that's the question they thought they were addressing they shouldn't have PhDs.

Having a PhD doesn't make you a good scientist. In fact, it doesn't necessarily make you any kind of scientist. In some cases it doesn't even mean you've done anything except pay for it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Is any of these three scientists philosophically competent?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Yes, I think so. Certainly competent enough to argue about the topics Nagel raised, namely the nature of naturalism, materialism, and consciousness, the explanatory power of Darwinian evolution, etc. I would disagree with any suggestion that philosophers are ipso facto more competent to discuss such matters than scientists.

Of course "competent" could be taken as code for "thinks like me", so we'd be hard pushed to find objective judges of competence on this issue.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well one of them, namely Coyne, seems to be commentating from the sidelines on the spat between Nagel's critics and Nagel's fans. This is all a bit third-order really; there's certainly no substantive critique of Nagel here. All there is slurs like calling Nagel "once highly respected". Which is not only pointlessly nasty, it's plain wrong; Nagel is still highly respected in philosophy.

Sorry, but I see no substantive, philosophically informed critique of Nagel here. Are your other two exhibits any better, or is it all at this journalism-about-journalism level?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


The main criticism of Nagel is that he simply presents no evidence to motivate his claims. Out of the above, the Orr piece is the most substantial, though it is sadly behind a paywall.

If you want critiques by philosophers you could try Elliot Sober ( http://www.bostonreview.net/books-ideas/remarkable-facts ) or Robert Paul Wolff ( http://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.ca/2013/09/what-have-i-been-reading.html ).

By the way, is the request for "philosophically informed" critique a way of dismissing criticism by scientists? The problem here, as I remarked above, is agreeing on what establishes "competence" in philosophy. For example, to my mind Nagel, John Searle, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, etc, are examples of philosophers who are not at all competent at philosophy, despite being university professors in that discipline. As I said, validation merely by the opinion of other philosophers doesn't impress and is rather circular.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Sorry, couldn't resist, rather appositely, Jerry Coyne has just published this: "What is it like to be a cat?"

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/what-is-it-like-to-be-a-...

In reply to Bob Hughes:

it could indeed. be interesting to run a study on that

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Man after my own heart

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Nice bit of Nirvana there

In reply to XXXX:

I dunno seems to be following in the way of all large organisations. It certainly didn't stop Christianity when we stopped being Catholics

In reply to 999thAndy:

Icecream for the interval

In reply to Coel Hellier:



All you're doing here is listing some distinguished philosophers who don't happen to share your extreme reductionist views, and saying they can't be competent in philosophy.

But invalidation of opponents of extreme reductionism merely by the opinion of extreme reductionists doesn't impress and is rather circular.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

My interest is two fold.
Firstly that religion is not necessary for a orderly, "moral" society (I use inverted commas as morality seems to be a variable commodity in different societies) so regardless of how it arose secular societies seem to be more stable places to be in than religious ones.

Secondly that the lean towards belief is a very natural commodity and can not be simply argued away. Having said that I am a perfect example of a believer type who argued away belief for himself

In reply to Tim Chappell:


I'm not saying that because they disagree with me therefore they cannot be competent, I'm saying that my assessment of the quality of their arguments, after having read them, is that they can't think straight.


That's exactly the point I made a bit up: "Of course "competent" could be taken as code for "thinks like me", so we'd be hard pushed to find objective judges of competence on this issue".