
Religion may become extinct in nine nations - marcog1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197
======
winestock
Religion isn't the only thing becoming extinct in those nations.

Go to Wikipedia and search for "Demographics of _X_ " where _X_ is a nation
from the list given in the above-linked article: Australia, Austria, Canada,
Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and
Switzerland.

(Nation/ Total Fertility Rate) (Australia/ 1.97) (Austria/ 1.41) (Canada/
1.58) (Czech Republic/ 1.49) (Finland/ 1.85) (Ireland/ 2.1) (Netherlands/
1.66) (New Zealand/ 2.1) (Switzerland/ 1.46)

Those numbers are for the years 2007 to 2009, depending on the nation. Note
that only Ireland and New Zealand are at replacement levels. Residual Catholic
natalism may explain Ireland's current fertility (given their loss of
religion, don't expect that to last). Reading between the lines in the
Wikipedia article for New Zealand, it seems that the Maori and Pacific
Islanders are doing more than their fair share of baby-making. My guess is
that they are more religious than the contracepting whites.

Bottom line: Lack of religion is either non-adaptive from a fitness
perspective, or it is strongly tied to traits which are themselves non-
adaptive.

UPDATE: I can't get the formatting right on that table of fertility rates.

~~~
Qz
Correlation != causation.

~~~
jerf
Yes, but so what? "Correlation != causation" != "no relationship so we can all
just stop thinking about it". Whether it's causative, reverse causative, or
two things caused by a shared third factor that may also have other effects,
there's a _there_ there that can't be waved away by a trite, fashionable two
words and a math symbol. Careful reading of the "bottom line" winestock posted
will show that (s)he actually understands this.

~~~
wzdd
> Careful reading of the "bottom line" winestock posted will show that (s)he
> actually understands this.

This is incorrect. Winestock:

> Bottom line: Lack of religion is either non-adaptive from a fitness
> perspective, or it is strongly tied to traits which are themselves non-
> adaptive.

A third possibility, one of many, is "Lack of religion and a fertility rate
less than 2.0 occur co-incidentally in seven countries". Given that we have
only examined nine countries of a possible 195 (or so), I think that this
third option is at least possible.

~~~
jerf
Accuracy of the data in question is a separate issue. My point was merely that
the possibility of non-causation was covered. Inaccurate data is still not
"correlation != causation" (it supercedes it).

~~~
wzdd
Even if winestock compiled a complete list of 195 countries, their
religiosity, and their fertility rates, and showed a correlation between them
(which it seems is unlikely -- see for example steadicat's post, or my other
post), it would still be wrong to conclude, as winestock did, that

> Lack of religion is either non-adaptive from a fitness perspective, or it is
> strongly tied to traits which are themselves non-adaptive.

There is at least one other possibility, which is that there is no link
between religion and fertility, even transitively.

------
jojofloor
Religion is a burden on society, a social trait from civilizations past, they
lacked the vast majority of scientific knowledge we currently embrace, this
"evolution" was bound to happen sooner or later.

Any rational intelligent being should quite clearly see the fundamental floors
of all religions, how they act mearly as placebos at best; but primarily as
precursors to wars, hours of wasted time per week on mundane rituals, dark
ages, etc.

~~~
rick888
If all religions were gone tomorrow, the burden on society would still be
there in another form. There are many people religious about global warming,
Linux, the GNU, styles of politics and economics, etc. Even some political
figures are followed religiously to a point (where logic and reason are out
the door when you try to have a conversation questioning them).

Religion isn't all bad. There are people that take it to the extremes, but
many of the things in the bible teach you to be a better person. I like
Buddhism too.

..and we also can't forget that nobody can really prove either way about an
afterlife, if god exists, if someone created our universe or it was always
there.

------
tjic
Public and private religiosity was ramping down in the Roman Empire around 30
AD as well.

Beware taking 20 years worth of data points and drawing century long lines
from them.

~~~
noarchy
Do you have 20 years of data points from Rome in 30 AD?

~~~
tjic
We've got several hundreds years of writing, temple records, etc.

~~~
noarchy
Is that several hundred years of data that can give us information comparable
to the census data used in the BBC-cited report?

------
synnik
Even the great Hari Seldon was unable to accurately turn mathematical models
into true predictions of human society without the intervention of R. Daneel
Olivaw.

~~~
dalore
No you have the wrong way round. Daneel (all though started with Giskard) was
unable to accurately turn mathematical models intro true predications without
Hari Seldon.

------
gjm11
I looked at the paper (already kindly linked by bartonfink, but here it is
again: <http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1375>). I think there's considerably less to
it than meets the eye.

The authors have a very simple model of the dynamics of religious adherence,
which amounts to saying: people convert from one (ir)religious position to
another in numbers proportional to some function of (1) the fraction of the
population currently adhering to each position and (2) some measure of how
attractive each position is. They assume that #2 is constant over time. They
choose a particular (reasonably plausible) form for the dependency on #1. They
have a couple of free parameters, which they adjust to make their predictions
fit reality as well as possible. They plot a few graphs, which show their
predictions fitting tolerably well.

They observe, quite rightly, that their analysis implies that on not-terribly-
long timescales whichever position is more attractive will dominate
completely. They fail to observe that since at present neither religion (any,
or all collectively) nor irreligion is completely dominant anywhere, the
attractivenesses must in fact be varying over time, and that future changes to
that parameter make an enormous difference to their model’s predictions. They
fail to consider the possibility that their model (even if generally adequate)
may break down badly for small-minority positions. (If so, its predictions
about extinction of any position could be very wrong.) They fail to consider
that differences in personality, experiences, etc., may render (ir)religion
differently attractive to different people, which could entirely change their
model’s predictions near the edges. (That is, once it starts predicting that
either religion or irreligion will go extinct or nearly so. That is, exactly
the situation the headline describes.)

They do (and frankly this is the only interesting bit) consider the effect of
clustering effects: a person’s conversion probability may depend not on the
_overall_ popularity of the "old" and "new" positions but on their local
popularity: people are affected more by their friends, family, neighbours,
colleagues, etc. They find that provided people aren’t completely isolated
this doesn’t make a huge difference to the overall prediction of the model.

I don't think the paper gives much more reason to anticipate the extinction of
religion than we already had. (Opinions vary as to how much that is...)

~~~
radu_floricica
Remember that at some point in history being non-religious was either
impossible or very underground. It could be that we're globally passing
through a period of transition, from one stable uniformity to another.

------
bartonfink
I find this very interesting, and I hope that they get it peer reviewed
somewhere so it's more "official" than arxiv. I don't normally view religion
as a social activity, and this analysis seems to hinge on social factors (i.e.
it seems to be counting edges instead of nodes). Religion doesn't seem to
necessitate multiple people in the same way that language does, so I wonder
whether their model might be fundamentally flawed. Looks like my pile of
papers to read just got a couple pages higher.

The link to download the paper is here if anyone wants it.

<http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1375>

~~~
_delirium
_I don't normally view religion as a social activity ... Religion doesn't seem
to necessitate multiple people in the same way that language does_

I believe there's some disagreement over whether religion is characterized as
primarily a set of beliefs individuals hold, or primarily a sociological
phenomenon. Clearly most religions have a mixture of both, so the disagreement
is over which is more important or definitional. I think most sociologists
tend to see it as more of a social phenomenon, with the role of shared beliefs
being just one kind of social glue. Linguistically, we don't seem to call
personal beliefs that one person holds, not shared by anyone else, a
"religion"; religions seem to require some sort of community of members.

~~~
colanderman
Indeed, I wonder how different the results would have been had they asked, "do
you believe in a deity?" or "are you spiritual?"

~~~
tokenadult
I can't speak for the other countries, but private polling data in the United
States reveals many more people who believe in a deity or who self-describe as
"spiritual" than who are affiliated with an organized religious community by
regular attendance at group meetings.

<http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations>

Christian scholars in the United States have noted that many self-described
Christians do not have a set of doctrinal beliefs that accord with historic
Christianity.

[http://www.barna.org/transformation-articles/252-barna-
surve...](http://www.barna.org/transformation-articles/252-barna-survey-
examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years)

------
dsuriano
This is the best news I've read all morning.

~~~
kbutler
I'm always amused by evangelistic atheism.

~~~
mahmud
When I see people doing something harmful to themselves and others, because of
religion, I'm tempted to preach the message of Void.

------
trustfundbaby
I'm of the opinion that as man understands more about the world and how to
actually control it (through science and technology) that his reliance or use
for religion will fall.

It'd be interesting to see a study on that, because I think uncertainty (about
anything) ... is a space in the human psyche that is filled by Religion.

------
bsandbox
I'm unaware of any collection of humans in history that did not practice some
form of religion. I suspect that religion will become extinct only when we
humans do too.

~~~
a-priori
You're right that religion seems to be a human universal. I believe that every
human population ever studied practices it in some form or another.

But, what may be declining is not religion per se, but rather monotheism.
Zoroastrianism, one of the first monotheistic religions, emerged only in the
2nd century BCE. For the entirety of human history before that, about 200
millennia, humans practiced some form of nature worship, ancestor worship or
polytheism.

It may be that the age of monotheism is coming to an end, but what comes next
is anyone's guess.

~~~
phamilton
2nd Century BC? What about the Jews? While exact dates are not very well
known, Jerusalem was invaded around 600 BC. The dead sea scrolls have been
dated back to well before the 2nd Century BC.

~~~
a-priori
You're right, my mistake. I had it in my head that Zoroastrianism was first,
then looked up its origins to get a date, but didn't double-check it. It looks
like Judaism pre-dates Zoroastrianism by a couple centuries, and Atenism
(emerging in the 14th century BC) preceded both.

The argument still stands. We're still talking about 4 millennia of
monotheism, preceded by 200 millennia of various other forms of religion.

------
TamDenholm
I've always thought religion would become less and less prevalent. Being non-
religious was extremely rare before evolution was discovered and now its
growing in popularity since we now know more, i think that trend will
continue.

Evolution has had about 150 years, religion has had multiple thousands of
years. In my opinion its just a matter of time before religious belief becomes
a minority everywhere.

~~~
sigzero
What do we know? That one species can evolve into another? Never been remotely
proven. That one species can adapt itself to its surrounding. Sure that
happens. It doesn't change its species though. "Macro" evolution just doesn't
happen nor can it be proven to have happened.

~~~
mrlase
And you're basing your claims of no evidence on...? I study evolution and
genetic variability in populations of a certain algae, and have data from the
last 20 years from across the country (not the person who took it 20 years ago
though) to say that a population doesn't evolve would be absurd. What about
genetic drift? What about species isolation? What about changes in a
population that prevent sexual reproduction with the rest of the species? The
truth of the matter is, there is a plethora of data supporting evolution.

------
Apocryphon
These nations have always been prosperous and secularized- this doesn't
exactly sound like startling use. The decline of religion as a social
institution in these countries will not forestall the existence of bigotry,
irrationality, and folly- those are all inevitable problems of human nature.

------
Maci
People are realising more and more that it's ones self who is in control and
do not need to channel their willpower thru an external entity to make things
happen / hope that things will go well. Same thing being that it's modern
medical science that extends people's lifetime and cures illness, Education
that teaches us evolution, Etc, Etc.

Besides, Everything has a beginning and an ending so it's hardly surprising.

For everything else there's the dream of "The Empathic Civilisation".

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g>

------
ranprieur
As far as I can tell, they're defining "religious" as people claiming to be
religious, and "non-religious" as people claiming no religious affiliation. So
they're assuming that everyone means the same thing by the word "religion",
and that these people's unspoken definition is a useful concept.

Atheists like to talk about the harm done by "religion". But this harm might
be done by deeper habits of thinking that will persist in people who identify
in surveys as "non-religious".

------
aj700
In 200 years they will say: Irrational and women hating creation memes all
died in the 21st Century, and the people became truly civilised.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
I hope so. I'm seeing strong men and theocracies crumbling the middle east.
I'm seeing proud gay men and women demanding basic humans rights in the west.
I'm seeing a social acceptance of being non-religious. I'm seeing religious
bigots think twice before spewing their hatred in the workplace. I'm seeing
young people questioning the faith of their parents. I'm seeing basic science
like evolution taught to more and more people everyday. Even while the
religious do their best to fight this EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

The casual hatred that religion breeds is at least being challenged. 1st
century cosmologies may never collapse,but they're moving more towards the
low-information and undereducated types everyday. I'm not sure what the future
holds, but the trend looks good.

~~~
phamilton
I'm also seeing plenty of great citizens and neighbors who live what they
believe. I see people drawing strength and happiness from their faith. I see
people in the darkest stages of their life escape only after gaining that
faith. I see religious organizations helping people to donate their time and
effort to improving the world both locally and globally. I see good things
coming from religion.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Blinders are incredible things. People like you remind me of the average North
Korean citizen. Even when presented with proof of Dear Leader's abuses, they
will deny it and continue to love him and defend his regime to the death.

------
Someone
I found it weird that they claim to have used census data from the
Netherlands. The last census in the Netherlands was 40 years ago
(<http://www.volkstellingen.nl/en/>) I would hope they used other sources
(data from the CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics) would be the primary
candidate)

------
tintin
_"The study found a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation."_
No religious affiliation does not mean people are becoming non-believers. I
hear a lot of people who believe (in whatever) but don't want to be marked as
religious.

~~~
phamilton
In many cultures, it's quite a binary thing. Either you believe in religion or
you believe in science. They are viewed to be entirely incompatible (which
they aren't). People who have a belief in a higher power often feel unwilling
to label themselves as believers because they don't want to be discriminated
against as ignorant and bigoted.

------
speleding
I wonder which one will be the first to be extinct, IE6 or religion. I wonder
if there is a correlation between the two. Questions, questions.

------
aik
I'm not entirely sure about this...what's their timeline? I live in Australia
and seeing Australia on the list was a huge surprise.

------
rbanffy
Thank God!

(sorry, couldn't resist)

