Is contemporary atheism sufficient to sustain a civilisation?

[Anomalocaris]

No, atheism is not enough. It is also not even essential for sustaining a civilization on a scale of perhaps a few thousand years. But it is helpful for producing and sustaining further and faster progress, and keeping human civilization a few steps ahead of those truly global natural calamities that we know visits earth over time scale of tens of thousands of years, which otherwise would have the power to eradicate civilizations if not the humanity itself.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Chuck is right, I think; Maslow's hierarchy works on a sociocultural as well as a personal level.

[Bunburryist]

Ask China.  They seem to be doing fine.

We have to be careful that we don't confuse an atheistic regime with the idea that the people all, or even most, are atheistic.  China actually has an exploding Christian community.

"China has witnessed a religious revival over the past four decades, in particular with the significant increase in Christian believers, accounting for 5 percent of the population, according to Pew Research Center data. The number of Chinese Protestants has grown by an average of 10 percent annually since 1979. By some estimates, China is on track to have the world’s largest population of Christians by 2030." (Council on Foreign Relations website.)

I wish I could remember what book I read it in, but apparently even some Party members are willing to accept Christianity, as long as it doesn't challenge the Party.  Their thinking is that if America can be so successful AND be such a religious country, religion - like capitalism - might not only not be all bad, but might even contribute to a more stable society.  They have found that Christians tend to be less corrupt, for example, than non-believing managers.  Not only that - if people can be allowed their own religious world in which to "let off steam," as it were, they might be less apt to challenge the Party (give unto Caesar . . .).

One of my pet theories is that religious institutions can, in some cases - especially when a society is on the whole corrupt - act as a refuge for people who, by their nature are less corrupt (even if they do attribute that to their religious belief).  Just like in any group of dogs there are some that are, by their nature mean and others friendly, in any group of people there will be those whose tendency - for whatever reason - is to be corrupt, and others less so.  In some cases, religion might be the only, or perhaps one of the only, refuge from the society as a whole.  It sounds like China might be just such an example.

I think it has a lot to do with the cultural character of the people.  I can't help but look at how South Korea (another Asian country with a growing Christian population), which had one of the worlds lowest standards of living in the 1940's, has developed in a mere few decades after the Korean War to become an economic powerhouse.

[SteveII]

Regarding the OP, while atheism is not a world view in itself, the secular movement is being hijacked by the 'New Atheist' movement which is very much a ideology and worldview. However, that is not what the OP video was complaining about. The video said that multiculturalism is the danger (which I agree with). BTW, 'New Atheists' seem to hate multiculturalism almost as much as religion.

[Bunburryist]

Is civilization something we just want to "sustain"? - like a party whose sole purpose is to keep people in the room, keep the glasses full, and keep the music playing?  I guess I don't see the point of civilization for it's own sake.  I'm not at all convinced that civilization is not intrinsically unstable; that irrational elements might simply be intrinsic to it - not unlike any natural ecosystem.  If this is the case, then trying to "make the world more rational" might simply be a waste of time.

On the one hand, I don't know that there is a "purpose" to life, but on the other hand I'm not sure I want to live in a world of purely rational people spending their lives correcting each others punctuation and pointing out the slightest lapse in another's logical arguments.  In the world of art, for example, creativity comes from all kinds of irrational places.  I like raking leaves and shoveling snow.  I have ABSOLUTELY NO RATIONAL REASON for that.  I just do.  Other people - for whatever reason - seem to be attracted to religion.  Who says their attraction to religion is really any different to my attraction to raking leaves and shoveling snow?  The only difference is that my raking leaves and shoveling snow doesn't have historical consequences.  But if there is no purpose to the universe - so what?

If there really is no purpose in/for the "universe," then what difference does it make if people believe things that are untrue?  For every example you can give of why religious belief is "dangerous," I can give examples of other irrational behavior is not merely not dangerous, but downright productive.  It's easy to pick religion out of the bucket of irrational things people do and hold it up to ridicule, but I'm not sure we can blame them for being attracted to it any more than I can be blamed for liking raking leaves and shoveling snow.  We can be clever and sarcastic and make snide comments about how stupid and credulous they are, but many of them are not stupid at all, lead very happy lives, and contribute greatly to the world.  (I was just reading a book about the Wright brothers, and they were so religious they would not fly on the Sabbath.  Their father was an officer of some kind in a national church organization.  And yet he encouraged his children to read books about all kinds of things - religious and otherwise.  They were esteemed (a word we don't use much any more) by virtually everyone they met.  If we could have in some sense expunged the religious impulse out of the family, would they have done what they did?  Would they have been the same people?  I rather doubt it.)

I don't know that there is a purpose to the universe, and I don't know there isn't.  In my mind, were all just flailing around in this life.  I'm fortunate to be flailing around in a pretty nice life - much, if not most of which I can't take credit for.  On the other hand, there might be a whole lot more to this "flailing" that it appears.

[Arkilogue]

What unifying social principles does atheism offer?

[Gemini]

What unifying social principles does atheism offer?

Did you read anything anyone said in this thread, Arky? Why don't you go back to tossing word salads made out of random quantum terminology.

[Arkilogue]

What unifying social principles does atheism offer?

Did you read anything anyone said in this thread, Arky? Why don't you go back to tossing word salads made out of random quantum terminology.

Oooooh, savage!

Ah yes, bottom of page 2, atheism has fuck all to sustain civilization. Carry on

[The Valkyrie]

Yes.

As long as we can achieve the extinction of the religious by the end of next year.

Working on that.

[Arkilogue]

Yes.

As long as we can achieve the extinction of the religious by the end of next year.

Working on that.

Kill or be killed?