Why are there more theists, in the world then atheists?

We all know that there are far more theists then atheists in the world. Is this circumstantial or is theism a more natural state then atheism?

Imagine it this way; if you could re-roll the human dice from the beginning, would you end up with a theistic world, like we have now, every time?

Would you say there are more atheist now than ever?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Would you say there are more atheist now than ever?

I don't know. It seems to be that, but is it just because we are beginning to look?

Every time with a re-roll, no. Most times, yes.

It relates to evolution. Minds focused on hunting and gathering instead of existential crises were more likely to survive. But as we developed cognitive awareness, our minds turned to our origins, the origins and explanations for natural phenomena and the like. Those who reconciled them with a deity (or deities in the plural early on) could get back to the business of surviving. The earliest "scientists" were probably killed off because their curiosity distracted them too much.

There's also strong sociological and biological evidence that taking part in shared activities (early religious rituals and rites) increases cooperativeness. So being a part of a coherent community and doing similar things helped ensure survival as well. Religion provided the outlet for those advantages.

Basically, belief is programmed into us because it helped us survive...and we're not so far removed from that time as a species that natural selection has been able to do anything about it.

...that's it in a nutshell. There's other factors but those are major ones.

Originally posted by Digi
Every time with a re-roll, no. Most times, yes.

It relates to evolution. Minds focused on hunting and gathering instead of existential crises were more likely to survive. But as we developed cognitive awareness, our minds turned to our origins, the origins and explanations for natural phenomena and the like. Those who reconciled them with a deity (or deities in the plural early on) could get back to the business of surviving. The earliest "scientists" were probably killed off because their curiosity distracted them too much.

There's also strong sociological and biological evidence that taking part in shared activities (early religious rituals and rites) increases cooperativeness. So being a part of a coherent community and doing similar things helped ensure survival as well. Religion provided the outlet for those advantages.

...that's it in a nutshell. There's other factors but those are major ones.

So, If theism has an evolutionary advantage over atheism in respect to animals (like humans) who live in a corroborative society, then, why do animals like Baboons, who have a very complicated corroborative society, seem to not have a Baboon equivalent to theism?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, If theism has an evolutionary advantage over atheism in respect to animals (like humans) who live in a corroborative society, then, why do animals like Baboons, who have a very complicated corroborative society, seem to not have a Baboon equivalent to theism?

Well, they may not be at the level of awareness needed to question such aspects of their existence. That's one explanation. I'm not enough of a biologist to say though, really. You may have a point.

But I said "most" in my initial statement because a species doesn't need to develop a tendency for belief to survive and cooperate. It just helps. So it's not an inevitability but a likelihood. We're dealing in probabilities, not certainties.

Originally posted by Digi
Well, they may not be at the level of awareness needed to question such aspects of their existence. That's one explanation. I'm not enough of a biologist to say though, really. You may have a point.

But I said "most" in my initial statement because a species doesn't need to develop a tendency for belief to survive and cooperate. It just helps. So it's not an inevitability but a likelihood. We're dealing in probabilities, not certainties.

I'm not predispose to an answer, to any of the questions.

There is also the possibility that Baboons believe in a god, but we have no way to decipher that information from our observations. In other words, we don't speak their language.

You seem to be hinting (however avoiding) the concussion that theism could be a byproduct of the human brain (and it's increased size in humans). This is a logical concussion, but it has the pit fall of saying that atheism is a more primitive state of mind. However, there is a difference between natural atheism and modern atheism. The Baboons maybe natural atheistic, in that they have never conceived of the idea of a god, where as most atheists (human) have been presented with the idea of a god, at some time, or in some way, and have rejected it.

I think it might be relevant to distinguish between theism as "I have inherited this belief about the relationship between things I see" and an actual philosophical belief in theism.

So, for instance, a farmer in early Mesopotamia who was taught as a child that his actions toward a God are what cause the rivers to flood and water his crops is not a theist in the way atheists are. Similarly, someone born in Soviet Russia who is taught Lamarkian evolution as the way crops work can't really be considered an atheist in any philosophical sense. In these cases, these people only hold theistic or atheistic beliefs in regard to specific mechanisms of how events in their life are explained. There is no awareness of alternative or real semblance of a coherent belief system or position toward the divine.

I'd argue the vast majority of people fall into this category. They simply are theists because the explanations they have for events in their life were theistic ones adopted from their culture. The vast majority of atheists in Western nations do not come from atheist homes, and so, it is likely they have at least a marginally more coherent position of the divine (similarly, theists from atheistic cultures would have the same). In fact, imho it is a minority of theists in our culture who would actually meet some threshold for being considered a philosophical theist, rather than just being a theist as a consequence of what they were taught as a child.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We all know that there are far more theists then atheists in the world. Is this circumstantial or is theism a more natural state then atheism?

Imagine it this way; if you could re-roll the human dice from the beginning, would you end up with a theistic world, like we have now, every time?

I'll vote for theistic world. Theism offers 'answers' to questions humans sought after from the beginning that are yet (if ever) to be answered for sure, such as :''why am I here'',''what happens when I die''.

This is why philosophy has been so important to man, as well as religion.
I believe majority (if not all) major civilisations had Gods and prayed to them.

Interesting question though...

inimalist

Kind of like that guy who goes to church every Sunday, because that is what he is supposed to do. Also, they would answer the question "do they believe in god?" with "yes" because that is what they are supposed to do. Otherwise they never give it another thought. This person would be a theist, but would function like an atheist?

Ah, functional atheists, sure. Those who espouse a religion, but for all practical purposes lead entirely secular lives. "Census Christians" my family used to call them.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'll vote for theistic world. Theism offers 'answers' to questions humans sought after from the beginning that are yet (if ever) to be answered for sure, such as :''why am I here'',''what happens when I die''.

This is why philosophy has been so important to man, as well as religion.
I believe majority (if not all) major civilisations had Gods and prayed to them.

Interesting question though...

More than just religion offers answers to those questions. It's just hard for many to imagine something outside religion offering it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
inimalist

Kind of like that guy who goes to church every Sunday, because that is what he is supposed to do. Also, they would answer the question "do they believe in god?" with "yes" because that is what they are supposed to do. Otherwise they never give it another thought. This person would be a theist, but would function like an atheist?

ya, pretty much. we would call them "theists", but they are hardly equatable to atheists in a theist dominant society.

What brings one to atheism? What is the deciding factor to most atheist share?

Due to the internet generation its possible that there are more atheist now than ever before, ratio wise.

Also possible that people tend to go with the crowd.

100th monkey effect.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What brings one to atheism? What is the deciding factor to most atheist share?

Due to the internet generation its possible that there are more atheist now than ever before, ratio wise.

Also possible that people tend to go with the crowd.

100th monkey effect.

So, if atheism is popular, you could end up with atheists that are functionally theists?

For example, a young man declares his independence by saying he is an atheist. Fast forward 20 years, and he is taking his kids to church every Sunday, because that is what he is supposed to do.

Nah that example would just be weird. What I'm saying is that theist numbers maintain the higher ratio solely because more people believe in it than those who do not.

Lots of college students I've come to know lean toward atheism and agnosticism though. Its a little weird and seems somewhat trendy.

Thats why I'm wondering what atheist share as the deciding factor into becoming 100% atheist

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if atheism is popular, you could end up with atheists that are functionally theists?

For example, a young man declares his independence by saying he is an atheist. Fast forward 20 years, and he is taking his kids to church every Sunday, because that is what he is supposed to do.

This doesn't quite work as a reversal of a functional atheist. The ritual of going to church isn't part of doesn't make the functional atheist really a theist so it doesn't make the function theist really a theist either.

FA = act theist, think atheist
FT = act atheist, think theist

The issue with having a Functional Theist is that the Functional Atheist, as I understand it, isn't hiding what he believe or acting a part he's just never thought much about the idea of atheism. Atheism would have to be extremely dominant to get a Functional Theist who had little or no exposure to the idea of theism.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What is the deciding factor to most atheist share?

Why would there be such a thing?

To answer the thread, Dawkins addressed it nicely.

To paraphrase: it's remarkable that most people grow up to have the same religion as their parents, isn't it? And they know it's right, too.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think it might be relevant to distinguish between theism as "I have inherited this belief about the relationship between things I see" and an actual philosophical belief in theism.

So, for instance, a farmer in early Mesopotamia who was taught as a child that his actions toward a God are what cause the rivers to flood and water his crops is not a theist in the way atheists are. Similarly, someone born in Soviet Russia who is taught Lamarkian evolution as the way crops work can't really be considered an atheist in any philosophical sense. In these cases, these people only hold theistic or atheistic beliefs in regard to specific mechanisms of how events in their life are explained. There is no awareness of alternative or real semblance of a coherent belief system or position toward the divine.

I'd argue the vast majority of people fall into this category. They simply are theists because the explanations they have for events in their life were theistic ones adopted from their culture. The vast majority of atheists in Western nations do not come from atheist homes, and so, it is likely they have at least a marginally more coherent position of the divine (similarly, theists from atheistic cultures would have the same). In fact, imho it is a minority of theists in our culture who would actually meet some threshold for being considered a philosophical theist, rather than just being a theist as a consequence of what they were taught as a child.

In this day and age, however, it is hard to argue that anyone is theist or atheist without knowing the "whys" on a philosophical level. I would say the the majority from each know at least some of the philosophical arguments for and against their position.

What modern western theist has not heard or read that "evolution" is supposed to be the "bane" of most western creation beliefs?

What atheist has not heard or read the "what happened before the big bang and why did it happen?" arguments from the theists?

Originally posted by dadudemon
In this day and age, however, it is hard to argue that anyone is theist or atheist without knowing the "whys" on a philosophical level. I would say the the majority from each know at least some of the philosophical arguments for and against their position.

What modern western theist has not heard or read that "evolution" is supposed to be the "bane" of most western creation beliefs?

What atheist has not heard or read the "what happened before the big bang and why did it happen?" arguments from the theists?

yes, but knowing memes that cover the most immediate challenges to one's faith isn't the same as having a nuanced stance on the divine, which I think is more in line with Shakey's OP.

I'd just be willing to bet, in a largely theistic society, atheists will have a more nuanced position and many theists will have nothing approaching one, whereas conversely, in an atheistic society, this would be the opposite, as religious people would probably have a much better understanding of the divine. Its like how it is likely (in general of course) that converts to a religion would have a better understanding of the faith than those who were born into it.

I guess my issue is with using absolute numbers like this, the side that reflects popular culture will be artificially inflated by large numbers of people who believe simply because that is the answer they have been given. I'm not challenging their faith or trying to say they are less religious or less Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/whatever, just that, it takes more awareness and more of a nuanced position to be part of a group that is outside of the mainstream, in anything really (art/music/etc).

Originally posted by inimalist
Its like how it is likely (in general of course) that converts to a religion would have a better understanding of the faith than those who were born into it.

Compared to the less-active members? Yes. Compared to the active ones? Almost always no...from my experience.

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess my issue is with using absolute numbers like this, the side that reflects popular culture will be artificially inflated by large numbers of people who believe simply because that is the answer they have been given. I'm not challenging their faith or trying to say they are less religious or less Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/whatever, just that, it takes more awareness and more of a nuanced position to be part of a group that is outside of the mainstream, in anything really (art/music/etc).

And my point is: their faith and reasons for their faith are constantly challenged in this modern world. That wasn't the case 100 years ago (probably closer to 150...but 50 years ago suffices for my point).

I'm just saying that it is very hard to say people are not aware of even the nuanced arguments you speak of.

We could probably do an unofficial check with those around us. I know every single person in the room I am working with, right now, are quite aware of the nuances of theistic and atheistic arguments. I know this because we've had them.

I think you don't realize how severely stupid/stubborn humans really are about their religions. 313*

*You know that's not true. I know you know. It's just humor about how bullheaded theists can be about their religion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This doesn't quite work as a reversal of a functional atheist. The ritual of going to church isn't part of doesn't make the functional atheist really a theist so it doesn't make the function theist really a theist either.

That thought did orrcur to me while I was writting my earler quote, but for arguments sake...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
FA = act theist, think atheist
FT = act atheist, think theist

The issue with having a Functional Theist is that the Functional Atheist, as I understand it, isn't hiding what he believe or acting a part he's just never thought much about the idea of atheism. Atheism would have to be extremely dominant to get a Functional Theist who had little or no exposure to the idea of theism.

So, you would agree that Atheism is a more natural state then theism?

Then how did we end up with a generally theistic world? Even more so, why would we have a world that is generally theistic, but comprised of mostly atheists?