A speculation - what root psychological cause is there in the rise of atheism in the 20th century free world?

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, mistermack said:

Nowadays, people question everything, taking their cue from the media. A hundred years ago, they tended to simply accept authority.

"the media" hasn't really changed in the last millenium, the medium has but the people haven't.

One of our natural biases is, technology = smarter; a hundred years ago, they tended to simply accept authority be human.

[CharonY]

16 hours ago, Art Man said:

Speculation is like a think tank, you got an idea, not a prepared hypothesis, could be a partial idea, it could go somewhere, maybe someone else has some input to expand the idea or specialize it or give it life, maybe it was a dead end hunch, either way to make an idea grow into a hypothesis you'd need to discuss it.

A) that is not a think tank but brain storming. B) Please take a look at the rules in the Speculations sections C) Most importantly, that is not what you have been doing. 

You have stated a series of specific assumption as facts in OP, then you speculated on possible connections. When challenged regarding these assumptions, you introduced the nebulous concept of atheist products which you claim that a) they cannot be quantified but b) they certainly have increased in abundance and declared that c) those are apparently better measures than polls on people's beliefs. In other words, you obfuscate matters by making claims that are unsubstantiated. For a proper brain storm (we are not even on the level of hypotheses) these would have to be dismissed first.

Since the only data point I have seen so far is the timeline of late 60s increase, stagnation in the 90s and then increase again, I think so far swansont's initial assumption of the action of specific movements that broadened acceptance of non-religiosity is so far the best explanation.

[swansont]

Another contribution is the tendency for societies to become less religious as there is a widespread gain in affluence 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/do-countries-lose-religion-as-they-gain-wealth-1.1310451

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201212/does-wealth-really-kill-religion

[Art Man]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

A) that is not a think tank but brain storming. B) Please take a look at the rules in the Speculations sections C) Most importantly, that is not what you have been doing. 

You have stated a series of specific assumption as facts in OP, then you speculated on possible connections. When challenged regarding these assumptions, you introduced the nebulous concept of atheist products which you claim that a) they cannot be quantified but b) they certainly have increased in abundance and declared that c) those are apparently better measures than polls on people's beliefs. In other words, you obfuscate matters by making claims that are unsubstantiated. For a proper brain storm (we are not even on the level of hypotheses) these would have to be dismissed first.

Since the only data point I have seen so far is the timeline of late 60s increase, stagnation in the 90s and then increase again, I think so far swansont's initial assumption of the action of specific movements that broadened acceptance of non-religiosity is so far the best explanation.

So you are saying that I shouldn't have brought up this topic to begin with because you don't like the questions that I bring up or you don't the subject matter? If I had all the answers then there would be nothing to speculate about.

I'm not the one here playing tricky worded maneuvers, I think I've been pretty straight forward and understandable about my speculations.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Art Man said:

So you are saying that I shouldn't have brought up this topic to begin with because you don't like the questions that I bring up or you don't the subject matter? If I had all the answers then there would be nothing to speculate about.

No I said that you have been ignoring of facts pertaining to your question. Not being aware of them at the beginning is fine, as long as you acknowledge incoming info. Instead, you dismissed them and just made up your own story. And personally I have little interest speculating in the confines of your beliefs,  you may as well talk to yourself. Ultimately a speculation has to be grounded in some level of facts that we can agree to use as basis.

Quote

I'm not the one here playing tricky worded maneuvers, I think I've been pretty straight forward and understandable about my speculations.

 I would probably characterize the use of nebulous, quantifiable and unverifiable concepts as evidence  as not being really straightforward. Or put it that way, it is straightforward for you, because you already declared it to be true without the need for actual evidence. To an outside observer it is very much not so. 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Another contribution is the tendency for societies to become less religious as there is a widespread gain in affluence 

That one is tricky and I would probably need the full study when I got time, by wealth is also correlated with a host of other factors (such as e.g. education) and it would depend on how much their models have taken that into account. Another thought is of course how religion is organized. In the Western hemisphere religiosity is often associated with one of the Abrahamic traditions. However, even in pre-modern times other cultures had a variety of non-theist traditions that in some variations are closer to philosophical and/or spiritual thought systems compared to the more stringent religious doctrines of Christianity, for example. While folks can have a mixed belief system that does include gods, the impact can be quite different (Buddhism comes to mind). In these countries, a reduction of adherence to either the spiritual or religious system could, presumably have different roots than atheism in Christian countries.

Especially since in the Abrahamic traditions religion and adherence to their rituals are key to moral behaviour, departure from it often had negative societal connotations. It is quite a bit different in other traditions (to various degrees) and thereby would offer different selective factors for or against observing religious traditions, for example.

 

[mistermack]

On 9/13/2019 at 1:03 PM, dimreepr said:

"the media" hasn't really changed in the last millenium, the medium has but the people haven't.

One of our natural biases is, technology = smarter; a hundred years ago, they tended to simply accept authority be human.

I have no idea what you mean by that post. 

The media in Britain used to be extremely deferential to the powers that be. They would simply not print anything detrimental to the image of the royal family, for example, until it was widespread public knowledge. The affair of Edward V111 and Wallis Simpson was kept under wraps for ages in the UK for example, while it was common knowledge in the US. 

Nowadays, there's very little that the press let go, in any field of knowledge, so you get documentaries highly critical of aspects of religion, which would never have been aired in the past. All of the priestly abuse of children for example, would have been hushed up a few years ago, with the collusion of the press barons and journalists alike. Now it's open season. Like I said, it's a gradual change of attitude that's occurred over the last hundred years.