Remix.run Logo
xyzelement 3 hours ago

I feel like this is an easily answerable question, but I can see this because I grew up an atheist (and travel in those typically atheist/educated/professional circles) and have become much more aware/educated in/embracing of religion later in life myself.

If you compare apples to apples - say my average atheist friend who is a director in a FAANG and also my religious friend who is also a director in the same FAANG.

The former lives by themselves, spends their money on fun things like cars and "toys", etc. Don't get me wrong, wonderful guy (hence friend) but doesn't have those traditional things that historically have been correlated with a fulfilled life.

Meanwhile my religious-FAANG friend has 4 kids, lives in a community where everyone knows each other, lives much closer to family (intentional choice) and just overall sees his life, both the ups and the downs, as part of something purposeful and meaningful.

I would say my religious friend has much more intensity and drama/richness in his life, and maybe no time for "sadness" which I actually think is the right way to go.

I like talking about these 2 guys because outwardly they are apples to apples (same career, similar degree, etc.) but I think this generalizes well to my other friends too. At whatever level of "secular" success and safety, my religious friends just somehow seem more grounded, more belonging in their lives compared to my atheist friends, deal with setbacks better, take a more long-term view and in that traditional sense have more "to live for" than themselves which is very healthy.

America has undergone a VERY rapid secularization. When I came to the US in mid-90s (as an atheist) over half the population attended religious services regularly. Obviously that number is nothing like that today. So what registers to us as an overall change in society (fewer kids, less happy) is actually the proliferation of non religiosity in society and the corresponding magnification of the kind of challenges non-religious folks face.

As a sort of comical but sad example, most my atheist friends "would want kids" but have 30 reasons why it's impossible, between economics, politics, etc. Meanwhile my religious friends just have kids.

asdfman123 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, I agree. I think we're deep into a spiritual crisis, a crisis of meaning. A lot of people are blind to the trend because those aren't easy things to measure.

But if you're single, isolated, on dating apps -- or maybe caught in an unfulfilling marriage commuting from the suburbs to a job you resent -- there often doesn't seem much point to your own existence. Everything has been stripped of its meaning.

The spiritual crisis also explains why people aren't having kids. If there's no point to anything, why go through all the work and hardship? Parents often want to bring more happiness into the world. But if you're deeply unhappy, the logic changes.

regularization 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> But if you're single, isolated, on dating apps -- or maybe caught in an unfulfilling marriage commuting from the suburbs to a job you resent -- there often doesn't seem much point to your own existence. Everything has been stripped of its meaning.

The scenario you paint is one where everything has been stripped of meaning. One option is to seek more meaningful work and social relationships, on an individual level, and/or on a societal movement level. Or one can seek some supernatural mental delusions, an opiate for the people, to anethisize oneself to being a miserable wage slave with a miserable life.

asdfman123 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Or one can seek some supernatural mental delusions, an opiate for the people

I'm very much an atheist and a positivist too. I rejected religion growing up.

But we don't have to cede the concept of spirituality to organized religion. Spirituality is so much more than that. It's about purpose, connection, and what it means to be a human. You can practice spirituality by meditating at home, just sitting with your thoughts and feelings. No delusion or supernatural beliefs required!

When you talk about the future of mankind, our role in it, and what's the most meaningful way to live our lives -- that's what I mean by spirituality.

nathan_compton an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know, I'm a die hard nihilist and atheist and I'm married, have kids, friends, and think life is beautiful and generally ok. I don't see why people need to believe in imaginary stuff and I don't really see how it makes people happy.

asdfman123 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

See my other reply

tock 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Counterpoint: I know plenty of very religious families with multiple kids who are deeply unhappy.

In my experience friends and family are the primary contributor to happiness. Provided they are good people. Else its a train wreck. It doesn't matter if they are religious or not.

torben-friis 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's a symptom of American mentality that atheism and deep meaning are considered opposites.

I don't think you're wrong to analyse your friends, I think you're right that Americans pivot toward religion (or the ill defined "spirituality") when they feel they lack that something else.

But in many other places, including where I live, it's natural to lean on philosophy, personal connections, family, teaching, social work or any other "deep fulfillment activities", and in fact the kind of empty success you describe is frowned upon, among atheists just as much as among religious people.

Philosophy is part of the basic school curriculum from secondary school, and dealing with the big questions is not left for mass.

lpcvoid 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Religion has nice side effects (community), but vast downsides (non-scientific worldview, brainwashing). I think you can get the community feeling also by simply meeting with people you know, in hackerspaces for instance.

xyzelement 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"non-scientific worldview"

I find this an oft repeated meme. The men to whom we own our scientific understanding were all deeply religious (not just lived in a time when everyone went to church)

For example - Darwin had trained to be an Anglican vikar prior to his journey on the Beagle and wrote to his future wife letters full of discussion of divinity.

Newton was obviously deeply religious and wrote more about religion than about physics. In fact his view of gd as singular was considered to be heretical by the Anglican church but was perfectly aligned to the old testament - what I am getting at here is that he didn't just happen to have faith by default but had a very deep and personal one. At the conclusion of principia Mathematica he wrote tons friend that he believed this work would make it obvious to a thinking man that presence of gd.

Georges lemaitre who came up with the big bang theory was a Belgian Catholic priest. The secular science at the time was adamant about the Greek model of the eternal universe, and we owe our modern view of it to someone who came into the situation already believing a moment of creation.

Einstein was famously a non practicing jew who nonetheless at age 11 had taught himself Judaism and later in life advocated for he study of talmud. I can't claim him to be a practitioner but his own writing speaks to a certain expectation of how the universe ought to be (that was later proven out in math) and a belief in a sort of spirit of the universe. The point isn't that he was an orthodox jew but that he is very far from a modern atheist.

So I don't actually agree with this idea that religion is non scientific when we owe our deepest scientific understanding to men who saw themselves and the universe through a religious lens.

That's not to say that there's no ignorance in some religions and among some practitioners but rather that religion at its best can claim really significant contributions that I don't think are matched by atheism at its best.

tock 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They were scientific in spite of being religious. Not because of it.

> that I don't think are matched by atheism at its best

There are plenty of scientists including Feynman and Hawkings. These are unrelated things.

xyzelement 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>> They were scientific in spite of being religious. Not because of it.

Can you justify that claim?

>> plenty of scientists including Feynman and Hawkings.

Feynman is a good example of that. He was raised in a religious family and went to synagogue every week. His dad challenged him to continuously challenge the orthodox knowledge which I suspect the father himself saw within the talmudic tradition etc.

As feynman rejected Judaism and religion in general he nonetheless hung on and hugely benefited from the approach his religious father instilled on him. Similar to what I said about Einstein above I am not trying to claim feynman for religion but I think he's very far from "today's atheists" if that makes sense. If feynman didn't have his father (for whom religion was integral) I doubt he'd turn out who he was.

>> These are unrelated things

As per above I don't see it that way.

tock 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Can you justify that claim?

Can you?

> Feynman is a good example of that.

"Do you call yourself an agnostic or an atheist? Feynman: An atheist. Agnostic for me would be trying to weasel out and sound a little nicer than I am about this."

> > If feynman didn't have his father (for whom religion was integral) I doubt he'd turn out who he was.

Right. If we are just gonna reach for stuff like this then I'm gonna say Feynman wouldn't turn out to be who he was if he believed in religion.

> As per above I don't see it that way.

Belief without evidence. Hey I get it now!

dh2022 an hour ago | parent [-]

Brilliant response. Thank you!!

keiferski an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Probably the most obvious lesson you learn from studying religion(s) is that the word itself is functionally useless. It’s so broad a term that includes basically all intellectual history up to the present, political history, across all countries, civilizations, etc.

Which is why if anyone starts claiming that “religion is good/bad” in simplistic term, they probably don’t know what they’re talking about. It is far too broad a label to make such declarations.

xyzelement 12 minutes ago | parent [-]

Just wanted to say I agree. The thing that caused a savage to throw a virgin into a volcano and the thing that caused newton to seek deep into the construction of the universe shouldn't be explained by the same word.

AnimalMuppet 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'll go further. Oppenheimer and Whitehead (neither Christian) have stated, in their respective histories of science, that the Judeo-Christian world view was absolutely necessary for the start of real science, that it could not have originated in a society with a different worldview.

Why? Because the Christian view was that God was a reasonable God, and He made the universe. And because He also gave us reason when He made us, we should be able to understand the universe by reason. All these men, from Newton down to Faraday, looked at the universe and expected to be able to find out how it worked, because of their religion.

Their religion didn't lead them to a non-scientific worldview. Their religion led them to create the scientific worldview.

TheOtherHobbes an hour ago | parent | next [-]

A huge surprise to the ancient Greeks, who outlined the concept of reason centuries before Christianity appeared, and invented a fair amount of math and the foundations of empiricism while they were at it.

In fact Christianity halted scientific progress in the West for around a millennium. Before the Renaissance rediscovered Greek philosophy, the Christian world operated on hierarchy, rhetoric, scholasticism, and violence.

nephihaha an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The ancient Greeks had the opportunity to invent the steam engine, but didn't. They had the beginnings of steam power, but slaves were cheaper.

AnimalMuppet an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They did. But they never developed it into science in the modern sense.

They had a universe in which the gods did random things for random reasons. That didn't lead them to expect a rational basis for the construction of the whole universe, and so they never investigated in the way that early modern science did.

tempaccountabcd 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

foobarian an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That's an interesting take. Many years ago, I was chatting with a coworker who had emigrated from China; we got into topics like these, and something he said stuck with me all these years. He basically lamented that Chinese civilization is so deeply driven by Confucius thought, and expressed envy at the Western world's Christian underpinnings saying that it was better at driving people to search for "the truth."

dh2022 an hour ago | parent [-]

Christianity is built upon “believe and do not doubt”. Sorry, I think your Chinese friend was a bit starry-eyed about Christianity…

svieira 20 minutes ago | parent [-]

Fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding) is almost literally a millennium old at this point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_quaerens_intellectum (and much older if you take it back to Saint John's response to the resurrection John 20:8-9)

TheOtherHobbes an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Of course you can cherry pick famous scientists from the past to support your point, especially when it's an historical fact that theism was the default for centuries.

But this is a straightforwardly transparent attempt at apologetics. It looks weak when it goes up against answersingenesis.org, and a rabidly (maybe not literally, yet, but give it time...) culture of opposition to basic science, such as vaccination, among many evangelicals.

Ultimately the claims of religion are moral, and they're on very thin ice when religion has such an appalling history of support for slavery, torture, murder, exploitation, grift, war, paedophilia, and biblical literalism.

The usual argument at this point is a No True Scotsman. All those other religions do these things. Never the claimant's own.

But for every Pope Leo - who seems like an unusually decent example - there are five Kenneth Copelands, and an apparently endless series of scandals and court cases featuring youth pastors and grifting megachurch multimillionaires.

Personally I'd rather not be in any community that trades comfort for complicity and/or denial, no matter how nice its social events feel.

Community in practice should be wider than that.

There's some extra stress involved in finding your own way, especially in a culture of forced competition.

But you're far more likely to see atheists trying to progress public ethics than religious believers, especially in the US.

something765478 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

> It looks weak when it goes up against answersingenesis.org, and a rabidly (maybe not literally, yet, but give it time...) culture of opposition to basic science, such as vaccination, among many evangelicals.

But that's a problem with American evangelicals, not religion as a whole. The earliest universities were sponsored by the church; and the works of ancient scholars were preserved by Catholics and Muslims.

> Ultimately the claims of religion are moral, and they're on very thin ice when religion has such an appalling history of support for slavery, torture, murder, exploitation, grift, war, paedophilia, and biblical literalism.

Sure, but religion also has a long history of fighting against those claims; a lot of slaves adopted Christianity, and used it as a tool to fight against oppression. It was also a large part of the civil rights movement; Martin Luther King Jr was a Baptist Minister, and Malcolm X was a Muslim.

> and an apparently endless series of scandals and court cases featuring youth pastors and grifting megachurch multimillionaires.

Plenty of grift among the sciences too. Look at the replication crisis, or companies like Theranos and FTX.

> Personally I'd rather not be in any community that trades comfort for complicity and/or denial, no matter how nice its social events feel.

You should probably stay off Hacker News then. For example, plenty of people here celebrate electrification, even though the raw materials needed for that are mined by children and slaves.

> But you're far more likely to see atheists trying to progress public ethics than religious believers, especially in the US.

I'm curious, do you have any examples?

qsera an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>non-scientific worldview, brainwashing

This can be good, you know. I mean that was the original purpose of religion.

The idea is that everyone will be good if they are afraid of judgement day. But science came along and took that away. But science (or should I say naive "scientists") did not substitute it with something that works as well. Not even close. It didn't even try.

lpcvoid an hour ago | parent [-]

>This can be good, you know

No, it's not. Non-factual, non-evidence based worldview is part of the problem humanity has right now in the post-fact era.

>The idea is that everyone will be good if they are afraid of judgement day

I reject the notion that people can be good just because they are afraid of some powerful entity judging them. People are good because it's the right and rational thing to do. If they aren't good now, the environment is to blame which made them bad people.

>... "scientists") did not substitute it with something that works as well. Not even close. It didn't even try.

It's not the job of science to make sure people don't do bad things. Science can point to a problem, it's us, the people, who need to solve the problem.

tempaccountabcd an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

yodsanklai an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What a generalization!! plenty of religious people are sad, not all of them are particularly frugal, and not all atheists think of buying toys.

Also the US is a very religious country compared to western or northern Europe where people aren't particularly sad.

noelsusman 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Secularism in the US began rising steadily in 1990 and has actually been declining since 2020. That trend doesn't line up well with any of the data we're talking about.

cvwright 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Unless the data is a lagging indicator

neogodless an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> America has undergone a VERY rapid secularization.

If I understand correctly, connecting the dots from the article and your comment, beginning in 2020, everyone moved away from religion towards atheism in some kind of rapid shift?

Is this supported by the demographic data?

an hour ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
JeremyNT an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> lives much closer to family (intentional choice)

Living close to family is surely the single thing most could do to immediately improve their happiness.

(while not all of us are lucky to have welcoming family, the way people in the US are willing to uproot themselves and move across the country where they know nobody is extremely harmful to their senses of community)

everdrive 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> say my average atheist friend who is a director in a FAANG

Not a lot of "average" going on here.

xyzelement 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What I should have said is the two guys are fairly representative and more importantly line up to the story: if we are so Rich how are we so sad. So I used to relatively rich friends as the example:)

everdrive 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That's totally fair. I think to the extent that wealth degrades community you're going to have a clear trend.

xyzelement 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The counterpoint of the example I used is that among my religious friends wealth has not degraded family/community.

Small personal example - we are undergoing home renovation right now to create a larger dining room that can accommodate better our extended family. I see this kind of behavior among friends and family who are religious and can afford to.

regularization 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> When I came to the US in mid-90s (as an atheist) over half the population attended religious services regularly.

No. When polled, half the population said they attended religious services regularly.

Researchers going to churches and estimating attendance found actual attendance was always less than what polls said. If people actually attended services like they said they did in polls, pews would be much more full (now and before).

Also, you know two people, but I could give examples as well - a normal secular family doing well compared to some evangelical family which is not doing well at all.

Also - there are suburbs which have, say, a sizeable Norwegian population. People go to some ELCA church. You talk to them, and a lot of them don't believe in the tenets of Lutheranism - miracles, the resurrection of Jesus etc. But they go to weddings, funerals, services, coffee after services. Dinners, clothing drives. Events around Easter. For many of them there is no belief at all, they just have coffee with their neighbors every week. Technically they are considered Christians, without believing in Christianity per se.

725686 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What has atheism anything to do with this?

pstuart 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the value add of religion per the top comment is that it typically has a built in community and sense of connection. Churches bring people together in multiple ways.

I write that as an atheist who is more isolated than I'd like. I'm working on community and connection but it's challenging when one works remotely and relocates to a new town.

While I recognize the community value of religion and the comfort it brings people, it comes at a huge cost that far outweighs the benefits. IMHO, organized religion is a cancer on modern society. I think there's other ways to get the good parts from it but that's a team effort.

GetTheFacts an hour ago | parent [-]

>While I recognize the community value of religion and the comfort it brings people, it comes at a huge cost that far outweighs the benefits. IMHO, organized religion is a cancer on modern society. I think there's other ways to get the good parts from it but that's a team effort.

   Those who abandon the Path are evil.

   Those who reject the path to enlightenment must be destroyed!
Hallowed are the Ori!
BJones12 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because the article's question is 'how did America get so sad' and the answer is 'because it lost Christianity' because Christianity makes people less sad.

rootusrootus 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Modern christianity in America is a primary contributor to my sadness.

xyzelement 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Can you explain that?

rootusrootus an hour ago | parent | next [-]

To respond to another comment you just made, it is not "the" driver, as in the only thing that makes me sad. It is one of the big ones. Modern politics and the loss of American mythology broadly make up the remainder. These are all arguably intertwined, of course.

Let me first correct my statement, it is a little too broad. In my circle of family and friends, I can readily identify maybe three people, one of whom is now passed, who I think of as Christians in the biblical sense. That is to say, their actions seem to closely reflect an honest attempt to answer the question "What would Jesus do?" The vast majority of Christians in my family are Evangelicals, though, and to be fair this is who I was really thinking of. They like to ask that same question, and then answer it "See Leviticus."

Why do they make me sad?

Because they are judgemental jerks who pretend that the Bible is the most important thing in their life while simultaneously giving uncritical loyalty to a man who is the closest embodiment of an antichrist that I've encountered in all my years.

They have tried to declare ownership of the word "patriot" and defined it as loyalty to their faith, while making a mockery of it at every turn.

They have declared a huge swath of their fellow Americans as evil, not someone to be disagreed with but someone to be bullied, kicked out of the country, or worse.

They make me sad when they try to talk me into hating immigrants, or minorities, when they piously say they cannot in good conscience be associated with the few people in our family who are openly gay, when they pretend to be oppressed by The Alphabet Mafia, when they act all righteous up until the moment when someone close enough to them (like their own child) runs afoul of these 'values'. And even then, more than one of them have disowned their child instead of moderate their approach to faith.

It is corrosive, antisocial, and they cannot seem to stop themselves from dragging everyone else around them into the mud. All I have ever wanted is to be predominantly left alone in my beliefs but loved by my family. I don't put conditions on my love, I am sad when they put conditions on theirs.

majorchord 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In my experience many of them are breathtakingly judgmental hypocrites.

https://kepetersen.substack.com/p/the-gospel-of-hypocrisy-ho...

joenot443 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Hmm, in my experience it's been quite the opposite. I suppose it depends a lot on who you choose to spend your time with!

dh2022 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

In 2026, after Trump started the war in Iran, when he is doing all he can to cover Einstein’s accomplices, after providing legal cover for the ICE agents who killed two Americans, when he called the pope weak and said he is not a fan, Evangelicals still approve of his actions 69% [0].

Sorry pal, it is the white christians who are hypocritical. Their idol is a walking version of the all 7 deadly sins.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/02/09/white-eva...

xyzelement 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am aware of this view, I am curious how it's the primary driver of sadness for the guy I replied to.

Erem 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For those who haven’t read it yet, article engages with this explanation and doesn’t come to the same conclusion

geremiiah 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People who are lucky in life never question their faith, because why would they? That's why Christians are happier. I grew up Christian, but I was not lucky in life. Christianity did fuck all to help me. Actually, I find more peace in my lack of faith now. But everyone is different.

eitally 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not even sure it's Christianity that makes people less sad (I would argue that it isn't). It's the civic community that churches often create that breed purpose & happiness. Churches aren't the only types of communities that do this, but they're by far the most common.

majorchord 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Religion is a symptom of irrational belief and groundless hope.

tock an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Perception is reality! Its great as long as it doesn't hurt others.

xyzelement an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Which is seemingly the superior strategy for happiness and survival.

iso1631 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

America is swinging even more towards theocracy -- the Military Prayer Meetings say killing people is a mission from god, the White House Faith Office 1) exists, and 2) says that saying no to the rapist running government is "saying no to god"

xyzelement 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok. And in parallel the average American is disconnected from religion and increasingly miserable as per the article.

Erem 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

No, the article showed that non belief peaked a few years ago: There are more butts in the pews than in 2020.

But sentiment hasn’t recovered.

tempaccount5050 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Absolutely nothing. Religious people just tend to think they have it all figured out because they've been well trained in following tradition and avoiding questioning the status quo.

phil21 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Which would make someone less sad by default, no? I certainly sort of wish I thought I had it all figured out - I'd be way happier!

That's also an extreme oversimplification of religion which describes only a very small number of individuals of most if not all faiths.

The vast majority are not hardliners, and understand the larger component of religion is community and shared purpose.

wat10000 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I doubt it's quite that simple, but this does seem likely to be a big factor. I say this as an atheist myself. Religion does seem to give people a purpose and a community that's difficult to find elsewhere, and that translates to happiness. Sometimes I wish I could do it, but I can't.

While a fall in religiosity may be part of the cause, I don't think a return to religion is the answer. We need to find ways to replicate the non-supernatural aspects of religion without the weird stuff.

xyzelement 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think this is a common reaction that I used to agree with but no longer. I think religion tends to capture something essential about reality that atheism excluded by definition.

There's a reason no atheist society has historically arisen and thrived in the way that you are suggesting. If it was possible why hasn't it happened. The idea of atheism is ancient - why has it not worked?

tock 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Large sections of China, Japan, etc are atheists. Why do you think it hasn't worked?

xyzelement 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Well for one obvious example is both of those societies are only recently atheist (<100 years) and that they both have an absolute dismal birth rate that makes it hard to imagine how they will look like a hundred years from now.

tock 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Every society has had gods at some point in the past. Why didn't every society improve then? And China's growth has been very recent(after the 80s). And birth rates have absolutely collapsed across the world. It's not some unique Chinese/Japanese situation. Before their silly 1 child policy change China had insane population growth. As non religious people. Almost like these aren't really connected at all.

xyzelement an hour ago | parent [-]

This is your second post in this thread insisting things are unconnected which is of course a commendable attempt to validate the atheist religious belief that everything is random and pointless. I don't subscribe to your religion.

I'll give you one data point about birth rate collapse. In the US atheists have fertility rate of 1.2 (half of replacement) somewhat religious people have the rate of 3.3 and "orthodox" closer to 6.

So you can for example visit a neighborhood on Brooklyn that suffers from a fertility crisis and then cross the road onto a neighborhood that doesn't. Across incomes and education levels - religion and lack thereof correlate almost perfectly with birth rate.

So if you told me China is atheist and suffering demographic collapse - I would say of course. If you told me there are demographic groups within China that are more religious and manage to have more kids that wouldn't surprise me as well although I don't know China well enough. I do see that exact pattern in the US both anecdotally among my vast peer group and in the stats I cited.

PS: I just looked it up. In China religious groups (eg Muslim uighurs, tibetan Buddhists and Christians are obviously prosecuted minorities that manage to have 2x the kids vs national average. Completely predictable in my framework, completely "not connected" in yours.

tock an hour ago | parent [-]

> This is your second post in this thread insisting things are unconnected which is of course a commendable attempt to validate the atheist religious belief that everything is random and pointless. I don't subscribe to your religion.

I am not an atheist. Nor do I think everything is random and pointless. You have 11 comments on this topic. Discussion is the point of this forum.

> religion and lack thereof correlate almost perfectly with birth rate

No arguments there. More religious people absolutely do have more kids. I want to point out that poverty/development and lack thereof also correlate almost perfectly with birth rate. Check out the countries who still have very high TFR.

But I was pointing out that non religious countries still had tons of kids before. Birth control and more choice for women have certainly brought down birth rates. India's birth rate is down to 1.9; And its a very religious country. There has been incredible progress in women's rights and they choose to not have 6 kids.

"There's a reason no atheist society has historically arisen and thrived in the way that you are suggesting. If it was possible why hasn't it happened. The idea of atheism is ancient - why has it not worked?"

Your words. I am saying its not connected to society being great. The population being religious isn't why America or Europe grew to be super powers. If your entire argument is that population is correlated with religion then I agree. I disagree that happiness and the state of a country is tied to that.

> I'll give you one data point about birth rate collapse. In the US atheists have fertility rate of 1.2 (half of replacement) somewhat religious people have the rate of 3.3 and "orthodox" closer to 6.

PS. can you post your sources for those TFR numbers? Because they seem wildly exaggerated. Maybe I am looking at the wrong sources? "Data on religious fertility differentials for the 2020-2025 period in Pew Research Center projections shows a Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of 1.9 for Christian women, 1.6 for religiously unaffiliated women, and 2.0 for women of other religions."

saltcured 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Buddhism is an atheist philosophy. It has been around longer than Christianity. It has hundreds of millions of adherents.

Do you disregard it because you don't think they are successful, or numerous enough?

wat10000 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think you've got this backwards. People are inherently religious. We evolved to see intent behind everything. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is psychologically powerful.

"Why has it not worked?" suggests that atheistic societies have arisen and they've failed. That's not the case. Atheism has just been historically very unpopular. It's only recently that science has advanced enough to put the "god of the gaps" in a sufficiently small box for atheism to arise on a large scale.

I think, given the knowledge available to us now, religion is obviously fiction. The only difference between worshipping Jesus and worshipping Harry Potter is that the former's authors are very long dead.

riversflow 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean we have academia, which is essentially secular study. Moreover Atheist don't need to go to church together to indoctrinate their beliefs, that happens every day when no miracles happen and the world continues to be kill or be killed anywhere animal intelligence has not overcome that reality in some small pocket. Atheist also tend to understand that their is no forgiveness and they have to sit with their actions for the rest of their limited days, so it's not a great idea to go out and do terrible things for treasure.

9rx 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> America has undergone a VERY rapid secularization.

I'm not so sure of that. America has rapidly moved away from believing in some kind of magical spirit in the sky, but they most certainly haven't given up on religion in general. They have latched on to other blind faiths and rituals.

What hasn't typically come with those new religions, like you allude to, is a church; a place where fellowship occurs. That is a reasonable possibility for the decline in happiness. Research regularly suggests that most people find happiness in relationships with other people.

Nothing is ever single-faceted, though.

fellowniusmonk an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Weird, ok, my anecdote flows in almost the exact opposite direction.

I come from a highly religious Christian background and moved in the other direction without any ill will, most of my religious male friends who have families have confided in me that they think monogamy and general family values are worn out cultural artifacts and clearly regret buying in even though they love their kids and are entrenched in their communities.

Many already have a first divorce under their belt.

Meanwhile my atheist friends had their first kid right around 40 and are somewhere between 1-3 kids and after a fair amount of relationship churn when they were younger are now in very stable relationships, some very orthodox and a few semi-orthodox.

If the trajectory hold for this generation the same as I saw for my religious parents generation I think the trajectory looks not great for mental health on the religious side.

benjaminends 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not to be snide, but did you read the article? The article explicitly removes decline in religion as an explanation for this particular bout of unhappiness.

Is everyone in this comment chain arguing from a perspective of, "I disagree with author's assessment" or "I read the headline and I'm offering my own conjecture"?

ambicapter 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

90% of the top-level comments here are people proffering explanations disputed in the article.

9rx 25 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> The article explicitly removes decline in religion as an explanation for this particular bout of unhappiness.

It tried to, at least, but I'm not sure it succeeded. The growing secularization up to 2020 follows the long-term trend towards unhappiness and peak secularization and peak unhappiness line up too. Happiness has even started to improve in line with the growing return to religiosity that has occurred most recently. The data it presents as supposedly dismissing religion actually makes a reasonable case for religion.

Of course, the reality is that there never one reason. Americans are sad for millions of different reasons. The idea that if we fix that one thing all will become right with the world is pure fantasy.

JALTU 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No time for sadness? HA! War and suffering continues unabated, "surprise"!

No, sadness becomes part and parcel of...everything! At least nowadays: New awesome toy! Kid got bad grade. Fun vacation last week! Friend's daughter died. PR riding bike! Dad needs help with a thing.

To your point: Life is rich with living. And yes, friends without kids, etc. talk about and buy toys. Cool! But/and no offense, gotta go now.

Life is rich and richly nuanced.

nice_byte 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sounds like you have two happy well-adjusted friends?

FrustratedMonky 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"America has undergone a VERY rapid secularization"

And yet we elected Jesus.

z500 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

wat10000 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A reaction to that very same secularization. Religious nutjobs feel threatened and this is their answer.

krapp 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The fact that so many Americans listened to and followed those religious nutjobs and they were able to sweep the government with such little effort suggests no such "secularization" ever took place.

They're like people who see some pernicious "gay agenda" infiltrating all aspects of their lives just because they see two gay characters in a sitcom. Their fears are just projection. The power centers of the US have always been biased towards Christian conservatism. It's absurd to claim the US has ever been a truly secular nation when it isn't even possible for a President to get elected without professing Christian belief, because it's impossible to get elected President without the blessing of the deeply Christian south.

wat10000 an hour ago | parent [-]

The US was 90% Christian and 5% None just 35 years ago. Today it's 63% Christian and 29% None. That seems pretty rapid to me. It has not reached anything close to a majority yet, so the religious still hold great sway. And the perceived threat from their decreasing belief share pushes extremism.

krapp 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

tbh, that seems less like "rapid secularization" and more like "a slight drop from absolute to merely near-absolute power" to me.

Percentage of reported practice doesn't allow for the cultural and legal effects of religion, and it doesn't map linearly to influence. Remember the political apparatus of the US is designed explicitly to give rural Christians outsize power.

cmrdporcupine 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think this is def part of it. Trump was not doing well in 2016 at all until the final debate when he cornered Clinton into a (legitimate) strong defense of her pro-choice position.

All the "moderate" Christians who couldn't stomach Trump before suddenly had no choice.

Essentially all Christian denominations + Mormons think abortion is murder. How can a candidate win a majority in a society where a plurality identifies as Christian and therefore probably takes that position?

Secularization of the majority, and the liberal culutral values that go with it just alienates these people more and more around abortion, gay rights, and most markedly, trans issues.

Although the devoutly religious are becoming more of a minority, they are far more homogeneously aligned on these core issues, and therefore easier to cohere around a "right wing" electoral block even when they do not think "right wing" around economic and political / international issues. They're willing to tolerate Trump on a whole pile of things as long as they feel he's accomplishing their "moral" goals -- and so far he mostly is.