Marxist analysis on the rise of atheism

[Questionable]

So Marx seemed to claim that because religion arose as a way of coping with the unpleasant conditions under capitalism, and it was a waste of time to try and eliminate religion without first changing the relations of production.

If so, why does atheism seem to be on the rise in the world? I've read statistics that show that more people list themselves as "unaffiliated" with religion than ever before. There's also a much greater focus on science with figures like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins being extremely popular.

What's a Marxist analysis for why atheism seems to be outracing religion right now?

[Comrades Unite!]

Science has progressed since the era of Marx, He was limited by his era and would have no way of knowing how advanced we are now and how Religion no longer dominates.

In Marx's days Religion was a dominant power and not much else(aside from the opium of the people of course)Now it isn't so much as it once was.

[citizen of industry]

Marx never associated the rise of religion with that of capitalism. He attributed the rise of religion to the unexplained in ancient societies, referencing "god's" resemblance of man as evidence it was a human creation under material circumstances. Athiesm outstripping religion is the logical and obvious conclusion of that. Hence why Marx and almost all Marxists are athiests. See "The German Ideology."

He criticizes religion in developed society because it is ridiculous, and promoted by reaction as a way to get people to conform to the status quo, turn the other cheek, be humble, let the capitalist exploit you while you wait for the after-death.

[Positivist]

First of all, the rise of atheism, or unaffiliation, does not mean that materialism is rising. It is completely possible, and growingly common, to label yourself an atheist, while still taking on many of the classical superstitions of organized religion.

Next, it should be noted that this rise of atheism has been accompanied by a rise in religious fundamentalism. We would be woefully incompetent to not recognize these phenomenon as intimately related. It is my assessment that descending material conditions are leading many people to question pillars of authority which they had previously accepted (atheism), and others to cling violently to those pillars (rise in religious fundamentalism, and general right wing extremism.)

The rise in "new atheism" seems to be the bourgiose adaptation of this rising current to ensure that capitalism is not affected by this challenge to traditional authority.

[citizen of industry]

"New Athiesm" is a hilarious and ungrammatical phrase. The "new" way to not believe in a diety.:rolleyes:

I don't see how anyone can claim a rise in religious fundamentalism, though, with the crusades, inquisition, bible in one hand, sword and disease in the other colonization, etc. in our history.

[Questionable]

"New Athiesm" is a hilarious and ungrammatical phrase. The "new" way to not believe in a diety.:rolleyes:

I don't see how anyone can claim a rise in religious fundamentalism, though, with the crusades, inquisition, bible in one hand, sword and disease in the other colonization, etc. in our history.

I don't think he meant religious violence. When I think of fundamentalism, I think of megachurches, televangelists, that sort of thing. Society seems to be polarized between the two.

[theblackmask]

I think Marx was somewhat incorrect in his analysis. I think religion arose out of the fact that early humans pretty much worshiped nature itself. With the rise of civilization and class society, the ruling class turned a basic spirituality into an ordered religion so that they could control it. Modern humans do not come anywhere near having any sort of reverence for nature, therefore there is little need for people to be religious, or for the state to invest too much effort in trying to promote religion.

[Comrades Unite!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUkXvWn1m7Q&feature=player_detailpage

Watch that and you will see why Atheist are growing.

[Positivist]

"New Athiesm" is a hilarious and ungrammatical phrase. The "new" way to not believe in a diety.:rolleyes:

I don't see how anyone can claim a rise in religious fundamentalism, though, with the crusades, inquisition, bible in one hand, sword and disease in the other colonization, etc. in our history.

That is an extremely good point. I usually associate those events as being more economically motivated totally inline with the material interests of the actors, where religion was more of a justification. I am referring to growth in widespread religious fervor, as opposed to concentrated socio-religous control as was (atleast in my opinion) being exercised in the events you mentioned.

[citizen of industry]

I don't think he meant religious violence. When I think of fundamentalism, I think of megachurches, televangelists, that sort of thing. Society seems to be polarized between the two.

Well, before it was basically "one" and some violently persecuted dissenters. Now it's two. Sounds like amazing progress.

[Igor]

"New Athiesm" is a hilarious and ungrammatical phrase. The "new" way to not believe in a diety.:rolleyes:


...ungrammatical? Please do expand. And well, yeah, "new atheism" is a new way not to believe in a deity, because "new atheists" (who imo, are scumbags) organize to counter any kind of religious belief in a way "old atheists" didn't really do. It's a stupid thing, but it's a thing.

[Red Banana]

I don't think Marx thought Religion arose as a way of coping with Capitalism, as Religion has existed for thousands of years, long before the rise of Capitalism. Nevertheless it is used to cope with Capitalism.

I figure that with modern science and better ways to communicate new scientific findings more easily people just find it harder and harder to hold onto silly man made myths. Also, instead of Atheists being burned or shunned, these days we're allowed to openly express our views (with better means to communicate them too) and expose people to Atheism who otherwise wouldn't be.

While I doubt Religion will be eradicated without the rise of Communism because people will still be clinging to their theological opiates to numb the pain of the reality of Capitalism in the hope for paradise after death, there are still gains to be made in the mean time. More and more people are waking up because it's become a lot harder to just shut their eyes, plug their ears, and lock themselves in a church anymore.

[citizen of industry]

...ungrammatical? Please do expand. And well, yeah, "new atheism" is a new way not to believe in a deity, because "new atheists" (who imo, are scumbags) organize to counter any kind of religious belief in a way "old atheists" didn't really do. It's a stupid thing, but it's a thing.

Because of "theism," belief in a diety. "athiesm" absence of a belief in a diety. The phrase new athiesm expresses a new way not to believe something. Since athiesm expresses a non-belief, any new ways to non-believe are ungrammatical. Both don't believe and fit the definition.

Like the "new-apathetic" or "new-apolitical."

[DasFapital]

I think it is a major misunderstanding of human psychology to think religion will disappear with the emergence of communism. Some people are predisposed to belief and the comforts it provides. Even with capitalism done away with the prospect of eventually death and the loss of loved ones will push people towards faith. In my view, as long as humans exist religion will exist.