Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Philosophy and religion B‑class
WikiProject iconIrreligion has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Merge the list to "List of countries by irreligion"[edit]

I've made some fixes to the demographics list, but it's still not in great shape. The List of countries by irreligion is better, as it shows multiple sources. I suggest merging this list into that one, to avoid a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. See discussion at Talk:List of countries by irreligion § Adding figures from Pew, merging from irreligion article. --IamNotU (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replaced the table with an excerpt from List of countries by irreligion, which follows a better methodology. Discussion about wheter some content from the old list is worth keeeping is better suited for Talk:List of countries by irreligion, unless someone actually thinks having two different tables is a good idea. Personuser (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why is this article part of WikiProject: Atheism if the article itself testifies that irreligion and atheism are not the same? Primal Groudon (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atheism is the most prominent type of irreligion based on the objection to the gods. Erkin Alp Güney 07:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Demographic/Eugenic Speculation[edit]

I removed the a paragraph on speculation on the future trends of theism vs non-theism based on differences in birth rates. This is obviously another instance of similar predictions going back hundreds of years, only applied to different groups. From the early 19th century, racists in the US were warning about higher birth rates among African-Americans leading to demographic shifts, and homophobes gleefully awaited the extinction of their object of scorn. A few decades later, observation turned to attempted optimisation, in the form of eugenics. Long before that, Aristoteles was the first known jokester to observe "dumb people reproducing like rabbits" and predicting imminent cognitive decline. Yet here we are. The theory is also contradicted by the empirical fact that the share of irreligious people has been rising for decades, even though the differences in birth rates aren't exactly new. For a specific critique of the Pew Study see, for example, here.

This idea might warrant a mention as part of a discussion of other trends and predictions. It does not, however, deserve almost half of the above-the-fold introduction. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I restored the content for the time being since it looks quite relevant and it is sourced with reliable sources - one of them was from a journal and Pew has experts that do the research. Your argument does not really show that it is of the same type argument considering that projections on religion have been going on for a long time. It is not about eugenics, but about naturally how empirically it has been verified that countries with more religious populations do reproduce more then do countries with less religious affiliation. This definitely impacts the demographics for irreliigon and religion.
In terms of the source you provided, it is a blog by a nobody. No academic standing or expertise on the issue. His arguments are also weak. If you can provide better sources than there may be room to include those as counter points.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How are they weak? I find them compelling. And Friendly Atheist is a well-known blog in the Internet atheism community. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Types of irreligion: tabular format[edit]

"I can't see the usefulness or contribution of a table in a list-like section as this"

It would be useful in comparing the different peculiarities of different types of irreligion, such as approach to god, approach to religion, approach to creation of nature, in a simple yes/no/indifferent for each. Erkin Alp Güney 16:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with that would be that these are mostly abstract positions that seem to be fluid as many of these are not about religion, but besides it. Not having a belief in god is not necessarily a view of nonreligion since you have non theistic religions, naturalism is also a view held by people who are theistic such as deism (that is sometimes seen as a religious position without belief in revelation) and most religious people are not supernaturalists where everything is supernatural. Most seem to be minimalists in that sense. Secular humanism, secualrism, spiritual but not religious are mixed with religion, not against it necessarily in most cases too.
To make such oversimplifications like adding yes/no/indifferent would not really help anyone since that would be ignoring the complexities of the views, ignoring the fact that many of these "types" are not really used by anyone in the public to identify their views, and of course it would be editorializing and WP:OR without proper sourcing to make such claims about these positions.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, we would tabulate what is already described in the sources. For example, atheism (not non-theist religions) would be God:no, creation:indifferent, revelation:no, religion:indifferent, ethics:indifferent. Erkin Alp Güney 18:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"naturalism is also a view held by people who are theistic such as deism" My edit adding non-mutual-exclusivity of types of irreligion has repeatedly been deleted. Can you provide an example person for naturalistic deism? Erkin Alp Güney 18:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the issue, these positions are not mutually exclusive and an editor making arbitrary ranks of yes/no is not really useful for anyone since these are not rigid positions in the first place. Plus no source actually makes such claims from actual definitions. Looking at you example, on just atheism shows how you are thinking of "secular" atheism when making your "table answers" and ignoring the fact that religions like the Church of Satan are atheists too. See Nontheistic religion for an example of the diversity of beliefs among atheists. Each one of these atheists would have different responses in your "table answers". Anthropologically, "atheism is quite a common position, even within religion" and that "surprisingly, atheism is not the opposite or lack, let alone the enemy, of religion but is the most common form of religion." (Eller, Jack (2010). "1. What Is Atheism?". In Phil Zuckerman (ed.). Atheism and Secularity Vol.1: Issues, Concepts, Definitions. Praeger. ISBN 9780313351839).
Secular humanism, was written by some editor as if it was about about anything but religion, but when looking up the term, it seems to be used for inline with religion and out of line with it at times. As an example of naturalistic deism, you could name any deist like Thomas Jefferson or even people like Aristotle who believed the universe was eternal and so was god. Deists generally reject miracles, revelation, and the general view is that gods do not interfere with the universe in any way. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Secular world" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Secular world and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Secular world until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irreligion isn't the same as absence of religion[edit]

Sources (including the encyclopedia cited in the first sentence, when quoted properly) distinguish irreligion as an active rejection, not just absence of religion. The whole article seems as it is now seems to be based mainly on editors' opinions of what irreligion is. To quote the source originally cited (incorrectly) in the article and the OED:

Irreligion is the active rejection of religion in general, or any of its more specific organized forms, as distinct from absence of religion.[1] The Oxford English dictionary defines it as want of religion; hostility to or disregard of religious principles; irreligious conduct.[2]

  1. ^ Campbell, Colin (1998). "Irreligion". In Swatos, William H., Jr. (ed.). Encyclopedia of religion and society. Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press. p. 239. ISBN 0-7619-8956-0. OCLC 37361790.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  2. ^ "irreligion". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we also need to add back indifference though because the Encyclopedia you mentioned, does mention it. "Irreligion is a reaction or alternative response to established religion. More specifically, irreligion is those beliefs and actions that are expressive of attitudes of hostility or indifference toward prevailing religion, together with indications of the rejection of its demands." Ramos1990 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]