...
In the 21st century, we have other concepts that essentially function as religions. Secular governments, science, data.
Bitcoin is an example. Two strangers trust bitcoin value because they trust Math behind it. They are willing to co-operate (in this case exchange value) despite the fact that they don't know each other, might be actually enemies otherwise. But they will co-operate the same way two Christian Kingdoms co-operated to kill and plunder pagan tribes.
You don't need to suspend your reason to believe some bronze age nonsense, today, you have other options.
af_newbie I am not suggesting you suspend your reason. I am advising you fully engage it.
Upthread Moloch brought
Pascals Renewed Wager to our attention.
In this paper we see that belief in God coupled with observance of belief is correlated with numerous health outcomes including:
1) Happiness
2) Physical health
3) Mental health
4) Longevity
5) Stable marital relations
The data in the OP allows us to add fertility to that list.
The only possible counter is to argue that it's all just illusion with some other ultimate cause. That is exactly what the atheist counter paper cited by Moloch tries to do. The 15 page paper is full to the brim with attempt after attempt to to explain away the data. If you are looking for tips on how to strongly argue a weak position its a great source.
The reality is I have yet to see a single study where atheist (of any stripe) outperform the very religious on health metrics. Furthermore there is not a single current or historic non-religious group that has maintained reproductive replacement levels on the communal level.
If someone came to your door marketing lab grown soylent green and meat-x plus you would probably ask a several pointed questions before abandoning fruits vegetables and fish.
Specifically:
A) Are those eating soylent green maintaining physical health?
B) Do they live as long as those eating traditional diets?
C) Could the artificial stuff contain poisons that do bad things like reduce your fertility?
If you would ask these hard questions about soylent green why wouldn't you ask them of atheism? Wishful thinking aside there is no evidence to suggest that modern contrivances like socialism, humanism, or nationalism function as viable and sustainable replacements for religion.
Bitcoin is a great example. Two strangers can transact in bitcoin because they have confidence in the consensus it represents. The math behind bitcoin is simply a tool that helps keep that consensus strong. This is why the hard fork controversy is so bitter. It is an attack on consensus in one of the few areas where math is not protective.
This is probably a major reasons why
religious people distrust atheist. Religion can be looked at as a moral consensus. It is a system of rules which it's adherents (sometimes nominally) agree to live by. By declaring themselves atheists individuals choose to publicly reject that consensus which leads to suspicion. The bitcoin equivalent would be a miner publicly supporting a closed source hardfork.