3 ms·

There was a religious leader making a similar argument some time back, but I don't think it holds together all that well. After all, back in the middle ages the

by WJW 6y ago

There was a religious leader making a similar argument some time back, but I don't think it holds together all that well. After all, back in the middle ages the amount of churchgoing people was near 100% and religions were promoting big families then just as much as now. So if religious parents "out-produce" their non-religious counterparts how did we ever get to the current situation where a majority is not religious? The answer is of course that children choose their own way and don't stay religious just because of their parents.

analyte123 6y ago
It could be because contraception didn’t exist in the Middle Ages.
anonylizard 6y ago
From basic evolutionary biology, there is no universall "fitness", only situational fitness. In the middle ages, in a world without contraception, with extreme pressures to marriage, without pornography or any other non-intercourse sexual releases, being religious or not matters little in fertility rate. Although in frankness, it still did, that's how rome became christian in the first place, Christians married later (so had higher chances of survival), and treasured their baby girls instead of exposing them to death, small fertility advantages added up expontentially over time. In the 21st age, the environment has shifted so much against irreligious/low commitment people in terms of reproductive fitness, due to those above factors heavily selecting against them. Literally only religious people, no matter what part of the world you are looking at, are able to maintain above replacement fertility. Irreligious people' population decline, in the long run, at least 25% every generation, will be far faster than they can "convert" religious people. Look at the amish and mormon fertility rates, read decades of research by Eric Kaufmann, and the answer is rather self evident

by WJW 6y ago

analyte123 6y ago

It could be because contraception didn’t exist in the Middle Ages.

anonylizard 6y ago

From basic evolutionary biology, there is no universall "fitness", only situational fitness. In the middle ages, in a world without contraception, with extreme pressures to marriage, without pornography or any other non-intercourse sexual releases, being religious or not matters little in fertility rate. Although in frankness, it still did, that's how rome became christian in the first place, Christians married later (so had higher chances of survival), and treasured their baby girls instead of exposing them to death, small fertility advantages added up expontentially over time. In the 21st age, the environment has shifted so much against irreligious/low commitment people in terms of reproductive fitness, due to those above factors heavily selecting against them. Literally only religious people, no matter what part of the world you are looking at, are able to maintain above replacement fertility. Irreligious people' population decline, in the long run, at least 25% every generation, will be far faster than they can "convert" religious people. Look at the amish and mormon fertility rates, read decades of research by Eric Kaufmann, and the answer is rather self evident