Karl Marx, Max Weber, and other thinkers predicted that the spread of scientific knowledge would eliminate peoples’ need for religion, yet religion has remained relevant to most throughout the 19th, 20th, and (to a lesser extent) the 21st centuries. Some postulate that, rather than the knowledge or ignorance of scientific learning determining religiosity, it is instead how weak and vulnerable a society is that causes its members to seek consolation and protection from a higher power(s). The poorer and more chaotic a society is, the more religious it is. Religion becomes less important as a society becomes richer and more secure. As need for the support of religion diminishes, there is less willingness to accept its constraints. All belief systems expect some measure of exertion and tribute from their adherents. A stable secular realm requires only that you pay your taxes and refrain from causing problems for your government or your fellow citizens.

The top “nonreligious” nations are Sweden, the Czech Republic, Estonia, the Netherlands, Japan, Vietnam, Denmark, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, Populous China does not lag far behind, with slightly over half of its population identifying themselves as “Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist.” All of these locales enjoy political stability and are either economically prosperous or on the road to prosperity. In the United States, only slightly more than a quarter the populace falls into the Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist classification, but this percentage is increasing at an alarming rate.

Despite ingenious (and belabored) claims to the contrary, science and religion are opposed to each other. Science excels at explaining how things happen, but completely fails to explain why things happen. Lifestyles and cultures that advance self-interests by suppressing others are not condoned by most every major world religion. Evolutionists describe life on earth as being shaped by fierce competition. Survival of self, family, and culture excuses acts that religious beliefs usually condemn. Many, if not most people who choose to remain beyond the pale of organized religions nevertheless possess spiritual natures. A variety of terms and labels exist that strive to classify the world's seekers, skeptics, scientists, and scoffers.

American author and Episcopal priest Bernard Iddings Bell blamed the animosity between the scientific and spiritual realms on the unwillingness by both camps to relinquish their extremist views. He stated that, “Materialistic science denied all non-measurable realities, and thus the inner life of humans—love, creative expression, beauty, and goodness—were reduced to behavior theory, biochemical reactions, mere neurons firing. Religious fundamentalism, on the other hand, attempted to stifle scientific evidence in order to preserve Victorian sentiments associated with the Bible.” Many scientists are capable of incorporating divinity into their worldview to supply whatever science cannot. Fundamentalists required to utilize scientific knowledge on the job, however, are forced to adhere to a double standard. Divinty dominates the minds of convicted believers, but the scientific method is supreme dictator of the secular realm. Science is a proven money maker, but you can't take it with you!

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, or of any other supernatural force or entity is either unknown or unknowable. Nasadiya Sukta, a Hindu “Hymn of Creation” is skeptical regarding how much mankind (and even the gods) can know about how the world began. Ancient and modern Rationalist philosophers such as Aristotle, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, and René Descartes labored to prove the existence of God. David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Søren Kierkegaard subsequently pointed out the futility of this labor. The creator of the theory of evolution, Englishman Charles Darwin, described himself as an agnostic rather than an atheist. It was another Englishman, Thomas Henry Huxley who coined the term “agnostic” to describe his own belief system (or lack thereof). In his essay Science and Christian Tradition he wrote the words positioned below the following montage of Charles Darwin images.

“When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain “gnosis”—had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion…”

A third Englishman, Bertrand Russell, wrote a book in 1927 titled Why I Am Not a Christian which urged the reader to “stand on their own two feet and look fair and square at the world with a fearless attitude and a free intelligence”. In his 1953 essay, What Is An Agnostic? Russell wrote “I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence.” Religious texts contain many examples of prophecy fulfilled, as do the testimonies of those whose lives have been transformed by an encounter with the divine. Russell, an exacting logician, was unwilling to recognize anything that was not subject to rational analysis.

Antireligion is an opposition or rejection of religion in any way, shape, or form. Peaceful atheists may choose to peacefully coexist with the religions of this planet, but anti-religionists virulently oppose organized religion, religious practices, and religious institutions. They also oppose less organized forms of supernatural worship or practice. God, or gods, are denied a seat at the table. By excluding the divine, this group is constrained to providing humanity as a substitute. Many clever individuals have provided belief systems that attempt to eliminate God, or the gods. In the past few hundred years these systems have exerted a considerable influence on society. They continue to do so, particularly in the halls of academia.

Animosity toward religion first emerged during the 16th-17th Century Age of Enlightenment. Baron d’Holbach’s 1761 book Christianity Unveiled attacked Christianity outright as well as religion in general. He regarded religion as an impediment to the moral advancement of humanity. Baron d’Holbach believed that that the moral advancenment of society is wholly dependent upon secular authority. The French Revolution (1789-1799) commenced with attacks on Church corruption and the wealth of the higher clergy. During the Reign of Terror, anti-clericalism was exceptionally violent. Church assets were seized by the state, (not for the first time in world history) and traditional belief systems (meaning Roman Catholicism) were suppressed, to be supplanted by reason and scientific thought. A cultural revolution was inaugurated to purge France of every trace of Christian influence.

Antireligion as a component of official state policy is termed state atheism. Marxist-Leninist nations have been hostile toward religions since the Russian Revolution (1917-1922). Communism is the creation of Karl Marx, who wrote “Religion is the opium of the people. It is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of our soulless conditions.” This statement is not antireligious, for it recognizes that religion serves to numb the pain of existence. Communism as a form of government was first instituted in Russia by Vladimer Lenin, who portrayed Marx’s “opium” as an anesthetic deliberately administered to the masses by the ruling class that would make them easier to rule. More docile. More tractable. More content with their lives of hardship and suffering. Religion was officially regarded as an evil. Secular analogues to religious institutions were developed. In the case of Communist China, traditional emperor-worship was replaced by the cult of Chairman Mao.

The noncommunist Mexican Revolution (1910-1920) was similarly antireligious. An enduring legacy of this event is the progressive Constitution of 1917. It created a minimum wage, the right to strike, and an eight-hour work day decades before the United States followed suite. It also instituted a strict separation of church and state, land reforms, and term limits for the president and legislators. Anticlerical provisions were lightly enforced until President Plutarco Elías Calles took office in 1924. His ambition was to eradicate all cult practices in Mexico. All religions had their properties expropriated, and these became part of government wealth. There was an expulsion of foreign clergy and the seizure of Church properties.

At the close of the Twentieth century, the Vatican lobbied hard for the restoration of its influence in Mexico. Pope John Paul II personally visited Mexico twice in 1990. Afterwards, Mexican President Carlos Salinas stated that “the moment has come to promote new judicial proceedings for the churches” in order “to reconcile the definitive secularization of our society with effective religious freedom.” The government proposed changes to the constitution to “respect freedom of religion,” but affirmed the separation of Church and State, kept in place secular public education, as well as restrictions on clerics’ political participation in civic life and accumulating wealth.

Apatheism is the attitude of apathy or indifference towards the existence or non-existence of a God or gods. We are either good, bad, or indifferent. The creature comforts of modern civilization (should you be privileged to live in a relatively prosporous locale) obviate the need for any higher power. Having all one’s needs supplied either by the free market or an avuncular socialist state creates a sense of complaciancy. The bills get paid on time. No one goes hungry. Even the apathist who chooses not to substitute divinity (or divinities) with science remains incurious and indifferent. His (or her) belly is full. This is enough to satisfy the indifferent. This is enough to satisfy cattle who are contentedly grazing.

Atheism is the lack of belief that any deities exist. Some atheists are energetic evangelists. Others are less proactive. Justifications for being an atheist typically cite the lack of empirical (scientific) evidence of a God (or gods) and the indisputable existence of evil in this world. How could a just, benevolent, and omnipotent God (or gods) permit horrors and atrocities to blot the annals of history? World religions offer a variety of explanations for the sinfulness of mankind and the intrinsic sinfulness of every individual. Increaded knowledge proposes to elevate us from the quicksands of sin, yet atheists are still trapped. They demand solid proof that God (or gods) exist and place the burden of proof upon believers. Sworn testimonies are dismissed as hearsay. Holy writ is regarded as cunning fables. Nothing short of a personal encounter with a higher power is likely to transform a diehard unbeliever into a godfearer.

Deism is the philosophical position that rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge and asserts that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to establish the existence of a Supreme Being or creator of the universe. Contemporary Christian traditionalists advocate “smart design” as proof of the existence of a higher power. This is a legacy of Deism, but not a particularly effective reply to their opposition. Nonbelievers tend to take the order of this world for granted. They are satisfied knowing only how things happen. “How’s” are so intricate and complex the investigators of the “how” are not motivated to ask “why” things happen. Formulas and equations that describe and predict natural phenomena invariably work. The future can be planned, and even prophesized. Money and reputations can be secured just on the basis of knowing “how”. What’s the use a God (or of a pantheon of gods)?

Deism rose with the Age of Enlightenment and its handmaidens, the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions. It waned with the arrival of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. “Survival of the fittest” as a determinant in both the biological and social realms served to exclude God (or the gods) from explanations of the progress of life on earth. Deists were constrained to become either believers, or unbelievers, or equivocal agnostics. Most became unbelievers, and subsequently intransigent champions of unbelief.

From the 17th to the 19th centuries, Deists argued that the precision and elegance of creation pointed to the existence of a creator. “Cause and effect” seemed to imply that a creator had created, then absented himself (or herself, or themselves) from his (or her, or their) creation. Events unfold like clockwork. The clock is winding down, and all that will remain will be the formless heat of degraded particles. Deism was regarded as a viable alternative to the traditional belief systems of the world for centuries. The founding fathers of the United States of America were predominately Deists unwilling to entirely exclude the hand of divine providence from the affairs of nations and men.

Freethought holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or other dogma. Naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the universe.

Secular humanism is a system of thought that prioritizes human rather than divine matters. It is also viewed as a humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion.

Secularism is overwhelmingly used to describe a political conviction in favor of minimizing religion in the public sphere. It is advocated regardless of personal religiosity. The separation of church and state ideally ensures that divergent and minority belief systems can peacefully exist alongside those that dominate a nation or culture. The first clause in the Bill of Rights of the United States of America states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” During the debates surrounding the writing and its ratification of the U.S. Constitution, many religious groups feared that it offered an insufficient guarantee of the civil and religious rights of citizens. To help win ratification, James Madison proposed a bill of rights that would include religious liberty. Both Madison and his fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson felt that compelling citizens to support through taxation a faith they did not follow violated their natural right to religious liberty. The Founding Fathers were not antireligious. Christian fundamentalists proclaim that “freedom of religion is not freedom from religion”. The first clause, however, protects believers and an increasing number of nonbelievers alike. In the United States, therefore, secularism has become synonymous with naturalism or atheism.

“Spiritual but not religious” is a designation coined by Robert C. Fuller for people who reject traditional or organized religion but have strong metaphysical beliefs. The spiritual (but not religious) may be included under the definition of nonreligion but are sometimes classified as a wholly distinct group. Individuals are free to embrace or reject unharmonized portions of the bewildering variety of spiritual dishes like they were loading or overloading their plate at a buffet. Existentialists would describe each diner’s choices as being equally valid. Charismatic and persuasive diners inspire others to eat what they are eating. Transient pop-religions continually emerge, but these seldom survive after they are abandoned by their founders. Inexplicably, many do persist. Few acknowledge any difference between good and evil. It’s all good!