Grief gets an expiration date, just like us

I think you're right on the word level but I think there's a difference about what significance and insignificance means to these groups.

As a religious person, I see my life as insignificant compared to Gd, and compared to the chain of generations, but what I do with my life is extremely significant. As in, whether I bring children into this world and raise them well, is massively significant.

So maybe the way to say it is - religious people see themselves as insignificant in the context of much greater significance.

The other view of insignificance is that nothing is significant - including myself. I don't subscribe to that.

Equating these things with a "Belief in god" belies a narrow view of spirituality.

Do you really believe atheists are incapable of recognizing the significance of children or of caring about them?

No, I don't believe that. I valued children just as much when I was an atheist as when I became religion.

What's significant though is the PREVALENT opinion. 100% of my religious friends want and have kids, while the majority of my secular friends do not. I work in FAANG and previously in finance, so my peers are people who can certainly afford kids and are positioned to take care of them - and yet literally most are choosing to do something else.

I am not commenting on a universal attitude, I am commenting on a significant trend that I think is obvious.

Thanks, this is clearer.

>What's significant though is the PREVALENT opinion. 100% of my religious friends want and have kids, while the majority of my secular friends do not.

Do all of your religious friends subscribe to the same religion?

If so, does this religion proscribe having children and raising families as a necessary, or desired, component of the faith or community?

Because you could be confusing religion and culture here. Secular values often abrogate traditional gender and sexual norms, so secular people may not feel compelled to "be fruitful and multiply." I wouldn't ascribe that to lack of religion per se so much as not being affected by the same cultural pressures. After all, plenty of theists are essentially forced into marriage and children because it's what's expected, not because it's what they want.

Putting aside the question of whether your own experiences hold for the general population, you must consider why these opinions are so prevalent, either way. One might argue that religion doesn't teach 'values' so much as 'roles', and so people feel they must do these things, not for any significance or with little thought to possible negative repercussions, but simply because... well, that's just what you do, right? Find a partner, have kids, go to church. That's the lifestyle religion teaches. One might also argue that secular people aren't as intent on having kids because they're more willing to accept different lifestyles.

For what it's worth, krapp's comment is better written but is what I'm talking about here.

I am not sure "culture" and "religion" are separable in the long run but I don't think that aligns with the point you're making.

Religious people see "be fruitful and multiply" as a literal command from G-d and one of the fundamental points of religion. So while religious culture can evolve, the evolution of this attitude isn't a flexible point.

On the flip side, secular culture has no intrinsic reason for "family values" - which is why, I think, atheist culture over time devolves to childlessness - because reasons "why not" are more immediate and in your face, vs "why yes."

So yes it's "culture" but what the culture is is obviously determined by your underlying beliefs and that which you consider eternal and that which you consider negotiable.

I probably agree with most of what you wrote, but at the end of the day, the difference between 'values' and 'roles' seems insignificant to quibble about in the face of the result we're talking about here.

>which is why, I think, atheist culture over time devolves to childlessness

I don't think the data supports this, yet. Religiously affiliated completed TFR is 2.2 while unaffiliated is 1.8. However, completed TFR means this is looking at those older than 60, so expect those numbers to drop in the future.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religion-fer...

From my observations, TFR is not much different between most people who describe themselves as religious and most people who describe themselves as non religious. However, the TFR is different for those who I would describe as the most religious, compared to the "casually" religious/non religious.

For example:

https://danielgordis.substack.com/p/israel-has-high-birth-ra...

Totally agree, even without reading your links. What matters is the actual faith in Gd. I see this myself. We're members of two temples - one more orthodox and one more what you'd call casual.

The people that show up to the casual one once a year or even a few times a year aren't really "different" than someone who doesn't bother to show up. It's good they are there but the religion isn't influencing how they think and act - which is why the TFR is similar between casually religious and casually non-religious.

Where things differentiate is on the extremes. Someone explicitly atheistic (vs just non-religious) has a TFR around 1 from what I remember, while orthodox and ultra-orthodox have 3.3 and 6.6 respectively. What makes the difference is the degree to which they allow the religion to permeate their mundane existence, which is a factor of faith.

Borderline militant atheist, my children are the great joy in my life and the best thing I’ve ever done.

This doesn't seem to track with broader sociological trends. For example, let's compare the USA, one of the most religious Western countries, with the USSR, where 60%+ of the population was atheistic, and where the state promoted atheism. Between 1960 and 1980, the US population grew from 179M to 226M (a 26% increase). The USSR population grew from 208M to 262M (a 25% increase). So, despite massive differences in religiosity, the population rate was pretty similar. China, another largely atheistic state, grew from 582M to 1B in roughly the same period - a 73% increase.

So while it may be true that certain small deeply religious populations are more incentivized to have children, this doesn't seem like a significant effect at population levels overall. You'll also find small non-religious groups with similar behaviors.