Andrew Sullivan and Kevin Drum both link to this Pew Report on various worldwide opinions. Here is the graph that gets people talking, a plot of per capita GDP versus religiosity:
This looks like a curve that was drawn by hand, rather than fit by least-squares, but there is obviously a correlation: as a country gets wealthier, it gets less religious. The United States, obviously, is a whopping outlier. Why is that? What is it about the U.S. that makes it so different from our demographic cousins, even within the Anglosphere? (Kuwait is also an outlier, but the reasons are pretty straightforward.) I’ve heard various theories, but none has really been convincing.
(Looking closely, maybe a better fit to the data would be to horizontal line segments: one at 2.25, for GDP between 0 an 10,000, and one at 0.75, for all higher incomes. Perhaps there is a phase transition that countries undergo when their per capita GDP hits around 10,000. Or, even more likely, there is some hidden third variable that is highly correlated with both GDP and religiosity. That kind of curve would make the U.S. seem less exceptional.)
“To examine the relationship between wealth
and religious belief, a three-item index was created,
with “3” representing the most religious position.
Respondents were given a “1” if they believe faith in
God is necessary for morality; a “1” if they say
religion is very important in their lives; and a “1” if
they pray at least once a day.”
— rather a crude measure of religiosity, IMO.
It also seems to be attempting to de-emphasize the US lead in absolute productivity by solely discussing relative productivity gains of inferior economies.
If a barber in India and a hair dresser in the US both serve a customer per fifteen minutes, but the barber in India is paid 40 rupees (say) == 1 dollar and the hair dresser in the US is paid 40 dollars (say), then by one measure the US hairdresser is forty times more productive, and by another not any more productive than his Indian counterpart.
What absolute productivity means in a service-sector dominated economy is not at all clear.
Belizean,
Hinduism discourages the creation of wealth? Which alternate reality are you from?
I have to agree with Ellipsis on the Confederacy. The Bible Belt is also the murder belt, the divorce belt, and a belt of grinding poverty.
I also have to agree with Arun in that there is a Hindu work ethic. Hinduism is syncretic, so if it didn’t have a work ethic, one could be added.
—
There is a reason that chart has the shape it does:
The entire bottom right of the curve covers Europe, East and West, much of which had been under the influence of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church was one of the first multinationals, and horribly successful and successfully horrible. (Buddhism was multinational, but decentralized; most other religions cover relatively small, relatively coherent regions).
Part of the reaction to the Church was a series horrifying religious wars. Another part of the reaction was science, the systematic application of the primacy of evidence as opposed to ideas. This has really only appeared once in our world and in one specific time and place. A new means of exploiting the natural world was developed, and that led to greater wealth, whether measured by GDP, median income, or lower infant mortality rate.
As for the United States, Americans never had a state church, so they never had as great a reaction against it. Religion is a friend, not a brother. You get to choose.
Not exactly the right thread to post this in, but here goes:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html
What the New Atheists Don’t See
Theodore Dalrymple (who is an atheist, too)
etc.
Belizean said:
Turns out that the average American does work more hours, at least according to this recent article from the New York Times.
Japanese consistently worked longer hours than Americans right up until the early 1990s. South Koreans work longer hours than just about anyone in the industrialized world. Americans do work longer than most Western Europeans, but not Eastern Europeans (e.g., Czechs, Poles).
[Is there such a thing as a Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu work ethic?]
See: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, for starters. Or the new entrepreneurial centers in India (e.g., Bangalore). Also see, for example, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Indian immigrants to the US, and their descendants. The Lebanese merchant diaspora is made up of Muslims and (non-Protestant) Christians. And so forth.
[Is there such a thing as a “Protestant work ethic”? Not really. Even Weber, who came up with the idea, eventually abandoned it because it didn’t really explain much. It doesn’t explain why solidly Protestant areas like Scandinavia remained relatively backward until the 20th Century, nor does it explain why a strongly Calvinist Scotland lagged behind a less fiercely Protestant England. Nor does it explain, for example, the extraordinary commercial drive of medieval and Renaissance Italian cities.]
The bitter battle that cannot be won — the proof of God/no god — bores many people, myself included.
Anti-religionists (atheists, Brights, or whetever moniker they choose) annoy as vexatiously as Creationists (Intelligent Design-ists, yaddayadda).
Regardless of which side one chooses, the evangelical compulsion to expound prevents the converted from critically examining the advocate’s viewpoint and blinds opponents to ideas with which they could agree.
Lewis: OK, you have a point. Many people (like Ali, who has posted on the thread/s about God’s existence) and Unitarian Universalists, have decided it is better to pursue “spirituality” as stance and valuation rather than argue about God’s “existence” (as if “exist” was even so clear cut anyway, considering real/virtual particles, the notion that all worlds are just equations and descriptions anyway (erasing the traditional distinction between the Platonic world of ideas and “substantive” worlds) etc.) Although I think “God exists” in some sense and enjoy arguing with opposing commenters hereabouts (but see my admission that I get a kick out of tweaking people), I am a Unitarian Universalist. I seek “spirituality” in a way that can be practiced alongside those who do not believe that “God” “exists.” Consider joining a UU church or fellowship.
Well, I very much like the intelligent physics and most other commentary from Sean and his cohorts.
Having studied physics at Cornell back in the early 1970s when the Internet was called ARPAnet and Hans Bethe taught undergraduates, I struggle to remain current.
I do have a problem when we try to use scientific weight to argue for or against God.
In Sean’s case, I think it detracts from the power of his intellect when his arguments are phrased so dogmatically.
You might ask whether I find Barrow or Davies equally problematic when they stray into the God realm. I do find their presentation less dogmatic and emotional. But I do _not_ think their arguments _for_ God help their science.
Science must present falsifiable theories and must predict phenomenon that can be experimentally tested. BOTH sides need to realize that beliefs may fall out of experimental results, but beliefs are faith and not science.
Faith is not science … and science is not faith.
Having myself rejected and fled from the fundamentalist believers of religion, I do not like the prospect of finding myself in the arms of atheist fundamentalist believers such as Dawkins and others who are Falwell anti-particles.
I do see science as a pillar to cling to while belief and faith, non-belief and anti-faith scour each other with endless invective.
How is it dogmatic to state that given what we know of the world around us, as a result of science, the existence of any deity is highly unlikely?
Hello again Jason,
I hope you don’t mind me rejoining the discussion here, however briefly.
I’m personally one of those fellows who believes that the whole notion of arguing for/against the existence of a poorly defined entity/concept of varying levels of abstraction (depending on your definition), that some people like to call “god” confuses the issue. So, certainly, it is not really dogmatic to state that a primitive definition of god is unlikely – this is Occam’s razor – and any fellow who would tell you or try to convince you otherwise is deluding themselves. But I think there was a lot of hullabaloo about “setting up straw men” in the other recent thread (“Tell me what God means”), and with more sophisticated forms of spirituality, Occam’s razor just doesn’t cut it.
To elaborate, the core problem that I see religion as helping to solve is to provide a solid ground on which to think and view the world – a core philosophical basis to base oneself on and one’s decisions. If you strip religion away, you are left with philosophy. I think the core complaint of many people who see the good professor Dawkins and his ilk as going too far is that, in their arrogance, they would strip away the philosophy too, and leave one with no clear values to stand on.
As for myself, I am not a religious fellow; but I still appreciate the power and simplicity of the ideas underlying the eastern schools of philosophy, particularly the middle path of buddhism, which I try to follow as best I can, though I sometimes find it difficult.
Folks: talking about “God” is philosophy, and it’s no discredit to Davies et al to *use* scientific knowledge to help make a point. Philosophy is all about framing issues, “thinking about thinking”, and even what science is or does is a subject of philosophy. In doing philosophy, we use all the knowledge we have (not just “science”, but logic, linguistics, our “getting off the ground” experiences, etc.) as a tool – so science is a tool of philosophy, it is not “science” just because science is being used. And Jason, there is really nothing science tells us that gives a low chance of God existing, it just isn’t equipped in principle to do that. The concepts of contingent or necessary existence, even how to frame the issues of existing or not, etc., are not part of the toolkit of science. When scientists do talk about such things (and it’s apart from whether pro or con), they are really doing “philosophy.”
The current issue of “The Economist” has an extensive and exhaustive (and exhausting!) special section on how religion will be the defining factor in 21st century world affairs.
I disagree that atheism leaves , “no clear values to stand on“. Ask a moral question, analyze the possible answers, and choose the one that leads to the outcome you’re most comfortable with. Are we really so lacking in the data and tools of analysis to answer “moral” questions?
Hi Dave,
I think you’re quoting me out of context here. Certainly what I understand as atheism or naturalism or whatever is the stance that there is no magic explanation for the universe/creation, in particular, that there is/are no god/(s) as in the bible/Greek mythology/whatever.
Atheism as I see it is a stance – and I believe that you need more than just the rejection of the “magic” of religious dogma to make moral decisions. You still need some sort of core approach to dealing with things and making decisions. Certainly we view certain things as intuitively wrong, but, to people that we would call sociopaths/psychopaths, these things are not wrong. In particular, I think we all have been confronted with thought experiments where doing something for “the greater good” seems reprehensible, but, if we were thinking completely coldly and rationally, we would just do it.
If you are going to argue about being completely rational here, you have to quantify this intuition. My key criticism about “the new atheism” is that this hasn’t been properly considered by many of its adherents, and that it is merely a crusade on largely harmless belief systems. Or am I missing something here?
Where is Scandinavia and Japan? Richest countries in the world, and also most atheist.
Reading the whole report (http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf.) offers a LOT more understanding, especially the raw data on each survey question.
(the page numbers I use are the ones printed at the bottom of the report. Front matter will advance the Adobe software page numbers by 4)
THEKURE:
Weird that the Pew left out the color key to the chart everwhere except in the data section of the report which is on page 41 here:
The actual data is on p. 42 which will allow yopu to see that only Sweden is included, and is lumped in with Western Europe.
from the report: “The six relatively rich Western
European countries, for instance, are among the most
secular included in the survey, and with a mean score
of .24, Sweden is the most secular. Other wealthy
nations, such as Canada, Japan and Israel, also have
low levels of religiosity.”
DAVE/TUMBLEDRIED:
You’d be interested in looking at the survey data staring on p. 116 which has the restults of this question:
“Q.45 Which one of these comes closest to
your opinion? Number 1 – It is not necessary
to believe in God in order to be moral and
have good values OR Number 2 – It is
necessary to believe in God in order to be
moral and have good values.”
Aha I see that is very interesting, thank you Lewis. It is strange, very strange, to see in some countries (including America!) the majority voting for option 2. I guess it goes to show how fundamental religious thought is to the functioning of certain societies.
As far as I am concerned, the question of morality and the question of belief/non-belief are two separate questions which are not really correlated (although for some people they doubtless are). In particular, I view the second question, the question of belief, as largely meaningless (though of course some people might view it as quite important). Consequently I prefer to focus on the first.
Countries with high atheist populations have the highest standards of living, low crime rate, more peacful, and also happen to be the least corrupt. Denmark, Finland, and Iceland have some of the biggest atheist populations in the world and yet they have high standards of leaving and are model democracies.
On the other hand, countries were religious belief is strong tend to be led by dictatorships, have high crime rates, and are aomng the most corrupt in the world.
So if atheism leaves one with no clear values to stand on, why does it seem that religious people have trouble being moral.
Actions speak louder than words.
Responding to comment 66…
Yes, a product of evolution that has reproductively benefited our ancestors, but like any of our inherited qualities, should still be subject to conscious assessment.
Well, I don’t think any moral code, regardless of its foundations, would influence those fringe cases.
I’m not familiar with this “new atheism” you refer to, but I can imagine the existance of “crusade[s] on largely harmless belief systems”. I do agree that many belief systems are “largely harmless”. But I don’t think looking for moral foundations outside of both religion and irreligious (as I thought you were suggesting) is constructive. The sooner we completely let go of the idea that morality is outside rational thought (and by rational, I don’t mean logic alone), the sooner we, including folks like you, can work on the complex problem of how we actually work (including our morality).
Hi Dave,
I do believe we may have been talking past each other all this time. You say that
“The sooner we completely let go of the idea that morality is outside rational thought (and by rational, I don’t mean logic alone), the sooner we, including folks like you, can work on the complex problem of how we actually work (including our morality)”
and I completely agree with you. I never actually meant to suggest otherwise, and I do think I may have chosen some of my words poorly. I think the main confusion (and point of disagreement) was that you were arguing that “not believing in god” ie atheism, is one and the same as rational thought, whereas I would include “not caring about the god question” as also a perfectly reasonable basis for rational thought (which is where I sit), and then there are plenty of religious people who are otherwise quite rational as well. Furthermore, I argued that although many atheists are rational, not all of them are – which is also a point where I detect we have disagreement.
I certainly was not “looking for moral foundations outside of both religion and irreligious” – where I detect your undertext in “irreligious” was “rationality”. Indeed I have great “faith” – haha – that one could find a basis for moral foundations based on completely rational considerations, even to the point where one could construct rigorous mathematical models of social situations. Indeed this is the motivation for the area of mathematics known as game theory, or at least one of the motivations.
To conclude, I think our misunderstanding was a difference in opinion over what being irreligious means. To me it seems clear that there are certainly broader classes of people who are irreligious than atheists, though of course if your definitions differ from mine we will again be in disagreement.
Hope this helps.
Tumbledried on Nov 14th, 2007 at 11:23 pm said:
I used to think that too, but now I’m not so sure. Since the majority of humanity has cared about the god question, it seems a mistake for us not to as well. Popular vote has ruled it an important question to answer. Pragmatically, I think there are differences in the way one might live being either atheist or agnostic.
Oh no, I agree with you there. :^)
That is a fascinating and fruitful area of study. Together with evolutionary psychology, I believe much can be understood.
Maybe, but I think overall we’re on the same page.
It’s been fun, thanks. I hope others have enjoyed our discourse too!