Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Ronald Bailey has an interesting post at Reason's Hit and Run blog about a new paper (PDF) by Gregory Paul in the journal Evolutionary Psychology. Bailey sums up Paul's thesis:
In his article, "The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions," Paul argues that evidence strongly shows that as socioeconomic conditions improve secularism/atheism increases. Paul is a thorough-going progressive who fully endorses the economic security policies found in most western European countries. According to Paul, religious belief remains more prevalent in the United States largely because of Americans experience higher levels of economic and social insecurity than do the citizens of other rich countries. Paul asserts that the fact that secularism increases with perceived economic and physical security undercuts the argument that religious belief is natural (genetic) to human beings.
Here's a longer quote from Paul's article that spells this out in more detail and discusses some of the ramifications of his argument:
In view of the reduced levels of religiosity consistently extant in populations that enjoy secure middle class lives, it can be postulated that if socioeconomic conditions had been similarly benign since humans first appeared it is unlikely that religion would have developed to nearly the degree seen in actual human history, and atheism would have been much more widespread and possibly ubiquitous since the beginning. Materialism and language in contrast would still be omnipresent. Ergo, strong religiosity has all the signs of being a natural invention of human minds in response to a defective habitat, and is neither supernatural, nor genetically preprogrammed to the same extent as are more deeply set language and material desire. Because spirituality is a relatively optional attribute more comparable to writing which is not fundamental to the human condition, it is not consistently more difficult for humans to be spiritual than nontheistic (partly contra Boyer, 2008), under certain environmental conditions the opposite can be true.
It follows that the mass loss of 1st world theism contradicts a number of potential primary causes of popular religious devotion, including fear of death and hell complemented by a pleasant eternal existence, fear of societal chaos if the society is not sufficiently pious, desire for an uberfather figure or a universal companion, an explanation for the meaning of life or the existence of the universe, a social primate's desire for community and need for practical social support, a means to achieve political power, a "God Module" or some expression of brain structure and function that creates a deep set psychological need for spirituality, the ecstasy often associated with religious belief and activity, the excessive teleological tendency to perceive patterns where they do not exist, retention of childhood patterns of gullible thinking into adulthood, "God gene/s" in which religious belief imparts a survival or reproductive benefit to individuals or related groups, and "memes" that spread religious ideas like viral infections even if religious devotion is maladaptive to a given individual or group (Bloom, 2007; Boyer, 2008; Dawkins, 2006; Dennett, 2006; Fincher and Thornhill, 2008; Inzlicht et al., 2009; Kelemen and Rosset, 2009). Most French, Swedes and Japanese have spontaneously abandoned religion even though they face the same lethal fate as faithful Americans. Likewise, if need for social community is compelling then western Europeans, Australians should continue to flock to the churches. Political ambitions are not crucial because public expressions of deep piety have become an electoral detriment in the strongly secular democracies. Nor is the highly skeptical French population genetically or neurologically distinct from highly religious ones, so factors that potentially involve selective forces, including excessive pattern recognition and gullibility, are not predominant. There a no reason to think that the brains of the French and Canadians are more or less resistant to infectious memes. To the extent that any of the above factors are operative, they apparently do not fully function outside the context of the dysfunctional socioeconomic conditions that favor mass religiosity.
An outline scenario of the origin, evolution and decline of popular religion compatible with the results of this study is as follows. Endowed by the evolution of high level, flexible intelligence with imaginative minds influenced by dreams and perception altering drugs that appeared to provide a connection to alternative worlds, early humans were poorly informed hunter gatherers living impoverished and dangerous lives. These conditions were so ideal for the invention of supernatural entities that could be petitioned for aid and protection that it is difficult to construct a scenario in which primitive cultures would be rationalistic atheists. A genetic propensity driven by selective forces may not be necessary for the appearance of popular religion in this scenario. If genes are involved then they are strongly expressed only when the human environment is suitable, unlike the much more prevalent genetic programming for language and materialism. The lives of the great majority remained impoverished and insecure with the onset of agriculture and then civilization, the latter was accompanied and may have been partly driven by the appearance of priestly castes who invented organized religion as a means of maintaining sociopolitical control. In this dysfunctional context the promise of benign afterlife to all believers may have given Christianity and Islam a competitive advantage that led them to dominate half of the global population (Barrett et al., 2001). Dysfunctional socioeconomic conditions continued to favor mass religiosity, until the appearance of the most secure and prosperous middle class 1st world conditions in history allowed and encouraged the largest scale spontaneous secularization in history. The ancient evolution of a relatively weak and consequently inconsistent hold by religion on the human psyche allowed the modern instability of popular theism that made this study possible.
I'll be curious to hear the response of my readers, especially Gretchen, who got her PhD in this very question of the evolution of religion.
Politics
Comments
I heard this guy interviewed, and, quite frankly, it sounded like a lot of handwaving and confusing correlation with causation to me. I was not impressed with his arguments.
Posted by: Orac | September 25, 2009 9:20 AM
I disagree with this particular statement entirely. Just because a particular behavior has an environmental trigger does not mean that the behavior can't also be a result of genetic factors.
I am agnostic (heh) on the question of whether religious belief has a genetic basis, or if it is purely a meme. Certainly there are characteristics of our Stone Age brains that make us susceptible to superstitious/crank beliefs in general (a preference for Type I errors over Type II errors, a tendency to ascribe agency when there is none, etc.) but whether we are in particular predisposed to believe in an afterlife or in some kind of magic sky daddy and/or pantheon of magic sky cousins, I think that is very much an open question.
That question, of course, is completely unrelated to the truth claims of most religions (which I think are pretty obviously false) or to the question as to whether religious belief is a net positive or a net negative (which I think is also an open question, though until proved otherwise I intend to operate under the assumption that adults do NOT need to be coddled with sweet lies in order to live productive and happy lives).
Back to Paul's original hypothesis, rather than the dubious conclusion I highlighted... it sounds extremely plausible to me that religious belief might increase in such uncertain conditions. Perhaps the biggest challenge (and the biggest reward, IMO) of nontheism is a willingness to embrace the uncertainty that is inherent to the human condition. It makes sense this would get even more difficult as personal uncertainty increases. But of course, plausibility is not the same as proof, and I have not read the paper...
In response to Orac, I would not pretend to have anywhere near your knowledge of statistical analysis -- but I do want to point out that if the correlation were inverted from what Paul proposes, this would mean that religiosity in a society would be a cause of socioeconomic failure! heh...
Posted by: James Sweet | September 25, 2009 9:37 AM
I'd argue, at least in present days, that more wealth allows for more experiences (like college or internet access) that contributes to a better knowledge of the world. Better knowledge can lead to a more logical mind that has a better chance of questioning a belief system.
Posted by: llDayo | September 25, 2009 9:41 AM
Be cautious with evolutionary psychology. The methods they use are usually not very reliable. Usually when I hear some knew claim coming out of ev psych, my reaction boils down to, "Well, that's a very interesting idea, but the evidence you're giving me isn't nearly enough to support it."
Posted by: Wes | September 25, 2009 9:41 AM
Perhaps this is addressed in the paper, but based on the excerpt, Paul seems to be inferring a causal relationship from a correlation. He does eliminate other potential causes of religiosity as showing a lack of correlation ("It follows that the mass loss of 1st world theism contradicts a number of potential primary causes of popular religious devotion..."), but it's unclear why socioeconomic stability should cause decreased religiosity. Perhaps the two are simply coincidental. Perhaps decreased religiosity causes greater socioeconomic stability. It's unclear how to differentiate, unless the data show a time lag between the two variables.
A couple other thoughts:
- I wonder if the upswing in nontheism in the US over the past 15 years correlates at all with socioeconomic stability.
- Education level is not mentioned, at least in the excerpt. Could the US's increase in nontheism be due to increased college enrollment? Is there any correlation between the two in the other countries mentioned?
Posted by: Evan | September 25, 2009 9:42 AM
I first saw this correlation when I recently read Phil Zuckerman's book "Society Without God: What thLeast Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment." He lived in both Norway and Denmark for a number of years, and discussed religion in great depth with just about anoyone he could. One of the common threads (not pointed out by the author) was the societal shedding of religion seemed to be timed at roughly the same time as the formation of universal health care. Oddly enough, both Norway and Denmark have official state churches, which, in order to be excluded from, you need to submit paperwork signed by the clergy. Otherwise, you pay an additional tax, chich funds the church.
Read the book.It's at your local library.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | September 25, 2009 9:43 AM
Oh, and by the way, I did my master's thesis on the evolution of religion (on DS Wilson's interesting but, like the evolutionary psychologists, highly speculative and unproven group selection theory).
Gretchen, if you want to get in touch and share ideas some time, let me know. And I don't know if you ever read John Wilkins' blog, but he is working on a project on the evolution of religion as well.
Posted by: Wes | September 25, 2009 9:45 AM
James Sweet: Just do a straight economic analysis, where the presence of religion confers various benefits (community, risk avoidance, etc) as well as costs (time, money, wars of religion). When a society grows rich enough to to provide alternative means of reaching the good stuff, religiosity should decline. The proper conclusion is not that religion has been superceded, but that it has to adapt to remain relevant. And this is exactly what we are seeing in the US with the rapid rise in non-denominational churches and the subsequent decline of mainline Protestantism.
I think there is a genetic tendency not to religion per se but to religious-type behavior. People believe any number of ideological systems that are far less sensible than religion, and the habit of finding patterns where there are none is hard to break.
This is an interesting line of research. But the conclusion is much too strong given the issue researched.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 25, 2009 9:55 AM
well, it started out interestingly, and then seems to have fallen off the track. It certainly would have helped if he separated "spirituality" from "religiosity", because for anthropological/biological purposes, those are two completely different issues (I'll define spirituality as simple belief in magic of all sorts, and religion as a complex set of unified beliefs and rituals on top of that magical belief).
Now, belief in magic seems to be hard-wired into us (seeing patterns where there aren't any, believing in agency where there isn't any, wanting a causal explanation when none can be found, etc.). Skepticism of all those magical claims is a learned behavior, and a lot less common (certainly being skeptical to ALL magic is very very rare). And those societies that are increasingly irreligious? well, they're still full of woo-believers of different sorts. THAT hasn't really disappeared.
Religion OTOH seems a purely cultural phenomenon springing from lack of security and ability to actually be actively in charge of your life (religion does give the illusion that you can take charge of even natural phenomena as long as you follow certain strict behavior-rules); it also promises a better place even if your current situation sucks massively (pie in the sky when you die); that seems to indeed diminish when the negative impact of unpredictable/uncontrollable events on your life is greatly diminished, thus making one's fate indeed more controllable.
I suppose it's a sort of corollary to Marx' famous quote "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.": when you have a society that empowers rather than oppresses, and thus isn't soulless and heartless, then people may often no longer feel the need to self-medicate with religion.
Posted by: jadehawk | September 25, 2009 9:58 AM
Kehrsam:
OT. I left you a comment on another thread asking if you know whether any state allows people to take the bar exam without benefit of a legal or university degree of any sort.
Sorry for the threadjack, guys.
I'm gonna say, as far as my experience goes that waking up to the fact that most of the people who were religious figures in my life were hucksters and liars helped me to arrive at the conclusion that religion is nothing but a dog and pony show for the credulous.
Posted by: democommie | September 25, 2009 10:44 AM
So, unhappy people turn to religion sometimes? Yes.
Happy people have less need of religious comfort? Yes.
But, al religious belief is caused by unhappiness or insecurity?
Religion is the only thing unhappy people turn to?
Socioeconomic security is the only factor behind happiness?
No.
Posted by: Kapitano | September 25, 2009 10:50 AM
Oh man, I probably shouldn't post a response just yet-- lack of sleep, and the brain is seriously addled. But since I've typed it out already I'll go ahead and post it:
Zuckerman was performing this research when I arrived in Denmark to do my PhD, actually, and took a post as a scholar in residence at the University of Aarhus' theology faculty. He attempted as part of his research to canvas as wide a swath of society as possible, with the result that many of the people he interviewed-- construction workers, housewives, plumbers, etc.-- spoke little or no English. That's a bit of a hurdle when you're a sociologist trying to get a good feel for people's thoughts on a subject in which terminology is so important. I admit I have not read his book yet, but when he reported on his research to us he admitted that the majority of the Danes he interviewed professed a deep belief in "something"-- often they would literally use that term-- even if they couldn't get much more specific than that.
This "something" belief is, I think, problematic for Zuckerman's characterization of people in countries like Denmark, Norway, and Japan as non-religious. As TGAP Dad mentions, in Denmark there is a state church, and people pay a tax for it and get married in churches. But that's not as odd as it sounds, because religion is viewed as important in a historical, social cohesion-promoting context-- like a tradition you pay homage to, even if you no longer know or care much about where it came from or what it means. Denmark certainly has its pockets of more American-style religiosity-- a colleague of mine did some experiments in which he performed MRI brain scans on a number of Pentecostal students (to learn about how they pray), and attended a Benny Hinn revival as part of that experience-- in Denmark, along with over 2,000 other people. But generally speaking, yes-- spirituality is considered an intensely private affair. That does not mean it doesn't exist, as evidence in the professed belief in the "something."
This is something I believe Zuckerman-- and Paul-- overlook, and it is the reason why our cognitive science of religion group were not big fans of such theories. Our goal was to connect the social experience of religion with its evolutionary origins or precursors, to find the roots which make humans both capable and disposed toward religiosity (but not necessarily compelled). Paul whizzes through mention of an assortment of evolutionary explanations for religion in the third paragraph of his quoted above, only to sweep them aside in order to claim that entire countries have "spontaneously abandoned religion." I feel pretty safe in saying that the only way Paul can make this claim is by relying on a dramatically more circumscribed definition of religion which doesn't even touch the theories he sweeps aside. Ironically, people who treat religion as a package which is either present or not present-- especially to make the case that there are entire populations in which it is not present-- are playing right back into the hands of Eliade, who maintained that "the sacred" is something which is sui generis and therefore impossible to understand by reduction. But you can't have a scientific understanding of religion without reduction-- you have to see that the mind has evolved to be capable and drawn to belief in "something," and the economy may change the expression of that kind of thinking without negating its presence.
TL; DR: Economic analysis such as these can be highly useful in ascertaining the manifestation that religion takes, and its social impact. I remain skeptical, however, about their capacity to identify its origins or extinction.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 25, 2009 10:53 AM
While I can't comment on the research directly and there have been good questions raised, it does mesh well with other studies. I'm thinking of one which shows that superstitious beliefs rise strongly in times of uncertainty or a perceived lack of control over outcomes such as gambling or some sports. When we feel out of control, perhaps we reach to religion and superstition to regain a sense of control. When the economy is rough and we fear our jobs may be lost through no fault of our own or (in the US) some accident may cripple us with medical bills, it seems likely that we're in a similar mental state as that of a gambler or athlete preparing for a difficult, uncertain game.
Posted by: Tyro | September 25, 2009 11:00 AM
The proper conclusion? It has essentially gone away in the countries he has cited and has little day to day relevance.
But then isn't your 'the proper' conclusion also too strong using the same parameters.
Posted by: JimC | September 25, 2009 11:02 AM
"When a society grows rich enough to to provide alternative means of reaching the good stuff, religiosity should decline. The proper conclusion is not that religion has been superceded, but that it has to adapt to remain relevant. And this is exactly what we are seeing in the US with the rapid rise in non-denominational churches and the subsequent decline of mainline Protestantism." The non-denominational churches have thrived by making prosperity = God's blessing or comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted.
Posted by: BC | September 25, 2009 11:17 AM
JimC: No. I am proposing an alternative thesis which matches the data set with much less difficulty.
b. No. See Gretchen's comment above.
Democommie: Missed it on the other thread, apparently. I really don't know much about the subject since 1990-3 when I was in school and such things were items of discussion. At that time, several states had alternative tracks for Bar admission. I believe Illinois and (perhaps) Missouri allowed admission after a suitable apprenticeship under a practicing attorney. California requires a degree, but it does not have to be from an accredited school. Pennsylvania had very loose rules for admission (as did D.C.) but I don't recall the details. Neither had a complete Bar Exam process.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 25, 2009 11:25 AM
I agree entirely with this characterization, though I would also add that I think ev psych is one of the most exciting new fields and, as it matures, has the potential to add immensely to our understanding of ourselves.
But yeah, the field is way immature, often hugely speculative, and (though this is changing) currently infested with a lot of people who don't quite grasp the finer points of evolutionary theory, e.g. too much reliance on Wilson's dubious "group selection" rather than the much more plausible and predictively powerful idea of "kin selection".
Posted by: James Sweet | September 25, 2009 12:40 PM
This certainly sounds plausible to me, though I think that if you "just" do a straight economic analysis, you will find many people disagree about the costs and benefits.
One thing that represents to me a huge question mark in the cost/benefit equation is individual reactions to the (lack of an) afterlife and objective external purpose, a.k.a. "divine plan". It is not at all clear how the typical person responds to the delusion vs. the reality, and whether those reactions are fundamental to human nature or a product of previous socialization.
To give an anecdotal case study in contrasts... I found the realization that there was no afterlife (and therefore no judgment in said afterlife) to be an incredibly liberating experience. Furthermore, I am not bothered by the lack of an external purpose, because to me the very concept of purpose cannot exist independently of sapience, so the question of external purpose is ultimately meaningless. One cannot even ask whether there is some purpose outside of those that humans define for themselves, because while the question is syntactically sound, it is semantically nonsensical.
My wife, on the other hand, finds the lack of an afterlife to be deeply depressing, and mourns the sense of adventure and purpose that she feels she lost when she gave up her vague pantheistic beliefs.
We both are very much in agreement over the reality of an atheistic universe, but differ markedly in our emotional reaction to it. Why is that? I don't think the answer is at all clear.
It may well turn out that the average person is significantly happier and more well-adjusted if they believe in an afterlife and/or an external purpose in life. (I am choosing for egalitarian reasons to assume until proven otherwise that this is NOT the case, that adults do NOT require comforting delusions, but I don't think it is an impossibility) If that were true, then the ideal endpoint would be a "memetically-engineered" non-virulent form of religion, that provided the comforting delusions without all of the hate-filled baggage found in all known holy books. (Full disclosure: I am borrowing heavily from Dan Dennett here)
Bah, in any case, that all might matter in the future, but not right now. Right now, what matters is that there is a taboo on nontheism, that fundamentalists are attacking modern civilization with both violence and hate-filled politics, and that "non-virulent" forms of religion are the exception rather than the rule. In that climate, it's not important whether the ideal endpoint is predominantly nontheistic society, or if it is a society dominated by non-virulent religion(s) -- either way, the right thing to do right now is to speak out about the excesses and stupidity of the present.
Posted by: James Sweet | September 25, 2009 12:57 PM
James Sweet:
I waffle on group selection, or at least on Wilson's interpretation of what it entails-- it's explanatory to the extent that groups do take measures to bolster cohesion in order to better compete against others, but Wilson tends to use that as an argument that religion is socially healthy while ignoring half of the equation-- the competition with other groups. However strong "us vs. them" can make "us," that dynamic can't exist without a "them." It means dividing in order to unite. The more that religious doctrine becomes like a secret handshake (or a "costly signal") which identifies members of the in-group, the more insular that group becomes, setting itself up in opposition to its closest rivals.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 25, 2009 12:58 PM
I see it the same way. Ev psych only really becomes a problem when people start acting like their speculations should be the basis of policy. Some degree of wild speculation, so long as it's recognized as such, is actually healthy for science.
I'm more sympathetic to group selection than you are. Kin selection is better when the adaptation in question is genetically determined. But for creatures that can learn (such as ourselves), information can be passed on through other channels. Cultural groups, which can transmit adaptive information through non-genetic means, seem to me like a plausible candidate for selection. Wilson and Sober have a good point in that a lot of the cultural beliefs and values which are transmitted from one generation to the next actually benefit the group by suppressing individual adaptive interests. It's still speculation, of course, but I think it's at least plausible enough to be worth considering.
I'm much more skeptical of their applications of group selection to organisms beyond human cultural groups, but even there I think they have some merit.
Wilson also doesn't pay enough attention to the fact that something like religion might only be adaptive for the group in certain environments. That's one thing that often frustrates me about his approach. He's too keen to declare something an adaptation (i.e. he's too adaptationist for my tastes), and he too often associates adaptive goodness with political or ethical goodness. They are not the same thing.
Posted by: Wes | September 25, 2009 1:20 PM
Didn't the great decrease in Japanese religiosity occur during the relatively economically-deprived period at the end of WWII?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 25, 2009 2:30 PM
Wes said:
Agreed on both counts. At the Evolution of Religion conference in Hawaii in 2007 (yeah, life is hard sometimes) he gave a little tutorial on group selection because he didn't think the participants understood it well enough. In that talk he used the example of flocks of hens, and noted that farmers at one point thought it might be a good idea to take the best layers from each flock and put them together to make a super layer flock. As you might guess that didn't work, because pecking orders are a real thing, and they were basically taking the dominant hen from each group and putting them together. The result was a group of literally hen-pecked birds who weren't laying much at all because they were too busy fighting amongst each other to establish new dominance. Wilson's idea was that in a normal flock each hen has her place in the hierarchy and that works for the betterment of the flock in terms of laying and hatching as many eggs as possible. Of course, a) chickens have domesticated for a very long time, so their social systems have been influenced by humans in more ways than we probably know, and b) even if this were a natural system, it doesn't necessarily show that pecking orders are an adaptation to benefit one flock over another. Simply having a social arrangement within a group which allocates different jobs and positions to different members does not necessarily mean that you're engaging in group selection. Or if you are, then there is no argument so far as I can tell which indicates that this interaction goes down to the genetic level. DSW doesn't seem to see that as terribly important, however.
(Of course, this conversation went on until about 4am and was accompanied by many beverages with umbrellas in them and such, so I may have missed a few details.)
Posted by: Gretchen | September 25, 2009 2:41 PM
Gretchen,
He used that same example in a talk I saw in Texas last year. (I would have preferred Hawaii...) He also brings it up in his book Evolution for Everyone. It's a suggestive example, but you're right that there are alternative explanations which don't involve group selection.
I spoke with him briefly after the talk and asked him whether he thought his theory was compatible with the proposition that the genetics that underlie religious thinking are an evolutionary byproduct. He gave an unqualified "yes", and said that the kind of adaptation he's talking about could conceivably take place entirely through cultural transmission. In a way I see where he's coming from.
Posted by: Wes | September 25, 2009 3:20 PM
But yeah, the field is way immature, often hugely speculative, and (though this is changing) currently infested with a lot of people who don't quite grasp the finer points of evolutionary theory...
This is really quite maddening to me, as I have a profound interest in evo-psych. Yet when I mention my interest, I usually get a lot of eyerolling. Worse, nine out of ten people who react favorably, do so because they buy into the jackasses who have made wild ass claims that there is an evolutionary basis for archetypal social gender constructs. This would all be far less irritating, were it not for the fact that many proponents of evolutionary gender hypothesis act as though their speculation has a profound evidential foundation.
My own interest, btw, is in the evolution of language and sentience, as well as neurological disorders. Of particular interest is the evolution of addiction...
I should admit though, I am also terribly interested in the role of religious thinking in the development of rudimentary culture. My own suspicion is that religion played an essential role in that development - but I fully admit that that is nothing more than a wild ass guess on my part. One of my favorite methods for countering my insomnia and getting to sleep at night, is trying to work out a paradigm in which a rudimentary culture could have developed without religious explanations to guide it.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 25, 2009 3:25 PM
His speculation is interesting and not at all unique, and the data he generates is interesting and not at all unique. But I take strong issue with his claim that a causal connection between socioeconomic insecurity and religiosity somehow indicates that religiosity is not "natural". I hate to break this to Dr. Paul, but humans evolved under conditions of severe socioeconomic insecurity; the evolution of a mechanism for coping with this insecurity would not at all be surprising, and would be totally natural. And, just like the "fight or flight" response, the loss of religiosity in the absence of the appropriate environmental trigger does not somehow indicate that the response is not "natural" or genetic in nature.
Posted by: Shygetz | September 25, 2009 4:04 PM
I think there is some merit to the argument. But it might be more of a case that in times of economic security and a lack of basic social services in weak states, committed religious groups proactively fill the vacuum in order to increase their appeal and influence. Ayaan Hirsi Ali noted this in her book "Infidel" by describing how Muslims provided basic social services in Nairobi in Kenya.
Back when I was a conservative, I noted that a number of conservative writers who were opposed to the welfare state wrote that before FDR, churches and religious organizations were the primary provider of social services and that we needed to go back to that.
Posted by: Tommykey | September 25, 2009 4:57 PM
Ooops! Of course, I meant "in times of economic insecurity"!
Posted by: Tommykey | September 25, 2009 4:59 PM
Liberal political beliefs being the most widespread example.
Posted by: andnone | September 25, 2009 5:41 PM
For the most part, I am in agreement with Paul. It has been my position that socioeconomic insecurity is the bases of religious inclination. The greater the insecurity, the greater the religiosity. This explains why religious fervor tends to increase the lower citizens are on the socioeconomic scale.
Here is an exception:
Knowing of my atheism, my business-college educated, Bible believing brother sent me a book by Francis Collins, The Language of God, and asked me to read it and give him my thoughts. It was his attempt to show me that even a scientist can believe in the Bible.
I read the book and sent him a lengthy critique, where I pointed out some of Collins’ fallacious arguments, as well as several Biblical inconsistencies. Instead of a reasoned debate, he simply got angry. I offered to send him Michael Martin's The Case Against Christianity, and wanted his thoughts. He refused to accept it.
My brother is not low on the socioeconomic scale, quite the contrary. However, I believe his anger was born from his discomfort that I was pointing out gross inconsistencies in his Bible, and he felt he needed to protect the belief. In other words, I believe I posed a threat to his intellectual territory. This, too, was insecurity, and possibly even genetically based.
Posted by: Hobbes | September 25, 2009 5:43 PM
andnone "Liberal political beliefs being the most widespread example."
Yeah! Take that, Liberal political beliefs! Romney/Palin in 2012! Woo!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 25, 2009 7:36 PM
In addition to all of the other objections, I'd suggest tentatively (without having read the paper) that he isn't taking into account established priesthoods that have wealth, power and sincere belief. The Vatican and the religious hierarchy of Old Tibet are two examples that come to mind.
Gretchen, is there any way to get the article without subscribing to New Scientist? I tried to access it through JStor, but they don't make their material available through it. Until now, the only research of which I was aware that attempts to correlate brain imaging results with religious or ideological orientation was that of Ken Heilman at U Florida: http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Heilman-neuroscienceandfundamentalism
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | September 25, 2009 8:35 PM
"There a no reason to think that the brains of the French and Canadians are more or less resistant to infectious memes."
This quote certainly isn't true. One can think of any number of reasons why belonging to a more stable society would make you resistant to infectious memes. Running along the same line of analogy as memes to genes, better education and more time to think could be consider antibodies against viral memes, or even as competing viruses which out-compete religion within a more secure environment.
The author is making an interesting point, but he's being far to totalistic about it. He's trying to make it explain everything. It's probably one cause among many, and it's irresponsible for him not to recognise that.
Posted by: Nils Ross | September 25, 2009 8:49 PM
Shorter Gregory Paul: religion is the opiate of the masses (?).
Posted by: Mathew Wilder | September 25, 2009 8:53 PM
Jeff,
The article in Scientific American was just a pretty short blurb summarizing the study without going into much detail. Here's the study itself, if you're interested.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 25, 2009 9:40 PM
Err...the article in New Scientist, I mean. Yep, definitely not a good brain day.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 25, 2009 10:29 PM
Clearly, back in the Pleistocene, whenever women had a bad brain day, it caused men to pay more attention to their vaginas since their brains weren't working properly, which made them more reproductively successful. Therefore your not having a good brain day is a genetic adaptation.
Posted by: Wes | September 25, 2009 10:43 PM
I believe that was the topic of a poster presentation I saw at a meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society.
(Well played, Wes)
Posted by: Gretchen | September 25, 2009 10:50 PM
I have not studied the evolution of religion in any way, so I have no expertise to draw on. However, I've often wondered if the unique history of the United States might help explain some of our religiosity. Consider: the United States was founded by, among others, strongly religious groups seeking a place where they could practice their form of religion in isolation from others. Could this self-isolation and self-selection for strong religiosity have influenced the acceptance of religion in the US, leaving the less religious back home in Europe? Further, could this strong religiosity now be on the wane as newer immigrants have come to the US for economic, rather than religious reasons, thus slowly diluting the religion-gene pool?
From those who have studied such things, has anyone looked into this question? Is it even reasonable to ask? Are the correlations strong enough?
Second question, what about the rise and fall of the Roman empire, as a possibly similar scenario? Did the growing and relative affluence of the early Roman Republic correlate with any drop in religiosity? Do we have enough data to draw any conclusions on that? Or, would the relative affluence of those times not meet the levels presumed necessary to account for the drop in religiosity seen today?
Thanks for your patience and information.
Posted by: Scott | September 25, 2009 11:43 PM
I wonder if this connection (economic security to appeal of religion) contributes significantly to the sex differences in the American Godless?
Posted by: abb3w | September 25, 2009 11:51 PM
The article was interesting and I believe there may be some truth in it. However, I believe that in each person's life there are "spiritual" questions that must be answered in some way. Either you accept the answers that others give without question or you examine the data and make your own decisions. This belief comes out of my experience with recovery from depression and alcoholism and my work helping others with their recovery. If affluent people stray from religion it is probably because in many cases the dogma of the religion no longer meets their spiritual needs. I have written about this at length in my book "In Pursuit of Joy"
Posted by: Gary Green | September 26, 2009 1:10 AM
Security in general seems to be correlated. Look up the figures for church attendance in the UK - they've been going down steadily since 1900, except for two large spikes the correspond with the first and second world wars.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | September 26, 2009 5:23 AM
@ 40:
You are you in a science blog forum; referring to personal experience and then extending that to an entire population will not get you very far. If you had read the entire thread including the comments, you would have noticed that even when a researcher is able to establish a correlation that is statistically significant like the subject of the blog post did, there is still a large degree of healthy skepticism a causal relationship exists.
So to come in with an even weaker argument like I quote here by you? My, my.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 26, 2009 6:31 AM
Gretchen, that's great, thanks.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | September 26, 2009 7:00 AM
Kehrsam:
Thanks for the information about taking state bar exams. That bit about the CA admission would go a long way towards explaining the Orly Taitz phenonmena.
Posted by: democommie | September 26, 2009 8:40 AM
Michael Heath: That was a pitch perfect response to Gary Green. Bravo. :)
Posted by: James Sweet | September 26, 2009 11:47 AM
Perhaps you should look at education as well. As education increases socioeconomic conditions improve and religious belief declines.
Posted by: Wayne | September 26, 2009 12:45 PM
Modus,
Why would you want to vote for Palin? I sure don't, or any other Republican that I've heard of.
Oh, wait. I get it. You're a liberal, and like most liberals who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were on the heel, you think that if I disparage liberals, I must be a right-winger.
See? Proved my point for me. Thank you.
Posted by: andnone | September 26, 2009 11:20 PM
anonone - [OT] Why are Texas politicians so obsessed with urine? LBJ's frank assessment of the CIA aside, he also explained why he wouldn't fire a troublesome member of his staff by saying: "It's better to have him inside the tent pissing out, rather than outside, pissing in." Not to mention the opinion of John Garner on the Vice-Presidency. :) [/OT] - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 27, 2009 12:14 AM
Scott @ # 38: ... the United States was founded by, among others, strongly religious groups seeking a place where they could practice their form of religion in isolation from others. Could this self-isolation and self-selection for strong religiosity have influenced the acceptance of religion in the US, leaving the less religious back home in Europe?
Seems quite unlikely that there was any sort of genetic factor in all that, even if we were to find genes strongly correlated with religiosity. The following waves of non-religiously-motivated immigration were too numerous and would have washed out any "founder effect" from the initial settlers (who were preceded by imperialist and capitalist colonies in Spain and Virginia respectively, anyhow).
The fact of church-state separation over here, however, has led to a much stronger marketing competition between religions than in Europe, which has honed US evangelists' abilities to recruit/infect amazingly.
DingoJack @ # 48 - that wasn't a member of LBJ's staff, that was J. Edgar Hoover (whose piss was proven politically puissant).
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 27, 2009 11:41 AM
andnone "Modus, Why would you want to vote for Palin?"
I totally would just for her random, codeword-filled, mixed-phrases in a pot style of enspeechening, but being a foreigner, that would be some kind of fraud.
"I sure don't, or any other Republican that I've heard of."
Apparently you haven't been talking to True Republicans™.
"Oh, wait. I get it. You're a liberal, and like most liberals who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were on the heel, you think that if I disparage liberals, I must be a right-winger."
First of all, why would I store tinkle in a boot? That's not where pee goes! Foot goes there, silly goose! Second of all, what was my train of thought? It was here just a minute ago.
"See? Proved my point for me. Thank you."
I'm glad to help you do whateveritwas you were attempting to do. I'm a people person. Now, if it's not too much trouble, can you move your car off my foot?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 28, 2009 2:25 AM