There's an interesting Gallup poll that compares religious fervor between nations. Here's a quick summary:
-
Religiosity is correlated with poverty — the poorer you are, the more godly you are. I guess God really does like that poverty thing.
-
The US is not the most religious nation, not by a long shot — we are well below the median. It is, however, an outlier, as the most religious wealthy nation.
-
There is wide regional variation within the US. Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina are like poor Middle Eastern or African countries; Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine are like middle-of-the-road European nations, in terms of their religiosity.
I suspect there has to be a dangerous cycle imbedded in these relationships. Poverty leads to more religiosity as people reach for desperate hope; and religion does nothing to solve real problems, leading to worsening poverty.
- Log in to post comments
Suffering really does bring one closer to Jesus. Keep that bastard as far away from me as possible.
Ahh..I guess it really is the opium of the people!
There's an argument to be made that state sponsorship of religion in places like Sweden is closely related to lack or religiosity, whereas in places like the US, where we have more of a free market for religions, people can find all kinds of niche sects that meet their needs (see, for example, the work of Larry Iannaccone, interviewed in a podcast about this issue here). It wouldn't surprise me at all if the relatively high religiosity of Americans is linked to a large number of distinct sects, or that lack of religiosity in other wealthy countries corresponds to less variety of available religions.
Er... I was going to note that it's obviously not cleanliness that's close to godliness, but that identity thief, "Randy" above has put me right off my stride.
Another poll shows that 1/3 of the EU think the Jews are responsible for the global economic crisis. Does that count for anything?
Meh. We're on the correct side of the median and getting better. Not a bad result, but we must remain vigilant.
Don't you mean "Tan Out" the map? If we white it out, that would mean that none of the countries were surveyed.
I was initially concerned that Tennessee was not amongst the most religious U.S. states. But, never fear, we come in at number four!
Check the top 10 most religious U.S. states on the list. Anyone notice a pattern here?
Who knew there were so many randy atheists?
"the US is, however, an outlier, as the most religious wealthy nation."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the wealth distribution in the USA more like Africa's ? I.e a small amount of people being really rich and a lot of very poor people ?
That would explain the relatively high % of religious folk ?
Also, don't forget Europe got rid of a lot of it's religious nutters centuries ago, sending them to some kind of newly discovered land far, far, far away, where we thought they wouldn't bother us anymore ? *grin*
I can't believe Canada is the same shade of green as the US. That has to be a mistake.
Is it just me, or does it seem that the greenest countries are concentrated around the equator?
I wonder if there's some correlation.
What the hell? 79% of Indians consider religion an important part of their daily life? Why? How? I mean, they're only pretending--they must be. It's not like they actually feel god(s) in their hearts, right facilis, right Heddle, right Silver Fox? They can't possibly, because if someone praying to the obviously not-real Ganesha feels the same as a Christian praying to the obviously real Jesus Christ, then what does that say about the meaning behind feeling God in your heart? And if these people don't feel God in their hearts, then what the hell is with all their religious fervor?
No, these results don't make sense at all.
And Randys: considering you both blog, you'd think at least one of you would be able to summon enough creativity to make your login name a tad original. Appending the initial of your surname or a second name would be a start. ;-)
Is it just me, or does it seem that the greenest countries are concentrated around the equator?
I wonder if there's some correlation.
That's because the equator is nearest to God.
I'm sure poverty is a major factor in religiousity but I think you are discounting the extreme respect for authoritarianism as virtuous when it comes to the culture of the US Old South.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/, (courtesy Pam's House Blend"):
Interesting to see what countries are among the "not surveyed": China, Libya, Oman, and Afghanistan. Wonder where they'd rank if included.
The US is much more religious than Canada.
I can't believe that the US is considered to have a below average religiosity.
"That's because the equator is nearest to God." - Pfft.
Also - yay for being pale.
But surely whiting the map out would mean you don't want the survey in the first place?
Generally, 'wealthy' in this context means a high level of industrialisation as well as a large GNP. In absolute terms, a poor American would still be considered wealthy compared to a poor Kenyan, although their wealth relative to their countrymen might be similar.
Having lived in "The South" my entire life, that pretty much sums it up here, EV.
Brian Larnder> yes, but the percentage was still nearer to that of the lowest scoring US states. I don't know where they're cut off point was for least religious/ Less religious, but since Canada registered at 40 some percent and the US at 65, I'd be less worried about the colours. You're welcome to ship all the Canuck fundies you'd like to us if you'll find the rest of us jobs in Vancouver or Toronto...
@14
I think you are discounting the extreme respect for authoritarianism as virtuous when it comes to the culture of the US Old South.
Yeah, but they like to think of themselves as "rebels".
Depends on what flavor of religion you follow. If you're a "God will sort it all out" / "You were born to suffer" caste system religion - like Hinduism or Calvanism - then it is probably more self-perpetuating than the "Charity First" / "Help thy neighbor" variety.
And you'll notice that places with more moderate religious tendencies tend to have larger amounts of wealth, higher populations, and longer life spans. So, in the long run, it looks like it is the moderation of religion that will triumph as it leads to more economical and prosperous culture.
It is, however, an outlier, as the most religious wealthy nation.
I would have liked to see this map broken down by wealth levels. I vaguely remember seeing a map that had which states pay into social programs and which states that don't. All those states who DON'T are going to be the match ups to which states are more religious on this survey/poll. It's not rocket science.
This article
(Born Believers: How Your Brain Creates God)in New Scientist explains how our brains may be hard-wired for woo, and why, during tough times, belief in the unbelievable increases.
If you lack morals and don't mind fleecing the flock, it looks like 2009 may be a good time to go into the tithe-collecting, souls-saving business.
Slightly surprsing results: Iran only average (cool).
Cuba least: I know the government there aren't to keen on gods but I understood that the Catholic Church was the one institution that was left more-or-less alone so something other than outright suppression has made it an outlier in Latin America.
There's also a bit of regionalisation on the far side of the pond. Wander out of Amsterdam and you'll find towns that, if you decide to go fishing on a Sunday, will bring it up at the next mass or if you putter a bit outside of Munich, you'll discover that every small town and driving circle in Bavaria or Franconia greets you with a Virgin Mary. Maps like this are fairly useless. Basically, people who feel a large bit of their life is out of their control (those in poverty) or are dependent on nature(farmers, fisherman) tend to be religious. As mentioned above, it's not rocket science.
Compare and contrast with the opulent wealth of churches. God loves poverty, in other people.
PS - Slightly OT but does Walton know how old Titian was when he died?
"the poorer you are, the more godly you are."
I think that conclusion misinterprets the evidence. Its just the opposite: The more godly you are, the poorer you are. That's because virtue eschews wealth, and virtue is the mother's milk of the religious and the holy.
Interesting to note, though - "below average" puts the US in at 65% - thats not exactly a low number. The median of the 27 developed nations is 38% - so we're a lot higher than the average there.
That's the dumbest thing I've read today.
Interesting that among the least religious states in the U.S. you have all of New England represented.
I know for example that Rhode Island is the most Catholic state in the nation. You can't turn a corner here without bumping into a Catholic church.
We do have what I term "wingnut" denominations and they tend to be poor immigrants. I'd say they probably account for a good chunk of our 50+% who believe in the mumbo jumbo.
And the Catholic Diocese still sees fit to use all its might to lobby against things like abortion, marriage equality, et al.
SF must of started his whine consumption early. I only expect the inanity of his posts to go downhill from #28.
Silver Fox @28:
So.... being hungry, out of work, and homeless, is next to godliness?
No thanks.
Well not always. In Portugal (especially the south) a poor farmer will often be communist, although (similar to Irish dockers Orwell wrote about) (s)he may not see any conflict between a copy of Avante on the kitchen table and a crucifix on the wall. High religiosity seems more common amongst the petit bourgeoisie and "respectable" working class.
The line of best fit is the equator.
E.V. - Oh, behave.
Brownian - Our parents named us Randy, for Pete's sake. Don't expect creativity in our genes. I don't know about the other Randy, but I'm an actor, so I just do what directors tell me. As for the blog, I just transcribe the Word of Gawd, so no creativity required.
This article at New Scientist plays with the hypothesis that many may be genetically disposed to turning to religion in times of crisis.
It is my understanding that, in the United States, conservative church membership grows during a prolonged crisis.
Good eye, MF. Clearly it's that infernal SUN!!!
What, they didn't survey Iceland? For shame. I'm sure if they had, Estonia wouldn't have been the #1 least religious country.
Well, at least as long as the poll questions didn't include anything about elves and trolls and other hidden folk. :)
Damn SF is a dumb ass. Does that include all the muslims too SF? The majority of those green countries are Muslim.
Using that logic, we could say that because church attendance has been rising, the religious people are responsible for the current financial crisis here in the US.
Reminds me of this quote from Bishop Desmond Tutu
Compare and contrast with the opulent wealth of churches. God loves poverty, in other people.
PS - Slightly OT but does Walton know how old Titian was when he died?
I find it very interesting that so many countries around Iran are light in color. The lightest colored Muslim countries are right next to Afghanistan and Iran. What's going on there?
"Religiosity is correlated with poverty — the poorer you are, the more godly you are. I guess God really does like that poverty thing."
This US is in the middle as far as the moderately and less religious nations go, and probably has about half the total wealth as that total group. I suspect some variables are not accounted in the study. Wealth might correlate better with religious tolerance and freedom rather than religiousity. That would explain the variation within the moderately and less religious group as well as the total variation.
This article at the Guardian says much the same thing about AC/DC. Perhaps we should plot a world map of simple formulaic blues metal uptake and see how that compares ;)
What kind of measure of "wealthy" are we talking about here? And how come Saudi Arabia doesn't count as even more of an outlier?
This would seem predict that Italy ought to have less economic development and social justice than Mongolia or Russia, which just ain't the case. I also think it's politically disingenuous to imply that countries like, say, Indonesia are poor because they have high levels of religiosity, rather than because of avaricious and unscrupulous intervention in their economic development by Western interests.
My point is emphatically not that religion is a good thing; but it's a bad thing in its own terms, in and of itself, and without requiring any corroborating evidence. It's a bad thing because it stunts intellectual growth and cripples human interaction, because it is an engine of control and oppression (mostly of women), and because it alienates people from the real, physical world and all its wonders. It narrows horizons, engenders isolation and fear, and strives in most cases to limit and control the experience and value of emotional, sexual and bodily pleasure.
To then say "yes, and all of that leads to poverty!" is to cheapen the argument against religion, to reduce it to a capitalist cost/benefit calculation - and so to, perforce, undermine the secularist, pro-intellectual position.
Deepsix:
Yeah, it was a corporal offense to not answer with a ma'am or sir to any adult as well as the notion that all doctors, and police were to be respected. Clergy and teachers were to be deferred to unless they countered the family's ideological bent. If you didn't embrace Southern Baptist dogma, then you were being led astray. "Holy Rollers" were laughable, Methodists were ok but Catholics and Mormons were dangerous (and not "true" Christians). With six Jewish families in the town, they weren't a threat as much as a curiosity.
Atheists were considered worse than thieves or murderers. Fear of higher education was due to the possibility that one would become an "educated idiot" i.e. an agnostic, or heaven forbid, a godless heathen. Heathen was a vague concept that somehow embodied savagery, ignorance, insanity and the denial of the christian god.
Those cities aren't nearly as secular as you'd think. Ever see the look of rapturous reverence on a Vancouverite's face as s/he orders a double chai skim latteccino at Starbuck's?
Max Weber might disagree. Still, even his discussion of the puritan ethic and wealth isn't about religion per se, but about a very specific convergence of factors. Nevertheless, it's not as if religion cannot positively affect a country's economic development, or vice versa.
On the trivial side, it's "embedded," not "imbedded."
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
@ 37
It has to do with our overemphasis on cause and effect, as outlined in the New Scientist article. A smart, gainfully employed individual who suddenly finds himself on the losing side of a down economy loses his rational anchor and may be more likely to accept an irrational cause for his condition.
Then again, "imbed" is considered to be a variant of "embed." The standard spelling, however, is the latter one.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
This map and poll are completely inaccurate. You can look at the country of Azerbaijan for example, and in the map, ti shows it as being more religious, but on the least religious table below the map, it shows Azerbaijan as being 22% religious. What gives? Further, the questions asked are probably skewed. If one asked them if they believe in god, instead of how religious they are, this map and the tables would be changed.
It must be those conservative think tank pollsters conducting this informal survey, because they clearly have inconsistencies with known information. Look at Germany on the map, and taking into account the actual figures, it should fall amongst the least religious.
So the religious are always telling us.
Thanks for that, Silver Fox: it's important that you Christians continually remind us of how virtuous you are, if only so we don't accidentally look at the evidence and conclude the opposite.
Religion: Giving people something to blame for their suffering since.... a fuckton of years ago BC.
There must be something wrong with that map. According to it Argentina is painted yellow as a "less religious" country. From living there I get quite different picture. It should be painted light green at least. In a recent survey only 5% of us Argies identified themselves as atheists/agnostics. Cat-lick-ism is still the official, state-sponsored (and taxpayer-funded, unfortunately) religion, although in recent years they've been suffering a constant leak of sheep to several evangelical churches. In Salta, one of our most inpoverished provinces, the wackaloons have even succeded in passing legislation which mandates religious teaching on public schools. Altough evolution is part of the curricula of public schools, it's poorly taught, if at all. We have a long, hard struggle ahead of us.
This is quite a good comparison of religiosity vs gdp
http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/258-3.gif
full report:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf
@ 10
What surprised me more than Canada and the U.S. being the same shade was Canada and Argentina... my sister is married to an Argentinian, and his country seems way more religious than mine. Not that he is particularly devout, but the general attitude toward secularism is quite different.
"Is it just me, or does it seem that the greenest countries are concentrated around the equator?
I wonder if there's some correlation."
It's too hot down here to think...
Damn! There goes my country (Brazil) embarassing me again! At least we'll have atheist buses!
So I will reiterate, Milliard Fuller....religion doesn't do anything to help? Inspired Fuller to start Habitat. Catholic Charities.... Perpetual Education Fund (LDS)....
you all think the religion is about sitting on our asses praying...BS. It might be what many do, but it isn't generally a foundational element of most christian (which I can only speak of, since that is my tradition), to sit on your ass. generally, the foundational element is to get off you ass. We might pray, but we also get up and do. How many of you have personally housed a homeless person, built an house (not with habitat), built a house with habitat, given someone a car (for free), traveled to one of those poor countries and spent money there with LOCAL venders (Sorry, PZ you little junket on a EUROPEAN OWNED vessel to the galapagos doesn't count). or even just got off your butt to write a check for a significant % of you income (lets set the bar low, greater than 2%) to organizations that help do some of those things? (I am not talking about donations to fund and run the church, but in addition to such)
Religion may not be based on reality, and it may inspire folks to do evil, but that is the risk of anything powerful enough to inspire folks to give away nearly all that they have to help some one else.
There's an argument to be made that state sponsorship of religion in places like Sweden is closely related to lack or religiosity, whereas in places like the US, where we have more of a free market for religions, people can find all kinds of niche sects that meet their needs - noahpoah
Er, you can be any religion you like in Sweden. Seems to me that challenges that argument right there. I took at look at Iannaccone's Deregulating Religion: The Economics of Church and State. He himself states, after discussing Sweden's very low church attendance, and linking it to the established status of the Lutheran Church:
"Might the preceding facts reflect nothing more than a low demand for religion... We cannot dismiss the possibility",
but goes on to claim that there is no plausible explanation for such low demand. But of course there is: a welfare state of almost unmatched quality, meaning that in misfortune people can rely on that, not on religion. The same explanation explains the high rates of religiosity (for a rich country) of the USA, and the even higher rates in poor countries. Iannoccone of course has his own quasi-religion: "rational choice" theory, almost (not quite) invariably associated with dedication to "the market".
Originally posted in another thread, but I'm reposting here, just because.
"This was stated upthread, but bares repeating, sorry to the original poster for losing you.
A Perfect god must have the ability to create ANYTHING. Because, without the ability to create anything, it would not be perfect, but imperfect.
THEREFORE, a perfect god MUST have the ability to create a More Perfect god. Without this ability, it would be imperfect.
The Perfect god would be required to create a More Perfect god otherwise it would display an unwillingness to create something greater than itself for the good of creation, a flaw in character, rendering it imperfect.
This newly created More Perfect god would likewise be required to create an Even More Perfect god and rinse and repeat, ad infinitum, until the universe is FULL of a infinite amount of gods, each more perfect than the last.
So, by logical proof, a perfect god leads directly to polytheism.
Isn't logic fun! "
Anyone that believes Canada is less religious than the States needs to spend some time in Sask and Alberta. Contrary to popular belief, Toronto is not the centre of the universe.
RB @ 60,
Nice anecdote. Here's mine. Most religious people I have known do sit on their ass waiting for their doG to ride in and save the day.
If you're suggesting that non-theists don't contribute to their community, you need to find a better source for your crack.
Sure, some of the nicest, most giving people have been religious, but I can say the same thing about many non-religious people I've met.
I don't deny that some people do good things in the name of their faith, but in my experience, religion and faith are like the neighborhood drug dealer. They may give you a turkey on Thanksgiving, but they're destroying your life the other 364 days of the year.
it isn't generally a foundational element of most christian (which I can only speak of, since that is my tradition), to sit on your ass. - rb
But did not The Lord Himself sit on his ass on the way into Jerusalem?
One way of looking at this map could be that the countries shown in green/deep green have, for the majority, been colonised by an industrial western power or powers at some stage in it's recent history.
I can only conclude that the obvious way to assert control over these populations during these times was to enforce the shackles of religious thinking, simply the carrot and the stick method, clearly they have still not grown out of it?
The only problem with this conclusion would be the muslim countries, however it is understood that a colonising power would put to good use the already established religous heirachy already in place as a means of further control.
Here's another poll that's begging to be crashed:
http://www.palibandaily.com/2009/02/07/stimulus-package-colleges-must-e…
Contrary to popular belief in Toronto, Toronto is not the centre of the universe. GaryB
- fixed for you!
"The more godly you are, the poorer you are. That's because virtue eschews wealth, and virtue is the mother's milk of the religious and the holy."
Oh so that's why the pope, god's little mouthpiece on earth, lives in a palace! Or the obscene televangelists have their own jets.
Wait, wait - I know the punchline already. They're not True Christians(tm), right?
rb, since most of us here have been religious in the past (and many devoutly so), we know very well what does and doesn't consitute a foundational element of Christianity. For instance, every fucking Christian on the goddamn fucking planet with scream at the top of their lungs that loving one's neighbour is a 'foundational element' of Christianity, yet it's certainly one of the least commonly practiced aspects of the religion, especially when compared with sitting on your asses praying.
I don't doubt for a second that religion, and Christianity in particular, inspires some to go to the great lengths you mentioned to do great things for others, but they're sadly not the majority you (and we) would like them to be. And, while I don't want to detract from whatever contributions you've made (and I honestly don't doubt they're substantial), let's look at the response of another Christian, Silver Fox, who is so self-centred that he's willing to go so far as to claim that the economic situation in Congo and like countries is due to voluntary penury in service of God just to satisfy his want to claim he's a better person for his faith. You'd be tempted to claim that he's no True Christian™, but he claims God speaks directly to him; can you do the same? And if so, which of you are demonstrating the real foundational element of Christianity?
http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/adherents.gif
Screw the details of this study!!!!
The title Gallup uses ALONE is worth it's weight in gold!:
"What Alabamians and Iranians Have in Common"
I love it!!!!
(sorry -- I know some of you are enlightened Alabamians, hate to lump you into my preconceived regional bigotry...)
I'm an atheist bone marrow donor and and will be an organ donor upon my death. Screw your giving the sweat off your brow and the money out your wallet. I'm willing to give my flesh and blood to help SAVE THE LIVES of those less fortunate than myself and it isn't motivated by a need to please my imaginary friend. Stupid fucking religious assholes who think that praying and donating to their church is worth anything need to reevaluate their lives.
Silver Fox, your improving and perhaps half right. "The more godly you are, the poorer you are." Not at the country scale mind you, but perhaps at the level of individuals.
If one cannot evaluate reality, this same inability should be reflected in other life choices. One's life, including wealth acquisition, is the summation of many choices (as well as many circumstances over which an individual has no control). I would like to see a survey showing the rate of wealth acquisition in respective societies based upon parents' wealth and religiosity of offspring and parents.
On the contrary: in many ways, religion pushes its own in exactly the wrong direction (avoid contraceptives, give all your money to God's representatives, make sure your kids don't know too much about science, hate/fear anyone too different from you...), resulting in a society that is less and less forgiving and (as you say) causing still more people to be desperate for any kind of hope -- and up rides religion, the knight in shining platitudes, to offer these huddled and ever-growing masses a better tomorrow after they die (when they can't complain about the service).
But I 'speck I'm preaching to the choir here, for the most part...
rb,
I certainly meet your 2% threshold, as I'm sure many here do; and spend a significant proportion of my free time in political campaigning, largely to benefit others, and particularly those at the bottom of the global socio-economic heap. Given the close association between religious commitment and right-wing politics, a significant number of the religious will be spending equivalent time campaigning to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor - giving with one hand and taking away much larger amounts with the other.
I have always asserted that Religion is the Dopiate of the Masses.
When asked what to give up for Lent one year, I replied "Religion".
Religiosity used to propel social progress and cohesiveness. It is now inhibiting the same and should be dropped. I think Sam Harris wrote a book about this idea.
rb isn't being charitable. Yet another case of praying on the weak. Disgusting.
Gillian: You are on the right track. If you plot income disparity instead of income you get a nice linear fit, and the US is no longer an outlier. The obvious trend is that in that nations with more security (universal health care, unemployment insurance, secure retirement plans, etc) people have less need for religion. In nations with less secure social safety nets, people are more likely to turn to religion to deal with their uncertainty. It isn't poverty, but insecurity, that causes people to turn to religion.
"What Alabamians and Iranians Have in Common"
I love it!!!!
(sorry -- I know some of you are enlightened Alabamians, hate to lump you into my preconceived regional bigotry...)
- CaptainKendrick
But you don't see any problem with your preconceived national bigotry?
Fatherdaddy @ #44, you're referring to the Central Asian nations, which were under Soviet control for most of the 20th century. I would suspect you see such low religiosity there for the same reason as in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and so forth: Communist suppression.
Then why does the world seem to revolve around us?
(And, apropos of the discussion, I think it is indicative that there seems to be a disproportional number of Canadians who post here.)
The New England states took 6 of the 10 least religious states. Now we need to work on getting those numbers under 25%.
It is surprising to see the Czech Republic and Belarus among the least religious countries.
Hey - who's this TONY person pretending to be me? (and making a comment based on something that I thought!)
Anywho, I'll take the hint given randy(s) above and change my name henceforth to TonyC
I'd also like to re-iterate (EV, Tony, et al): I think most religiosity is indeed deference to authority.
Learning (being taught) early in your life to always defer to authority is a hard habit to break. Especially if you are denied access to any teaching that might suggest such authority is indeed as deranged as a mercury swilling hare in springtime.
Kudos to all of us who have managed to pull that particular rabbit out of the hat. And praise to the overlords of teh interwebs for making such information more accessible to more people!
But you don't see any problem with your preconceived national bigotry? --Knockgoats
Yeah, I do, otherwise I wouldn't have postscript'd with with a "sorry." I know -- lame, but can't help myself, it is what it is.
And probably the fact that I like the Allman Brothers (Georgia) much more than Lynyrd Skynyrd (Alabama) doesn't help my preconceptions.
"It is surprising to see the Czech Republic and Belarus among the least religious countries."
Estonia and Czech Republic are the most atheistic countries in Europe
Captain kendrick@85: It definitely reads like you are apologising to the Alabamans but not the Iranians.
Texas feels like a step closer to Iran's level of religiosity every day.
It's pretty scary when the religiosity Saudia Arabia is "average".
Captain kendrick@85: It definitely reads like you are apologising to the Alabamans but not the Iranians. -- MH
Yikes. You're right. Guess I'll need to start listening to some recent Iranian rock and roll and cut them a break too.
Well, I used to go to Dead shows with a friend who immigrated from Iran...eh, probably doesn't count now....
I think the reading for the czech republic is distorted both by their ditching their slovaks and their denial of catholic influence in sudettenland.
Also, didn't the baltic trio have at least as many pogroms as poland, russia, croatia... It's not atheism that does this.
Poverty leads to more religiosity as people reach for desperate hope; and religion does nothing to solve real problems, leading to worsening poverty
It's seldom that I see an opportunity to be harsher towards religion than PZ is, so I'm not going to pass the chance up now.
Religion doesn't foster poverty merely because it does nothing to solve real problems. Religions (or at least, most successful religions) actively maintain and spread poverty.
If we want to get all memetic, poverty -- and ignorance, and lack of liberty, and (as noted upthread) authoritarianism -- are environments conducive to religion. Not every religion will actively encourage those things, perhaps, but those that do will have an edge over those that don't and, with time, tend to crowd them out. If I started a religion by proclaiming, "Here are my Holy Commandments: Think for yourself -- don't accept any proposition, including those of this faith, without good evidence -- don't accept anything anybody tells you just because they are in a position of authority, and that goes for me as well", I fear it will not survive long in a world of popes and mullahs and e-meter wielding $cientologists.
I agree that insecurity tends to be a big driver to religiosity. It explains why the US is such a big outlier compared with the other rich developed nations: you don't have a good Social Democratic welfare system like the rest of us do.
As was pointed out in the charitable giving thread, in the rest of the Western world the family is not bankrupted by disease. There is often hardship as one breadwinner gives up work to care, but we have benefits to help there too and some relief care systems as well.
Instead we are having debates over whether Dementia sufferers should be treated like other retired people and their home sold to defray nursing home expenses but treated like other sick people as above. IOW not should we have a safety net, but how far should it extend. It is rather that security that results in Europe and Australasia being less godly than the US. In fact in terms of the amount of consumer goods that can be bought I would wager that many of our poor are poorer than yours. Just more secure and with better health care. My GP for eg was very happy that I had gone for a new inhaler because the weather is not helping my asthma when I run. The running being the thing that was good. They are on a healthy living kick urged on by the govt that pays the bills you see. Better an inhaler than statins, beta blockers and heartburn tablets.
Looks like I'm moving to Greenland!
Very interesting excerpt since it describes my father very precisely.
I've written about that on my blog. My father and I are polar opposites, he's an authoritarian/follower while I'm anti-authoritarian and rebellious.
As far as leadership styles, it turns out I am a team builder, more a coach than anything.
I've read none of the previous comments yet.
I have reasons to not trust Gallup polls. My company has been using one to determine employee morale and commitment for the last few years. There is a question on it: Do you have a best friend at work? We questioned the relevance. Apparently everyone does.
Gallup says it is the single most important question on the entire poll. Why? Becasue it has the highest relationship to employees who are "fully engaged in their jobs." In other words, people who are mentally and emotionally interested in their work tend to have good friends at work. Their data shows that this is true about 2/3 of the time. Every other question gives less than 50% relevance.
One of their guys even wrote a book about it.
(I couldn't find it on Amazon just now)
I skimmed it between meetings once.
I have two problems with their interpretation of this fact. Firstly they seem to assume that having a best-friend causes the good work attitude. I can see no mechanism that would explain that. I can see how someone who was already interested in their job would find a friend among their co-workers. I have no data for this but I haven't seen any for their interpretation either.
The second problem is: how do you propose to 'improve' this value? Having the company promote best-friendship sounds like something Catbert would try. I know of workgroups in my company who have designated a specific person to BE everyone elses 'best friend at work.' How does this (or any other approach) lead to better work environments or productivity? Its ridiculous.
Given that Gallup promotes this as the essential question of this survey, I question their ability to evaluate anything else. Doesn't mean they are wrong about everything but I do not trust their expertise in their field in the same way that I trust PZ's expertise in his field.
btw- I do have a best friend at work. He was my friend years before he joined the same company. He was also a schoolmate of PZ. So it has no relevance to (or impact on) my work.
I hear the weather is wonderful this time of year.
Buford: re "Best Friend at Work"
I've seen variants of that question used many times, with similar justification, on many corporate polls (I encounter more than average as a consultant with many clients over the years)
My biggest challenge with the question is that it assumes your personal and work interests intersect.
I probably live about four or five different and relatively distinct lives (just off the top of my head). I live at least two corporate lives: one as leader of my consulting group, the other as a member of a project delivery team - which may bear little resemblance to my 'day' job as a leader. I have a very different life at home as a husband and father. I have a different life as 'an old hippy' playing guitar and letting my hair down, and I have a very different life in volunteering.
In each of these facets of my life I have many friends and many acquaintances, few of whom overlap with other facets. I look at me colleagues, my neighbors, and indeed my friends, and I see similar patterns.
The question I need to ask these pollsters is - who the hell has such a narrow and constrained life that their best friend is a work colleague?
(Caveat: Buford - your particular experience is tangential and appears to be more coincidental than the target of this question!)
You don't have to be in the deep south, or parts of Europe, to find places where working, even in your yard, washing your car, on sunday, is reason for the yocals to scorn you: there are areas around Grand Rapids, Holland, and other little sites in west michigan where the combined ignorance of the christian reformed church is still quite strong.
"Also, didn't the baltic trio have at least as many pogroms as poland, russia, croatia"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/08/public_acceptance_of_…
Lithuania and Latvia are both near the bottom while Estonia is middle of the pack. I'd like to see some explanation of how Estonia and Czech can be the most atheistic countries in Europe yet only mildly accept evolution. Perhaps the non-atheists are uniformily fundy?
For what it's worth, from yesterday's NY Daily News' Voice of the People (sorry, I couldn't find the original opinion from Mr. Stone):
"God as co-pilot?
Ossining, N.Y.: To Voicer Richard Stone: I'll put my faith in the hands of a cool-headed pilot like Capt. Chesley Sullenberger. If God saved that plane, then by your reasoning I'd have to ask whether He also sent His feathered creations into its engines. It gets tricky, doesn't it?
His flight plan
Brooklyn: To Voicer Richard E. Stone: If God wants credit for the miracle of Flight 1549, then He should take blame for ditching it in the Hudson?"
Granted, the VotP section is much more likely to print your run-of-the-mill 'prayer' submissions, but it seems there is progress being made. I honestly don't think these would've been printed a year ago.
Billy wanted an explanation of how Estonia and Czech can be the most atheistic countries in Europe yet only mildly accept evolution
You are conflating.
The poll did not look at 'atheism'. It measured 'overt religiosity'. So although low, the numbers simply say that most people do not think of god on a daily basis, or for direction. That does not mean they are atheist.
I think most of my old friends in Scotland would admit that they rarely thought of god, but would be vehemently opposed to any suggestion that they were in any way atheist.
Many of their thought processes were still aligned to their religion - including being influenced by their minister/priest's sermons regarding issues of the day - evolution, stem cell research, abortion, and so on.
Billy #71
*sigh* figures, my current state is one of the few completely maroon ones
To Faithful Reader, #15:
Afghanistan is indeed polled, and not surprisingly is "very religious". I think you were thinking of Turkmenistan, which is not polled.
"Poverty leads to more religiosity as people reach for desperate hope..."
So religion is inversely related to wealth? Ridiculous, unless you believe that Mongolia (among the least religious) is wealthier than the United States or Italy. Look again at the map and you'll find that nations tending toward religion are those that also tend toward maintaining traditional ways of life; where traditional ways of life are fading, religion fades as well.
In the U.S. states chart, did anyone else note the party-political correlation with the results?
In the list of ten most religious states, nine gave their electoral votes to McCain-Palin. (The exception is North Carolina.) All ten voted for George W. Bush in both 2000 and '04.
In the list of ten least religious states, nine gave their electoral votes to Obama-Biden. (The exception is Alaska--why the heck did they elect such a faith-soaked moron governor?) Eight of them (all of the nine except Nevada) voted for Gore and Kerry, too.
Interesting, no?
I would be interested in seeing an "over-time" study in the same region. Does the religiousity of a country increase as their economy falls? I think it does, but would love to see a poll on this if anyone knows of one.
"Here are my Holy Commandments: Think for yourself -- don't accept any proposition, including those of this faith, without good evidence -- don't accept anything anybody tells you just because they are in a position of authority, and that goes for me as well"
Yes! We are all individuals! We must all think for ourselves!
Tell us more!
you all misinterpret. I know that some of the people working in the trenches with me are atheists, religion does not hold a monopoly on "good works"
what I was pointing out was simply that we don't sit on our asses praying any more than atheists sit on there asses not-praying.
Most of developed world sits on their asses with one excuse or another.
with a church, just for practical reasons, i can walk in and say...I need a group to come to XXXX, i get a group. I go to other places, I don't get a group. (luckily my work place is filled with great folks, atheists and theists, and I can say, I need a group...and I get a group)
I know there are organizations out there that are non-religious and many of you spend and time and money, I am simply saying most of my religious friends do the same. I am yell that the ones that don't.
All right, go New Hampshire! I half suspect most of us just got tired of going to church in the snow and gave up on the whole thing.
@ 63 - I completely agree.
Western Canada is currently both the richest and the most religious part of the country.
...and I mean hardcore religious.
If you white out the map, then that means that no one was surveyed. A bit of a strange desire PDizzul
At last, an explanation for why the Xtian right wants to drive the U.S. economy down the sewer.
I am quite surprised that Germany and the US are supposed to have the same level of religiousness. But actually the author's of the study admit themselves, that they cannot make any statement about what "religious" actually means in different parts of the world -- while in Germany it means for most people going to church once an year or so in the US it seems to be a more fundamentalistic kind of religiousness.
rb #60 narrowly escaped - the posting of clarification at #109 helped.
Group dynamics is one thing, but this doesn't address the issue you raised.
Personally I deplore the need for charity as it is a failure of the State to provide for its citizens. Emergency relief may fall short at times and everyone may need to pitch in and help, but most "routine" catastrophes should be within the management plan of a well functioning political system.
At age 18 I saw a beggar in Indonesia, all limbs amputated. He was reputed to be one of the wealthiest people in the city and had already had a limb or 2 lopped of his son - following in the "footsteps" of his father. This is the true face of charity. MrsTilton pointed this out above. Religion spreads the evils of poverty, misery and ignorance. As a meme replicator it is changing its environment to improve its survival chances. That's why islamic fundamentalists destroy schools and creationism is being pushed into science classes.
I strive to change political systems so that everyone is assured of housing, not just going out and building a house - or real social and medical services instead of advertising or sermons. I make small personal donations of time and money to immediate causes and can barely make mortgage payments. Most of my time is directed to boosting local educational levels and food production and distribution - for little or no financial benefit.
The charity model makes a man pray for thanks for the donated fish, responsible governments teach the man to fish, progressive atheism teaches science and helps set up the infrastructure to feed the whole village (with surplus) using aquaculture, hydroponics and other advanced technologies.
The problem is in outlook, charity may sound good, it just falls way short of what is needed. However, if charity is ALL that exists the nett result is humanity goes backwards.
Rey Fox @108,
Tell us more!
Oops, I left out the most important Commandment of all:
"Sorry, no; I'm afraid you're on you own. You'll have to figure things out for yourselves (but never hesitate to ask friends for help)".
-- Antipope Mrs Tilton the 666th
To be fair, the former quality was acquired very recently (and may not last at current oil prices).
Brazil is traditionally a very religious country. Although separation os church and State is in our contitution, you can find a crucifix in every public building, including the Senate, House of representatives and Supreme court. Our latest parlamentary debate on abortion, was leaning towards legalizing some instances, such as acephalic feti, or when the mothers life is in peril, until the church stepped in.
But the real problem is much worse as it amounts to basic public education. We can't even start talking about proper science education, so the shackles of religion may start to be broken, because most students leaving public schools are functional illiterates.
Poverty in this case plays a big role, since its easier and cheaper to preach than to teach. Pentecostal churches have been popping up like a biblical plague in poorer comunities, urban and rural, adding to the already weel established catholic church. But not the determinant, the most influential magazine in Brazil Veja, read by the richest, has a regular column by a religious, right-wing dope Reinaldo Azevedo that by allowing Eluana Eglaro to die we degrades her condition to that of an aspargus.
in other words, religiosity has no correlation with the charitable-mindedness of a person. thanks, we already knew that. but I fail to see how that is in any way supportive of your argument that religion is helpful, since religious charitable-ness often veers into missionary work and "we'll pray for you" and handing out bibles on street corners.
the number of people who consider religion important (which is what this poll was about) would actually be even. especially in Bavaria, where crucifixes hang in classrooms (or did until recently, anyway), every cross-road has a Virgin Mary, and everybody greets you with "Gruess Gott". The political impact is similar as well, as can seen from the brouhaha caused by the Social Democratic Proposal to make Ethics classes in High-school mandatory, but relegate Religion to an elective.
religion is everywhere in German society, it seems to be a less virulent strain than the American one though
t isn't generally a foundational element of most christian (which I can only speak of, since that is my tradition), to sit on your ass.
Fuck you.
No, I mean it.
Fuck you.
When we have our CFC fundraiser in the postal service, or for a local charity drive we have, guess who always ends up volunteering for the slot, after waiting to see if someone, anyone else would step up?
The "good" Christians?
Hardly.
It's me. The atheist.
Year after year, facility after facility, I am always the person who ends up getting things done. The vast majority of Christians spew their piety, but they damn sure don't actually do anything about it.
So, again, fuck you.
From Gallup article (On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution) published today:
I am heading back to school.
".I guess it really is the opium of the people!"
Just the opposite. The above suggest a dulling of the senses; putting them out of touch. Socrates uses a fine analogy in the Apology. He is a gadfly to the noble steed. he awakens the lethargic horse. Those oblivious to the religious impulse are awakened by religion, a stimulus, a consciousness raising that puts the spiritually lazy in touch with their inner urge to exercise their dormant spiritual inclinations
The intuitive idea that "[r]eligiosity is correlated with poverty" is born out by cross-country analysis. Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart find in their book, Sacred and Secular, that religiosity is correlated both with prosperity (more prosperity equals less religiosity) and with inequality (more inequality equals more religiosity). The United States is a religious prosperous nations because it has high levels of inequality (though still an outlier, AFAIR). The supply-side theory -- that state endorsement leads to lower religiosity -- is only weakly supported.
Sure the software is full of bugs, but here is an Atheist that gives.
Atheist = Intelligent (per Gallup Poll above) = Well-Paid (we hope!) = Charitable. I'm in.
Silver Fox,
Still haven't come up with those disproofs for non-Yahweh gods, huh? That must mean you've admitted your mistake and retracted your claim. No, no need to apologise. I understand. Just try not to be quite so stupid in the future.
Oh, and for everyone else: it's the morning of the 12th here in Australia, so happy Darwin Day!
Jadehawk @120,
"Grüssgott" would, admittedly, sound bizarre where I live ("Morsche" is more our speed), but when I am in the south and speaking dialect, I say Grissgoddle just like the parson, and so does the village atheist. Or do you refuse on principle to say "Goodbye"?
Yeah, Aquaria, me too.
I'm the raving atheist who built vehicles for MILLARD Fuller, went to Indonesia to build houses after the tsunami, and used to take in animals and give out money and time.
Most religious people do just sit on their asses--that's where and how they learn and do their religion--sitting down. And I've seen allegedly religious people take much advantage of the good folks. Many "missionaries" that I have encountered are only in it for the money, prestige and foreign travel--if you can't get a real job, become a missionary, and get travel, honor, kudos and money.
Some religious folks are very good, but most atheists are even better. And if you've ever met a Scientologist "missionary" providing therapeutic pointing to people who have lost everything, you'll be a lot snarlier.
Back to the map. Whiting it out, as PZ wants, would mean that another such survey is never conducted. And I'm all for that.
Indonesia at 98%. How about that. I worked in Aceh, which is strongly Muslim, then went to Bali, which is weirdly Hindu, for a rest. I was so freaked out that I had to leave Bali for another island.
Indonesians have no concept of atheism. There are five official options for religion in that country, and you HAVE to be one of them. Next time, I'm picking Buddhism--you don't have to believe that Buddha was divine, the goal is to avoid reincarnation, and the search for truth is pretty much like science.
Buddhism should be the
An aside to the Gallup poll discussions: in my experience as a former teacher of social science methodology, Gallup is usually pretty good at their questionnaire design. It's very, very easy to mess up, and bias the outcome. They rarely do.
Social science and psychology use *questionnaires* as measuring instruments. Not individual questions. One would not expect every question to be applicable to every individual; it's the aggregate that matters. Very roughly, there may be a dozen indicators of attachment; an individual with several of those is more attached than an individual with none. (More often it's a Likert scale than a yes/no, but same principle.)
*Dangit* Buddhism should be the religious beard of choice for atheists.
Silver Fox, you putz. Christianity, as practiced, is FOR the spiritually lazy. They sit on their duffs, in front of some fat preacher man, content in their smugness and stupidity, and think they feel the divine. It is to laugh, bitterly, hackingly, until one cries, whenever one reads your nonsense.
Silver Fuzz, if YOU weren't so damn lazy, you'd have come up with an answer to Wowbagger (pbuh).
I'll just point out the obvious, that religiosity does not correlate strongly with the rejection of evolution, although high levels of education plus acceptance of evolution may very well correlate with non-religiosity (I believe that they do, however I am not sure that this has been sufficiently demonstrated).
So although one may argue the "oughts" as long as one wishes, supposing that humans "ought" to be rational and understand that science at large--complete with evolution--makes religion rather pointless (well, why ought they? Since when does evolution have any purpose, such as consistent rationality?), this is not a trait that characterizes the species. Religion and acceptance of science are practically compatible in very many people's minds, meaning that by any empirical standard it is difficult to claim that they are not compatible.
I do believe that the more consistently rational, ideal, empirical outlook leaves religion an empty concept. Yet it is one thing to say that we would like humans to be more consistent in their thoughts, and another to pretend even that they "ought" to be, in any universally-defensible sense of the word "ought."
In other words, we can say fairly confidently that the "compatibility" of science and religion fails by the standards of (good) philosophy and of a comprehensive scientific point of view, while empirically it is absurd to make that claim of most human minds operating within their contexts. Hence ID is as wrong there as they are at pretending that adhering to science in physics makes perfect sense, while the need for demonstrable evidence for their claims in biology is an imposition from "godless" evil persons.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
I am frequenly amazed that commenters on a blog like this, who presumably hold the scientific method in high regard, are quick to decend into claims based on perception and anecdote when it comes to religion
Christian charitible work devolves into missionary work? That's a baseless claim. How would you go about assessing this? I'm sure it's been looked at before; maybe someone has a study to back this up. I'd be curious to know.
Also, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from this poll. It was a binary question asked of people from broadly different cultural backgrounds. "How important is religion in your daily life?" is a very vague question and one that might not be answered the same by people in different areas of the country let alone different countries.
This goes to the comments a few people made of disbelief that Canada and the U.S. were of comparable "religiosity". The immediate follow up question should be, why do you find that so hard to believe? You obviously haven't personally sampled citizens from both countries, or lived equal amounts of time in both as to have a reasonable level of comparison. It clearly stems from your perception of the religiosity of the two countries.
Plasma/platelet donor here. I expect to achieve my 100th donation sometime this year (I had to take a few years off because I went to Africa to support local vendors.)
Oh, and for the record: in Canada you get a cookie, not cash, for donating blood.
You're just a fertilizer salesman. Many of us were "spiritual" and just as zealous (and misguided) as you once.
That vague "spiritual" feeling is simply a sensation of dopamine reinforced by a little noradrenaline. Theatre, art, meditation and intense conversation can naturally produce the same effects we attribute to the feeling of religious spirituality in the mild hypomanic phase or religious ecstasy in a manic phase, just as strong magnetic stimulation of the brain and certain drugs can synthetically. I can name several drugs which will reinforce your spiritual bullshit bias, but they have nothing to do with a god, your purpose in life or the hereafter. Why? Because the Universe has no purpose for us, we define our own purposes ourselves. If you want to make up a magical sky fairy or adopt the already constructed fable go ahead, but it's still all make-believe.
Falsely attributing these feelings to a god or the supernatural is simply a form of rationalization, it's a very strong example of human invention in defining or conceptualizing abstractions in anthropomorphic (wishfull) constants.
This seems similar to lottery ticket buyers. I believe the stats show that the poorest people buy the most tickets. I think religion, like the lottery, is a "hail mary" for the desperate.
Note that their chance for winning the big prize is similar for each -- but at least the lottery offers ~some~ chance.
Antipope Mrs Tilton the 666th @ #116
Which is a nice summation of the principle of free-thinking, vividly contrasting with the troll named "beep" in another thread, who has deliberately thrown away a compartment of his or her intellect, and is happy to believe whatever the Papal Bull du jour states is "authentic doctrine". It's sad to see people like "beep" admitting that they have willingly padlocked away a part of their rationality.
Not all religionists promote such an abandonment of critical thinking at the church door, but it seems par for the course: the religious meme of "let us do the hard work of thinking for you on any topic we choose" seems to be more attractive or successful in the wild, than the more liberal religious meme that might be expressed as "God equipped you with a brain, so that's a good indication you should endeavour to use it".
The church I was brought up in generally subscribed to the latter view, but there were a significant minority of anti-intellectual clergy who preferred promoting ignorance as a virtue.
PMaL 666
Mea culpa @ #136,
No worries, Pope. We got it.
BTW, You should use a tag to separate paragraphs in a blockquote, otherwise pre-processing terminates the span.
... a <br> tag.
Mississippi at the top. That explains our national leading in STDs, teen pregnancy, drunk driving fatalities, moribundity, etc. Also a contender for the lowest avg. income, low birth weight, racism, and poorest education. Must be Jesus. I know I have six churches within one mile of my house, one of them a multimillion dollar megachurch and one in a strip mall suite (across the street are two right next door to each other, they share a parking lot!). I could just as easily walk to all of them and the middle school...
Oh I wish for a bigger version of that map to make a desktop background out of.
I am overwhelmingly happy that Australia has been polled one of the least religious, after recent events with that wackjob Danny Nalliah.
To be fair, I'm not too sure religiosity is a direct cause of the poverty in these areas. Here in the Philippines, the local churches are often the only group with the means and organization to help support the communities, thanks to public services being rendered useless by rampant gov't corruption.
Sure, they're annoying with their conservative and oftentimes dogmatic views of those who don't agree with their beliefs - they've rabidly objected to ANY form of sex ed outside abstinence-only practices - but the fact is they're often the only group with enough manpower, cash and influence to make a difference in helping my countrymen in areas that are otherwise left untouched by gov't social services. Mindanao comes to mind.
The way I see it, the religiosity is a symptom of - not a cause - of the rot that's affecting the country's leadership.
Is it just me, or does it look like the more religious countries are often former Spanish/Portugese colonies?
@#132
Agreed. With this vague question, it's difficult to make a conclusion about these results (i.e. why Iran is less religious than turkey). I would like to know how often religion comes up in making decisions (both personal and for policy).
As a Canadian, I call the validity of the poll into question on the basis that it rates us at the same level as the USA.
>I think religion, like the lottery, is a "hail mary" for the desperate.
If that wasn't meant to be a pun, it should be. *thumbs up*
That's it! I'm moving to Australia, just as soon as they put out all of the fires and find some water!!!!!!
aquaria, glad I touched a nerve. I couldn't be more delighted to know you serve to improve the lives of others. I never said atheists didn't. my statement simply said that it wasn't a central tenet of most the western religions to which i am most aquainted to 'sit on my ass'. I didn't say it was a central tenet of 'atheism' to sit on ones ass either. Sitting on ones ass is simply a human condition too many folks in the world are afflicted with.
I guess now you know why this statement touched a nerve with me:
"and religion does nothing to solve real problems, leading to worsening poverty."
Nothing is a strong term. I did not say atheists or atheism did nothing.
some atheists do nothing, some theists do nothing.
there is nothing inherent to atheism (if there is such an inclusive term, other than to denote a belief that there is no god), that promotes serving or improving the lives of others. Sure you can argue there is nothing inherent in religion either (depending on how you define this of course could be theistic, as most assume, or non-theistic) that serves to 'solve real problems'. The problem is that there is nothing inherent in science that serves to 'solve real problems'. It can, but doesn't have to. Science can be used to cause real problems. there is not scientific or technological march to utopia. So this is statement by PZ is simply a non-statement.
In most of these developing countries, science and technology has led to a consolidation of power and wealth into the hands of the few at the expense of the many. So the transformation is and always has been about transforming people, not technology.
I have no interest in the game of blaming religion, theism, atheism, humanism what ever ism you want to throw at me. The blame game is among the most common "make me feel good at the expense of others do nothing sit on my ass games" there is. I am interested in improving the lives of others in a way that promotes their ability to continue improving the lives of others (pay it forward to use a stupid tear jerker movie analogy) I am not in it to 'convert' anyone to religion.
Yet another win for New Zealand.
Mrs. Tilton said:
well, not out of principle but out of laziness, since a short "bye" conveys the same message. for a fairer comparison: I'm completely incapable of saying "Bless You" after someone sneezes and resort to "gesundheit" instead.
Also, where I come from, "Moin" is a good enough greeting, so it better be good enough for those damn southerners, too! ;-)
seriously though, I generally don't go native and say "Gruessgott", I stick with an old-fashioned, Prussian, "Guten Morgen".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the wealth distribution in the USA more like Africa's ? I.e a small amount of people being really rich and a lot of very poor people ?
Maybe on some bizarre parallel Earth. Seriously, did you just compare the USA to Africa in economic distribution terms? That might be the dumbest thing I've seen on the internet in several days, and that's *years* in real world time. Even our poor drive cars and have cable TV. The only people who lament the wealth distribution in the US are pampered, white, Western progressives with too much time on their hands, and have no fucking clue what real poverty is.
Azimon, reading comprehension is not your forte, is it. Income distribution is a measure of relative wealth not absolute wealth.
that may well be true. Catholicism displays a very interesting capacity for blending with native beliefs (anything from the Christmas tree to Maria-Kannon), i.e. it adapts easily to new environments. Protestantism seems far less adaptive, in that sense. Either you're Protestant, or you're a godless heathenish satan worshipper. Except in the U.S., where you can just make up your own flavor of Protestantism.
Definitely something is wrong with that map, I come from one of those dark green countries in Latin America and now I’m living in the USA, and I’ve got to tell you guys, the USA is far more religious than my country. The predominant religion in my country is Catholicism, but its profile is very low. Although most of the people define themselves as catlicks, very few go to church more than the occasional wedding or funeral service. The best schools are run by the catlick congregations, but believe me, this people teach evolution in a decent way and nobody I know takes seriously the creation myth (they admit It’s a metaphor). Now I’ve been living in the US for the last 3 years and I’m astonished at the religiosity here: everybody I know goes to church on Sunday, everybody wants me to visit and join their churches (religious harassment), and most of the people I know here believe the creation crap as real!!! I’m getting sick of religious people in the US !!!
Believe me, that map is wrong.
ZorroPlateado, cute monicker. :)
Not convinced. Lusophone Africa seems to have a similar spread to the continent as a whole and as far as I can see (it's kind of small) the formerly-British/French nations of the Caribbean are similar to their Hispanic and Brazilian neighbours.
What I think you can read off the map as whole is that Catholicism sticks harder than Protestantism, Sunni Islam sticks hardest of all and Shia is surprisingly expendable.
@ZorroPlateado (name=win) I think you might be describing the difference between religion being important to people on a private level and them being dicks about it.
Last time I donated blood I got a spiffy t-shirt, a can of Coke, a coupon for a free oil change, and free admission to the Crawfish Festival. Sweet! No cookie, though...
There's an obvious correlation in climate/faith.
World's main religions started in torrid places (Neguev, India...)
Also, Antarctica is not displayed; but I have heard it is a barren, atheistic place full of faithless penguins and scientist.
My other guess is that those poor people give up their last money to churches in hope of getting God's grace or whatever & helping them.
IS THERE A POLL/STUDY ON WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE GIVE MOST TO CHURCHES? (like when they pass the hat thingy or those donation bozed before entry & similar stuff)??
I used to be a regular (every 6 months) blood donor in the UK - you got a cup of tea and a biscuit, and a very nice smile from the nurse!
Since moving stateside (1995), I am not allowed to donate blood due to the possibility of prions from BSE. Despite the fact that BSE has been found in both the US & Canada.
According to the current red cross pamphlet, you may not give blood if:
From January 1, 1980, to the present:
- Spent a total time that adds up to 5 years or more in most countries or combination of countries in Western or Eastern Europe. Time spent in the United Kingdom between January 1, 1980 and December 31, 1996 and associated with military bases, as described above, is to be added to the total time spent in Europe.
Oh Yeah!
The thing that really gets me about being denied the ability to give blood - is that dickheads who go and have unprotected sex in the Dominican Republic, or Thailand, or ..., can give blood without a qualm.
They are way more risky than me!
Also - made an error above: It only needs THREE MONTHS presence in the UK to exclude me as a blood donor!
We are so obviously unclean! (it's about as sensible as the TSA restriction on liquids!)
I'm not sure why people are so surprised about Iran. Its government is run by lunatics, but compared to most of the "Muslim world" the people are pretty laid back (though probably not as much as places like Kazakhstan or even Indonesia).
I've encountered more atheists from Iran than from, say, Pakistan, even though I've met more Pakistanis than Persians.
That said, don't get the wrong idea. I'm speaking only relative to the rest of that region (unfortunately I can't call it a "God-forsaken" region).
Daniel @159:
It seems like the only permanent resident of Antarctica is some kind of priest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Church,_Antarctica
Though I'd bet that its population is less religious than average given that many are scientists.
Ach! I meant its non-permanent population, of course.
rb took issue with
"and religion does nothing to solve real problems, leading to worsening poverty."
I think your points show that this statement "some of the religious solve problems and try to lessen poverty"
and I don't think any calm observer would disagree.
I do support the idea that RELIGION ITSELF promotes poverty as its mission (suffer on earth, rejoice in the afterlife). I don't see your points contradicting that.
I would also strongly disagree with another comment (I don't remember who posted it) that was, in effect, "more atheists are decent people than religious people" - sweeping generalizations about any groups of people are sure to be incorrect.
Dean, I agree, broad generalization about groups is called bigotry, and as is clear all sides and almost all people engage in some form of this.
I do not think religion, per se, promotes poverty, some do.
some religion offer a way of peace while in poverty, which may indeed have an effect of lessoning desires to get out of poverty, so in a sideways fashion promotes poverty. But I know of many secular traditions that promote poverty (or at least a 'hatred' of wealth, as wealth supports exploitation in their minds). There are some "green groups" that think we need to promote poverty in developing world to keep the earth safe (and not impacting the developed world's life style), some come out and say it, most say it with a lot more finesse.
Yeah, so that thing about the Protestant work ethic and the spirit of capitalism, that was just a fluke, right?
PZ Meyers says:
Putting the "wealthy nations" in the same comparative basket is obviously comparing apples to apples, which is good science. The obvious conclusion to draw from the US experience is that religion does not impede the creation of wealth.
Religion probably improves wealth creation, for all the obvious reasons ie higher levels of commercial honesty, more diligent students, cohesive families, lower crime. These indices under religion be better than they otherwise would be.
And the USSR, the worlds most noteable social experiment in doing away with organised religion, how did that work out?
Of course there are many more factors than religion that condition the accumulation of wealth. IQ is a big one, but best not go there.
my, aren't you confused. the USSR was an experiment in getting rid of democracy and capitalism. on the other hand, such nations as Japan and Sweden are democratic, relatively capitalistic, and secular; and they're better off than the U.S. in most measurable ways
Jack,
PLEASE!! Freethinkers and Atheists are NOT DISHONEST EVIL UNEDUCATED DULLARDS!! My IQ is well more than adequate. I have a very deep sense of family. I am NO criminal. I am well educated and painfully honest as well. As a matter of fact,it is the freethinker's pursuit of honesty that leads them AWAY from religion. It takes a great deal of courage, honor and integrity to stand against myth and cast off beliefs with which one has been raised IN THE INTEREST OF HONESTY.
Furthermore, there are plenty of religious people who ARE dishonest, criminals, violent, self-serving, hypocritical, uneducated, have poor family ties, and low IQs. Your ARGUEMENT is UNSCIENTIFIC!