Culture & Society Articles | Looking at Link Between Religion, Prosperity at National Level | Miller-McCune Online Magazine
Culture & SocietyWho Needs God When We've Got Mammon?
The world's most prosperous (and happiest) countries are also its least religious, new research states.
By: David Villano | November 24, 2009 | 05:00 AM (PST) |
7 Comments
|
AnswerTips are small bubbles of information triggered by double-clicking any word on an AnswerTips-enabled page.
Print |
E-mail |
- Permalink |
- Text Size decrease increase
Share:
Controversial researcher finds the world's most prosperous and happiest countries are also its least religious.stockxpert.com
From Dostoyevsky to right-wing commentator Ann Coulter we are warned of the perils of godlessness. "If there is no God," Dostoyevsky wrote, "everything is permitted." Coulter routinely attributes our nation's most intractable troubles to the moral vacuum of atheism.
But a growing body of research in what one sociologist describes as the "emerging field of secularity" is challenging long-held assumptions about the relationship of religion and effective governance.
In a paper posted recently on the online journal Evolutionary Psychology, independent researcher Gregory S. Paul reports a strong correlation within First World democracies between socioeconomic well-being and secularity. In short, prosperity is highest in societies where religion is practiced least.
Using existing data, Paul combined 25 indicators of societal and economic stability — things like crime, suicide, drug use, incarceration, unemployment, income, abortion and public corruption — to score each country using what he calls the "successful societies scale." He also scored countries on their degree of religiosity, as determined by such measures as church attendance, belief in a creator deity and acceptance of Bible literalism.
Comparing the two scores, he found, with little exception, that the least religious countries enjoyed the most prosperity. Of particular note, the U.S. holds the distinction of most religious and least prosperous among the 17 countries included in the study, ranking last in 14 of the 25 socioeconomic measures.
Paul is quick to point out that his study reveals correlation, not causation. Which came first — prosperity or secularity — is unclear, but Paul ventures a guess. While it's possible that good governance and socioeconomic health are byproducts of a secular society, more likely, he speculates, people are inclined to drop their attachment to religion once they feel distanced from the insecurities and burdens of life.
"Popular religion," Paul proposes, "is a coping mechanism for the anxieties of a dysfunctional social and economic environment." Paul, who was criticized, mostly on statistical grounds, for a similar study published in 2005, says his new findings lend support to the belief that mass acceptance of popular religion is determined more by environmental influences and less by selective, evolutionary forces, as scholars and philosophers have long debated.
In other words, we're not hardwired for religion.
Paul also believes his study helps refute the controversial notion that the moral foundation of religious doctrine is a requisite for any high-functioning society - what he dubs the "moral-creator hypothesis."
Phil Zuckerman, a sociologist at Pitzer College whose research looks at the link between religion and societal health within the developed world, agrees with that assertion. "The important thing we're seeing here is that progressive, highly functional societies can answer their problems within a framework of secularity. That's a big deal, and we should be blasting that message out loud," he contends.
Zuckerman says the findings are consistent with his own data, collected for his 2008 book Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment — a portrait of secular society in Denmark and Sweden — and his forthcoming Faith No More: How and Why People Reject Religion.
Scandinavian countries, in particular, have achieved high levels of economic strength and social stability, and yet the influence of religion there is in steep decline, perhaps the lowest in recoded history. Coincidence or not, those countries also rank among the world's happiest populations. In The Netherlands' Erasmus University Rotterdam's annual World Database of Happiness the same Northern European countries that score low in religiosity rank high in reported levels of happiness. (The U.S ranked 27th).
What's their secret? Zuckerman believe it lies in the historically strong sense of community — perhaps a survival response to long, harsh winters - that transcends religious life in these northern climates. Social well-being, economic strength (and happiness) are products of community interaction, not faith, Zuckerman conjectures.
If that's true — and other researchers, such as influential Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, are touting the idea that mass religion's greatest value lies in the web of personal interaction it weaves — then societies that reject religion may suffer if strong secular institutions are not in place to maintain community bonds and foster positive civic associations. Social interactions both inside and outside church structure, Bloom recently wrote, is far more beneficial than "a belief in constant surveillance by a higher power."
Indeed, researchers in a variety of other studies are targeting the positive effects of church-based social interaction. One study published earlier this year in the Journal of Happiness Studies concluded that the quality and depth of personal relationships has a far greater effect on children's happiness than does religious practice itself — church attendance, prayer, meditation. In many American communities, organized religion is the principal conduit to those kinds of close relationships, as well as to civic action and problem-solving.
Zuckerman warns against hasty emulation of the Danes and Swedes. "We can't just say that secularity is good for society and religion is bad," he warns. "And nor can we say the opposite. The connections are very complex."
Paul is less compromising, characterizing organized religion, particularly the conservative Christian brand widely practiced in the U.S., as societal anathema, conspiring against real progress.
In his paper, Paul writes of an "antagonistic relationship between better socioeconomic conditions and intense popular faith" derived from fear that greater prosperity will loosen the grip of religion. That antagonism, though subtle, is evident in the debate over health care, he argues, noting the intense opposition of such groups as the Christian Coalition to universal coverage and other progressive, European-style fixes.
"These groups have a lot to lose in these kinds of debates. When you adopt progressive policy reforms," Paul says, "in the long run, religion is bound to be road kill."
Paul, 54, lives in Baltimore and is not affiliated with any university or think tank. He is largely self-taught. He has published three respected books on paleontology, claiming naming rights to a handful of species, and he earns a living as an artist and illustrator of prehistoric creatures. He migrated to the field of secular studies to wage a kind of scholarly assault on the right-wing fundamentalists who challenge both the evolutionary assumptions of paleontology and, it follows, his livelihood.
He isn't shy about promoting progressive policy reforms and is quick to blame the Christian right for a range of societal dysfunctions. (A recent study published in the journal Reproductive Health found that states whose residents have more conservative religious beliefs have higher rates of teenagers giving birth).
Yet in spite of his findings, and his secularist agenda, Paul stops short of proposing measures to suppress the role and influence of religion in America. Why? It's already happening, he insists. Although we remain largely a nation of believers, our faith and commitment are slipping. Religious affiliation, church attendance and belief in God are all in slow decline in the U.S. A recent Gallup poll found that two-thirds of adults believe the influence of religion in American life is waning, up from 50 percent just four years ago.
As these trends continue, he believes, policymaking will more effectively address the true needs of society, rather than the dogma of religious idealism. "People need to know that society without religion is not a bad thing," Paul says. "And we're seeing this in other countries. We don't need religion to have a thriving, prosperous nation."
Sign up for our free e-newsletter.
Are you on Facebook? Become our fan.
Follow us on Twitter.
We encourage you to share any articles or material you find on Miller-McCune.com with friends and colleagues. Please fill in the fields below with the name and e-mail address, separating multiple addresses with semi-colons (;). Then fill in the same information for you. Miller-McCune will not keep any information about you or your friend, and the e-mail your friends receive will appear to have come from your e-mail address. The asterisk (*) denotes a required field.
Top Ten
- 1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
- 2. Sed diam nonummy nibh
- 3. Consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed
- 4. Lorem ip sum dolor sit amet,
- 5. consectetuer adipiscing elit, Sed
- 6. diam nonummy nibh Lorem
- 7. Consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed
- 8. Ipsum dolor sit amet
- 9. consectetuer adipiscing elit, Sed
- 10. diam nonummy nibh Lorem
Nunc non sem. Aliquam erat volutpat. Integer velit. Mauris fermentum viverra risus. Quisque pretium nisl sit amet lectus. Cras leo pede, sodales ut, venenatis sed, ultricies nec, mauris. Vivamus
-->Post A Comment
We want your feedback! You can remain anonymous, but we'd prefer that you log in or sign up first.
Trenchant and snarky are cool but all comments are subject to approval/removal.
Want more space than a little box? Write for us!
Create an account or log in below.
Comments
Items 1 - 6 of 6POSTED BY: Farnaz Kaighobadi, November 24, 2009, 09:26 AM
Based on Gregory Paul's findings, Villano argues that "we are not hardwired for religion;" and that the environment is responsible for people turning to religious belief. Times of hardship may encourage religious propensity, but this propensity, IS in fact, an evolved psychological mechanism. Religious belief may be an "evolved" solution to the adaptive problem of coping with hardship. Even if we have large body of evidence in support of religion's positive effects on people's lives, I would rather stick to Carl Sagan's quote: "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
POSTED BY: Anonymous User, November 25, 2009, 07:40 AM
I think of creativity and religious thought as two impulses to a higher vibrational level where we get lots of lovely serotonin, and if we sing together or make music together, oxytocin. The higher vibrational channel in music is one reason why religions make use of it, and its cousin, dance. For me, music is my religion, my steppingstone to higher thought and creativity.
POSTED BY: Anonymous User, November 27, 2009, 04:44 PM
Re "Who needs god when we've got Mammon?" I don't believe we're hard wired for religion. I believe we're hard wired for many things including fear and superstition and fouling our diapers. Most of us get over the diaper-fouling but few get over the fear and superstition; that's where "leaders" come in. Religion was discovered by some to be a great way to control large numbers of people. It wasn't a plot, it was simply a discovery - "god is watching you, and we are watching you too." House trained faith sufferers make ideal subjects.
POSTED BY: vorhees rick, November 27, 2009, 09:25 PM
Religions are a form of power. They can be used to change the minds of large amounts of people. This is why China has banned all forms of organized religion (you are allowed to pray in your own home, but if you attempt to organize a group of people, you will be arrested or "re-educated"). Socialist countries like Denmark and Sweden want to stamp this stuff out because it competes with the state. The left also hates religion because it comprises of people that have a different set of beliefs. This is why you see very little religion in countries like Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. There is no right in these countries, only shades of left. I don't necessary believe in any of the major religions, but they are not a bad thing. They teach people to respect and love one another. The only way to get rid of religion in this country would be to ban it, which I don't think will happen anytime soon because the freedom of religion is one of our rights. I would also like to see how they define happiness, because many times, ignorance is bliss. In the United States, we have less government control and interference, which means more freedom. People in Sweden have no idea what this freedom is even like, because they have no choice. I will not be happier with more taxes and reliance on the government (which ultimately means less choice and freedom). I saw an interview once with some peasants in North Korea. Not only were they very happy, but they felt that the leader was a god. If they interview everyone in the country, and the majority are happy, Should we then conclude that this form of government creates happier citizens?
POSTED BY: Anonymous User, November 29, 2009, 08:14 PM
So very tired of seeing and hearing Dostoevsky quoted out of context. Please do not lump such a mind in with Coulter and co.
POSTED BY: Anonymous User, December 01, 2009, 04:33 AM
The problem is that the argument may work the other way round, i.e., the more prosperous a country the less emphasis on religion. Also, if prosperity is based on unbridled economic growth and we face combinations of problems, such as peak oil, a debt-driven global capitalist system, and global warming....
