IAP Political Forum

heh... "religiosity".

That made me laugh.

As for your post... I'm afraid I don't see your point. That the US has a peculiarily wealthy group of religous individuals?

My guess is it has to do with secret guilt over what they have that others do not.

Guilt is always something I associate with religion. Not the lack of it.

heh... "religiosity".

That made me laugh.

As for your post... I'm afraid I don't see your point. That the US has a peculiarily wealthy group of religous individuals?

Guilt is always something I associate with religion. Not the lack of it.

The USA are a exception to the rule due to their foundations as a religious nation

You know, more people have sex at night than during the daytime.  I bet its because nighttime makes us horny.   :o.

You know, more people have sex at night than during the daytime.  I bet its because nighttime makes us horny.  

This is a pretty interesting study. It plots those who are religious with those who are wealthy. There is a very strong tendency for wealthy people to be less religious. And for less wealthy people to be more religious.
Why is that?

Also, notice how much of an outlier the U.S. is.

(http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/258-3.gif)
 the full report (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=258)

You know, more people have sex at night than during the daytime.  I bet its because nighttime makes us horny.

Ye can not worship God and Mammon. The love of money is the root of all evil. The religious right notwithstanding, the Gospels lean to the left on economic matters.

The opposite argument would be that God calls on us to help our fellow man with our money and the 'right' gives more for charitable causes.

As far as the 'love' of money, I don't know anyone has the monopoly on that. I know it's something I struggle with and have to be conscious of...

Europeans and Americans dispute some values and share others.  But one can do better than that.  Consider the third recent report, the world values survey run by the University of Michigan.

This survey goes back a long way.  The university has been sending out hundreds of questions for the past 25 years (it now covers 78 countries with 85% of the world's population).  Its distinctive feature is the way it organises the replies.  It arranges them in two broad categories.  The first it calls traditional values; the second, values of self-expression.

The survey defines “traditional values” as those of religion, family and country.  Traditionalists say religion is important in their lives.  They have a strong sense of national pride, think children should be taught to obey and that the first duty of a child is to make his or her parents proud.  They say abortion, euthanasia, divorce and suicide are never justifiable.  At the other end of this spectrum are "secular-rational" values: they emphasise the opposite qualities.

The other category looks at “quality of life” attributes.  At one end of this spectrum are the values people hold when the struggle for survival is uppermost: they say that economic and physical security are more important than self-expression.  People who cannot take food or safety for granted tend to dislike foreigners, homosexuals and people with AIDS.  They are wary of any form of political activity, even signing a petition.  And they think men make better political leaders than women.  "Self-expression" values are the opposite.

Obviously, these ideas overlap.  The difference between the two is actually rooted in an academic theory of development (not that it matters).  The notion is that industrialisation turns traditional societies into secular-rational ones, while post-industrial development brings about a shift towards values of self-expression.

The usefulness of dividing the broad subject of “values” in this way can be seen by plotting countries on a chart whose axes are the two spectrums.  The chart alongside (click to enlarge it) shows how the countries group: as you would expect, poor countries, with low self-expression and high levels of traditionalism, are at the bottom left, richer Europeans to the top right.

But America's position is odd.  On the quality-of-life axis, it is like Europe: a little more "self-expressive" than Catholic countries, such as France and Italy, a little less so than Protestant ones such as Holland or Sweden.  This is more than a matter of individual preference.  The "quality of life" axis is the one most closely associated with political and economic freedoms.  So Mr Bush is right when he claims that Americans and European share common values of democracy and freedom and that these have broad implications because, at root, alliances are built on such common interests.

But now look at America's position on the traditional-secular axis.  It is far more traditional than any west European country except Ireland.  It is more traditional than any place at all in central or Eastern Europe.  America is near the bottom-right corner of the chart, a strange mix of tradition and self-expression.

Americans are the most patriotic people in the survey: 72% say they are very proud of their country (and this bit of the poll was taken before September 2001).  That puts America in the same category as India and Turkey.  The survey reckons religious attitudes are the single most important component of traditionalism.  On that score, Americans are closer to Nigerians and Turks than Germans or Swedes.

Of course, America is hardly monolithic.  It is strikingly traditional on average.  But, to generalise wildly, that average is made up of two Americas: one that is almost as secular as Europe (and tends to vote Democratic), and one that is more traditionalist than the average (and tends to vote Republican).

But even this makes America more distinctive.  Partly because America is divided in this way, its domestic political debate revolves around values to a much greater extent than in Europe.  Political affiliation there is based less on income than on church-going, attitudes to abortion and attitudes to race.  In America, even technical matters become moral questions.  It is almost impossible to have a debate about gun registration without it becoming an argument about the right to self-defence.  In Europe, even moral questions are sometimes treated as technical ones, as happened with stem-cell research.

The difference between the two appears to be widening.  Since the first world values survey in 1981, every western country has shifted markedly along the spectrum towards greater self-expression.  America is no exception.  But on the other spectrum America seems to have become more traditional, rather than less.  The change is only a half-step.  And Italy, Spain and France have taken the same half-step.  But if you look at Europe as a whole, the small movement back towards old-fashioned virtues in big Catholic countries is far outweighed by the stride the other way in post-Protestant countries such as Germany and Sweden.  On average, then, the values gap between America and European countries seems to be widening.

Guilt is always something I associate with religion. Not the lack of it.

Exactly. LACK of religion means LACK of guilt.

To the secularist anything is good as long as it does not hurt others.

Anyone notice that the Middle East isn't on that graph? Except Kuwait, and it too stands far away from the pack much like the US.

I'm sure Saudi Arabia, a very religous and wealthy country as well, wouldn't be near the trendline either.

Religion comforts people for the lack of wellbeing, and thus poorer people as a whole are more religious than wealthier people. That's Sociology 101.

Religion comforts people for the lack of wellbeing, and thus poorer people as a whole are more religious than wealthier people. That's Sociology 101.

It's also what Marx observed: "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Rings true to me. America is the somewhat odd exception.

I wonder if he said that before or after he knocked up his proletarian maid and then fired when she came up preggars?

so you have established that one study which contains maybe 25 countries (then calling it a world average) has some type of relationship b/t wealth and religion.

It just shows a relation...it doesn't show causality

Neo, it's not this study, rather it's the gazillion of previous studies that consitently show how poverty causes religiousness. In times of distress, people attends more to the church, to say so.

Neo, it's not this study, rather it's the gazillion of previous studies that consitently show how poverty causes religiousness. In times of distress, people attends more to the church, to say so.

Gazillion huh?  And all you could produce was that one flimsy inaccurate graph.  Hmmm...

I wonder, why some people here feels a need to oppose the fact that religion comforts people of their poverty and so the poorer they are the more faithful they are? ???

I wonder if religiousity will increase as some of the member states of the EU (Italy, Spain, France, etc.) continue to slip down into poverty?  How do some of you reconcile the fact that high religiosity was present during the golden years of the EU?

BTW Ozwald, minor correction:
"The love of money is the root of all evil."

A more correct translation is:
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

Likely because it is not an established fact.

The examples of the wealthy and religious and poor and irreligious are too prominant.

Are you sure?

And, anyway, what's on stakes for you?

Let's say it was true that poor people is more religious.... what would be wrong with it?

(I know it's becoming a byzantine discussion, but, I am really puzzled that people feels a need to doubt the obvious ...

Innacurate? Somehow I doubt this is a good description. Unless the data is inaccurate, do we have reason to believe it is?

Flimsy? Yes, I would say the presentation is a little flimsy.

That r^2 value I was talking about for the trendline is a description of the strength of correlation. Or in statistical terms, the percentage of the variation in religiosity explained by variation in GDP. There are thresholds at which there is reason to believe it is significant. I could not find a discussion of the strength of correlation, a fairly important concept if we wish to discuss a trend or any sort of regression analysis.

There is almost always a trend, whether that trend is statistically significant is another matter.

Neo brings up the idea of how many countries are involved, also a valid question. I counted 48, which fulfills the standard assumption of a sample of at least 30 cases.


My reasoning is that religiosity and GDP probably are strongly linked, that's what it looks like on the graph. Looks can be deceiving though, and I would be more convinced this was significant enough to talk about a trend if they had presented more of their methodology.

An interesting sidenote about Marx's statement would be the role played by the religious establishment whenever populace has opposed tyranny. I can think of the Argentinean priest recently condemned to perpetual for crimes against humankind he comitted during the dictature...

Then of course atheism certainly never supported the power system, you know, like Soviet commmunism, Maoist communism.  The atheists certainly never ever supported those dictatorships.  ;D

If I may rant for a minute...

This is mt problem with statistics. Not so much the math in and of itself, but the way people try to use it.

Clearly there is a correlation, but instead of asking if that correlation is statistically significant, one side asks why people can't just accept the truth, and the other side claims it's inaccurate, categorically dismissing it.


One of my pet peeves is when people say that "numbers lie", or "the statistics lie". Numbers and statistics do not lie. The neat thing about statistics and numbers is that you do not have to lie to deceive if you know what you are doing, because most people don't.

Then of course atheism certainly never supported the power system, you know, like Soviet commmunism, Maoist communism.  The atheists certainly never ever supported those dictatorships.  ;D

Equating the vastly rich and powerful and influential religions of the world to atheists is absurd. Atheism denotes a lack of an organizing supernatural power and little more.

The ideological underpinnings of the USSR and Maoist China was Communism and personality cults of their leaders. Atheism itself was merely the characteristic of its leaders, not an organizing principle in and of itself.

I bow to your significant knowledge of statistics. I'm surprised that you would question the statistical significance (I understand that that is a term with a precise meaning) of the graph on the one hand, but observe that there is a clear correlation, on the other.

If you don't mind, I'm curious how a graph could be one but not the other.

I appreciate your last point. I will try to remember that.

(http://evolutionspace.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/167-2.gif)
jpn, here is an example of what I was talking about. Obviously, the line looks like it "fits" to a small degree, but think about the distance between these points, and the distance between the trend-line and the points on the plot you showed. To refine my example here, the strength of correlation is greater for the curve trend than for the linear trend, that much is obvious to me. Incidentally, this relative r^2 values of linear, binomial and polynomial trend-lines is a determining factor in which sort of equation to use for the best fit "line". Keep in mind that this is not the same dataset, it's based on different variables (thought there most likely is some linkage). I think it serves as a good example though.




Baldar, I know the issue has been raised before about China's exclusion or inclusion in this plot, but a glance at the topline (raw data file) available from jpn's link shows the values for the data in China. Most likely, it must be an issue of graphs being separated from the legend that explains this issue. In the study summary file, also from jpn's link, the pic ofis problemaph is situated next to an explanation. Asia is marked with brown dots. I haven't gotten the impression that China was excluded in any way. What you claim, (that China is very irreligious) may in fact be represented by one of the two brown dots located near the values for the European groupings.

(http://www.economist.com/images/20030104/CSF914.gif)

an excerpt...

Europeans and Americans dispute some values and share others.  But one can do better than that.  Consider the third recent report, the world values survey run by the University of Michigan.

This survey goes back a long way.  The university has been sending out hundreds of questions for the past 25 years (it now covers 78 countries with 85% of the world's population).  Its distinctive feature is the way it organises the replies.  It arranges them in two broad categories.  The first it calls traditional values; the second, values of self-expression.

The survey defines “traditional values” as those of religion, family and country.  Traditionalists say religion is important in their lives.  They have a strong sense of national pride, think children should be taught to obey and that the first duty of a child is to make his or her parents proud.  They say abortion, euthanasia, divorce and suicide are never justifiable.  At the other end of this spectrum are "secular-rational" values: they emphasise the opposite qualities.

The other category looks at “quality of life” attributes.  At one end of this spectrum are the values people hold when the struggle for survival is uppermost: they say that economic and physical security are more important than self-expression.  People who cannot take food or safety for granted tend to dislike foreigners, homosexuals and people with AIDS.  They are wary of any form of political activity, even signing a petition.  And they think men make better political leaders than women.  "Self-expression" values are the opposite.

Obviously, these ideas overlap.  The difference between the two is actually rooted in an academic theory of development (not that it matters).  The notion is that industrialisation turns traditional societies into secular-rational ones, while post-industrial development brings about a shift towards values of self-expression.

The usefulness of dividing the broad subject of “values” in this way can be seen by plotting countries on a chart whose axes are the two spectrums.  The chart alongside (click to enlarge it) shows how the countries group: as you would expect, poor countries, with low self-expression and high levels of traditionalism, are at the bottom left, richer Europeans to the top right.

But America's position is odd.  On the quality-of-life axis, it is like Europe: a little more "self-expressive" than Catholic countries, such as France and Italy, a little less so than Protestant ones such as Holland or Sweden.  This is more than a matter of individual preference.  The "quality of life" axis is the one most closely associated with political and economic freedoms.  So Mr Bush is right when he claims that Americans and European share common values of democracy and freedom and that these have broad implications because, at root, alliances are built on such common interests.

But now look at America's position on the traditional-secular axis.  It is far more traditional than any west European country except Ireland.  It is more traditional than any place at all in central or Eastern Europe.  America is near the bottom-right corner of the chart, a strange mix of tradition and self-expression.

Americans are the most patriotic people in the survey: 72% say they are very proud of their country (and this bit of the poll was taken before September 2001).  That puts America in the same category as India and Turkey.  The survey reckons religious attitudes are the single most important component of traditionalism.  On that score, Americans are closer to Nigerians and Turks than Germans or Swedes.

Of course, America is hardly monolithic.  It is strikingly traditional on average.  But, to generalise wildly, that average is made up of two Americas: one that is almost as secular as Europe (and tends to vote Democratic), and one that is more traditionalist than the average (and tends to vote Republican).

But even this makes America more distinctive.  Partly because America is divided in this way, its domestic political debate revolves around values to a much greater extent than in Europe.  Political affiliation there is based less on income than on church-going, attitudes to abortion and attitudes to race.  In America, even technical matters become moral questions.  It is almost impossible to have a debate about gun registration without it becoming an argument about the right to self-defence.  In Europe, even moral questions are sometimes treated as technical ones, as happened with stem-cell research.

The difference between the two appears to be widening.  Since the first world values survey in 1981, every western country has shifted markedly along the spectrum towards greater self-expression.  America is no exception.  But on the other spectrum America seems to have become more traditional, rather than less.  The change is only a half-step.  And Italy, Spain and France have taken the same half-step.  But if you look at Europe as a whole, the small movement back towards old-fashioned virtues in big Catholic countries is far outweighed by the stride the other way in post-Protestant countries such as Germany and Sweden.  On average, then, the values gap between America and European countries seems to be widening.

If you subscribe to the Economist, here is full article:

Linky--> http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TVTTRTN

Doesn't take a genius or any special study to know that the poor and undedicated are more religious. 

Religion and ignorance are best friends.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I didn't plot that one. It's actually a slightly different variable I found graphed from google image search and forgot to link it.

I wonder, why some people here feels a need to oppose the fact that religion comforts people of their poverty and so the poorer they are the more faithful they are? ???

What is amazing, at least in the US, is that religious people, even though poorer, give more of their money and time than secular people do.

Per capita, Baldar?

There are more religous people out there than atheists, so doesn't it make sense that they give more? Also, do you really think church earnings would be as high if they weren't  shoving that brass colection plate in your face?

Data? Source?

Thank you for such a detailed response. It's been a busy weekend--trip to Pullman to help the Cougs pull out an upset win over UCLA and other odds and ends.
So I take it that your point was that although there was apparently a correlation, you just would appreciate being told what the statistical significance of that correlation is.

Not quite.  The correlation may have nothing to do with cause effect, it may, it may and still be statistically inignificant in the overall view, or it may not and statistically insignificant.  The correlation may just as easily be coincidental without any real view or stance overall.

Then of course assumptions play into it.  How are religions classified versus personal philosophies?

Book called "Who really cares".  Written by someone who is secular and it was written with the idea that those on the left were giving more to help the poor.  The individual was astounded by the data, decided to run with it anyway.

20/20 also ran a series on it(and we all know what a right wing nazi organization 20/20 is).  It was there news stories that intrigued me so I purchased the book.

Book called "Who really cares".  Written by someone who is secular and it was written with the idea that those on the left were giving more to help the poor.  The individual was astounded by the data, decided to run with it anyway.

He's "secular"? Reference please?

You confuse religious with right, and areligious with left. The only truly religious people (as opposed to hate-filled church-going gay-bashers, for example) I know are all left of center politically. And there are lots of them.

So your line is that a dedicated conservative (e.g., works for the American Enterprise Institute...oh, and who is "secular") went to write a book about how left-wingers give more to the poor than the right?
Sure. I believe that. Uh-huh. Happens every day. Why wouldn't a dedicated conservative go to write a book about how great the left is? What else to conservatives have to do to keep themselves busy?

If these are the stories you pathetic, greedy conservatives with your tortured souls need to tell youselves, go ahead. If there is a god, she's damned you all a long time ago. (I think you're in luck though. I think there is no god, no heaven, no hell, no spirits, no ghosts. Not even tooth fairies. And...you better hope I'm right.)

Church attendence?

Not a great source of "religousosity", in my opinion.

110% agree'd

Way to miss the point.

Plenty of people go to church who lack faith... and plenty of people with faith don't go to church. To measure a person's faith by how often they go to church is like measuring a kid's education because of how many days they went to school.