Least and most religious nations

[Thorne]

Curious about the basis here. Living in Canada which I guess comes in between US and the Scandinavian countries when it comes to religion and your daily life, I've never seen 'education' being a factor for people being atheist or even agnostic here.

From my observations (limited though they may be), I feel that the more people learn about religions, all religions, not just their own, the less they are likely to be taken in by them. I've read several articles by graduates of seminary schools who say it is virtually impossible for an intelligent person to get through graduate school and retain his faith.

Also, the more you learn about the real world, and science in particular, the more you realize how bizarre and unrealistic religious dogma is. While science can not prove there are no gods, it can show that the gods who are worshiped around the world cannot possibly exist as defined by their religions. One reason the Catholic Church tried to prevent the Bible form being published in the vernacular was to keep the faithful from actually reading it and learning how screwed up and contradictory it is, and how evil and nasty their God is.

With the exception of some countries, I feel that religion is prevalent just because that's the last bit of hope and structure people can hold on to. Whether it's false or not, it's still more reliable then corrupt politicians, coorporations that seek to exploit whatever resources available for it's own needs and just general shittyness of living in terrible conditions. I feel it's human nature to reach out to a deity when that's the only option you have. Seeing the conditions of how millions live in a poor country like Pakistan, religion (whatever they believe in) might be the only thing keeping these people from complete dispair.

I see it differently. Based on my own experience being raised in the Catholic Church, and on what I have learned over the years, religions are more useful in keeping people down than in helping them to rise up. For thousands of years the powers-that-be have used religion to control their populations, keeping themselves in control while making rebellion a sin which will keep you from whatever redemption the religion has to offer. I see virtually all religions as being oppressive, trying to keep people in their places rather than helping them to improve themselves. Again, an intelligent, educated population is a dangerous population. They can learn to see the fallacies behind the religions, and the politics. Teaching people they cannot improve themselves without God's help only makes them less likely to really try to improve. And, especially in the Catholic Church, forbidding any form of birth control almost guarantees large families which keeps a poorer population.

It is human nature to seek some kind of explanation for things we don't understand, and lacking any real understanding of some natural event it's very easy to ascribe it to some supernatural being. Yet history has shown that almost every such godlike power can be explained, without resorting to the supernatural. Disease was once considered a punishment sent by God: it is now understood to be a natural occurrence, and something which can be controlled, to a greater or lesser degree, without the need of prayer or gods. Lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, were all once thought to be sent by gods. We now know better. (Or at least we should. Some nuts still try to claim that natural events were sent by gods. It seems their gods have very poor aim, though.)

The more we learn about the real world, the less room there is for supernatural explanations. Teaching our children how the world really works will be far more beneficial for their futures than burdening them with superstitions.

[thir]

From my observations (limited though they may be), I feel that the more people learn about religions, all religions, not just their own, the less they are likely to be taken in by them.

I do not see it that way. A lot of people search for something meaningful in various religions, and choose one that fulfil their needs the most.

I've read several articles by graduates of seminary schools who say it is virtually impossible for an intelligent person to get through graduate school and retain his faith.

Interesting. Do you still have a link to one?

Also, the more you learn about the real world, and science in particular, the more you realize how bizarre and unrealistic religious dogma is.

Ah, here we are again :-)
But being able to explain how things work does not nessecarily have anything to do with who or what makes it so, right? A religious scientist would simpy marvel at Gods infinite creativity!

You are back to some people saying "it works like that because it works like that" and some would say "it works like that because someone made it so."
And there you are.

One reason the Catholic Church tried to prevent the Bible form being published in the vernacular was to keep the faithful from actually reading it and learning how screwed up and contradictory it is, and how evil and nasty their God is.

It is hard to see any other reason but oppression for such a way to conduct a service. Religion was for people in the know, and the rest could just stand there and feel stupid, and or frightened/awed!

I see it differently. Based on my own experience being raised in the Catholic Church, and on what I have learned over the years, religions are more useful in keeping people down than in helping them to rise up. For thousands of years the powers-that-be have used religion to control their populations, keeping themselves in control while making rebellion a sin which will keep you from whatever redemption the religion has to offer.

Or get you killed. Yes, dogmatic religions are certainly excellent tools for control. And yet people - some people - maybe those who love their gods rather than fear them - manage to get something out of religion that is good for them.

Again, I think the whole problem is in dogmatism. As soon as a religion is forced on someone, it is no better than facism.
A private religion is a private matter, and no threat to anyone.

Again, an intelligent, educated population is a dangerous population.

YES! And not just for religious power mongers. I ask myself why education so often has nothing to do with learning to think, and why tv is so brain dead and tame. Even in our so-called democratic societies the government does not want people to think. Religion has little hold, but there are other ways to manipulate.

A discussion of democracy would be very interesting indeed!

[quite]
Teaching people they cannot improve themselves without God's help only makes them less likely to really try to improve.
[/quite]

Actually, that may work the opposite way. "You can do this, God will help you."

And, especially in the Catholic Church, forbidding any form of birth control almost guarantees large families which keeps a poorer population.

Forbidding birth control is one of the biggest sins I can think of! The world is groaning under a much, much too big human population.

[quote}
It is human nature to seek some kind of explanation for things we don't understand, and lacking any real understanding of some natural event it's very easy to ascribe it to some supernatural being.
[/quote]

See above. And, while natural explanations are incredibly valuable, they do not nessecarily take the place of spiritual needs.

Disease was once considered a punishment sent by God: it is now understood to be a natural occurrence, and something which can be controlled, to a greater or lesser degree, without the need of prayer or gods. Lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, were all once thought to be sent by gods. We now know better. (Or at least we should. Some nuts still try to claim that natural events were sent by gods. It seems their gods have very poor aim, though.)

Well, I think what you are not taking into consideration here is that whether or not you understand the disease/earthquake/flood that kills you or your kin, your fear them as forces which in many cases are out of your control. We simply cannot control all nature, and what we cannot control we often fear. So understanding or not, we are just as dead!

That brings us to the argument of gods to help with these matters. When all else fails, even atheists sometimes pray. Because you have to do something.

As a side issue, I do not think that humans have a right to be safe.

Teaching our children how the world really works will be far more beneficial for their futures than burdening them with superstitions.

They are not nessecarily mutually exclusive. Only when we talk dogmatic religions. - and in such cases I entirely agree.

[leo9]

From my observations (limited though they may be), I feel that the more people learn about religions, all religions, not just their own, the less they are likely to be taken in by them.

If you mean exposure to a wide variety, I don't see evidence for this. For example, most of today's British Muslims have, whether they wanted it or not, been exposed to calculatedly multi-cutural religious studies from primary school. The result, in many cases, seems to have been to make them much more devout believers than their parents for whom Islam was just the way things were.

I've read several articles by graduates of seminary schools who say it is virtually impossible for an intelligent person to get through graduate school and retain his faith.

I'm not clear if you mean seminary school or college in general?

Also, the more you learn about the real world, and science in particular, the more you realize how bizarre and unrealistic religious dogma is. While science can not prove there are no gods, it can show that the gods who are worshiped around the world cannot possibly exist as defined by their religions.

Obviously, in the crude sense that you can't treat science and any creation myth as co-existing descriptions of the material world. But religions have been coping with that ever since people discovered that there weren't really any gods at the top of Mount Olympus.

You underestimate the human ability to hold contradictory beliefs in parallel. Doublethink is a normal and necessary part of human nature, even scientists have to do it. Quantum mechanics and relativistic physics are not compatible as descriptions of the world, but very few scientists conclude that one of them must be false; they just accept that each description is true (or, to be strictly accurate, "the best working description of reality we have so far") in its proper context. Plenty of us are equally able to accept that materialism and religion are each true in their proper context, even though, like quantum and relativity, they contradict each other if we try to apply them together.

One reason the Catholic Church tried to prevent the Bible form being published in the vernacular was to keep the faithful from actually reading it and learning how screwed up and contradictory it is, and how evil and nasty their God is.

At the time, it had more to do with keeping people from finding how much there was in it about exalting the poor, and putting God's laws before the state's, and everyone being equal in the sight of God, and subversive stuff like that. It led to massive social upheavals led by fanatical believers who had read the book from cover to cover, and only lost faith in the established Church and State.

I see virtually all religions as being oppressive, trying to keep people in their places rather than helping them to improve themselves. Again, an intelligent, educated population is a dangerous population. They can learn to see the fallacies behind the religions, and the politics.

History doesn't bear you out. In the golden age of Islam, Muslims were far better educated than Europeans, but their faith was no weaker. When Europeans became better educated, it led to Protestantism, not materialism; a Church led by a handful of fanatics was replaced by one with fanatics in every little chapel. And, of course, for a thousand years Europe's Jews were the most highly educated people, but didn't lose their faith in consequence.

Teaching people they cannot improve themselves without God's help only makes them less likely to really try to improve.

There are countless examples of people who have improved themselves because they believed that they had God's help. I am totally neutral on the question of whether they actually had any supernatural aid: all I'm saying is that, by their own testimony, their faith didn't hold them back, it helped them on.

And, especially in the Catholic Church, forbidding any form of birth control almost guarantees large families which keeps a poorer population.

True, but mostly irrelevant to the topic. Your insistence on seeing all forms of religion as slightly different versions of your birth faith constantly misleads you.

The more we learn about the real world, the less room there is for supernatural explanations. Teaching our children how the world really works will be far more beneficial for their futures than burdening them with superstitions.

Unless we're talking about creationists, or the religious opponents of sex education, this is a straw man. My children, and everyone else's, learn science. Whether they also learn religion is a separate issue.

[lucy]

If you mean exposure to a wide variety, I don't see evidence for this. For example, most of today's British Muslims have, whether they wanted it or not, been exposed to calculatedly multi-cutural religious studies from primary school. The result, in many cases, seems to have been to make them much more devout believers than their parents for whom Islam was just the way things were.

That, as a matter of fact, has very little to do with exposure to other religions but a lot with embracing their own culture and religion in an environment that is both alien and sometimes even hostile.
Same happens to Ex-Yugoslavs when they emigrate to Switzerland, as well as probably Latinos when they emigrate to the US. Second and even third generations of immigrants are often much more conservative when it comes to their culture and religion than their parents or grandparents who originally emigrated.

I don't think that natural resources is a helpful idea here. Western Europe is more or less devoid of any natural resouces (no need to take into account the little bit of coal Germany and France produce, because it isn't even chickenshit compared to their economic output), yet it is here were we find the lowest rates of theists/religious people.
Per capita income and especially it's distribution is most likely a better marker. But ultimately I believe that the downfall of religions in western Europe is a result of hedonism. I wouldn't even say that people believe less, but they believe less in a certain religion. Instead, they pick whatever damn well they please, be it a little bit buddhism there, a little bit cabalism there and of course tons of esoteric hocus pocus, all that based on christian believes they once learned about in school.

At least that's the impression I get when I look around at my friends. Most of them do believe in something, but don't really have a clue in what they believe.

[Thorne]

But ultimately I believe that the downfall of religions in western Europe is a result of hedonism.

I don't know if I'd go that far. I think it has more to do with people rejecting organized religion because it's ultimately proven to be bad for modern society. Retaining their faith in some kind of gods is one thing, but accepting some lunatic preachers' definitions of what god they should believe in is something else again.

Most of them do believe in something, but don't really have a clue in what they believe.

That's because most people NEED to believe in something. That doesn't give them the right to tell me what I have to believe in, though. As long as they keep it to themselves, we can get along fine.

[thir]

That, as a matter of fact, has very little to do with exposure to other religions but a lot with embracing their own culture and religion in an environment that is both alien and sometimes even hostile.

Good point. That does happen a lot, and very natural too. I even think that the religion becomes the culture, whether people are very relgious or not. An identity marker, as it were.

Same happens to Ex-Yugoslavs when they emigrate to Switzerland, as well as probably Latinos when they emigrate to the US. Second and even third generations of immigrants are often much more conservative when it comes to their culture and religion than their parents or grandparents who originally emigrated.

That, however, does suprise me. What I was taught was the parents and grandparents were very conservative - as we talked about above they are the ones who experience the cultural shock on entering a new country - but research shows that after 3-4 generations most people have adopted the identity of the now homecountry.

But ultimately I believe that the downfall of religions in western Europe is a result of hedonism.

Commercialism, materialism, indulgence-culture..
Your primal function in life is to BUY.

I wouldn't even say that people believe less, but they believe less in a certain religion. Instead, they pick whatever damn well they please, be it a little bit buddhism there, a little bit cabalism there and of course tons of esoteric hocus pocus, all that based on christian believes they once learned about in school.

Nonsense. The new (or old) pagan religions are not based on Christianity - rather the other way around.

At least that's the impression I get when I look around at my friends. Most of them do believe in something, but don't really have a clue in what they believe.

And that is the impression people get when they are used to dogmatic religions.
However, I think the important thing here is that dogmatic religions tend to diminish with better conditions, but non-dogmatic religions or spiritualism are still there - or again there.

[Thorne]

If you mean exposure to a wide variety, I don't see evidence for this. For example, most of today's British Muslims have, whether they wanted it or not, been exposed to calculatedly multi-cutural religious studies from primary school. The result, in many cases, seems to have been to make them much more devout believers than their parents for whom Islam was just the way things were.

I'm not sure of the schooling available in Britain, so I don't know what kind of in-depth studies they have available for younger students. Here in the US there are virtually none. Any religious instructions, outside of religious schools themselves are invariably Christian, and illegal. As lucy pointed out, this kind of teaching would tend to alienate rather than educate non-Christians, making them cling more tightly to their religion.

I'm not clear if you mean seminary school or college in general?

I mean seminary school.

Obviously, in the crude sense that you can't treat science and any creation myth as co-existing descriptions of the material world. But religions have been coping with that ever since people discovered that there weren't really any gods at the top of Mount Olympus.

Yes, generally by denying the science for as long as they can, then, when forced to accept it, giving gods credit for it anyway.

Quantum mechanics and relativistic physics are not compatible as descriptions of the world, but very few scientists conclude that one of them must be false; they just accept that each description is true (or, to be strictly accurate, "the best working description of reality we have so far") in its proper context.

The key point here is, "proper context". Quantum mechanics applies primarily to sub-microscopic matter while relativity is more properly applied to larger structures and forces. Just as Newtonian physics is perfectly adequate to describe most non-relativistic motions, while breaking down at relativistic speeds. Each in their proper context will provide a testable, predictable description of the universe. Religion, on the other hand, is neither testable or predictable, and does not provide even an approximation of the real world.

At the time, it had more to do with keeping people from finding how much there was in it about exalting the poor, and putting God's laws before the state's, and everyone being equal in the sight of God, and subversive stuff like that.

Precisely. Too much knowledge is, in the view of religion, a bad thing! When people learn that their Church is not following the very book which it claims to be based upon, people will be upset.

It led to massive social upheavals led by fanatical believers who had read the book from cover to cover, and only lost faith in the established Church and State.

And they established their own religions, which were equally inadequate in explaining the real world, and which diverged just as badly from the Bible over time.

History doesn't bear you out. In the golden age of Islam, Muslims were far better educated than Europeans, but their faith was no weaker.

I believe you will find that the golden age you speak of began dying out after Muhammad and the advent of Islam, not gaining strength from it. Indeed, the case might be made that Islam is responsible for the decline of the Arab world, rather than its savior.

for a thousand years Europe's Jews were the most highly educated people, but didn't lose their faith in consequence.

For that same thousand years the Jews were the most persecuted people in Europe, and elsewhere. That tends to drive people back to their faith, not away from it.

There are countless examples of people who have improved themselves because they believed that they had God's help.

And more examples of people who have improved themselves without submitting to superstition. But having faith in God's help is not the same as following a specific religion. Faith can help support people, certainly. And if they want to put that faith in an imaginary friend instead of in themselves, more power to them.

Your insistence on seeing all forms of religion as slightly different versions of your birth faith constantly misleads you.

I try not to do this, but I freely admit that I am far more familiar with Roman Catholicism than any other religions.

Unless we're talking about creationists, or the religious opponents of sex education, this is a straw man. My children, and everyone else's, learn science.

Our children will only continue to learn science as long as we can keep the religions out of the schools. See Texas for how well that's working. Or look at some of the anti-science crap coming from the newly elected Congress.

Whether they also learn religion is a separate issue.

Personally, I think it's wrong to teach children religious dogma, since at their age such teaching is tantamount to brainwashing. Unless, of course, you are willing to teach them about ALL religions, and about the history of religions. Good luck getting that past the churches, though.

[thir]

Any religious instructions, outside of religious schools themselves are invariably Christian, and illegal.

In all states?

Yes, generally by denying the science for as long as they can, then, when forced to accept it, giving gods credit for it anyway.

Yep! :-)

Precisely. Too much knowledge is, in the view of religion, a bad thing! When people learn that their Church is not following the very book which it claims to be based upon, people will be upset.

Or, to put it another way, as I see it: when people discover that the church is simply a power structure with little to do with the person who founded it, they leave it.

I believe you will find that the golden age you speak of began dying out after Muhammad and the advent of Islam, not gaining strength from it. Indeed, the case might be made that Islam is responsible for the decline of the Arab world, rather than its savior.

Actually, Mohammad founded Islam in the 4th century, and the "Golden age" of Islam with science and math, which we btw owe a lot to, was from mid 7th cemtury to mid 13th century.

Our children will only continue to learn science as long as we can keep the religions out of the schools. See Texas for how well that's working. Or look at some of the anti-science crap coming from the newly elected Congress.

I heard a bit about that, and it seems - no offence meant - quite Medieval to me!

Personally, I think it's wrong to teach children religious dogma, since at their age such teaching is tantamount to brainwashing.

Me too.

[Thorne]

In all states?

Technically it's illegal to teach religion in any public schools (separation of church and state) but as far as I know there's no real way to enforce this except by filing a lawsuit against the school (or school district) in question. There have been teachers who have stepped outside of their curriculum and taught religious instruction, even if only for brief periods. Invariably these are Christian teachers, at least the ones we hear about.

Or, to put it another way, as I see it: when people discover that the church is simply a power structure with little to do with the person who founded it, they leave it.

Yes, they do. But when people actually read the Bible (or Quran, or almost any religious text) and see the contradictions and downright insanity written there they tend to become somewhat miffed at being misled.

Actually, Mohammad founded Islam in the 4th century, and the "Golden age" of Islam with science and math, which we btw owe a lot to, was from mid 7th cemtury to mid 13th century.

Yes, you're right. Sorry, I was thinking more about the Arab culture in general, not Islam specifically.

I heard a bit about that, and it seems - no offence meant - quite Medieval to me!

Exactly! These people want to take us back into the dark ages, to the good old days of feudalism and the Inquisition. Anyone who doesn't believe just as they do is automatically guilty.