Least and most religious nations

[leo9]

From an article in the Danish magazine "Indland" (translated by Google Toolbar, but readable.)

(Article from Thistle, Google toolbar operated by Leo9)

Denmark is the world's least religious country

By Lasse SHUTTLE

Published at 24.09.10. 20:50

Only every fifth Dane considers religion as an important part of everyday life.

A new Gallup poll shows that religion plays a crucial role in the daily lives of 84 per cent. of the planet's population.

But not with the Danes.

Here is the picture turn completely reversed - 81 per cent. of Danes consider not religion as an important part of their everyday lives.

And that makes Denmark the world's least religious country in the world along with Estonia (84 per cent.) And Sweden (83 percent)..
Poorest countries are most religious

The survey, conducted during 2009, based on interviews with adult residents in 114 countries. And the main conclusion is that religion fills most of the poorest nations.

Thus is poor countries like Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Yemen top the list. Around 99 per cent. people of the countries have religion as an indispensable aspect of their lives.

"One theory is that religion plays a more functional role in the world's poorest countries, where faith helps people to cope with the daily struggle to support themselves and their families. A former Gallup analysis supports this idea. Last year we completed the following a three-year analysis that showed that the relationship between religiosity and emotional well-being is strongest in poor countries, "said Gallup editor Steve Crabtree.
U.S. stands out

United States differs markedly from the usual picture. The country is among the richest countries in the world, but still indicates 65 per cent. of Americans that religion is important in their daily lives.

Other high income countries, where religion is considered as important, are Italy, Greece, Singapore and countries in the Persian Gulf.

It's a common experience that interest in formal religion falls as a country gets more prosperous, but the exceptions are more interesting than the rule. My guess would be that the key index is not prosperity in the crude measure of GDP or average income, but material security. Denmark and Sweden, despite falling victim to voodoo economics in recent years, have a history of being leaders in the welfare state. I suggest that the counter-examples are countries where, despite a high GDP, a weak welfare or social security system or an uncertain job market undermines the average citizen's security in life.

Considering that Scandinavia has such a solid Asatro movement, it would be fascinating if they could refine the study to distinguish between established religions and private spiritualities. I suspect that a lot of people who marked "religion unimportant" simply meant they didn't go to church (or mosque or temple).

[Thorne]

It's a common experience that interest in formal religion falls as a country gets more prosperous, but the exceptions are more interesting than the rule. My guess would be that the key index is not prosperity in the crude measure of GDP or average income, but material security. Denmark and Sweden, despite falling victim to voodoo economics in recent years, have a history of being leaders in the welfare state. I suggest that the counter-examples are countries where, despite a high GDP, a weak welfare or social security system or an uncertain job market undermines the average citizen's security in life.

While I'm sure that these facets contribute to the lack of religion, I would be more inclined to believe that it is education which is primarily responsible. And politics, of course. In many of the poorer countries religion is at least encouraged by the state, if not actually mandated. Islamic countries, both rich and poor, mandate religion and the penalties for apostasy or heresy are as barbaric as they are deadly.

In the US, in particular, the religious groups have only recently seen their hold on the education systems being contested and diminished. They continue to fight back, sometimes successfully (Texas, for example). But the trend is still downward. Religious organizations are showing steadily declining memberships, with some losing as much as 70% of those children born into the religion.

I think we will find that those nations which have historically been very religious, and in which religion has infiltrated (or taken over) the government will have the higher rates of religious populations. Or perhaps it's just that those populations are more afraid of denying their religion, even in an anonymous poll?

Considering that Scandinavia has such a solid Asatro movement, it would be fascinating if they could refine the study to distinguish between established religions and private spiritualities. I suspect that a lot of people who marked "religion unimportant" simply meant they didn't go to church (or mosque or temple).

Spirituality is different than religion. You don't have to kowtow to a formal religion to be spiritual. Spirituality, like superstition, is inherent in humanity, a part of our genetic make-up. Understanding our world was, and is, an important survival mechanism for humans. Making up stories of gods and spirits and demons was one way to explain those things which we did not have the tools to study. In some religious groups they still do this. They fill in the gaps in our knowledge with their gods.

There was a talk given by the astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson where he talks of this. The basic idea is that spirituality, and religion, are basically a means for the human mind to fill the gaps in our knowledge. We create the gods in our own image, and modify them to suit our needs and the world around us.

[MMI]

Deleted

[CuddleDom]

The problem with comparing Scandinavia with religious countries is what country are you making a fair comparison too?
It should be one with the same ratio of natural resources to population and not suffering the ravages of colonialism.

[lucy]

It should be one with the same ratio of natural resources to population and not suffering the ravages of colonialism.

What's the connection between the ratio of natural resources to population got to do with the percentage of people who declare themselves as religious?
Coming to think of it, what has colonialism to do with it?
I'm really just curious.

[Thorne]

What's the connection between the ratio of natural resources to population got to do with the percentage of people who declare themselves as religious?
Coming to think of it, what has colonialism to do with it?
I'm really just curious.

This is just off the top of my head, but it seems to me that countries with a high ratio of natural resources to population would have a higher per capita income than a country with a low ratio. Higher income generally means better health and better living conditions, which reduces the hold which a religion can gain on the population. Historically, religious organizations have been used to control the poor to keep the rich happy. A financially stable population has more reason to enjoy their lives and less need to look to an afterlife.

The same applies, to some extent, to colonial countries. Most of the resources are taken by the colonizing people, with little remaining for the natives. Coupled with generally repressive missionary activities, the poor population becomes heavily religious.

Sorry, no evidence to support this, just my take from what I know of history.

[lucy]

Thanks, Torq, but this theory doesn't make too much sense. I'm pretty sure that with the exception of Norway all Scandinavian countries are pretty low on natural resources, yet they all are among the richest countries. Same goes for Switzerland, which is literally bare of any natural resources, except of water, wood and rocks. Yet, although I don't have exact figures and have to rely on personal experience, I'd say that only a small minority of Swiss are religious.
On the other side there are countries like Saudi Arabia or most of the gulf states, most of them high among the richest countries in the world when it comes to natural resources (and per capita income). Yet they are about as religious as it gets.

So, no, your explanation isn't really satisfying.

[Thorne]

When talking of natural resources don't forget tourism. I know Switzerland gets a lot of tourists, and they have their banking industry, which is a man-made resource. I assume the Scandinavian countries get a lot of tourists as well, seeking the beautiful countryside. And doesn't Norway have claims to some of the North Sea Oil?

As for the Middle East countries, how much of their income actually goes to the people? They are mostly monarchies, where they are not outright dictatorships. The relatively few rich people make the bulk of the income. Plus, Islam right now is reminiscent of the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages: believe or die. I wonder how many would choose to remain faithful if actually given the free choice.

[CuddleDom]

What's the connection between the ratio of natural resources to population got to do with the percentage of people who declare themselves as religious?
Coming to think of it, what has colonialism to do with it?
I'm really just curious.

Sorry I should have made myself clearer.

It is not the correlation between religousness and natural resources. Rather that when comparing atheistic nations to theistic nations one has to take into account their natural resources and history of being plundared.

Also Geothermal energy which is a major natural resouces is used in Scandinivian countries like Sweden and Iceland. While Norway has Oil form the north sea.

[CuddleDom]

Countries like Saudia Arabia fall into post-colonised nations. Till after WW2 they were occupied and now dominated by an elite. So have not had a democratic or other people's revolution to redistribute wealth.

[CuddleDom]

When talking of natural resources don't forget tourism. I know Switzerland gets a lot of tourists, and they have their banking industry, which is a man-made resource. I assume the Scandinavian countries get a lot of tourists as well, seeking the beautiful countryside. And doesn't Norway have claims to some of the North Sea Oil?

As for the Middle East countries, how much of their income actually goes to the people? They are mostly monarchies, where they are not outright dictatorships. The relatively few rich people make the bulk of the income. Plus, Islam right now is reminiscent of the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages: believe or die. I wonder how many would choose to remain faithful if actually given the free choice.

Natural resources also include timber which these countries are rich in. Hence why they had no need to colonise as a means of bringing in resources for the purpose of industrialisation.

Yes Islam is still in it's teens (counting a religion in centuries) and is much like Christianity at the same age. So it is almost impossible to get accurate census on how many are actually religious.

[Lion]

While I'm sure that these facets contribute to the lack of religion, I would be more inclined to believe that it is education which is primarily responsible.

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.

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.

[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]

" Only every fifth Dane considers religion as an important part of everyday life.

Here is the picture turn completely reversed - 81 per cent. of Danes consider not religion as an important part of their everyday lives."

If not for emigrants, this percent would be higher.

One thing that has educated me about other countries is the fact that for so many people religion is for real. I grew up with the notion that religion was not something anyone took seriously, plus the whole topic was more than a little embaressing. It took a long time for me to take in that religion is a reality for a big part of the world, and that in all the really dogmatic countries it determines people's fate. This in spite of the fact that Christianity is the 'state religion', which in this case is simply habit. Very few people take it seriously in DK, so 'religion' as a real concept was something I had in fact never encountered and took a lot of time getting my head around.

"Poorest countries are most religious,
"One theory is that religion plays a more functional role in the world's poorest countries, where faith helps people to cope with the daily struggle to support themselves and their families. A former Gallup analysis supports this idea. Last year we completed the following a three-year analysis that showed that the relationship between religiosity and emotional well-being is strongest in poor countries, "said Gallup editor Steve Crabtree."

Or maybe the history of the land shows that the rulers took up a certain religion for their own purposes, and the citizens had to follow suit. This way the religion would serve as both the instrument to keep people down (there is always a reason why a ruler accepts a new religion) but would also, in many cases, be the only comfort.

Leo9:
" It's a common experience that interest in formal religion falls as a country gets more prosperous, but the exceptions are more interesting than the rule. My guess would be that the key index is not prosperity in the crude measure of GDP or average income, but material security. Denmark and Sweden, despite falling victim to voodoo economics in recent years, have a history of being leaders in the welfare state. I suggest that the counter-examples are countries where, despite a high GDP, a weak welfare or social security system or an uncertain job market undermines the average citizen's security in life."

I think that is definitly part of it.
But it is also noteworthy that the run-away materialism eventually lead to new kinds of religions and spiritualism. Well fed and free people who simply found something lacking.

" Considering that Scandinavia has such a solid Asatro movement, "

Actually, the Asatro movement is quite small in terms of numbers. I think without the emigrants and their religions the Asatro would never have been accepted and allowed to marry people. All religion - before the emigrants - being considered a bit of a joke.

[thir]

While I'm sure that these facets contribute to the lack of religion, I would be more inclined to believe that it is education which is primarily responsible.

Yes, but education and prosperity hangs together. Poor people often do not get educated.

And politics, of course. In many of the poorer countries religion is at least encouraged by the state, if not actually mandated. Islamic countries, both rich and poor, mandate religion and the penalties for apostasy or heresy are as barbaric as they are deadly.

Absolutely! In fact, as I see it, it would be extremely difficult to find out how many people would be religious if they had a choice, since they do not.

In the US, in particular, the religious groups have only recently seen their hold on the education systems being contested and diminished. They continue to fight back, sometimes successfully (Texas, for example). But the trend is still downward. Religious organizations are showing steadily declining memberships, with some losing as much as 70% of those children born into the religion.

So why do you think that is?

[thir]

This is just off the top of my head, but it seems to me that countries with a high ratio of natural resources to population would have a higher per capita income than a country with a low ratio.

As has been said elsewhere, the picture is muddled by the fact that per capita income is really fiction and income can, in reality, vary enormously.

Higher income generally means better health and better living conditions, which reduces the hold which a religion can gain on the population. Historically, religious organizations have been used to control the poor to keep the rich happy. A financially stable population has more reason to enjoy their lives and less need to look to an afterlife.

I would agree that good living conditions and education reduces the hold of dogmatic religions. People are less dependent on a god's goodwill, and more inclined to crave more freedom. This has been seen often enough.

But it does not mean that nobody wants religion. As said earlier, in DK, US and UK, and quite possibly other places, the dogmatic religions are simply, in some cases, replaced with undogmatic ones. "Freedom religions" you might call them. They do not convert, they do not seek power, there is nothing between whatever people believe in and themselves, and nobody, but nobody, tells them what to think ;-)

The same applies, to some extent, to colonial countries. Most of the resources are taken by the colonizing people, with little remaining for the natives. Coupled with generally repressive missionary activities, the poor population becomes heavily religious.

I am afraid that is a most shameful fact.

[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.

[Thorne]

Yes, but education and prosperity hangs together. Poor people often do not get educated.

This is true, and in many places around the world, those poor who are educated are taught by religious missionaries. One of the reasons why religious organizations in the US are losing members is because of state-run education, which cannot, by law, include religious instruction. And with the law requiring all children to be educated into high school, the failures of religious instruction are being laid bare. Young people are learning that those "mysteries of the gods" they have been taught as children are little more than wishful thinking, warped psychology and belief in magic.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[leo9]

One thing that has educated me about other countries is the fact that for so many people religion is for real. I grew up with the notion that religion was not something anyone took seriously, plus the whole topic was more than a little embaressing.

That was the attitude in my circle of society. One was in favour of the Church (meaning that big place with the tower in the middle of town, not the organisation, which was a bit of a joke) because it was part of tradition, like morris-dancing and easter-egg hunts; but people who made a fuss about their religion were, as you say, embarrassing. Even Tony Blair's supporters were mostly apologetic about his open religiousity: it sounded, well, un-British.

It took a long time for me to take in that religion is a reality for a big part of the world, and that in all the really dogmatic countries it determines people's fate.

We had to face it as part of practical politics, because the Northern Irish religious divide was a major issue for most of my life. As Americans have recently discovered, you have to pay some attention to people who are blowing up your towns for their beliefs

But it is also noteworthy that the run-away materialism eventually lead to new kinds of religions and spiritualism. Well fed and free people who simply found something lacking.

Most of the new leaders of Muslim fundamentalism (and terrorism) are not poor and uneducated, as Thorne would argue: they're from the upper-middle class of the oil-rich nations (and of Europe's Muslim immigrants). They argue that they've been offered Western-style materialism, and found it worthless.

Myself, I suspect this has more to do with politics than religion. They remind me most of all of the UK's last lot of home-grown terrorists, the Angry Brigade and other anarchists of the 1970s. They were mostly militant atheists, but their language against Western capitalism and materialism was almost identical to that of today's Islamists; they even shared the Palestinians as a cause celebre.

[thir]

We had to face it as part of practical politics, because the Northern Irish religious divide was a major issue for most of my life. As Americans have recently discovered, you have to pay some attention to people who are blowing up your towns for their beliefs

That, however, was also politics. Catholics were oppressed.

Most of the new leaders of Muslim fundamentalism (and terrorism) are not poor and uneducated, as Thorne would argue: they're from the upper-middle class of the oil-rich nations (and of Europe's Muslim immigrants). They argue that they've been offered Western-style materialism, and found it worthless.

It is.

Myself, I suspect this has more to do with politics than religion. .[/I]

I think there is no religious violence that is not more based on politics that religion.

[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.

[lucy]

Most of the new leaders of Muslim fundamentalism (and terrorism) are not poor and uneducated, as Thorne would argue: they're from the upper-middle class of the oil-rich nations (and of Europe's Muslim immigrants). They argue that they've been offered Western-style materialism, and found it worthless.

It is.

It is? Really? Having a choice is worthless? Having economic safety is worthless? Having more or less achieved equality for women and men is worthless? Having a life expectancy of 83,71 years (for Swiss women in the year 2008), most of them in pretty good health is worthless? Having the right to voice your opinion is worthless? Having the choice to believe or not believe and more or less be unmolested by those who believe the opposite is worthless?

You know, you don't HAVE to buy all the crap you probably COULD buy. Because, unlike a lot of people who don't live in Western-style materialism, you have a choice. Or several, even.

Plus, if it wasn't for that worthless Western-style materialism, those terrorists still would be screwing sheep in the Arabian desert. Those idiots can't even be terrorists without relying on what they despise so much.

[Thorne]

Most of the new leaders of Muslim fundamentalism (and terrorism) are not poor and uneducated, as Thorne would argue: they're from the upper-middle class of the oil-rich nations (and of Europe's Muslim immigrants). They argue that they've been offered Western-style materialism, and found it worthless.

For the record, it's not the leaders of religions, fundamentalist or not, that I claim are uneducated. It's the followers who are kept in thrall to those leaders through poverty and lack of education. And these leaders are telling their followers that Western-style materialism is worthless while using the products which can only be obtained from those Western nations. Keeping their followers from demanding those same products is another tool for keeping them controlled.

[thir]

It is? Really? Having a choice is worthless? Having economic safety is worthless? Having more or less achieved equality for women and men is worthless? Having a life expectancy of 83,71 years (for Swiss women in the year 2008), most of them in pretty good health is worthless? Having the right to voice your opinion is worthless? Having the choice to believe or not believe and more or less be unmolested by those who believe the opposite is worthless?

You know, you don't HAVE to buy all the crap you probably COULD buy. Because, unlike a lot of people who don't live in Western-style materialism, you have a choice. Or several, even.

Plus, if it wasn't for that worthless Western-style materialism, those terrorists still would be screwing sheep in the Arabian desert. Those idiots can't even be terrorists without relying on what they despise so much.

Yes, really. It is the materialism I am talking about, living in a consumer society where it seems the only function you have is to buy and buy and buy. I wasn't talking about anything else. I do not believe we have to have that in order to have equality or long life expectancy, rather the opposite.