The assumption that increased industrialization equal decrease in religious belief

the fruits of increased industrialization

I've seen atheists make the assumption that modern industrial society will automatically lead to the decline of religion over time. They point to the situation in Northern Eruope where Germanic societies seem to be a "post Christian" state, while their education levels are the highest in the world. Atheist expositors who proclaim this correlation include, Barber, Zuckerman and Paul. I just got through debunking Barber's work on Atheist Watch, while on Doxa I take Zuckerman and Paul to task. Nevertheless I find atheists arguing from their assumptions quite a bit. There two main assumptions they make that I want to take apart:

(1) That higher education levels precipitate the decline or religoius faith.

(2) That religous belief is predicated upon economic insecurity, thus rise in economic security will mean a decline in religious belief.

The initial assumption is just plain wrong a priori. A rise in education levels has not meant a decline in religious belief, the situation in northern Eruope is greatly exaggerated. First of all Northern Europe is not nearly as hard core atheist as atheists hope. Using their own research Greely and Jagodzenski find that Northern Europe is more agnostic ("soft atheist") than has been realized.

The Demand for Religion
Hard Core atheism and "Supply Side" theory

The "Softest Core" Atheists in the third column include those in the first two and those who can fairly be called agnostics (the second response to the God question) because they do not completely reject the possibility of the existence of God. They might be considered as hovering a little closer to the religious market place.

Note that

1. The proportion of Hard Core atheists is relatively small in all the countries except East Germany (42.7%)
2. The proportion is above 10% only in former socialist countries (12.4% in Russia, 13.9% in Slovenia, and 11.3% in Hungary) and in the Netherlands (11.4%) and in Israel (12.1%).
3. In the other eleven countries, the highest rates of Hard Core atheism are in Norway (6.7%) and Britain (6.3%). Thus if latent demand for religion is excluded only from the Hard Core atheists, there is still the possibility of a large clientele for those firms which might venture into the religious market place in such supposedly "secularized" countries as Norway and Britain.
4. There are not all that many Hard Core atheists in the countries studied, nor indeed all that many soft core atheists either.
5. The "Softest Core" Atheists are less than a third of the population in every country except East Germany. They are more than a fifth of the population only in four former Socialist countries – East German Russia, Hungary and Slovenia. With the exception than of East Germany more than two thirds of the population of the countries studied are willing to admit the existence in some fashion of God and the likelihood of life after death. Devout many of them may not be but on the two central issues they are more religious than not. They then may be considered as part of the religious market place if not always enthusiastic consumers.

Furthermore in the sample as a whole, Hard Core atheism correlates only with gender (women less likely to be atheists) and not with education or age (those favorite measures of the more naïve of the "secularization theorists.") 83% of the Hard Core Atheists say they never believed in God, 61% say they never attended church services when they were eleven or twelve years old and 9% more say they only rarely attended. The choice of Hard Core atheism as a philosophy of life was apparently made at a very young age in life and is sustained through the life course.

Age correlates significantly with Hard Core atheism only in Britain (r=-.08), East Germany (r=-.18), the Netherlands (r=-.05) and Israel (r=+.08), Hungary (-.14). Education correlates significantly with Hard Core Atheism only in Hungary (r=.11), Slovenia (r=.18), and Norway (r=.10) West Germany (r=.08), Israel (r=.10). In these countries as in the whole sample, there is an inverted U curve in the relationship between age and atheism, the very young and the very old being somewhat less likely to be atheists. In the middle years of life, however, the line representing atheism is flat. Only in Slovenia and Hungary is education still a significant correlate of Hard Core Atheism in a regression equation which includes age and gender.

Another problem with the assumption of correlation between education and decline of belief is the realization that we are not all that educated anymore. These atheists, being materialists and reductionists, ironically are not aware of Marcuse. They just measure education by technology but in many cases people who are the product of modern educational systems are not educated in ideas, they are merely proficient in job training programs. Just one can work a bunch of technology doesn't mean one is proficient in ideas such that one can make an intelligent judgment and rationally set aside faith. I used to run a whole academic journal devoted to Marcuse and the outlook for education is pretty bleak, even in Northern Europe (go here and scroll down to issue one "Negations the Manifest" by J.L. Hinman, also by Hinman issue 2 table of contents and choose "one-dimensionality Man in the Postmodern age." choose issue 3 table of contents and then the article on Schweitzer).

These atheists who associate higher levels of technological use with education are ignoring the fact that the ideology of Marxism swept across Europe in the Twentieth century, fuelded by the disillusionment of two world wars, and of cousre with the atheist assumptions of materialism and anti-clericalism. One sees a lot written about the decline of Marxism in the late twentieth century but the fact of it's popularity among the intelligentsia for most of the century is ignored. In the first half of the twentieth century, up through the 60s, it wasn't a decline of religion due to education but do to indoctrination. In the other all scheme of things the decline is not precipitant.

To the extent that there is some correlation bewteen higher education and decline in belief, this is not necessarily the result of enlightenment. The real association is not bewteen an increase in ideas and understanding but between a rise in affluence and decline in religion, to the extent that there is a small one. That ties into the second assumption, the one about the increase in security. The first assumption is predicated upon a conventional assumption that rise in income means a rise in pieces of paper from job training, and since that is called "education" they assume that the recipients are actually deeper thinkers. Those are both perilous assumptions. The assumption back of that is that religion is the result of ignorance nd superstition. Of cousre they can't explain the fact that most great great thinkers in the west (philosophers, and scientists) have believed in God.

The second assumptions comes closer to the truth, that it's related to economic secularist. Again the atheist just does surface level analysis, seeing only a straight correlation bewteen economics and belief. Of course the assumption they are making is again a false psychological reason for the readings of bleief. These expositors such as Barber, apologists for atheism, want to see religion as purely a matter of psychological need because it does supply a source of emotional strength. They put a negative spin on it and make it seem something bad, the need fora crutch that continued growth will eradicate. The horrible nightmare is that we are not going to sustain growth. We have only economic ruin ahead so their predictions of the elimination of religion are bogus. Yet their assumptions are bogus as well because they assume the negative spin; religion is just a manifestation of a need for psychological security. Why not assume this is a valid defense mechanism? If evolution is really behind everything we think and do, and people like Barber assume it is, then there must be a reason why the majority are religious why can't that reason be a valid psychological need to be close to God?

Where both assumptions meet is in the idea that if there is an naturalistic explanation for religion then it' disproved the "supernatural." It disproves the atheist straw man version of the supernatural, where God is a big man in the sky and has to do everything in direct contradiction to the natural. People are given the innate ability to find God and to draw strength from a relationship with God. We can understanding through psychological and genetic means. This is so for two reasons: (1) their assertion that God must work in opposition to the natural is just BS. God created the natural and is working in the natural all the time. (2) they just ignore the spiritual aspects.

For example they assume increased affluence means decline in religion (which they have not established) because they assert religion is just a crutch and life is scary, as well as the dash of ignrance and superstition. What they ignore is the basic the good old fact of sin. Affluence equals pride. When one is affluent one assumes one is superior. When one is affluent one assumes one has earned it all himself/herself. Thus we tend to either forget God, or to treat God as Fuererbach said, the mask of money. Greater affluence might mean less reliance on God due to a rise in pride, arrogance and selfishness. If religion is predicated upon a need to feel secure in a scary world it is not going away anytime soon. The need to feel secure in a scary world is not indicative of no God. The feeling of self sufficiency brought on by increased affluence is the all too familiar symptom of stupidity, the kind that as brought us to the brink of destruction ethnologically, militarily, socially, economically, and now educationally.

My Exchange with Zuckerman: His answers to my comments

Metacrock ...vs..........,,,,,,.... Zuckerman

  This is in the comment section of a blog (see the last link on the original article published this Blog on Monday Zuckerman part 1--From the Square: "does Religion make you nice?"). Is this guy really Zuckerman? I have solid proof now that it is him. I have emailed the guy where he teaches and he said it is him. I am now getting ready to continue exchanging emails.

Comment from Metacrock
Time January 24, 2009 at 11:59 am

Hey Dr. Z, I think you miss the boat in so many ways. Yes I’m sure you are just a humble socail scientist trying to make a sound contribution to the Western tradition. But, I was a sociology major. I got out of sociology because of their anti-religoius number crunching attitude. I studied soc of religion with Ansen Schupe as an undergraduate. He was not what I would call “anti-religious.” I learned more from him than from anyone in my undergraduate days.
But miss the boat in several ways:
(1) you are not distinguishing between belief and participation. When your informants say “I believe in something” that does not make them atheists it doe snot make them anti-religious. It does not mean they are without God. God does not have to be a big man in the sky.
(2) a vast plethora of data demontrates the innate nature of religious belief. Just showing a culture where the religious participation is different doesn’t mean you have proven that that society is “without God.”
(3) the basic values that laid the foundation for the welfare state were handed down by the Christian past. The institution of the church had little to do with making the welfare state, Christianity as a belief system and system of values may have had a lot to do with it in terms clearing he way.
(4) I’ve seen a lot of evidence for a new alternative view of religion in Scandinavia similar or analogs to the “new religions” of Japan. You are not hip to this trend at all.
(5) There is a vast body of data demonstrated the innate nature of religion and its’ value for society
340 (at least) studies on mystical experince and the cross culturally verified M scale makes these empirical.
about 400 studies on Juvenile crime and religion that show religious belief and participation make for less of it.
all together given studies on religion and health, religious experince a psychosocial value and social ills, there are probably about 2000 studies that show the value of religion. They all over Pub med. They are scholarly, empirical, not hard to find. I”m not even counting those bogus prayer studies or bogus new age like healing at a distance stuff.
You are just scratching the surface. you are very far from proving your thesis.

 Z's First reply

Comment from Phil Zuckerman
Time February 12, 2009 at 8:56 pm

Dear Metarock — thanks for your message.
Let me briefly try to respond.

1) I agree. But BOTH participation and belief are low in DK and SE. I totally that when someone says that they believe in “something” they are not necessarily an atheist. But when people said this to me, I pushed them to explain and discuss this “something” — they had little or nothing to say. I asked them how important this “something” was to them — generally they said not at all — just if pushed they think there may be “something” out there. You can call this theism or spirituality if you like, but it is VERY WEAK — which was my point.

But being "weak" is not important, because they are also weak in atheism as well. That is not a news story, "Northern Europe is weak in Christian belief" so what? you can hardly conclude that their social welfare state is based upon being weak in Christianity. You are still not accounting for the past when it was strong and that strength built the progressive state they live in. What they are strong in today is not atheism but secularization, there's a big difference.

Zuckerman:

2) If religious belief is “innate” (which by that I assume you mean in-born, biological, or natural), then why are there about 500 or 700 million people that are non-believers? The latest Harris poll shows that nearly 20% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. A recent Barna poll puts it is 9% — either way, we’re talking millions and millions of people. What happened to their “innate” religious belief? How do you explain the low levels of religiosity in DK and SE or Estonia — or heck, among Jews? The whole “religion is innate” theory is hard to square with millions and millions and millions of non-believers.
3) If this is true, then why are there no excellent welfare states in heavily Christian lands such as Latin America or Africa or the USA? I don’t disagree that Christian values had something to do with the establishment of the welfare state — but so what? What is your point? My point is this: isn’t it interesting that where religious belief is the weakest, society is the most healthy, and where religious belief is strongest, society is a mess. How do you explain this fact?

 That is not true. 20% is way over inflated and ridiculous. You are misquoting Barna, you are not using Gallop and you are ignoring the most important Pew study which is the most elaborate and best representative study every done on the religious landscape in America (2007) and it found 1.6% were atheists! you are falling for the media short hand which lumps in all kinds of people such as those who believe in God but don't like religion, agnostics, witches and other kinds of religions, you are accepting them all as "atheist." Every time you find anything over 3% for atheism check the stats to see and every time you find they are including believers in God who don't like organized religion.

That doesn't even disprove innate religious belief. No one says that religious belief can't conform itself to other kinds of institutions. Atheists use scinece as an er zots religion. Science functions ni atheist metempsychosis as religion does in Christian metaphysics. The state functioned in communist metaphysics as God does in Christian metaphysics.

4) By all means, do share. Are you referring to the article by Stark, Hamberg, and Miller? I have plenty of critiques of that…

No. I am basing the innateness of religion on the work by Newberg on Brain reaction to prayer and medication. There is strong evdience for some genetic base to religion: it may be Spandrels it doesn't have to be a gene. But there is strong evidence and the assumption in Nuero psychology is now that there is a genetic base or some form of brain chemistry that is linked to innate religious ideas.

5) Then why are the most religious states in the USA (measured both by belief AND participation) the most messed up (highest murder rates, poverty rates, etc)? Why are the most religious nations in the world the most messed up? Why does the USA have the highest murder rate compared to much more secular nations? Hm…I just don’t understand how you can argue this…

 If you can't understand why that's argument from sign and way too simplistic correlation you aer not much of a social scientist. I don't know any sociologist, (yes I do know sociologists it was my major and I completed it) that would make such a simplistic correlation and draw causal conclusions from it. That's so simplistic when the obvious variables of poverty and education you can link to anything.

6) I don’t deny that religion has positive social or psychological benefits. But these befits probably come from the good that comes from being part of a caring community — the benefits of social capital, social support, etc. — I am sure that they don’t come from the precious blood of Jesus…

That's where you are demonstrably wrong! The bleief itself is credited with the effects. It probably has something do with the social network but not much. It is demonstrably not the result of just having a good network because no study comparing nets works demonstrates hat secular networks are better. All studies demonstate that the religious networks is better.

Your last little quip betrays your lack of objective analysis, your ideological motivations.

300 studies

Religious Experience Studies

 Dr. Z then adds this:

Comment from Phil Zuckerman
Time February 12, 2009 at 9:52 pm

Metarock — also, I am curious: do you really think that all people, all cultures, and all countries are somehow religious in equal measure? If yes, you will have to ignore a shit-load of data that says otherwise, and if no, then why is it that the least religious people/nations tend to be doing quite well, while the most religious people/nations tend to be the worst off (at least when considering standard sociological measures like poverty, homicide, education, life expectancy, etc.)….granted, suicide tends to be lower among the religious (and the poor), but this is an exception that merely proves the larger rule…and the research that I am familiar with concerning mental health suggests that it is the MODERATELY religious that report better health than the secular AND the strongly religious — again, I would explain this being a result of social support and being part of a loving community, not innate theism, per se…

Your reading of those stats is ideologically motivated and not based upon very keen analysis. Most of this is explained in my comments above. But, the appraise "least religious" is misleading because its a subjective measure. You are not based upon actual beliefs but upon participation in somethings of social institutional nature while ignoring others. Like the Sweds don't to church as much  as Americans but 80s are members. You can't account for the particularization in Japan. you and Paul used to use (or least he did) Japan as an "atheist country" but in terms particularization in festivals such Bonn it's still very religious.

The health thing you are totally out of the loop on. A huge number of studies demonstrate religious particularization is a key factor in heath, not moderate but high participation it's a siding scale. That research is too diverse to just lump it all into one category or draw short hand conclusions from one liners. I'm not impressed with your off the cuff short one liner analysis that doesn't dig behind the stats.