Wealth and Religiosity

[ricardo_sousa]

This graph shows the wealth vs Religiosity reality in the world:



The site of the study: http://pewglobal.org
The pdf of the study: http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf

[ricardo_sousa]

kuwait is easily explained, because of the oil. A country that has become very rich, not because of the society or civilization achievements, but because of a "gift from God".

the only one that I think it is surprising is the USA result.

[Qingu]

the only one that I think it is surprising is the USA result.

My country is really weird, the more I think about it. I think the result makes sense though. Sometimes I feel like America is really two countries that are barely stitched together (not too far from the truth—we almost became two countries in the Civil War and the red state/blue state dichotomy still falls largely along those lines). The blue country is incredibly rich, technocratic, and secular—richer (on average, not median) than even western Europe because America is less socialistic. The red states, on the other hand, are highly religious and authoritarian—but their poverty is balanced out by the wealth of the blue states.

[Keltoi]

I think the difference between red and blue in the U.S. is more about traditional American culture moreso than religion, although I suppose that is an element involved with traditional culture.


It also makes sense that those in poverty tend to be more religious than those with wealth.

[aamirsaab]

I wonder how they measured religiosity? Number of mosques?

Also wanted to mention: correlation does not equate to causation.

the amount of pigs in the world correlates with the amount of crap I give about statistics - doesn't mean that the amount of pigs there are in the world are influenced by my amount of crap given to statistics.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I agree that the graph shows pretty much what you'd expect. People in poverty are surely more likely to seek solutions to their problems in as many ways as possible, including religion.

Also wanted to mention: correlation does not equate to causation.

It can do, though. The more cigarettes a person smokes, the more likely they are to develop breathing difficulties. The more CFCs there are in the world, the greater the damage to the ozone layer. Would you deny a causal link in those two examples?

Peace

[aamirsaab]

It can do, though. The more cigarettes a person smokes, the more likely they are to develop breathing difficulties. The more CFCs there are in the world, the greater the damage to the ozone layer. Would you deny a causal link in those two examples?

Peace

Indeed it can. It all depends on the case as opposed to correlation itself (as certain graphs attempt to do)

In relation to this thread, low wealth can cause high religiosity - but low religiosity is not a cause of high wealth.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Indeed it can. It all depends on the case as opposed to correlation itself (as certain graphs attempt to do)

In relation to this thread, low wealth can cause high religiosity - but low religiosity is not a cause of high wealth.

True. I am certainly very aware of that last point myself!

Oddly enough, Max Weber's famous work of sociology, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism argues, in a precisely opposite vein to these statistics, that it was actually religiously-inculcated attitudes to work that gave rise to modern capitalism, and therefore greater wealth. While that may be historically true, I don't think that such a trend has continued since the major spread of capitalism in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

It would be interesting to see if there is also a link between religiosity and education level. I am convinced there is, but I would predict that the statistics would not show this as clearly as the wealth-related ones in this thread seem to do.

Peace

[ricardo_sousa]

I wonder how they measured religiosity? Number of mosques?

page 37 of the pdf.

[aamirsaab]

page 37 of the pdf.

lol. I read what it said on the pdf and it is as I expected: it's not measuring religiosity, it is measuring whether people agree to the statement that religion should be kept seperate to government policy - those that do agree with the statement are not neccesarily less or more religious than those that don't and vice versa - though you could extropolate. My initial point on measuring religiosity was that you can't measure it - it's a complicated statistic and that's why I used a joke.
In comparison, wealth is far easier to calculate than religiosity.

[ricardo_sousa]

lol. I read what it said on the pdf and it is as I expected: it's not measuring religiosity, it is measuring whether people agree to the statement that religion should be kept seperate to government policy. My initial point on measuring religiosity was that you can't measure it like that - it's a complicated statistic and that's why I used a joke.

I am sorry, I should have explained the pages on the pdf. It is the 37 page of "all the document", but page 33 in the study. The begin of the religious analysis. They have other thinks in consideration.

[aamirsaab]

I am sorry, I should have explained the pages on the pdf. It is the 37 page of "all the document", but page 33 in the study. The begin of the religious analysis. They have other thinks in consideration.

Ah that would explain it. Yes, page 33 (in the study) does have a better explanation of calculating religiosity and I'm much more inclined to agree with that explanation than that of page 37.