
Why Is America So Religious? - robg
http://blow.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/why-is-america-so-religious/
======
cpr
I just love how the implicit subtext is that anyone with faith is a loony
redneck. "How could they possibly believe this stuff?"

Well, I'm a Harvard/Columbia-educated old-time hacker (53 now), been through
several start-ups, have run my own software "lifestyle" company for nearly 20
years, and I'm also an enthusiastic Roman Catholic. (Gasp, the horror.)

I believe I can give a good defense of my faith to anyone whose mind isn't
already completely closed, but this wouldn't be the place to do it... Maybe
over a beer late some night.

~~~
tptacek
Plenty of smart hackers are Christian (to pick a specific example), including
Ruby's Matz, SQLite's Richard Hipp, and Perl's Larry Wall. Two of the smartest
people in security (I won't name them, because I don't think they're "out")
are practicing Christians.

I'm a nonpracticing Catholic, but I don't rank in the list above.

I think the "militant atheism" meme is a product of pop culture and a
misplaced projection of anger at our current political regime. I also think
that few "devout" atheists think that Barack Obama is a looney because he's a
practicing Christian, so I think this has more to do with culture than with
religion.

~~~
jamesbritt
" ... think that Barack Obama is a looney because he's a practicing Christian
..."

Many people deride Sarah Palin for assorted religious beliefs (such as the co-
existence of people and dinosaurs) yet there is next to no deriding of Obama
for believing that there lived a man who could bring the dead back to life,
and who was himself killed and then rose from the dead.

How and where do people draw the line for acceptable bizarre beliefs?

~~~
tptacek
So, two things.

First, the other comment in this thread, where the commenter talks about all
the conversations they have with Christians that are useful and don't wind up
offending people? I'm guessing they don't start by calling people's beliefs
"bizarre". Bizarre means "strikingly out of the ordinary"; Christianity is one
of the most common belief systems on the planet. Just a thought.

Second, Palin's beliefs are far outside of the mainstream. Mainstream
Christians don't reject the most basic findings of science; plenty of
mainstream Christians believe in evolution, the big bang, and quantum
mechanics. Palin's beliefs are, by modern standards, eccentric. They also
_directly impact her job_ : I have zero problem with a President who believes
in the Ten Commandments, but a lot of problems with a President who believes
who should ban books on evolution from the libraries.

Does that answer your question?

~~~
jamesbritt
" I'm guessing they don't start by calling people's beliefs "bizarre". Bizarre
means "strikingly out of the ordinary"; Christianity is one of the most common
belief systems on the planet. Just a thought."

If you say, "I am a Christian", few think that bizarre. If you say, "I believe
it that someone could bring the dead back to life just by willing it so", many
more will think it bizarre.

The mundane ubiquity of various religions seems to have shielded people from
any real scrutiny of what those religions ask one to believe. And many of
those beliefs, common or not, are just plain bizarre.

I don't disagree that that Palin's beliefs would have a sooner, greater impact
on national life, but do you not think that a president's belief in an
afterlife or almighty creator will also effect executive decisions?

~~~
netcan
How far out of the American norm would Palin's beliefs be?

I understand there is a constant debate about teaching evolution in the
States. Presumably this is backed up with a substantial minority. Certainly it
is not Bizarre enough to exclude her from gaining traction in a mainstream
party (Governor, VP). If a Salafist became a VP in Iraq (a formerly relatively
secular country), we would take that of evidence of a move towards more
conservative religion.

Maybe that's a bad example because at the moment, a Salafist politician in the
middle east probably has more immediate political consequences. But all the
same, I couldn't imagine a Scientologist VP of the US.

I am genuinely asking here. Is the fact that Palin is an acceptable politician
a hint that the beliefs are 'mainstream' or does it just mean that religion is
really a non0issue in US politics.

~~~
tptacek
Take any large group of people, and a large fraction of those people will not
care enough to understand natural selection, the role of chance in nature, or
the implications of genetics. They may maintain piecemeal understanding of
facets of these issues --- for instance, noticing that their children share
their eye color, and that there's a non-supernatural reason for that --- but
they're going to lack the big picture. The big picture isn't their problem.
They have better things to deal with. This is just specialization of labor.

To that significant portion of the population, the word "evolution" is just a
buzzword, and a political football.

Most of the people who have a problem with the teaching of evolution don't
really have a problem with evolution _per se_ ; they have a stake in a culture
war that our media and our politicians are stoking up to serve their own
interests.

I don't think this has anything whatsoever to do with religion. If I had to
guess --- just totally off the top of my head --- the people who _really_
commit themselves to believing in the literal truth of the Bible are probably
far more "reasonable" in arguments than the Colorado Springs megachurch set
is.

Either way: rejecting evolution is far outside the mainstream.

------
hugh
In "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins puts forth an argument something along
the lines that the US is the most religious of the rich countries since it,
unlike most European countries, never had an official state religion. Over
time, faiths like the Church of England (and on another level the Catholic
Church) became dull bureaucratic institutions which nobody really took
seriously, whereas in America there arose a tradition that if you don't quite
take your own church's beliefs seriously you can start up a new, slightly
different, church down the road.

Supporting this idea is the fact that while Catholics in the US make up a
fairly large portion of the population, the vast majority of the real
religious craziness comes from the many varieties of protestantism.

~~~
Chocobean
Allow me to humbly suggest that Mr. Dawkins is a biologist, not a sociologist
or an economist, so his ponderings on the metaphysics, such as his ideas on
the religious state of our religious states, while interesting, should be
regarded as that of any layman's opinion.

~~~
helveticaman
I disagree; an _evolutionary_ biologist who knows his game theory may wel know
more about how the mind works than an economist (a student of "the dismal
science") or a sociologist (don't get me started). Just because Dawkins is not
an accredited expert at the subject he discusses doesn't mean his arguments
are false.

~~~
Chocobean
oh nono, I didnt say that this argument would be false, for starters because I
haven't read the book and heard the argument to begin with.

I was hoping, rather, to caution against believing anything without first
examining the arguments simply because of "star appeal". Y'know, "a celebrity
said it it must be true...."

One wouldn't believe scientific theories from the pulpit without thinking, so
why shouldn't one be a little skeptical hearing metaphysics from a scientist?

~~~
hugh
Oh, I never intended to argue from Dawkins' authority. I only meant to point
out an interesting theory (which I personally think might have a bunch of
truth to it) and to acknowledge where I got it from.

------
vaksel
Because of traditional values. The country was settled by religious people
fleeing prosecution in England. And now the religion gets passed down the
generations, so a son follows the same religion as his mother etc. Which is
why you can probably find that there are a lot more people becoming atheist
compared to those who switch from one religion to the next. Because in all
cases religion is more or less the same you worship some deity w/o any proof
they exist.

If one religion was > another, you'd see a lot more proof one way or another.
But there isn't, which is why 100 years from now Scientology will be on the
same level as mormonism , a quirky religion that has some quirky beliefs. And
1000 years from now Scientology will be on the same level as Christianity.

~~~
rsheridan6
The odd thing is that the New England colonies were founded by religious
weirdos, while the South was founded by normal English people, but it's the
South that's especially religious now.

~~~
robg
Historically, the American migration has initiated from the Northeast and East
(original colonies/states then Ellis Island). Those immigrants that didn't
find a home progressively moved (over generations) further and further away -
South and West (Mormons). Of course, the Civil War complicates things, as do
Western immigrants.

What Southern colonies are you thinking of though?

~~~
rsheridan6
I was thinking of Jamestown, which was founded independently of the New
England colonies at about the same time. Jamestown had different types of
Englishmen from different regions of England with different religious beliefs
went than the ones who went to New England.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed>

The South didn't get nearly as many immigrants as the North until recently, so
the great waves of immigration later on weren't as influential.

------
wheels
What a dumb chart. It obviously left out data that wouldn't make its point:
Canada, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Italy, ...

~~~
cubix
As a Canadian, I would be awfully surprised to see Canada up there with the
US. Note that religion hasn't been a factor in Canadian elections for several
decades.

~~~
wheels
To be clear, I don't suspect those countries would be on par with the US,
merely that they would be outlying points showing a less perfect distribution.

Beyond that though, wow. I'm amazed that a poor article on something so far
from Hacker News got upvoted so many times.

------
yan
It's frustrating that almost any comment to be made on this will be offensive
to _someone_

~~~
sant0sk1
I find your comment quite offensive...

------
mishmax
Where is Saudi Arabia on this chart? SA is both wealthy and religious. It
seems like another outlier. And where does Israel fall? Maybe there's some
selection bias in the data shown.

~~~
netcan
_Where is Saudi Arabia?_

Saudi is most definitely an outlier. But that is to be expected. They are an
unusual case. They are a physical religious hub (like Rome but more) because
of the Haj & other reasons. And they did not reach current GDP levels by
conventional means.

 _And where does Israel fall?_

I think you might be surprised. Both Judaism & Islam are relatively easy to
gauge because of the lifestyle demands they make. Most Jews considered
'religious' would probably observe, kosher (what you can eat), Sabath (No
driving, electricity on Saturday), attend synagogue weekly, pray daily, etc.
The percentage of Jews that adhere to these is probably around the 20% - 30%.
A further 20% - 30% probably adhere to some of these. Not sure about Muslim
population. Both are probably becoming more religious over time. Anyway, I
think at 25k GDP pp, you could place it above the line, but not too far.

The correlation within Israel, probably works.

------
enra
Personal faith is of course important and fine, but I never didn't kind of get
the stories, the three desert dogmas and why some of the beliefs should have
such a special role and strong impact on our societies.

In Finland the current trend has been that about 20-30k more people resign
from tradiotional Lutheran church every year than they get new members (even
though it might not tell about their faith). And from the whole population
(about 5M), a million say that they don't belong to any religion, myself
included.

------
gills
Does this article seem like a troll (haven't we seen it here before?).

Meaningful conclusions might be drawn from the data if the actual
distributions of income and educational level were mapped against religious
tendency, rather than per-capita and percentage. I would speculate that the US
would be less distinct.

I am a Christian, and know many who aren't slack-jawed yokels. Although, there
seem to be a propensity of religious followers in the world who either lack
critical thinking skills or simply fail to apply them to their beliefs (the
'accept at face value and stop thinking' crowd).

------
anamax
The results come from the definition of religion and the conclusions use a
different one.

The whole "they're daft" argument applies just as well to believers in
astrology, Jedi, Wicca, and other variants of the flying spaghetti monster,
yet the "religious" percentage excludes those.

That's a problem because standard religious folks are less likely to believe
in those things. As a result, if you just count "standard" religion, you
undercount supernatural believers and the error increases as the percentage of
standard religious believers decreases.

------
Hexstream
Because it's a quite convenient tool for (practical, not magical) mind-
control.

~~~
gscott
The most mind control I have ever seen is on TV. It used to be every time my
kids would see a commercial they would ask for whatever the commercial was
promoting (they are a little older now and don't do that as often).

I am not sure if there could be any more powerful mind control then the
marketing machine we live in day-in and day-out.

~~~
Hexstream
What about the case of a religious message broadcast _on TV_ in support of a
political cause?

~~~
gscott
It is in a mix of other ideas. It is not like the religious message is being
broadcast 24/7 and nothing else. It is not like it is even a religious message
at all. You can be an athiest but decide that marriage should be between a man
and a woman.

Personally, I feel gay people are born gay. This is something people are born
into and either can embrace or be unhappy forever trying to be hetrosexual
when they are not. As a Christian I personally embrace these people who cannot
change. That is what Jesus did, he went out to people who were abused because
they were different or hated because of what they did (tax collectors) and
embraced them and brought them in.

For many people it hard to come around and see that it is not a choice.

Just a few months ago I was helping with a religious program and met a guy who
is as gay as gay can get but he is married and has children. The marriage is
very unhappy. I feel he should have embraced being gay before he got married
and had children. But too late. People really need to be who they are and not
something else.

Personally I am scared of normalizing being Gay or Lesbian to children. I have
kids, they are confused enough without having to deal with the birds and the
bee's being that people go to the sperm bank because there lover doesn't have
male reproductive organs or because there lover doesn't have womb, therefore
they need a surrogate. This type of birds and the bee's happens on a limited
scale, we should leave it at that and not weave into our daily lives.

------
known
Due to FEAR.

Every religion injects fear in you. And every religion now is a form of socio-
economic collusion.

~~~
lst
> Every religion injects fear in you.

On the contrary: really religious people continuously make experience of
confidence, so there's no room left for fear.

------
biohacker42
Thank God, we can have this discussion here, this dead horse just has not been
beaten enough over at reddit.

------
swombat
IQ bias.

------
kingkongrevenge
Religious people have more children. Family formation has historically been
much more affordable in the US than in Europe and Japan, and most of the rest
of the world. So desire and culture has been the primary constraint on an
individual's choice to have one or another child, whereas in other places the
constraints have been more financial.

Religious people in the US out-breed non-religious people at a higher rate
than is possible elsewhere. If you look at the demographics, blue state urban
liberals will be an endangered species in a few decades. They barely have
children. Compare Hillary's only child to Pallin's brood.

------
Ardit20
To be taught something, to brutally paraphrase Schopenhauer, is like a patch
on ones skin, to learn it by your own accord it becomes your own skin,
indistinguishable from other parts of your body.

My point is that Europe was religious, but it was taught by great immortal
men, that religioun is actually a scam. America or the Middle East has not had
such lessons. Hence they remain religious for no one has managed to shake
their world view like it was done in Europe.

------
lst
One big difference between the US and Europe is the French Revolution: it has
been disastrous to religion in Europe (especially in France), and simply
didn't happen in the US.

------
ComputerGuru
Why is this a problem?

