

Wealth vs. Religiosity - gruseom
http://www.theatlantic.com/images/issues/200803/secular-graph.gif

======
paul_reiners
So, religiosity = c / wealth for some constant c, with the U.S. (and Kuwait)
as an outlier. Why am I not surprised, yet somehow disappointed?

------
spif
It would be interesting to see what religions beget what wealth.

Our own preconceptions set aside, what is obvious is the relation between
countries with a Judeo-Christian backgound that are wealthy. Even if many
countries have abandoned many of these practises it is still the root of many
bases of society (our law system, trust as fundamental to business e.g.
contracts, money etc.). Societies stemming from Judeo-Christina values more
often have a everyone-has-value society than non-Judeo-Christian based
societies. Apart from the actual debate on where wealth comes from (slavery
anyone?) it still is interesting to ponder.

------
yters
I'd be interested in a causal representation: whether becoming less religious
caused countries to become wealthier, or visa versa.

------
diamondtron
Come on, this is the kind of trolling I was hoping to avoid by coming here
instead of reddit...

------
zach
Where's Ireland, yo? They only have one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the
EU.

------
andreyf
What's a "religiosity scale"?

~~~
jcromartie
From <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/2275614130/>

"Definition: Religiosity is measured using a three-item index ranging from
0-3, with 3 representing the maximum religious position. Respondents were
given a +1 if they believe faith in God is necessary for morality; and +1 if
they say religion is very important in their lives; and +1 if they pray at
least once a day."

~~~
curi
most atheists seem to think morality is a religious idea. like dawkins.

~~~
curi
No? Show me serious writing by an atheist, explaining how morality exists and
isn't religious?

~~~
KayJayKay
So If we don't choose to immediately respond you automatically declare a
default victory?

Because even if we can't disprove your assertion, we are expected to go along
with your idea without question?

~~~
curi
The "No?" was to the downmodders, who were basically saying I'm wrong without
giving a counter example. They declared a position. If you're unsure and have
no position, that's fine.

I don't care if you "go along with my idea". I do care that many people say
something exists, but no one has ever been able to give me a single half-way-
decent example.

------
ashwinl
Would be interesting to see where China is...

------
albertcardona
The second comment on this thread:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/2275614130/>

puts it all in context.

In short: the graph means what you want it to mean, according to your own
background.

~~~
KayJayKay
In the absence of more information about the graph and how the data was
created, yeah. The rest of what she says, though, are mostly bizarre
inferences. Based on that, and reading the rest of her profile, I don't think
she really cares about science. I have a hard time thinking that people would,
as a society, willingly choose to not have clean running water, environmental
protection, or sewage treatment plants because it might not be "pious".

The thing to ask now should be to ask is what is the casual relationship, if
any, between the two data sets and if there is a way to test the relationship.
I think she may also be missing out on the idea of "aggregate" sums.

If you look at the color of the dots, though, you see that richer continents
don't overlap; or at least, they seem discrete. That's interesting.

------
gscott
Slavokia, Bolivia Czech Rep? Lots of rich people in those countries (not).
This graph should show income based upon the real local value because showing
it in just dollar skews the results.

Sorry it is not the poor dumb tards that are religious it is usually the rich.
(Except in muslim countries, then you can turn it around and say it is the
poor but that is for different reasons all together.)

~~~
yters
That's another thing I'm interested in. It isn't clear to me whether it is
only an inverse proportion. It may be more a matter of extremes: i.e. the
extremely religious or irreligious countries do worse economically, whereas
the moderate countries do better.

The relationship may also be qualitative instead of quantitative. The content
of the religion may have more to do with the GDP than "religiosity."

