The Future of World Religions, numbers going up

AstraMonti

I am not sure if this has already been discussed but I just read this article http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/ and if the study is to be trusted the news are quite disturbing. Islam and Christianity will gain huge numbers in the next 35 years apparently, which in my eyes that only means one thing, humanity going backwards.

I can't see why the future generations with such an amazing access to vast knowledge will choose and follow archaic beliefs, it's just baffling.

Skrynesaver

Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman – well above replacement level (2.1), the minimum typically needed to maintain a stable population.6 Christians are second, at 2.7 children per woman. Hindu fertility (2.4) is similar to the global average (2.5). Worldwide, Jewish fertility (2.3 children per woman) also is above replacement level. All the other groups have fertility levels too low to sustain their populations: folk religions (1.8 children per woman), other religions (1.7), the unaffiliated (1.7) and Buddhists (1.6).

I don't think this is down to children of atheists with access to education choosing religion, rather that we're being outbred...

ScumLord

It's mostly in developing countries, once they get to a certain level of technology, good government and education, they'll turn into Atheists or quasi religious people just like we have in the developed countries.

NIMAN

You're facing a losing battle I'm afraid.

They were always be more believers than non-believers on planet Earth.

jank

A number of things.

a) Humanity has been going forward with or without religion for as long as humans learned to walk and use tools. Some would argue the opposite as you have as well.
b) Secularism or atheism is not a precursor for human development.
c) Atheism is not a guarantee of golden age of humanity (See 20th century history)
d) What is it with the 'us' and 'them' talk. Its infantile tbh.

Now, if you want to talk about the actual types of religion and their various nuances that is emerging then that is a different topic. For example the lurch of Islam to the extreme variety is a cause for concern for that region. The issue is more so with extremism and the abuse of religion (which in fairness Islam has major issues with at the moment, it was not always thus, see the 12th century for example).

Peregrinus

ScumLord wrote: »

It's mostly in developing countries, once they get to a certain level of technology, good government and education, they'll turn into Atheists or quasi religious people just like we have in the developed countries.

This has been an article of faith for a certain variety of atheist since the late nineteenth century. It is theorised that the generally bad-tempered affect of new atheism is attributable to the stress they experience at having their faith on this point tested by the reality that history is refusing to unfold that way.

It was true in the late nineteenth century, and remains true today, that the generally more prosperous West has generally higher levels of unbelief than the rest of the world. But post hoc ergo propter hoc, as we lad who took Inter Cert Latin like to say, is generally recognised as a fallacy. Yes, the West has higher levels of education than the rest of the world, and did in the late nineteenth as well, but it doesn't follow that this was what led to unbelief. Levels of education in Africa, for example, have risen faster over the period than levels of education in Europe (from a much lower base, natch). And they are now much higher than general levels of education were in Europe back when this belief was first formulated as an explanation for high levels of unbelief in Europe. If ScumLord's belief were true, you'd expect levels of unbelief to be rising in Africa over that period. But nope. And same goes for much of the developing world.

Differences in levels of education aren't the only, or the greatest, cultural distinction between the West and the rest of the world, and the belief that they account for higher levels of unbelief in the West doesn't really fit very well with the observed facts. The persistent of the belief may be accounted for by the fact that it's very comforting to unbelievers; it gratifies them to think that their position is the result of superior information or intelligence, rather than some less flattering characteristic.

smacl

Skrynesaver wrote: »

I don't think this is down to children of atheists with access to education choosing religion, rather that we're being outbred...

Once you have 'go forth and multiply' as part of your strategy for maintaining and expanding on a dominant position, it is always playing the numbers game. Bad for the individual players at this point of course, most of who will die in poverty. Similarly bad for the human race and the planet as whole, as exponential population growth with matched resource consumption is neither sustainable nor desirable. But hey, if its God's will and all that :rolleyes:



Unfortunately, technology is accelerating this effect, where on the one side we have improved medicine prolonging the potential for extended life, and on the other weapons that are so efficient there can never be another world war which humanity would survive. Maybe God will realise this monumentally fúcked up position we're heading towards and send us a decent flood or plague to cull numbers like he did back in the good old days. Just the unbelievers, heretics and other wrong doers of course....

...then again mankind may take stock of the situation and realise that breeding like rabbits to become the most dominant culture isn't going to work any more, and religious dogma that promotes such irresponsible behaviour should be consigned to history.

Wonder what the theoretical population of heaven is standing at, or hell for that matter. Must be getting crowded.

Peregrinus

The problem here is that the exponential growth in human population illustrated in the graph above has nothing to do with religion - has the world been getting dramatically more religious since 1960? - and everything to do with science, technology, medicine and other entirely secular blessings. Humanity hasn't become more fertile than it was in 1800; it has become longer-lived. You can't blame religion for that.

The second problem you face is that the pressure on the planet doesn't just come from population numbers; it also comes from our individual propensity to consume resources, and this has been increasing even faster than population. And, embarrassingly for those who champion the cause of the educated and secularised west, it's us who are largely responsible for that. Although our share of the world's population is declining, our share of the world's consumption has been rising. Our appetite to consume more and more has more than offset any good we might have done for the planet with our smaller family sizes. The "materialism" side of atheistic materialism may have more to answer for that it has acknowledged up to now!

In short, from the perspective of someone living in the global south, he sees himself being urged to limit his family size so that the already unsustainably selfish lifestyle of some prosperous westerner can be carried on for a bit longer than might otherwise be possible. You can see how that's not going to be a hugely appealing position. You can see also how his feelings about this might have nothing to do with religion.

silverharp

The one difference I see now is that people have access to their own education. In the past nobody could really fact check anyone else . if a teacher in school said that it was impossible for the eye to evolve , it would take a lot of effort to go about checking that out. Now everything is a Google search away. Over the next 50 years everyone on the planet will have access to online info, so I certainly think the whackier elements of Christianity and Islam will be harder to hold on to

Peregrinus

I dunno. The US is probably one of the most wired, internet-accessible societies on the planet, and some of the "wackier elements of Christianity" are not only found there, but are in fact distinctively American. And, in the Islamic world, the "wackier elements of Islam" don't seem to be well-correlated with the poorest and least-resourced communities. Dirt-poor Bangladesh and not-much-richer Indonesia don't have anything like the problems we see in prosperous Syria and prosperous-before-the-Americans-bombed-it-to-**** Iraq.

No, when it comes to the wackier elements of any religious (or, come to think of it, non-religious) belief, I don't think it's lack of information that drives people to wackiness. It may be personal psychology, or some social dysfunction, or some combination of the two. And while education may have a role to play in solving the problem, it's not going to be education in biology or history or whatever; it's going to be education that equips people to form healthy functional social relationships and rear healthy functional children, leading to healthy functional communities.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dunno. The US is probably one of the most wired, internet-accessible societies on the planet, and some of the "wackier elements of Christianity" are not only found there, but are in fact distinctively American. And, in the Islamic world, the "wackier elements of Islam" don't seem to be well-correlated with the poorest and least-resourced communities. Dirt-poor Bangladesh and not-much-richer Indonesia don't have anything like the problems we see in prosperous Syria and prosperous-before-the-Americans-bombed-it-to-**** Iraq.

No, when it comes to the wackier elements of any religious (or, come to think of it, non-religious) belief, I don't think it's lack of information that drives people to wackiness. It may be personal psychology, or some social dysfunction, or some combination of the two. And while education may have a role to play in solving the problem, it's not going to be education in biology or history or whatever; it's going to be education that equips people to form healthy functional social relationships and rear healthy functional children, leading to healthy functional communities.

Pew research showed that religious adherence has dropped 7ish % over the last 8 to 10 years in the US. The more extreme evangelicals depend on raising the next generation by having them hold extreme views about the bible example being ken ham's creation museum that show humans with dinosaurs . all those people were raised pre internet in very closed environments. I just think the more open the environment is to the transfer of ideas the harder it will be for the next generation of kids to be kept in the "matrix" especially if the society as a whole is becoming more secular.

Peregrinus

Yeah, I see your point. But societies outside the US (like our own) had no difficulty embracing an evolutionary understanding before the internet came along. If the US are holdouts in that regard well, that's interesting, but I think we need to look for more than just lack of internet in the past to explain that. It follows that presence of internet won't necessarily dissipate it.

I mean, OK, if you want evolutionary explanation of life you can access it through the internet. In the past, you actually had to go to the library or a bookshop, or watch science programmes on the telly. But if, for whatever reason, a certain class of Americans were not motivated to use libraries or bookshops or science programmes for this purpose, I don't see that they will be motivated to use the internet for this purpose, when they can just watch funny cat vidoes and/or naughty human videos just like everyone else does.

oldrnwisr

AstraMonti wrote: »

I am not sure if this has already been discussed but I just read this article http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/ and if the study is to be trusted the news are quite disturbing. Islam and Christianity will gain huge numbers in the next 35 years apparently, which in my eyes that only means one thing, humanity going backwards.

I can't see why the future generations with such an amazing access to vast knowledge will choose and follow archaic beliefs, it's just baffling.

In the words of Ben Goldacre: "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that."

There are two problems with the Pew Forum projections.

Firstly, they fail to account for confounding factors. As Skrynesaver highlights one of the factors which Pew Forum consider to be broadly correlative is the TFR (total fertility rate) of the various religions. However, they make no attempt to discern whether religions and TFR are causally related at all. As a result their projections are based on a bad model.

Secondly, they fail to account for other models which show dissimilar trends. For example, this study mentioned in the Hazards thread projects that mainstream religions will become extinct based on existing mathematical models used to study social competition and the evolution of languages. However, the Pew Forum makes no attempt to explain this anomaly which is a big flaw.

FWIW, both sets of projections are wide of the mark. The Pew Forum hasn't attempted to understand the factors that are related to population growth and this leads them to make projections which are deeply unfounded. While TFR is a good predictor of population growth, the factors which are connected with TFR are average income, education, age at first marriage, access to family planning and gender equality in the work force.

For anyone who is interested you can see the relationships between these variables (and many others) at Gapminder.

TFR vs. Income per person 1960-2013 by religion

Alternatively, here's Hans Rosling, founder of Gapminder explaining that TFR is not dictated by religion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78

oldrnwisr

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dunno. The US is probably one of the most wired, internet-accessible societies on the planet, and some of the "wackier elements of Christianity" are not only found there, but are in fact distinctively American. And, in the Islamic world, the "wackier elements of Islam" don't seem to be well-correlated with the poorest and least-resourced communities. Dirt-poor Bangladesh and not-much-richer Indonesia don't have anything like the problems we see in prosperous Syria and prosperous-before-the-Americans-bombed-it-to-**** Iraq.

No, when it comes to the wackier elements of any religious (or, come to think of it, non-religious) belief, I don't think it's lack of information that drives people to wackiness. It may be personal psychology, or some social dysfunction, or some combination of the two. And while education may have a role to play in solving the problem, it's not going to be education in biology or history or whatever; it's going to be education that equips people to form healthy functional social relationships and rear healthy functional children, leading to healthy functional communities.

I would say you're right about wacky elements of religion being unaffected by increased access to information. Just look at scientology for example. However, I think silverharp makes a valid point with regard to the survival of certain religious groups. If you look at two religious groups, the Amish and Hasidic Jews, for example, you'll see that they have largely survived due to limiting access of their adherents to information from the outside world. In fact, the prevalence of internet and smartphones in particular has lead to a minor revolution among Hasidic Jews in recent years.

Google vs. God: Hasidic Jews and the Internet

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem here is that the exponential growth in human population illustrated in the graph above has nothing to do with religion - has the world been getting dramatically more religious since 1960? - and everything to do with science, technology, medicine and other entirely secular blessings. Humanity hasn't become more fertile than it was in 1800; it has become longer-lived. You can't blame religion for that.

The second problem you face is that the pressure on the planet doesn't just come from population numbers; it also comes from our individual propensity to consume resources, and this has been increasing even faster than population. And, embarrassingly for those who champion the cause of the educated and secularised west, it's us who are largely responsible for that. Although our share of the world's population is declining, our share of the world's consumption has been rising. Our appetite to consume more and more has more than offset any good we might have done for the planet with our smaller family sizes. The "materialism" side of atheistic materialism may have more to answer for that it has acknowledged up to now!

Whatever way you care to wrap it, the bleak fact is that we have become too numerous, and regardless of consumption levels, uninterrupted population growth is not sustainable going forward. As such, the message 'go forth and multiply' is not one that should be preached. Rampant consumerism and the associated waste clearly needs to happen alongside this, not instead of it, and the religious in the west over consume to the same degree as their atheist neighbours.

As for blaming religion, I think as long as it preaches in favour of population growth and against family planning, it is at fault.

In short, from the perspective of someone living in the global south, he sees himself being urged to limit his family size so that the already unsustainably selfish lifestyle of some prosperous westerner can be carried on for a bit longer than might otherwise be possible. You can see how that's not going to be a hugely appealing position. You can see also how his feelings about this might have nothing to do with religion.

Not sure where you're going with the global south, given that between China and India, the vast majority of the worlds population lie north of the equator. Interestingly, the only country that has actively tried to reduce its population size has been China under an atheist regime, albeit that
eugenics in China has its problems.

smacl

oldrnwisr wrote: »

For anyone who is interested you can see the relationships between these variables (and many others) at Gapminder.

TFR vs. Income per person 1960-2013 by religion

Fascinating site and great fun, though I couldn't find religiosity as an available measure on it (was expecting to see it under society). It strikes me as dangerous to take population% by religion as a variable, in that this in term requires a persons religious beliefs to be considered as a discrete non-scalar value. e.g. A Catholic, an atheist, a Muslim, etc... Religion here relates entirely to nominal self identification, as opposed to observance or social behaviour. (e.g. a majority of today's Irish Catholics will act against the wishes of the church on a given issue where they disagree with the churches teaching on that issue, in the past they were less likely to do so. A significant number of Irish Catholics in the past become priests, nuns, and brothers; very few now do). This variable is hence a subjective value whose meaning changes drastically over time. As such I would say it is tenuous in placing it in an animation showing changing trends over time, as we're not comparing like with like.

I enjoyed the TED talk, but would argue the case that there is no connection between fertility rates and religion on the evidence presented, particularly for the religions that advocate against birth control. My reading is that where fertility rates are down, either people are having less sex (doubt it!) or people are employing more birth control. Where people are employing birth control contrary to the teachings of their religion, it would seem they are being less observant of the teachings of that religion, and arguably less religious. (Of course we can correlate many variables, but this doesn't imply any causal links).

Just because the number of nominally religious individuals in a population is static over time doesn't mean that population is as religious as it once was.

oldrnwisr

smacl wrote: »

Fascinating site and great fun, though I couldn't find religiosity as an available measure on it (was expecting to see it under society). It strikes me as dangerous to take population% by religion as a variable, in that this in term requires a persons religious beliefs to be considered as a discrete non-scalar value. e.g. A Catholic, an atheist, a Muslim, etc... Religion here relates entirely to nominal self identification, as opposed to observance or social behaviour. (e.g. a majority of today's Irish Catholics will act against the wishes of the church on a given issue where they disagree with the churches teaching on that issue, in the past they were less likely to do so. A significant number of Irish Catholics in the past become priests, nuns, and brothers; very few now do). This variable is hence a subjective value whose meaning changes drastically over time. As such I would say it is tenuous in placing it in an animation showing changing trends over time, as we're not comparing like with like.

OK, first off I should have mentioned in the last post that religion is not one of the X-Y variables in those graphs. Rather it is one of the categorisation tools. As you've seen, each country is represented by a bubble. In general the size of this bubble is determined by population. The colour of the bubble is adjustable at the top right of the graph under categorisations. The religion category is determined by majority religion as explained by Rosling in the video.

smacl wrote: »

I enjoyed the TED talk, but would argue the case that there is no connection between fertility rates and religion on the evidence presented, particularly for the religions that advocate against birth control. My reading is that where fertility rates are down, either people are having less sex (doubt it!) or people are employing more birth control. Where people are employing birth control contrary to the teachings of their religion, it would seem they are being less observant of the teachings of that religion, and arguably less religious. (Of course we can correlate many variables, but this doesn't imply any causal links).

Couple of points here.

Firstly, to go in slightly reverse order, we shouldn't take a blinkered view of the world when it comes to contraception. Your highlighted comment above only holds for catholicism. Outside catholicism there are a wide variety of positions on contraception in Christianity alone, before we even get to Hindus, Jews, Muslims etc. Most religions accept the use of contraception at least in some circumstances.

Secondly, what Rosling refers to in the video is access to family planning. This is not necessarily contraception alone. In a lot of developing countries education regarding family planning is likely to have an effect on TFR alongside birth control. Controlling unplanned pregnancies by being better educated will also lower the TFR.

Thirdly, as Rosling talks about in the video, the high fertility rate in underdeveloped countries is fed by a)poverty, where children are needed to enter the workforce to increase the household income and b) child mortality (either through poor healthcare or conflict) where the death of a child creates the need for more children. The connection between fertility rate and religion in this context is flimsy. The only factor which could be loosely attributed to religion is conflict in that child mortality is high in regions with a recent history of conflict where religion is a factor (e.g. Afghanistan). However, a connection between religion and fertility in this context wouldn't go nearly far enough in explaining all the changes in, say, the last half-century alone.

Finally, Rosling answers the question quite well when he looks specifically at Qatar. The Qatari Central Statistics Authority, as shown in the video had determined that the reduction in fertility rate resulted from "increased age at first marriage, increased educational level of Qatari women and more women integrated into the labour force."
It is difficult to see how any of these factors conform to the teachings of Islam or have any relevance to religion at all.

smacl wrote: »

Just because the number of nominally religious individuals in a population is static over time doesn't mean that population is as religious as it once was.

You see, here's the thing. Measuring religiosity on this kind of scale is going to be difficult to the point of impossibility. One of the few global measures of this variable is the Gallup poll which asks: "Is religion important in your daily life?"

Importance of religion by country

Now at the top of this scale are countries like Niger and Somalia which also happen to be at the top of the TFR scale on the Gapminder info. However, the third country with a 100% score on the importance of religion scale is Bangladesh, a country with a TFR of 2.2 down from a TFR of 7 when it gained independence. And yet all three are Islam dominated countries. So, clearly religion or religiosity is not a sufficient predictor of TFR.

Even when we look at differences in religiosity we see the same thing. Take Philippines and Ireland for example. According to the religiosity index above Philippines has a 95.5% score compared to 53.5% for Ireland. Similarly, mass attendances taken from this link show that 54.1% of adherents attend weekly mass in the Philippines compared to mid 30% figures according to various reports here. So there is a distinct religiosity gap between two ostensibly catholic dominated populations. However, when you look at the TFR between, say, 1960 and 2013, the Philippines drops from 7.2 to 3 while Ireland goes from 3.7 to 2. If religiosity is a factor in TFR, then we should expect to see countries where religiosity has fallen significantly begin to separate from those with more devout populations. But we don't.

smacl

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Firstly, to go in slightly reverse order, we shouldn't take a blinkered view of the world when it comes to contraception. Your highlighted comment above only holds for catholicism. Outside catholicism there are a wide variety of positions on contraception in Christianity alone, before we even get to Hindus, Jews, Muslims etc. Most religions accept the use of contraception at least in some circumstances.

True, but equally, many religions disallow or seek to limit the use of contraception in other circumstances. From my limited understanding, Islam for example only allows for contraception within marriage and then allows barrier methods but is against hormonal contraception. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest religion influences contraceptive options in many cases, as it seeks to control sexual behaviour in others.

Secondly, what Rosling refers to in the video is access to family planning. This is not necessarily contraception alone. In a lot of developing countries education regarding family planning is likely to have an effect on TFR alongside birth control. Controlling unplanned pregnancies by being better educated will also lower the TFR.

No argument there.

Thirdly, as Rosling talks about in the video, the high fertility rate in underdeveloped countries is fed by a)poverty, where children are needed to enter the workforce to increase the household income and b) child mortality (either through poor healthcare or conflict) where the death of a child creates the need for more children. The connection between fertility rate and religion in this context is flimsy. The only factor which could be loosely attributed to religion is conflict in that child mortality is high in regions with a recent history of conflict where religion is a factor (e.g. Afghanistan). However, a connection between religion and fertility in this context wouldn't go nearly far enough in explaining all the changes in, say, the last half-century alone.

Finally, Rosling answers the question quite well when he looks specifically at Qatar. The Qatari Central Statistics Authority, as shown in the video had determined that the reduction in fertility rate resulted from "increased age at first marriage, increased educational level of Qatari women and more women integrated into the labour force."
It is difficult to see how any of these factors conform to the teachings of Islam or have any relevance to religion at all.

Another factor that might be worth considering is the emancipation of women. You point out that in Qatar for example, there is a higher educational level achieved by women and a better representation in the workforce. If religion acts as a blocking factor towards gender equality, does it also impede progress towards an improved economic position? I think many religions promote gender inequality and suspect this in turn impedes social and economic progression.

You see, here's the thing. Measuring religiosity on this kind of scale is going to be difficult to the point of impossibility. One of the few global measures of this variable is the Gallup poll which asks: "Is religion important in your daily life?"

Importance of religion by country

Now at the top of this scale are countries like Niger and Somalia which also happen to be at the top of the TFR scale on the Gapminder info. However, the third country with a 100% score on the importance of religion scale is Bangladesh, a country with a TFR of 2.2 down from a TFR of 7 when it gained independence. And yet all three are Islam dominated countries. So, clearly religion or religiosity is not a sufficient predictor of TFR.

Perhaps not, but is it a contributing factor, and if so, how do we measure it?

Even when we look at differences in religiosity we see the same thing. Take Philippines and Ireland for example. According to the religiosity index above Philippines has a 95.5% score compared to 53.5% for Ireland. Similarly, mass attendances taken from this link show that 54.1% of adherents attend weekly mass in the Philippines compared to mid 30% figures according to various reports here. So there is a distinct religiosity gap between two ostensibly catholic dominated populations. However, when you look at the TFR between, say, 1960 and 2013, the Philippines drops from 7.2 to 3 while Ireland goes from 3.7 to 2. If religiosity is a factor in TFR, then we should expect to see countries where religiosity has fallen significantly begin to separate from those with more devout populations. But we don't.

But the point that I took from the TED talk was that fertility rates were closely related to poverty, for the reasons you've already stated and I fully accept. But what if religiosity is also linked to poverty? While Gapminder doesn't have religiosity as an axial variable, we can compare income per person between the Philippines and Ireland for the period given, which yields some interesting results. If we accept religiosity in Ireland has declined since the 1960s, we can see income has risen dramatically. In the same period, religiosity in the Philippines has not declined, and neither have incomes risen so dramatically. While I scarcely consider this causal, it does strike me that organised religion seems to thrive alongside poverty, and has an interest in maintaining the local status quo to that extent. So again, if TFR relates to poverty, and poverty provides the best environment for religion, is it fair to say that religion influences TFR?



Problem with correlation is that it can make all sorts of arguments look attractive. Fun, but you don't want to treat the result as gospel :pac:

smacl

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, first off I should have mentioned in the last post that religion is not one of the X-Y variables in those graphs. Rather it is one of the categorisation tools. As you've seen, each country is represented by a bubble. In general the size of this bubble is determined by population. The colour of the bubble is adjustable at the top right of the graph under categorisations. The religion category is determined by majority religion as explained by Rosling in the video.

Thanks for that. I gotta say, I love the site, but I'm not sold on its treatment of religion. The largest single population mass is China listed as 'Eastern Religions' yet from the wiki site you later reference

China, although its number is less than a fifth of its total population (~18-19%), ranks second, with an estimated 240-260 million believers

Which seems to imply 81%-82% non-believers or a rather stonking 1.35 billion atheists who have slipped under the radar for the purposes of this discussion. I think throwing the religiosity stats you've linked to the site as a variable could yield some interesting results.

recedite

Here's another angle to the article in the OP

As of 2050, the largest religious group in France, New Zealand and the Netherlands is expected to be the unaffiliated.

Also it seems that Australia, and UK are not far behind. No mention of Ireland though.
Italy not mentioned either, but another complication arises there, and also to a lesser extent in Spain. The birth rate of the native population is at less than replacement level, while at the same time naval vessels such as the LE Eithne are ferrying immigrants from the coast of N. Africa and dropping them off at ports in Italy, much to the annoyance of the Italians. In some cases fights between the immigrants indicate that they are far from "unaffiliated".
And as we saw in the recent SSM referendum here, once established in the host country they seem to tend towards the religious position in civil matters.

oldrnwisr

smacl wrote: »

True, but equally, many religions disallow or seek to limit the use of contraception in other circumstances. From my limited understanding, Islam for example only allows for contraception within marriage and then allows barrier methods but is against hormonal contraception. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest religion influences contraceptive options in many cases, as it seeks to control sexual behaviour in others.

Well, in Islam there are strictures against adultery so any sex outside marriage is going to be frowned upon. Aside from that once the method doesn't involve any injury or impose permanent sterility it's fine. Similarly in Judaism contraception is fine if there are sound reasons (i.e. already having enough children). In fact once you go outside the Abrahamic religions there are rarely any restrictions on contraception. The religious influence is only true to the degree of the number of catholics, devout muslims etc. not the number of religions.

smacl wrote: »

Another factor that might be worth considering is the emancipation of women. You point out that in Qatar for example, there is a higher educational level achieved by women and a better representation in the workforce. If religion acts as a blocking factor towards gender equality, does it also impede progress towards an improved economic position? I think many religions promote gender inequality and suspect this in turn impedes social and economic progression.

Again I would disagree with the use of the term "many religions". We ought not to have such an Abrahamic centred view of the world. Yes there is gender inequality in many Islamic societies but much less so in Christian countries despite the teachings of the religion and the organisation of the clergy. However, other religions don't contain such inequalities either theoretically or practically. There are both male and female Gods in the Hindu pantheon and Buddhism is very egalitarian in its view of men and women. The idea of gender equality is baked into Sikhism and Jainism also.

However, with regard to emancipation of women and TFR, there are two problems.
Firstly, in most Christian societies gender inequality is quite limited. Women are not restricted from accessing education or jobs. This is despite, as previously noted, the teachings of the Bible and the views of certain denominations (e.g. catholicism).
Secondly, even within societies which share the same religion there are differing levels of emancipation of women even with similar levels of religiosity. Therefore religion cannot be used a reliable factor.

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps not, but is it a contributing factor, and if so, how do we measure it?

I don't see how it contributes at all. At least not from the actual data. You see there are two ways to look at this as I alluded to previously. There is, to borrow medical terminology, the case-control method and the cohort method.
In a medical study you are trying to study the effect of a particular intervention or treatment on a particular health outcome. So, in the case of autism, for example, people studied the effect of vaccination on rates of autism. Now there are two ways to do this. Either you take people who all share the same intervention and look at differences in the outcome (cohort) or you take people who all have the same outcome and look for differences in intervention (case control).
Similarly with this data we should be able to do the same. We should be able to take societies with the same religion and level of religiosity and look at differences in TFR. This is what we find. Bangladesh and Niger have the same religion and religiosity but markedly different TFRs. We should also be able to take societies with the same (or very similar TFR) and look for differences in religiosity. And we can see this if we compare Romania (TFR 1.4, Religiosity 99.9%, Income 18,180) and Croatia (TFR 1.5, Religiosity 66.5%, Income 19,980).

When we control for confounding factors there is no reliable pattern between religion and TFR, so it is not a factor.

smacl wrote: »

But the point that I took from the TED talk was that fertility rates were closely related to poverty, for the reasons you've already stated and I fully accept. ... ... While I scarcely consider this causal, it does strike me that organised religion seems to thrive alongside poverty, and has an interest in maintaining the local status quo to that extent. So again, if TFR relates to poverty, and poverty provides the best environment for religion, is it fair to say that religion influences TFR?

Two problems here.

Firstly, as we've seen from the example above, you can have differing levels of religion and religiosity even within the same income bracket. Nevertheless there is a colloquial correlation with religion and poverty in that religion thrives in poor countries. However this is mostly a case of cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Secondly your highlighted point in bold suggests that poverty is causally related to religion and poverty is causally related to TFR, therefore religion influences TFR. Well, no. If A causes B and A causes C, this says nothing about the relationship between B and C.

smacl

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In fact once you go outside the Abrahamic religions there are rarely any restrictions on contraception. The religious influence is only true to the degree of the number of catholics, devout muslims etc. not the number of religions.

Again I would disagree with the use of the term "many religions". We ought not to have such an Abrahamic centred view of the world.

I think for this discussion, taking a slightly Abrahamic centred view makes good sense. A quick look at Wikipedia on list of religious populations show that Abrahamic religions make up for the majority of religious adherents. Mind you, also based on pew research which I note you have concerns about in your previous post. Anyhoo, that aside, a tot of the figures given show Abrahamic religion makes up about 64% of the total world population of religious adherents, so no disrespect to the Sikhs, Jainists or even Jews, but they're largely insignificant to this debate. Hindus and Buddhists do account for massive religious populations, but are still in a minority. Gapminder's listing of 'Eastern religions' as the majority religion seems to be at odds with this.

Yes there is gender inequality in many Islamic societies but much less so in Christian countries despite the teachings of the religion and the organisation of the clergy. However, other religions don't contain such inequalities either theoretically or practically. There are both male and female Gods in the Hindu pantheon and Buddhism is very egalitarian in its view of men and women. The idea of gender equality is baked into Sikhism and Jainism also.

However, with regard to emancipation of women and TFR, there are two problems.
Firstly, in most Christian societies gender inequality is quite limited. Women are not restricted from accessing education or jobs. This is despite, as previously noted, the teachings of the Bible and the views of certain denominations (e.g. catholicism).
Secondly, even within societies which share the same religion there are differing levels of emancipation of women even with similar levels of religiosity. Therefore religion cannot be used a reliable factor.

This is a recent phenomenon though, that coincidentally tracks TFR. When family sizes were much larger in Christian households, women primarily spent their time being mothers. As TFR reduces, women have time to do other things, such as take more time in education and enter the work force. This same is obviously true of the Qatar example given previously. Where female emancipation occurs despite teachings of whatever underlying religious doctrine, it would seem a corollary that strict religious observance (i.e. greater religiosity) is a blocking factor to the emancipation of women and the broader benefits that brings to a society. Going back to my original point, where nominally religious people start ignoring large parts of the doctrine of that religion, they can't be considered fully adherent to the religion. If part of the doctrine says 'Go forth and multiply' but instead they go forth to Boots to buy condoms, they're making a break with their religion which directly affects TFR. At the same time, their nominal religion hasn't changed, so this effect isn't visible on models such as those provided by gapminder.

I don't see how it contributes at all. At least not from the actual data. You see there are two ways to look at this as I alluded to previously. There is, to borrow medical terminology, the case-control method and the cohort method.
In a medical study you are trying to study the effect of a particular intervention or treatment on a particular health outcome. So, in the case of autism, for example, people studied the effect of vaccination on rates of autism. Now there are two ways to do this. Either you take people who all share the same intervention and look at differences in the outcome (cohort) or you take people who all have the same outcome and look for differences in intervention (case control).
Similarly with this data we should be able to do the same. We should be able to take societies with the same religion and level of religiosity and look at differences in TFR. This is what we find. Bangladesh and Niger have the same religion and religiosity but markedly different TFRs. We should also be able to take societies with the same (or very similar TFR) and look for differences in religiosity. And we can see this if we compare Romania (TFR 1.4, Religiosity 99.9%, Income 18,180) and Croatia (TFR 1.5, Religiosity 66.5%, Income 19,980).

When we control for confounding factors there is no reliable pattern between religion and TFR, so it is not a factor.

This might well be the case, but in Rosling's TED presentation, the Gapminder model used had no quantitative information regarding religiosity, and the information on nominal religion by geographical region seemed rather weak. I would suggest that it is a mistake to categorically state there is no link between religion and TFR in the absence of this information and without first examining how religion influences behaviour in different societies. Of course this is an argument coming from a prejudiced position having grown up in a country where religion was ubiquitous and dominated much of daily life, to living in the same country with the same nominal religious make up yet a stark absence of observance. Accompanied of course by dramatic decrease in family sizes over the same period.

Two problems here.

Firstly, as we've seen from the example above, you can have differing levels of religion and religiosity even within the same income bracket. Nevertheless there is a colloquial correlation with religion and poverty in that religion thrives in poor countries. However this is mostly a case of cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Secondly your highlighted point in bold suggests that poverty is causally related to religion and poverty is causally related to TFR, therefore religion influences TFR. Well, no. If A causes B and A causes C, this says nothing about the relationship between B and C.

I possibly stated it poorly so, as the intended implication was strong correlation deserving further investigation rather than causation. My suspicion is that there are quite a few variables at play, some of which are not included in the models being used. The fact that the models being used don't provide a reliable pattern between religion and TFR could be indicative of weaknesses in these model rather than such a pattern not existing.

recedite

You need to think in terms of culture, not just religion. You won't find a proof that says religion always causes poverty, or causes TFA to rise, or that it lowers average education and income. But you will find religion wrapped up in the same cultural package as these things. Wherever there is poverty and insecurity, people cling on to the idea that religion and having lots of children will provide them with hope and security for the future.

Take for example Islamic State, which formed out of chaos when two other countries fell apart. Previously the two states Syria and Iraq had been fairly prosperous and were essentially secular. While it can't be said that religion has directly caused shorter lifespans, increased TFA, less education and increased poverty in the region, it can be said that increased religiosity is a part of the package.
And insofar as religion is a vigorous self-replicating meme, it actively supports, exports and seeds this kind of cultural package.
In order for the wounds to heal in the region, a different cultural package would need to displace the current one. It would need to be a culture of secularism, education and equality. But religious influences will actively oppose the introduction of that alternative.

smacl

I tend to agree; religion is extremely difficult to deal with from a statistical perspective, as it is difficult to define in a manner that is both quantifiable and fit for purpose. While I fully Oldrnwisr's point

Oldrnwisr wrote:

While TFR is a good predictor of population growth, the factors which are connected with TFR are average income, education, age at first marriage, access to family planning and gender equality in the work force.

I would suggest we simply don't know, in quantifiable terms at a global level for the period under discussion, the net effects of religion on things like family planning, gender equality, population migration and armed conflict between various factions. My suspicion would be that the effect is so varied by culture time and location, that they cannot be readily conflated into a scalable range as would be required for a statistical analysis site such as Gapminder. So while I think it is reasonable to say that Rosling's analysis does not find any link between religion and TFR, I don't think it is reasonable to conclude as a result that such a link doesn't exist, as the model being used doesn't include the required information.

Huntergonzo

Nobody can predict the future with 100% accuracy, therefore I tend not too worry about it too much about it. As for religion growing in the future, well who knows, I mean it's incredible to think that the majority of human beings on this planet believe that we're all here because of some omnipotent sky fairy and/or fairies but when those people breed they don't always produce religious children.

I don't believe in god and haven't since I was about 15 but like most people in Ireland I was born to 2 catholic parents with 4 catholic grandparents and so on. Now I didn't have a strict catholic upbringing at all so there was no need for me to rebel against the faith of my parents and I paid very little attention to religion growing up anyway but when I did finally start listening to what the priests and teachers were saying I came to this very simple conclusion = 'hang on this creation story is absolute boll0x'!

You'd hope plenty of other people can come to the same conclusion in the future given the advancement of technology and information, of course the big threat to that is those who want to censor freedom of information so they can dominate peoples lives.

smacl

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I don't believe in god and haven't since I was about 15 but like most people in Ireland I was born to 2 catholic parents with 4 catholic grandparents and so on.

Both of my parents are atheist, as are my kids. Don't see anyone in our immediate family finding God any time soon, though my eldest did briefly become a Buddhist which was fine. She also decided to go to a Catholic girls secondary school which she has come to regret, not so much from the religious point of view, more the lack of practical subjects like metal work which you'd get in a co-ed. I reckon the larger part of the current Irish Catholic teenage population will be Christmas / Easter / Births / Deaths and Weddings Catholic with a splash of confirmations and communions if there's sufficient financial incentive. Can't see Sunday mass being a big pull for many over here. Now if James Brown and crew set up a church locally I'd go myself, but Father Ted and the likes really don't hold much sway

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeQyoTSgllc

Huntergonzo

smacl wrote: »

Both of my parents are atheist, as are my kids. Don't see anyone in our immediate family finding God any time soon, though my eldest did briefly become a Buddhist which was fine. She also decided to go to a Catholic girls secondary school which she has come to regret, not so much from the religious point of view, more the lack of practical subjects like metal work which you'd get in a co-ed. I reckon the larger part of the current Irish Catholic teenage population will be Christmas / Easter / Births / Deaths and Weddings Catholic with a splash of confirmations and communions if there's sufficient financial incentive. Can't see Sunday mass being a big pull for many over here. Now if James Brown and crew set up a church locally I'd go myself, but Father Ted and the likes really don't hold much sway

That's interesting, I don't know many atheists in general, nevermind people who's parents are non believers, you see most of my family and friends are 'catholic' (they just don't go to mass very often or believe in most of the doctrine). How did your parents manage to become atheists because by the sounds of things they would have been raised in a very religious time?

Ye I think most young people in Ireland are Christmas / Easter / Births / Deaths and Weddings Catholic these days. Christmas and Easter I'm in full favour of for the days off and the drinkin', christenings I'm very much against (that should be the persons choice), funerals I respect peoples wishes to them and church weddings I find soul destroyingly boring........James Brown I'm in favour of though

smacl

Huntergonzo wrote: »

. How did your parents manage to become atheists because by the sounds of things they would have been raised in a very religious time?

The mother's Austrian from a Jewish background. The family fled Austria to England during the second world to avoid the Nazis and then fled England for Ireland, because being German speaking, people assumed they were Nazis. The father from a sea faring family and joined the merchant navy, travelling the world he had no interest whatsoever in Catholicism or any religion.

Hotblack Desiato

There have always been atheists in Ireland, some openly and many secretly.

Even today, many non-believers don't identify as atheist because it is a word with many misconceptions and negative associations attached to it by many in Irish society.

As for the days off, these 'christian' festivals were appropriated by them from much more ancient folk/pagan rituals, it's no coincidence that Christmas is very close to the winter solstice, Easter to spring equinox, Corpus Christi (anyone remember that??) to summer solstice. A calendar ruled by the sun, from ancient peoples whose survival depended on knowledge of the seasons, whether they were actually solar worshippers or not.

If anyone gives you static you can always say you are celebrating Yule

Huntergonzo

smacl wrote: »

The mother's Austrian from a Jewish background. The family fled Austria to England during the second world to avoid the Nazis and then fled England for Ireland, because being German speaking, people assumed they were Nazis. The father from a sea faring family and joined the merchant navy, travelling the world he had no interest whatsoever in Catholicism or any religion.

That's a pretty interesting family history smacl, your mother's family in particular must have been pretty lucky to have gotten out of Austria during that horrific time.

recedite

The Austrian jewish family would not have been allowed into Ireland at that time, but they were fortunate to get to England. I would be reluctant to say "lucky" without knowing the story. Maybe they were clued in, tenacious, wealthy, or all of the above, rather than lucky.

As Alan Shatter mentioned a few years ago, the Irish state was not at all sympathetic to the plight of foreign jews, despite generally treating Irish jews without any particular prejudice. IMO Irish jews benefited to some extent from an overlap of the nascent Republic's somewhat protective attitude to protestants; ie for the purposes of stability, it was felt important that they be safeguarded, while at the same time the state behaved as a RC state. Minorities already living here were treated well, so long as they played along. But it was felt inappropriate to allow into the country any more such people, because they would never really "belong" in such a set up.

De Valera, perhaps surprisingly, was one of the more open-minded individuals at the time towards European jews.

There was some official indifference from the political establishment to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust during and after the war. This indifference would later be described by Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Michael McDowell as being "antipathetic, hostile and unfeeling". Dr. Mervyn O'Driscoll of University College Cork reported on the unofficial and official barriers that prevented Jews from finding refuge in Ireland although the barriers have been down ever since: Although overt anti-Semitism was not typical, the southern Irish were indifferent to the Nazi persecution of the Jews and those fleeing the third Reich....A successful applicant in 1938 was typically wealthy, middle-aged or elderly, single from Austria, Roman Catholic and desiring to retire in peace to Ireland and not engage in employment. Only a few Viennese bankers and industrialists met the strict criterion of being Catholic, although possibly of Jewish descent, capable of supporting themselves comfortably without involvement in the economic life of the country....


Post-war, Jewish groups had great difficulty in getting refugee status for Jewish children, whilst at the same time, a plan to bring over four hundred Catholic children from the Rhineland encountered no difficulties. The Department of Justice explained in 1948 that:It has always been the policy of the Minister for Justice to restrict the admission of Jewish aliens, for the reason that any substantial increase in our Jewish population might give rise to an anti-Semitic problem. However, De Valera overruled the Department of Justice and the one hundred and fifty refugee Jewish children were brought to Ireland in 1948. Earlier, in 1946, one hundred Jewish children from Poland were brought to Clonyn Castle in County Meath by Solomon Schonfeld. In 2000 many of the Cloyne Castle children returned for a reunion. In 1952 he again had to overrule the Department of Justice to admit five Orthodox families who were fleeing the Communists. In 1966, the Dublin Jewish community arranged the planting and dedication of the Éamon de Valera Forest in Israel, near Nazareth, in recognition of his consistent support for Ireland's Jews.

from wiki

I suppose the fact that smacl's family never "assimilated" into the "Catholic Ireland" mentality that was rife in the 1940's (and beyond) is proof that those bureaucrats were right (in their wrongness) to suspect as much.
Yet nowadays we can be grateful to all those who held out against the hegemony of the times, because it is never a good thing for one group or one ethos to get absolute political control.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I suppose the fact that smacl's family never "assimilated" into the "Catholic Ireland" mentality that was rife in the 1940's (and beyond) is proof that those bureaucrats were right (in their wrongness) to suspect as much.

My take on things, between family background and a fair amount of travel, is that xenophobia is ubiquitous across many cultures, and pack mentality comes to the fore pretty quickly when people feel threatened or aggreived, whether expressed as sectarianism, racism, or faux nationalism. IMHO, it all boils down to factionalism, where if you're not one of us, you're one of them and the self righteous will trample over anyone who says different.

ScumLord

smacl wrote: »

My take on things, between family background and a fair amount of travel, is that xenophobia is ubiquitous across many cultures, and pack mentality comes to the fore pretty quickly when people feel threatened or aggreived, whether expressed as sectarianism, racism, or faux nationalism. IMHO, it all boils down to factionalism, where if you're not one of us, you're one of them and the self righteous will trample over anyone who says different.

Great conquerors in history like Alexander the great or Rome forced people across vast areas to have the same culture and economic systems and despite the violence that brought the systems in the end result was often decades of peace as everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet.

I think we're coming out of that type of thinking, there is a new global culture pushed by the internet that appreciates differences. It's also always been the case that travelled people are more accepting of differences in cultures and it's never been easier to travel all over the world.


Even though we highlight the fact that there's always been conflict between cultures we seem to ignore the fact there's always been cooperation between cultures. Trade has always been a huge part of any human society. Politics has always encouraged the hysterics to raise to the top though.