tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post8285621783883871597..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Contra Hedrick: On Faith & DemographicsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-33333088582483978102012-10-25T08:15:06.488-07:002012-10-25T08:15:06.488-07:00Ironic, when someone who won't give his name c...Ironic, when someone who won't give his name calls someone who does "sneaky." <br /><br />A person without a religion need not be an "atheist." Especially in the Chinese context, where a person may only claim to have a religion if he or she goes to services. Anon doesn't know what he/ she is talking about. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-87091345424980231562012-06-24T17:50:09.461-07:002012-06-24T17:50:09.461-07:00I did a little digging and I believe David Marshal...I did a little digging and I believe David Marshall has been a little sneaky with his sources. The book cited for the following claim can be found on Google Books. DM said: <i>"In Singapore, while only 6.4% of those with less than secondary education counted themselves as Christian in 2000, a full 39.3% of those with university education did. (Eng, Lai Ah, 2008: editor, Religious Diversity in Singapore Singapore: Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Institute of Policy Studies : Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 47.)"</i><br /><br />Yes many Chinese who have higher levels of education are Christians but DM neglected to cite another figure. The following sentence was ignored in the same paragraph by DM: <i>"Another 28.8 per cent of university graduates claimed to have 'No Religion'. In contrast, amongst those who had below secondary education, only 6.4. per cent were Christians while 7.7 per cent professed 'No Religion'."</i> [Page 46]<br /><br />There doesn't appear to be much of a difference between the higher educated and their religious beliefs. A higher educated Chinese is just about as likely to be an atheist as a Christian. That doesn't help his case much to support this argument about education and Christianity. To a degree I'd say it sort of undermines it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-7864821601495891242012-03-09T10:34:10.657-08:002012-03-09T10:34:10.657-08:00On the possibility of religion making people bette...On the possibility of religion making people better, I am reminded of Evelyn Waugh. He was being rebuked for his general nastiness and verbal cruelty and someone asked him,"How can you possibly call yourself a Catholic?". He replied, "If I wasn't a catholic I'd be MUCH worse."Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-68017636288722471282012-03-09T09:53:28.019-08:002012-03-09T09:53:28.019-08:00Yeah, religion and faith can transform many people...Yeah, religion and faith can transform many people's lives for the better, and as you say, I'm just looking at the overall picture, which misses many nuances and individual cases. And rural areas or small communities do tend to have lower homicide rates and crime rates than big cities (although the biggest city in the world, Tokyo, is spectacularly, unbelievably crime free and safe, at least for such a big city). <br /><br />Singapore and South Korea come closer to the less religious end of the Gallup polls (53% and 52% respectively saying that religion is not an important part of their daily lives, though these places also, of course, have thriving religious communities). Places like Russia have a lot of non-religious people and they also have a lot of serious problems, but they are also very unequal societies - like very unequal Latin America, which is very christian, and also, as you say, has high crime rates ... This is part of the reason I think the positive correlation between income equality and societal flourishing might be even higher ... But the question of cause and effect also comes into play here, since a statistical correlation does not necessarily establish a causal connection.<br /><br />Seattle seems like a great place, and very creative ... Don't forget Fraser and Nirvana! I suppose organisations like the Discovery Institute are a price well worth paying for the blessing of living in a free society :-)<br /><br />Anyway, good luck with your new book!Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-75706182097405870962012-03-09T08:22:12.737-08:002012-03-09T08:22:12.737-08:00The survey was anonymous: there was no way for me ...The survey was anonymous: there was no way for me to know who filled out which form. Also, people wrote their opinions on the open questions quite freely, and with great diversity. Also, from talking with young people around China over the years, their responses made perfect sense. So no, I don't think many were just pretending. <br /><br />I don't really buy Zuckermann's polls, because he tends to pick and choose societies that will confirm his thesis. He tended to ignore post-Soviet societies, where a high percent of respondants denied belief in God, and the crime rate was higher than anywhere else except maybe Latin America. He tended to ignore more religious, and very attractive, places like South Korea and Singapore. While he knew better, his polls are often interpretted as simple cause-and-effect. But the biggest problem with those polls is, they are like satellite photos from the sky. To figure out what's really going on, you need to observe individual lives and find out what role religion or irreligion really plays. <br /><br />For example, this morning I was listening to a history of the AMerican 101st Airborne. One of the sargaents became a drunk after the war. If you'd asked him about his religious faith at that time, very likely he would have said, "I'm a Christian." But it didn't do him any good. Then his 4-year old niece came into his room, and said, "God loves you, and I love you. And if you repent of your sins, God will forgive you." Something like that. And that's what he did, and got his life straightened out. He said he only beat up one person after that, and that person needed it. <br /><br />How would that story show up on Zuckermann's statistics? Christian before, Christian afterwards. Believer in God before, believer afterwards. Violent drunk before, beat up a guy afterwards. <br /><br />What part of the US has the lowest crime rate? Rural, "uncreative" places like North Dakota. North Dakota is largely Scandinavian, and they have a LOWER murder rate than some Scandinavian countries. Also lots of pious Christians. (Many moved to Seattle early in the 20th Century.) <br /><br />Here I am in Seattle, this great bastion of liberalism. I agree that pluralism, freedom and openness, corresponds to creativity. We seem to be very good at creating successful companies -- United, Boeing, UPS, Microsoft, this here Amazon, Starbucks. And yes, the percent who go to church is lower than in Mississippi or Alabama. <br /><br />But I meet missionaries from Seattle all the time. World Vision and World Concern are located here, as is (sorry) Discovery Institute. Mars Hill Fellowship, one of the most famous and influential churches in the world, is based a few miles from the University of Washington, and is full of young, well-educated people. (In fact, if I were advising a young man to find a foxy girlfriend . . . wow, paradise.) <br /><br />I believe in freedom. I think the Church screwed up by associating with the State too closely for too long. I think everybody does better in a free market of ideas. <br /><br />But you've got me thinking about several interesting trends . . . One of them is a book in embryo, don't know if I should spill the beans for a blog . . . A big theme, covering millennia and continents.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-53490917700610678292012-03-09T07:53:32.983-08:002012-03-09T07:53:32.983-08:00Young Chinese might feel obliged to answer “yes” w...Young Chinese might feel obliged to answer “yes” when explicitly asked if they are Marxist (what options might they be closing off if the Communist Party found out that they have answered “no” to that question?), but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if most of them (and, indeed, most of the Communist Party) do not privately believe in Marxist ideology – if their actions and behaviour are anything to go by, they no longer believe it.<br /><br />It’s not just wealth per se - if you focus on social indicators such as life-expectancy, literacy, infant mortality, homicide rates, incarceration rates, drug abuse, obesity, social mobility, trust (i.e. the proportion of people who agree with the statement “Most people be trusted”), teenage pregnancy and so on – the countries that score best are generally notable for being relatively secular and not very religious. These places tend to be egalitarian as well, with a relatively equal income distribution - if anything the positive correlation between societal flourishing and relative income equality is even higher for most social indicators - http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/trust-and-community-life ) <br /><br />This trend applies even within countries, such as the USA. Broadly speaking, the most dynamic, innovative regions of the US (the great cities, the great universities, Silicon Valley, San Fransisco, Washington state, Massachusetts, New York City, Hollywood, and so on) are bastions of secularism and liberalism and cosmopolitan openness, teeming with homosexuals and other godless types – “Blue State” America. These are the regions that give the US its global-leadership in many technological and creative industries, and they are the true source of American greatness. If America just consisted of the less socially liberal “Red States” it would almost certainly not be such a cultural or technological global leader.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-27643195102373835182012-03-09T07:38:10.378-08:002012-03-09T07:38:10.378-08:00Brian: No, China doesn't look very Marxist. I...Brian: No, China doesn't look very Marxist. I found that young people called themselves "Marxists," and seem to have been influenced by it to disbelief in "religion," but after they grow up all the way, often adopt other beliefs. (Not always.) <br /><br />I think you're right about cause and effect. Japan was forcibly de-Christianized in the 17th Century. Taiwan is full of religions, as is Korea, which is about the best-educated, most stable and least violent society. Singapore has lots of "free-thinkers," but also very vibrant religious scene, with some huge megachurches, but also mosques, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples, and is a very attractive society.<br /><br />In a sense, a falling away from faith, given prosperity, is predicted all through the Bible. The story is told many times in the OT, and Jesus' parable of the sower and the seed can be read that way, too. Often the foundations of prosperity were laid by religious reformers -- I tell the story of the Norwegian reformer, Hans Hauge, in another post -- but then prosperity leads to "worldliness," as the Bible calls it.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-10099300913983923422012-03-09T06:46:58.957-08:002012-03-09T06:46:58.957-08:00Well, if we look at the research about whether rel...Well, if we look at the research about whether religion is important to people or not, we see some interesting results (see Gallup polls in link below). The LEAST religious places in the world (Japan, Hong Kong, Scandinavia, much of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) are often the most stable, safest societies in the world, with the lowest crime rates, and the highest levels of social trust. And they are not “Marxist”. In contrast, the MOST religious places in the world (Sierra Leone, Burundi, Nigeria, the Congo, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Liberia, Haiti etc.) are very often some of the most backward, dangerous, least stable societies in the world. There are some exceptions to the trend, but the overall positive correlation between societal health and irreligiosity is, I think, unmistakeable. However, we can’t conclude from this that religion CAUSES countries to be screwed up. It’s far more likely that being screwed up CAUSES a country to be religious. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_by_country<br /><br />Fair enough about Marxism – no doubt there are still genuine Marxists in the Chinese provinces – although when I travelled around China it didn’t seem very Marxist to me – it seemed more like it was possessed by capitalist mania. In a very profound way, both the former USSR and China (in all but rhetoric) have to a considerable degree abandoned Marxism. At the very least, Marxism is much less important and believed in than it was even a few decades ago, and will very likely become ever less important and believed during the decades to come.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-62848699140636504672012-03-09T06:13:04.146-08:002012-03-09T06:13:04.146-08:00Let me add, some of the Marxists I have known have...Let me add, some of the Marxists I have known have been Westerers, including an American who emigrated to Italy after George Bush won the second time, and my Marxist philosophy prof and (apparently) many of his students. (One of whom died in Nicaragua in the war against the Contras.) <br /><br />In Italy and France, the Communists sometimes got 20%, maybe 30% of the vote in the 70s. Don't assume all those people are all gone, or have become orthodox Catholics.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-75864185191865618872012-03-09T06:10:36.934-08:002012-03-09T06:10:36.934-08:00Brian: I know and have known lots of Marxists. Ma...Brian: I know and have known lots of Marxists. Marxism may be a "historical curiosity" in Ireland, but you need about ten Irelands to make up the population of a single Chinese province. You're being provincial. <br /><br />Your point about Hinduism is astute. Sociologically, most converts to radically different religions tend to be well-educated. That explains the popularity of atheism and Left-wing politics on campus, and of Christianity on campus in East Asia, and of followers of Rajneesh who had PhDs.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-48298664890566922692012-03-09T06:07:08.168-08:002012-03-09T06:07:08.168-08:00Brian: I think intellectuals are more inclined to ...Brian: I think intellectuals are more inclined to atheism, and "ordinary people" are more inclined to a naive "faith in whatever sounds good." Gibbon noted the same tendency in ancient Rome. It's not limited to scientists: it includes all professors, and is stronger in particular fields like psychology, anthropology, and biology than in, say, physics or economics. Same with commitment to the Left. <br /><br />The way I interpret my experience, is that scientists seem about as likely to be dedicated Christians, as non-scientists. Engineers, maybe more so -- one told me, "We engineers like things that work!" But they're less likely to be Jack Mormons or beer-swilling Baptists. I could be wrong, but I suspect the stats hide other phenomena, and as pointed out, in some countries, my impressions seem to be born out statistically.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-34480419406977184822012-03-09T03:06:08.451-08:002012-03-09T03:06:08.451-08:00It’s possible that there have always been a dispro...It’s possible that there have always been a disproportionate number of non-theists in, say, China, since the main traditional teachings of that country (Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism) do not clearly advocate a theistic creed or dogma. For example, they have no equivalent of the Nicene Creed in Christianity or the Shahada in Islam. It may be possible to be a theist and also be a Confucianist, Taoist or Buddhist, but it is also possible to be a Confucianist, Taoist or Buddhist without being a theist.<br /><br />These days there are very few Marxists, so most atheists are not Marxists. I know a lot of atheists, but I don’t know a single Marxist. And, of course, before the era of Marx, no atheists were Marxists. During the historically brief period when Marxism was popular in some places, a lot of Marxists were atheists and a good few atheists were Marxists, but I doubt we can say that most atheists were believing Marxists or genuine Marxists. In any case, Marxism is now mostly a historical curiosity – in the future, as in the present, most atheists will not be Marxists, and it is very liekly that there will be very few believing Marxists.<br /><br />It’s possible that at the moment in some places in the Far East (like Singapore), Christians are on average more educated, although I don’t know how robust that claim is for the Far East as a whole. But I wonder what we could reasonably conclude from it? At the moment in the US, if a person is a Hindu they are much more likely to have graduate college education and be wealthy than a Christian. But can we conclude anything about Hinduism based on this? What we can reasonably say is that Christianity has always been a minority phenomenon in Asia, that world’s most populous continent, and that it will very likely remain so – in East Asia, Christians make up maybe 5% of the population, and in Asia as a whole maybe 7%.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-44855028400554414542012-03-09T03:04:16.695-08:002012-03-09T03:04:16.695-08:00Studies of contemporary scientists repeatedly show...Studies of contemporary scientists repeatedly show that about 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (though whether that means they believe in an ominpotent, omnibenevolent God, like the Christian God, is doubtful). This is in stark contrast to the more than roughly 3/4 of the general US population which says they believe in God. And among scientists, self-identified Democrats (the more secular party) outnumber self-identified Republicans nine to one. <br /><br />The results of the research make sense to me, and conform with my own personal experience of scientists. Scientists are used to looking at things from a strictly materialist or physical or naturalist perspective (some might even say that they look at things from an empirical, evidence-based and rational perspective), so it is plausible that they would on average have more of a tendency to reject superstition and the supernatural, or at least be doubtful about it.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.com