Why are the most religious countries also the poorest?

[Madmick]

It can't be just a coincidence.

But I found some solid responses here in the Quora.

Why are the most religious countries also the poorest?

Answer (1 of 30): Religious states (bible belt) are the poorest states in USA. Religious countries are the poorest in Europe. All South America and Central America are religious, they are poor, unsafe countries. Most Muslim countries are very religious, even with oil money, they are the most b...

www.quora.com

Also check out this map you can see the most religious countries are in Africa and in South Asia.

Africa and South Asia tend to have the poorest countries.

Importance of religion by country - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 1089291

It's like asking, "Why do the least religious countries have the highest rates of suicide?" or "Why do the least religious countries have the highest ratio of single parent households?" or "Why do the least religious countries have the highest ratio of sexually inactive adults?"

I'm not entirely certain how much valuable insight is generated by attempting to answer it, particularly in light of the fact it hasn't always been true.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

It's like asking, "Why do the least religious countries have the highest rates of suicide?" or "Why do the least religious countries have the highest ratio of single parent households?" or "Why do the least religious countries have the highest ratio of sexually inactive adults?"

I'm not entirely certain how much valuable insight is generated by attempting to answer it, particularly in light of the fact it hasn't always been true.

Fair enough, just thought I'd share my observation that's all.

 

[usernamee]

This thread reminded me of an old Sam Harris essay, I'll post the excerpt fitting this discussion.

According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies—countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom—are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality.

Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality—belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction, societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God, each factor may enable the other, or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society’s health.

 

[Squarechoke]

All countries are religious. Those that aren't into mythological beings are into institutions. But it's a similar vein of belief. Civil religions are still religions.

That statement doesn't work. First of all 'religious' specifically means belonging to a religion, not general belief. Secondly there aren't many countries where the ideas of how things should be run are anywhere close to a religion's divine truth, so it's a false equivalent even in the looser sense.

 

[Neph]

I'm not religious but I find a certain amount of distaste in any comparison of this sort. It reeks of superiority.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

That statement doesn't work. First of all 'religious' specifically means belonging to a religion, not general belief.

No need for this type of pedantery when we're doing analogies.

Secondly there aren't many countries where the ideas of how things should be run are anywhere close to a religion's divine truth, so it's a false equivalent even in the looser sense.

Wrong. All countries exist inside a right or wrong axis, which is generally immutable. Some call it religious text, others the constitution. Their entire existence is predicated upon the belief that that document is central for the well functioning of the state and political leaders use that text as away to legitimise themselves, berate their enemies and promise loyalty to the principles of the document as a guarantee for the well-being of the citizens.

It's pretty much the same thing.

 

[SandisLL]

America is in debt up to it's ears, but it isn't considered poor?

It is considered by muricans as world hegemony.

While in real life more sense makes individual debts and companies debts.

MAGA with Trump tariffs looks that will be good religion to taste in real life all juice.

 

[Phlog]

Evidence based education?

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

Evidence based education?

No it's there, you just got to look at it.

The most religious countries are mostly the poorest. Why I'm not sure, but the evidence points to that.

 

[Phlog]

No it's there, you just got to look at it.

The most religious countries are mostly the poorest. Why I'm not sure, but the evidence points to that.

What I mean is that countries that embraced modernism, whom are more secular, I imagine have more science based education. Education is possibly the biggest lever.

There is also movement the other way, where with greater education, populations become more secular or less likely to follow prescribed religion.

The factor though is education.

 

[nonoob]

Maybe the religion bosses takes all of the money.

 

[Squarechoke]

No need for this type of pedantery when we're doing analogies.

Wrong. All countries exist inside a right or wrong axis, which is generally immutable. Some call it religious text, others the constitution. Their entire existence is predicated upon the belief that that document is central for the well functioning of the state and political leaders use that text as away to legitimise themselves, berate their enemies and promise loyalty to the principles of the document as a guarantee for the well-being of the citizens.

It's pretty much the same thing.

It's very easy to make that parallel without using the word incorrectly. It's just aiming for the same cheap and faulty rhetoric as when a vegan says it's murder to kill an animal, instead of just saying that they think that is wrong too. The latter I can just disagree with but the former is objectively wrong.

Not wrong at all. Ideologies and philosophy change all the time and we clearly see that secular states often change as those change. Constitutions are very clearly subject to change. Not at all like believing in a divine truth and even less like worship.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

It's very easy to make that parallel without using the word incorrectly. It's just aiming for the same cheap and faulty rhetoric as when a vegan says it's murder to kill an animal, instead of just saying that they think that is wrong too. The latter I can just disagree with but the former is objectively wrong.

there's no "objective" measurement about what a murder is outside of man-made definitions that get updated all the time.

Not wrong at all. Ideologies and philosophy change all the time and we clearly see that secular states often change as those change. Constitutions are very clearly subject to change. Not at all like believing in a divine truth and even less like worship.

Religions change too. if there was unquestionable truth that remained intact since it's first conception, no religion would stand. it gets reinterpreted all the time. just like constitutions, or any other man-made acts.

 

[Blastbeat]

All countries are religious. Those that aren't into mythological beings are into institutions. But it's a similar vein of belief. Civil religions are still religions.

thats true
each day i recite Title 26 of the IRS Tax Code and pray 5 times in the direction of the IRS building on Constitution Avenue in DC
no noticeable effects on my taxes thus far but i'm gonna keep at it

 

[Fox by the Sea]

no noticeable effects

see? just like any other religion.

 

[Squarechoke]

there's no "objective" measurement about what a murder is outside of man-made definitions that get updated all the time.

Religions change too. if there was unquestionable truth that remained intact since it's first conception, no religion would stand. it gets reinterpreted all the time. just like constitutions, or any other man-made acts.

Murder is defined by law and since the statement is made at a point in time you just compare it to the current definition. So that statement is very much objectively wrong as there is no country that has defined it to include animals. It's not hard to grasp.

The texts don't tend to change, and if they do it's generally a new religion being created, like with Christianity and the new testament. Interpretations are made based on the same material (and many interpretations are really just an incremental move away from the religion). You don't write stuff into the Bible because it's supposed to be the word of god. Secular constitutions can actually just be replaced if people just change their minds and people don't view it as undisputed truth made by something other than man. Government form and religious belief just isn't the same.

 

[Hdfi]

because God prefers non-religious atheists.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Murder is defined by law and since the statement is made at a point in time you just compare it to the current definition.

this statement is just like any religious belief.

The texts don't tend to change, and if they do it's generally a new religion being created, like with Christianity and the new testament. Interpretations are made based on the same material (and many interpretations are really just an incremental move away from the religion).

not really. all religions are constantly being interpreted and reiterpreted.

You don't write stuff into the Bible because it's supposed to be the word of god.

that's literally how the bible was written.

Secular constitutions can actually just be replaced if people just change their minds and people don't view it as undisputed truth made by something other than man.

Yes, this is a dogma of the civil religion.

Government form and religious belief just isn't the same.

another statement which is a civil religion dogma.

 

[Squarechoke]

this statement is just like any religious belief.

not really. all religions are constantly being interpreted and reiterpreted.

that's literally how the bible was written.

Yes, this is a dogma of the civil religion.

another statement which is a civil religion dogma.

No, it's not, it's just word definition. Are you trying to say that language and religion is the same thing as well?

Interpretation isn't the same thing as actually changing the source. If religion was like governing a state the Bible would have been rewritten or at least ammended many times.

It's not how religious people see it. They see the word of god, which is then the absolute truth, which in turn is the point of how religion differs.

You saying that it's the same doesn't make it so, but you clearly can't actually back up your claim so I guess the discussion has come as far as it will.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

No, it's not, it's just word definition. Are you trying to say that language and religion is the same thing as well?

the employment of language in a dogmatic way is unimpeachably religious.

Interpretation isn't the same thing as actually changing the source. If religion was like governing a state the Bible would have been rewritten or at least ammended many times.

this is a civil religious dogma, that separation of method for governing documents is proof of difference. "we are right because we do things differently" is at the basis of every religion ever.

It's not how religious people see it. They see the word of god, which is the point of how religion differs.

how can you speak for all religious people? it's arrogant and reductionist.

You saying that it's the same doesn't make it so, but you clearly can't actually back up your claim so I guess the discussion has come as far as it will.

You saying that it isn't doesnt make it so either.
and i have backed up my claim with clearly stated arguments.
you haven't been able to refute any, so you run away. fine by me.