Supply Side Religion
You’ve heard of Supply-Side Economics? How about Supply Side Religion? Let me explain.
In a comment on AgnosticMom, Hifi posted a link to an article from the Humanist Network News with the title, “Church of England Report: Youth No Longer Need Supernatural Props.”
While the topic of the article is worthy of our discussion (feel free to read it and then share your thoughts), I am interested in Hifi’s reaction to the article. After posting the link, he left this comment on my blog:
The entire rest of the modern world is coming around. What is wrong with America? As much as I do appreciate it, really, having to resort to an online enclave for support should tell us something.
Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine offered a theory as to why America is clinging to religion while the rest of the modern world seems to be letting it go. In his book, How We Believe, Shermer cites Andrew Greeley, a sociologist of religion at the University of Chicago.
Greeley delivered a paper to the American Sociological Association in 1997 discussing the rise of religiosity and beliefs at a time when all sides predicted the secularization of America. The paper was called, “Pie in the Sky While You’re Alive: Life After Death and Supply Side Religion.
The data from Greeley’s research led him to the following conclusion:
. . . the different levels of religious behavior that one can observe in various regions of a country like the United States and in various countries are the result of the available “supply” of religious services. In a controlled religious marketplace, they assert, religion becomes a lazy monopoly because the Established Church (or Established Churches as in Germany) need not compete for “customers.” On the other hand, when there is no legal monopoly various “firms” must compete for “customers” and hence provide more industrious personnel and more services. In such situations religious activity increases.
That’s a theory that makes sense to me!
Maybe what we need is a little Supply Side Secularism. In the past I have made fun of all the different variations of non-theists. Could be that it’s our greatest asset?
Now, if we can only find a product that compete with Life After Death . . .
25 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
May 23rd, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
Wait… you mean not having to sing endless songs of praise to an egomaniac who created us (imperfect and unasked) for thousands of years for all eternity doesn’t compete with the idea of no afterlife at all?
Some people’s idea of fun needs a good revamp, me thinks…
May 23rd, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
That’s right. Our current product, A Life BEFORE Death just doesn’t seem to be enough.
May 23rd, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
“Not all the eloquence of a million Neitzsches, nor all the painful marshalling of evidence of a million Darwins and Harnacks, will ever empty that great consolation of its allure,” - wrote H.L. Mencken in the Introduction of his translation of Neitzsche’s Antichrist, refering to religion and what it promises. Life After Death is surely the sweetest of them all…
Last month around Easter time (think resurrection!) I had a conversation with a co-worker where I had to explain my stand on religion. The conversation ended rather abruptly when he said: “I really feel sorry for you” and left. His message was clear - he was going to end up in Heaven and I… (I don’t need to explain to anyone here.) Apparently, it didn’t matter to him that he knew me for over 2 years as upbeat, happy, successful, likable (I think) person who enjoyed everyday life and made it meaningful in many ways. He felt SORRY for me! It really spoiled my mood. I didn’t know how to respond right away while he could still hear me. I think I would’ve reacted better if he said something hateful, really. I still think about it. What would you say to someone in one sentence (”while he stands on one foot”) that you have something that surely beats their empty promises and lies?
May 23rd, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
Olga–Perhaps, “Why would you feel sorry for someone who is completely at peace with her happy and meaningful life?”
Or “Please don’t waste your time feeling sorry for someone like me who lives a happy and meaningful life. I’m sure you know plenty of other people who have real issues for you to worry about.”
Just my initial thought. I knew a vitamiin supplement salesperson who told my friend that she felt sorry for my friend because she “doesn’t want to take care of herself.” Manipulation at it’s finest. That “I feel sorry for you” phrase is a real stunner.
May 23rd, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
Could be… I don’t know if the evidence bears out the supply-side theory. You can only stimulate so much demand in people for a useless product (e.g., pet rocks) There are certainly state religions in Europe, but a lot of variety available, too. (Hey, Mormons are selling theirs everywhere you look.)
But in your support, it just so happens that over at Off-the-Map, their avowed purpose is to get data for churches on how to better appeal to the lost and reel them in. They make no bones about thinking of religion as a product with the same marketing needs as any other product. Although, to me, this seems to be a sign of desperation as they see more and more Americans choose to live without religion.
But I think I still prefer the cognitive dissonance theory I posted on my own site about morality.
Noell, I had actually hoped you might address the other point in my comment: not “what conditions have led to us to resort to finding solace in a Blog (nice blog that it is…)”, but “why do we choose to live with all of the stress of it here instead of moving to saner shores?”
May 23rd, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
When I encounter someone who “feels sorry for me,” or who “will pary for me,” I simply say, “That’s not necessary as I am quite content with my life and my beliefs, but if it will make you feel better, than go ahead.”
Once I said this to a pastor, and he replied, “It’s not abou tme feeling better, it’s about bringing you to God.” to which I replied, “If you think so.”
Needless to say, he never spoke to me again, but I do hope it challenged him to think about what he says and why he says it…
To Hifi: I’m not sure I would give up the diversity of America (as much as I disagree with it sometimes!) to live in a place that would not continue to challenge my own beliefs on what seems to be a daily basis! Granted, there is peace to be found in places where everyone can agree on the major issues, but then I fear we would stop growing as people, both menatlly and emotionally…
But that’s just my two cents!
May 24th, 2006 @ 10:28 am
I do agree with hi-fi with regards to one aspect of this discussion . The purpose of rejecting supernaturalism outright is to reduce the anxiety surrounding ghosts , gods and spirits that have never “really ” been witnessed by anyone . Why can’t I be like them and see and/or feel the alien bodies inside of me . I wanna know when things are going down like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell or Oral Roberts . Reasonable, rational people no longer have to be bothered by such idiocy.
May 24th, 2006 @ 11:21 am
Hifi–Your question about why we choose to stay in the United States with all of its religiosity rather than move to more secularized nations: obviously our family, our roots, etc. tend to keep most people right where they are.
But really, for me personally, I am VERY HAPPY here. I don’t feel like I am in isolation. Sure, I created my blog because I felt alone in terms of raising children in a way completely foreign to me (when I was used to the Mormon Church spelling EVERYTHING out for me).
But I do not feel alone in general terms. I have been able to find a handful of others with similar views as myself (ranging from existential loose-deists to soft agnostics to straight-up atheists). I have a friend or two who follow more pagan beliefs. I have non-religious Jewish friends, not-so-religious friends who are believers, and truly religious friends.
Like Jason said above, I enjoy the diversity. I like the challenge of constantly evaluating my perspectives, paradigms, and assumptions.
If there was something tempting to me about moving somewhere such as Europe, it would be the healthier lifestyle of walking/biking everywhere, along with the healthier diets of places like Spain. But then, I can find that sort of lifestyle here as well.
May 24th, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
Lotsa good wine hey :)noell
May 24th, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
I think that quote is dead-on accurate, and something the fundies will never understand. Separation of church and state was never intended to quash religion, as the christian neo-fascists claim, but to protect it. In this proective environment religion has thrived.
May 24th, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
“but if it will make you feel better, than go ahead.”
I think that is a fair response, but I don’t think you need to call them liars. If we would all just let each other enjoy more freedoms and fewer restrictions then we all might get along better.
“What would you say to someone in one sentence (”while he stands on one foot”) that you have something that surely beats their empty promises and lies?”
I would say it offends me if it does or politely say thanks if it does not.
“If there was something tempting to me about moving somewhere such as Europe, it would be the healthier lifestyle of walking/biking everywhere, along with the healthier diets of places like Spain. But then, I can find that sort of lifestyle here as well.”
Awe it seems we have found something to worship! I appreciate attractive women but not with hairy armpits.
“I think that quote is dead-on accurate, and something the fundies will never understand. Separation of church and state was never intended to quash religion, as the christian neo-fascists claim, but to protect it. In this protective environment religion has thrived.”
All this angry name calling does not lend credence to your arguments and maybe just maybe there is a dimension beyond our comprehension that intersects with our limited dimensions. As to the “separation” it ain’t in the Constitution, but protections of the free exercise of religion are.
What do you think they meant to do in protecting the free exercise from government intrusion? And can you thus see why a huge government is a threat to all our protections?
I’d rather have supply side religion than supply side government near my death bed.
Ross
May 24th, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
I think we may have gotten it backwards - I think there is more supply, not less, of cultural elements of every kind in Europe. That is because of the close contact they have with other countries and ethnic groups there. We have them here too, but it is no surprise that it is primarily on the non-theist leaning coasts. There is much less supply in America, if we mean the highly culturally insulated Bible belt of the fundamentalists - where the reactionaries that give us the most pain hail from. If only offered the difference between one Christian sect and another, I don’t think you’d call that any kind of market differentiated industry.
In fact, after arriving in California from monolithically Mormon Salt Lake City, it only took me a couple of years to not only be exposed to, but engage with every imaginable variety mysticism and Eastern Religion - same with food and dress. It’s nice to see Noell is content, although I would wait until you get into with conservatives over taking some action you may take some day to be sure of your decision. Including your family, which will make that part of the argument for staying much less convincing.
May 24th, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
It’s true, Hifi. All I do right now is right letters to the editor and have fun innocent debates or discussions with the rare few who like to engage in them.
Nothing I do so far is horribly controversial.
I did have it out with my own parents when I told them I was leaving the church. I have not (and will not) shared that with the public. It was painful for the first couple of years. My leaving the Mormon Church was enough for my dad to equate with me becoming a future anti-Mormon in direct battle with the Kingdom of God.
Since my dad got his Parkinson’s Disease diagnosis, they have calmed down. I think it helped him to realize he needed to appreciate what he had while he had it. In fact, my mom even congratulated me on my latest writing opportunities and has asked to read my stuff.
But you could be right. Some future action may trigger something drastic.
May 24th, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
Ross, just curious: what is your religion? Do you go to church weekly? And are you married?
You don’t have to answer.
May 25th, 2006 @ 11:09 am
Noell,
Here is what can happen if you actually stand up for fair treatment - and on national TV no less. ACLU recipient receives O’Rielly’s wrath.
May 25th, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
BEING ABLE TO THINK IN THE ABSTRACT IS GAINED WHEN A PERSON IS EDUCATED AND HAS ACQUIRED ENOUGH WISDOM TO BE ABLE TO TAKE TWO SIDES OF AN ARGUMENT AND DO A PROTRACTED ANALYSIS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER . UNFORTUNATELY NOT EVERYONE IS GIFTED TO THAT DEGREE. PRETEND GOD ALLOWED SOME TO THINK AND FORBID OTHERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO THINK . ALL I CAN FIGURE IS SOME PEOPLE LIKE THE TASTE OF APPLES WHILE OTHERS FAIL TO SEE THE BENEFITS OF URIC ACID.ANYWAY , ALL KIDDING ASIDE, NOT EVERYONE CAN GRASP THE PURPOSE OF THE A.C.L.U. . NOT EVERYONE CAN COME TO TERMS WITH THEIR PRINCIPLES EVEN THOUGH THEIR STATEMENT OF PURPOSE IS SPELLED OUT IN BIG BOLD LETTERS . A BRAINWASHED WARPED MIND ONLY SEES WHAT ITS PERMITTED TO SEE. THAT IS WHY WE BELIEVE THE WAY WE BELIEVE . TO BE RID OF THAT ” GOD ” NONSENSE THAT HINDERS OUR ABILITY TO BE REASONABLE AND RATIONAL
May 25th, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
Great article. I don’t see any reason that would make me pick up my house and move across the world, though.
BTW, Hifi, when we were talking about diversity, we were referring to the diversity relevant to the conversation, meaning where a majority of the ideas in the environment are diverse from my own. At least that is what I meant, and it is what I assumed Jason meant too, since we were talking about holding a minority viewpoint in a country full of religiosity.
May 25th, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
Oh, and if it means anything, Jason is gay and has a partner. I am sure he’s had his share of attacks.
May 25th, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
Noell–this comment doesn’t pertain directly to this post. I just found this blog and I wanted to tell you that I enjoy reading it very much, your posts and the comments. Thanks.
May 26th, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
Noell - good for you. We do need people who won’t give up on America. Some people thrive on stress - putting the chaos right.
I don’t believe I made any mention of diversity - but what it means is widespread variability - as in bio-diversity. Wikipedia - “Diversity is the presence of a wide range of variation in the qualities or attributes under discussion”. Exactly what we do not have as much of here in America as in Europe. This extends to not having a variety of political views and choices here as elsewhere.
I just came across this video, Part II of Richard Dawkins series “The Root of All Evil”. It is very important for our discussion of morality. And much of it deals with the negative effects religion has on children.
May 27th, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
Oh, Hifi, this video does not counter my thoughts on morality at all. In fact, I posted a link to this very video a while back. Your link is more direct than mine was, so maybe you didn’t see it before.
I am afraid that by responding so quickly to all your well-thought posts I have probably mischaracterized my own positions. I will get back to you this weekend, I promise. I want to take the time to make sure my statements are more clear.
May 29th, 2006 @ 11:27 am
Noell, I didn’t imply, did I, that Dawkins thoughts were either in support of a humanistic concept of morality or not? Simply that it was material to this discussion.
But I think it is instructive how you could see how religious people reacted when he tried to make the claim that morality exists in atheists. Pretty much closed out the judgement.
May 29th, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
Oops, sorry I jumped to a conclusion!
August 4th, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
I think if you’re happy with your religion then it works for you, however IF one happens to die and there’s nothing after it so be it, BUT if there is maybe you should have listened… As I said before if it works for you who am I to judge? I can only pray… and please do not send me any hate mail… I’m just trying to figure things out…
susie
August 8th, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Susie–Did you really think I might send you hate-mail? No need to worry. That is not my style.
But let me ask you, if you think I should believe “just in case,” which god do you propose I choose and why? Maybe we should worship all possible gods, just in case. Of course, then the various jealous gods would strike us down immediately for not restricting ourselves to just one.