Should Marriage Between First Cousins Be...
Family & Relationships0 min ago
A short life then paradise?
39 Answers
Now here is an interesting thing, the countries with the most religious populations have the most poverty and the shortest life expectancy. Is it because religion prevents people from addressing important life affecting issues or do people resort to religion because they have given up faith in their own ability to determine their future. The answer may lie somewhere else completely or there may be many contributory reasons. Would anyone care to suggest why this might be?
Answers
The idea that there is a correlation between religiosity and the material wealth of the population is not a new one. To view this as simply measuring relative prosperity against religious belief would be too simplistic.
Many cultural factors will influence this, factors shared in common with many of the countries that have the greatest GDP. Factors...
Many cultural factors will influence this, factors shared in common with many of the countries that have the greatest GDP. Factors...
15:27 Thu 29th Nov 2012
The expression 'the exception that proves the rule' doesn't mean exceptions somehow demonstrate the rule to be correct, Khandro. It means exceptions test the validity of the rule hence why I referred to the USA as a counfounding variable, not what you inferred I'd said.
You stated it was a statement of fact not requiring explanation. I disagree. I believe that the USA (and yes, a few others) are outliers that require explanation.
Capisce?
You stated it was a statement of fact not requiring explanation. I disagree. I believe that the USA (and yes, a few others) are outliers that require explanation.
Capisce?
WaldoMcFroog; I wonder just how many confounding variables you would require before you make adjustment to your supposition.
Instead of attempting to make the facts fit your theory, I suggest the correct procedure might be; look at the facts, (and these should include other confounding variables in poor countries), put an interpretation on these facts, and then develop the theories afterwards.
Instead of attempting to make the facts fit your theory, I suggest the correct procedure might be; look at the facts, (and these should include other confounding variables in poor countries), put an interpretation on these facts, and then develop the theories afterwards.
The idea that there is a correlation between religiosity and the material wealth of the population is not a new one. To view this as simply measuring relative prosperity against religious belief would be too simplistic.
Many cultural factors will influence this, factors shared in common with many of the countries that have the greatest GDP. Factors such as female emancipation,equality laws, reproductive rights, increased leisure time, greater disposable income, advanced education systems,the dominant political framework and obviously statute and the law.
And when you look at that relationship, it is true that the US is an outlier, a counfounder in that observed relationship, and worthy therefore of examination and discussion.
Another graph demonstrating the linkage between Religiosity and GDP can be found at this link, which is quite interesting.
http
http
From that second link, an interesting observation;
"Why is the U.S. an outlier? Also unclear. Greg Paul, of course, has suggested a modification of the theory mentioned above: religiosity is higher not just when average income is low, but when average life security is low. If you plot religiosity against what Paul calls the “successful societies scale,” which takes into account dysfunctionalities like corruption, suicide, marital stability, and so forth, the U.S. is no longer an outlier. We’re a rich society, but Paul’s metric shows that we’re not such a successful one."
And the % of the population that consider religion to be important to their daily lives;
Germany 40%, France 30%,Canada 42%,UK 27%,Japan 24% Denmark and Sweden around 20%
And then you have Italy at 70% and the US at 65%. Significant outliers.
Many cultural factors will influence this, factors shared in common with many of the countries that have the greatest GDP. Factors such as female emancipation,equality laws, reproductive rights, increased leisure time, greater disposable income, advanced education systems,the dominant political framework and obviously statute and the law.
And when you look at that relationship, it is true that the US is an outlier, a counfounder in that observed relationship, and worthy therefore of examination and discussion.
Another graph demonstrating the linkage between Religiosity and GDP can be found at this link, which is quite interesting.
http
http
From that second link, an interesting observation;
"Why is the U.S. an outlier? Also unclear. Greg Paul, of course, has suggested a modification of the theory mentioned above: religiosity is higher not just when average income is low, but when average life security is low. If you plot religiosity against what Paul calls the “successful societies scale,” which takes into account dysfunctionalities like corruption, suicide, marital stability, and so forth, the U.S. is no longer an outlier. We’re a rich society, but Paul’s metric shows that we’re not such a successful one."
And the % of the population that consider religion to be important to their daily lives;
Germany 40%, France 30%,Canada 42%,UK 27%,Japan 24% Denmark and Sweden around 20%
And then you have Italy at 70% and the US at 65%. Significant outliers.
Interesting links LG, the OP was about religiosity and life expectancy but I imagine that there is a fairly close relationship between wealth and life span.
I can't see any way of disentangling all the relevant factors involved in the question of whether poor countries are poor because they are religious or vice versa. Of course politics plays a big part in some countries, being the major cause of failed economies. It is strange that many African countries have a very high religiosity but this hasn't prevented genocide, corruption and exploitation of the poor.
I can't see any way of disentangling all the relevant factors involved in the question of whether poor countries are poor because they are religious or vice versa. Of course politics plays a big part in some countries, being the major cause of failed economies. It is strange that many African countries have a very high religiosity but this hasn't prevented genocide, corruption and exploitation of the poor.
It seems to me that there is definitely an inverse correlation between religiosity and life expectancy. Why that should be is so far a mystery.
Could it be that
1. The religious are more fatalistic and accept what comes along as the will of their god
2. They spend most of their time praying and learning tracts from their religious texts and have neither the time or energy to pursue the acquisition of useful knowledge.
3. The religious are just less intelligent so are less successful in life.
4. They spend more time killing one another than the non-religious.
5. They are just more gullible so are easily exploited.
6. Darwin was right re. survival of the fittest.
Could it be that
1. The religious are more fatalistic and accept what comes along as the will of their god
2. They spend most of their time praying and learning tracts from their religious texts and have neither the time or energy to pursue the acquisition of useful knowledge.
3. The religious are just less intelligent so are less successful in life.
4. They spend more time killing one another than the non-religious.
5. They are just more gullible so are easily exploited.
6. Darwin was right re. survival of the fittest.
//The religious are more fatalistic and accept what comes along as the will of their god//
/ Even if this was true, how could the opposite lengthen life expectancy? /
Perhaps if they did something about plagues of locusts,droughts etc. they wouldn't die of starvation, water borne diseases, malaria etc.?
/ Even if this was true, how could the opposite lengthen life expectancy? /
Perhaps if they did something about plagues of locusts,droughts etc. they wouldn't die of starvation, water borne diseases, malaria etc.?
Khandro, we are not talking about individuals here we are talking about societies. Fortunately I live in a society which seems to have got the drought thing fairly well sussed. I haven't yet had to resort to walking 5 miles with a bucket of polluted water on my head. Locusts so far haven't been a problem. We dont have local famines because we have a well developed transport system. Medical services are only 15 minutes away..Thanks be to God :-)
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.