Religion and economic development

I've heard two theories on religion in the last couple years which I think are very important to understanding the role religion plays in society. Both were from authors who had written books on these issues, and both were on the now-defunct Todd Mundt show produced by Michigan Public Radio.

One author did a study and said that religion, generally speaking, is something that helps people become more productive. He said that something like 1 new religion pops up somewhere in the world every day, but the ones that rise to the top, that get lots of members, are the ones that do the most to help their members live happy, productive lives. He weant through the history of religion and showed how many are responses to things going on in society which hurt people's ability to be productive. His book covered a lot of territory, so I'm not doing it justice, but it turns out that religions which promote tolerance are pretty succesful. Religions that don't help people become tolerant, productive members of society tend to fall by the wayside.

Another author of a book on religion in Africa said that religion helps create a mobile work force, which is good for all African economies (whether you're moving into a growing one, which needs workers, and people contributing to its growth, or leaving a bad one, which reduces unemployment (and people who emmigrate, tend to send money back to family members who remain, or go back once they've saved money, which is good)). The problem with moving around is that dislocation is depressing, and makes people less productive. But, if you go to a church, the familiarity of the service, the community of fellow worshippers, and the relationship with god makes dislocation bearable.

So, religion has some very productive, liberalizing, happiness-promoting influences on society. And, hey, if it weren't working to do that, then people wouldn't be religious. And if you think you have a better idea about what people should believe, then propose it -- people are doing that every day all around the world. If you have a better idea, maybe it will rise to the top. But I really don't think belief systems based on hating religion are going to supplant religion anytime soon. You have to suggest something positive.

I think there's an article on my site about the Alabama Tax Plan. The Governor of Alabama is advocating tax reform and eliminating state taxes for the poor because of his Christian faith, which is making the Christian (sic) Coalition very angry.

rational behavior, and a search for knowledge?

Being able to substitute religion for a sense of community, and some free social work is no excuse for all the damage religion has done in the world.

those who commit the crime instead of the religion they follow. Stalin and Mao were atheists should all atheists carry the weight of their crimes?

One of the factors a religion benefits from is a strong society. If the particular religion leads to a fractured society or weanened in some way it is not as likely to be seen positively to those it would seek to propogate to. A fractious religion will devestate its community and not pass on. It will not survive as long either.

It is the long term succesful religions that demonstrate a benefit to the society it finds itself in. However long term problems can manifest. As the longevity of the society and the religion continue the society is likely to drift and change quicker than the religion will. In the end the religion will be at the source of fractuous debates between those seeking progress and those seeking to stick to the old ways.

Ideally what is needed is a flexible system capable of learning from its mistakes and able to develop with the society it is hosted by. Fixed proclomations from authoratative figures inevitably fail as the society changes and sees new flaws and errors in the ancient doctrines. We as a species progress. Using fixed systems will inevitably fail.

of staying relevant (eg, if Catholics didn't start doing mass in English, would they have dwindled in membership?). On the other hand, some religion somewhere might be ahead of its time. There might be some social evolutions which makes an old stagnating religion suddenly very relevant, and wealth- and happiness-promoting.

Any religion that actively impedes its adherents from functioning in their social and economic milieu will kill its adherents and die out. Witness the saucer cultists in purple sneakers who drank the Kool-Aid that was supposed to transport them to the tail of Hale-Bogg Comet.

On the other hand, mainstream church attendance is certainly bolstered by the economic benefits of networking during coffee hour. And one reason Scientology persists is that its adherents never fail to announce that L. Ron Hubbard is the reason for their success.

So this is an interesting, but hardly surprising, concept.

that religions are really social clubs with a set of rules the members are expected to live by. Sure there is ritual and sacred writings for lessons in life. Religion can be really useful to society because of this.

When religion goes wrong is when they gain membership through brainwashing techniques and when they try to impose their beliefs on outsiders.

One of the freedoms for an individual to practice the religion of his choice, is also the freedom from religion for the individual who doesn't want to join one of the clubs.