Download sociology of religion

FROM QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UNIVERSALITY
OF RELIGION AND FROM FUNCTIONALIST
ANSWERS
TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES AND TO
QUESTIONS ABOUT RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY
WOUT ULTEE
SIXTH MEETING OF THE COURSE ON
PARADIGMS AND PROBLEM SHIFTS IN SOCIOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA
DECEMBER 23, 2012
A GROWTH INDUSTRY IN
CONTEMPORARY
SOCIOLOGY:
THE SOCIOLOGY OF
RELIGION
‘SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION’ IS A
SOMETHING OF A MISNOMER
SINCE THERE ARE MANY
RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD
THIS SPEAKING IN THE
SINGULAR INDICATES THAT
QUESTIONS ON CHRISTIANITY
WERE OVERSTUDIED
I WILL SHOW THAT THIS
SPEAKING IN THE SINGULAR
ALSO MISFRAMED QUESTIONS
THERE IS A LOT OF MONEY FOR RESEARCH
IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SEE THE RESULTS OF SURVEYS WITH VERY
HIGH N’S ON THE WEBSITE OF THE PEW
FORUM FOR RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE
AMERICAN JOURNALS:
SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION
REVIEW OF RELIGIOUS RESEARCH
JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF
RELIGION
EUROPE HAS ITS EUROPEAN-WIDE VALUES
SURVEYS, UNDERTAKEN WITH MONEY FROM
QUITE EXTRAORDINARY SOURCES
IT WAS RUMOURED THAT THE ULTRACONSERVATIVE CATHOLIC GROUP OPUS DEI
FUNDED THE FIRST IRISH VERSION OF THE
EUROPEAN VALUES SURVEY
IN THE NETHERLANDS THERE IS THE
CATHOLIC FAMILY OF BRENNINKMEYER,
IT OWNS THE CLOTHES CHAIN STORE C&A,
IT GAVE MONEY TO THE CATHOLIC
UNIVERSITY OF TILBURG TO FUND THE FIRST
DUTCH VERSION OF THE VALUES SURVEY
IN THE 1980 THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT CUT
SPENDING ON UNIVERSITIES, AT THE SAME
TIME AWARDING MONEY FOR SPECIAL
RESEARCH
SOCIOLOGISTS OF THE CATHOLIC
UNIVERSITY OF NIJMEGEN GOT MONEY FOR
A TIME-SERIES OF SURVEYS ON SOCIAL AND
CULTURAL CHANGE – WITH CULTURE AS A
CODE WORD COMPRISING RELIGION
THESE SOCIOLOGISTS TO SOME EXTENT
GOT THE MONEY BECAUSE OF NIJMEGEN’S
TIES WITH THE CHRISTIAN POLITICAL PARTY
SUPPORTING THE GOVERNMENT CUTTING
SPENDING ON UNIVERSITIES
THESE NIJMEGEN SOCIOLOGISTS
- FELLING, PETERS, SCHREUDER, SCHEEPERS,
EISINGA –
HELD THAT ALTHOUGH CHURCH ATTENDANCE
HAD DROPPED, PEOPLE STILL ADHERED TO
OTHER RITES AND STILL BELIEVED IN MAJOR
TENANTS OF CHRISTIANITY
THEIR LATER FINDINGS SHOWED A DROP IN
PARTICIPATION IN RITES
AND A DECLINE IN VARIOUS CHRISTIAN BELIEFS
THESE DUTCH SOCIOLOGISTS ADMITTED THIS
FALSIFICATION OF THEIR HYPOTHESIS –
CONTRARY TO THE BRITISH SOCIOLOGIST
GRACE DAVIE
THE PRIME QUESTION BEHIND THE
EUROPEAN VALUES SURVEYS:
TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE
INHABITANTS OF THE VARIOUS
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
ADHERE TO THE BELIEFS AND
VALUES THE CATHOLIC POPE OF
ROME WANTS THEM TO FOLLOW?
STILL ADHERE:
WHY SHOULD IN WESTERN EUROPE
PEOPLE HAVE ADHERED TO THE BELIEFS
AND VALUES OF THE (CATHOLIC) POPE,
SINCE A LOT OF THESE COUNTRIES HAVE
NOT BEEN CATHOLIC, BUT PROTESTANT,
SINCE CENTURIES?
AGAIN ADHERE:
IS THERE A RETURN TO RELIGION IN THE
FORMER COMMUNIST COUNTRIES OF
CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE?
YET, THE BELIEFS AND VALUES OF THE POPE
ARE ALSO THOSE OF MOST ORTHODOX
FORMS OF PROTESTANTISM:
AGAINST EVOLUTIONISM,
AND IN FAVOUR OF CREATION BY GOD IN A
SHORT PERIOD, NOT LONG AGO AND IN A
PARTICULAR SEQUENCE
AGAINST PRE-MARITAL SEX,
FOR SEXUAL FIDELITY OF MARRIED PERSONS,
AGAINST DIVORCE,
AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE,
AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY,
AGAINST EUTHANASIA,
AND ‘PRO-FAMILY’
THE PRACTICAL INTERESTS OF MONEY-GIVERS
MAY CORRUPT RESEARCH
YET, SURVEYS CONDUCTED TO BOLSTER A
PARTICULAR INTEREST
MAY YIELD UNPLEASANT FACTS
PEW NOW ADMITS THAT A MAJORITY OF
AMERICANS, NOT ONLY YOUNG AMERICANS, IS
IN FAVOUR OF GAY MARRIAGE
PEW ALSO ADMITS THAT A RISING PERCENT OF
AMERICANS IS RELIGIOUSLY UNAFFILIATED
SOCIOLOGISTS HOUT & FISCHER
SHOWED IN 2002 THAT THE PERCENT
OF RELIGIOUSLY UNAFFILIATED IS
HIGHER IF THE CATEGORY OF NONE
IS ADDED TO A LIST OF AFFILIATIONS
SO, EARLY ON SOCIOLOGISTS
ASKED THEIR RESPONDENTS
LEADING QUESTIONS BY OMITTING
THE CATEGORY OF NONE
THE SURVEY QUESTION SHOULD BE:
ARE YOU AFFILIATED TO ANY
CHURCH, AND IF YES, WHICH ONE?
INTERNATIONALLY, HOUT & FISCHER’S
DISCOVERY IS A QUITE LATE ONE
IN THE NETHERLANDS THE DECENNIAL
CENSUS COUNTED AFFILIATION SINCE
1795
SINCE 1920 PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO
ANSWER THAT THEY DO NOT CONSIDER
THEMSELVES AS BELONGING TO A
RELIGIOUS GROUP
INTERVIEWERS NO LONGER WERE
INSTRUCTED TO PRESS FOR AN ANSWER
TO A FREE QUESTION ABOUT BAPTISM
AND THEN FILL IN THE ANSWER
THREE TYPES OF QUESTIONS WITHIN
THE SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION ABOUT
THE RELIGIONS PREVALENT IN
PARTICULAR SOCIETIES
QUESTIONS ABOUT DIFFERENCES AND
SIMILARITIES IN THEIR CONTENT
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CAUSES OF
THE PREVALENCE OF RELIGION
AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EFFECTS
OF ADHERING TO A RELIGION
THE CONTENT QUESTION IS THE MAIN
ONE FOR THEOLOGY AND THE FIELD OF
‘COMPARATIVE RELIGION’
IN THE 19TH CENTURY THERE WERE
SCHOLARS WHO,
UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DARWINIAN
EVOLUTIONISM,
DISTINGUISHED STAGES IN RELIGIOUS
DEVELOPMENT
LIKE NO GOD AT ALL, SEVERAL GODS,
ONE SUPREME GOD
LATER SOCIOLOGISTS OF RELIGION
OFTEN MADE OTHER DISTINCTIONS
ONE OF THE HYPOTHESES OF
FEUERBACH,
THE PHILOSOPHER BEHIND MARX’
CRITIQUE OF RELIGION:
GODS ARE REVERED IN A PERMANENT
WOODEN OR STONE BUILDING, WHERE
THEY RESIDE,
IF THE PERSONS REVERING THEM HAVE
BECOME SEDENTARY
THE QUESTION ABOUT THE
CONSEQUENCES OF RELIGION
WEBER IN HIS COLLECTED PAPERS ON
THE SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION FROM
1921 HELD
THAT EVERY MAJOR RELIGION OF THE
PAST FEW CENTURIES STIPULATES THE
ESSENCE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN
MAN AND THE WORLD
WEBER’S THESIS WAS THAT THE MORE
ACTIVIST THIS WORLDVIEW IS, THE
MORE IT WILL FOSTER CAPITALISM
WEBER’S RANKING OF RELIGIONS FROM THE
MOST TO THE LEAST ACTIVIST WORLD VIEW:
PROTESTANTISM:
MAN AS STEWARD OF THE WORLD
CATHOLICISM:
MAN FITS INTO THE WORLD LIKE AN ORGAN INTO
A BODY
CONFUCIANISM:
JUST LIKE TONES MAY BE HARMONIOUS AND
FORM A MELODY, SO HUMAN BEINGS CAN ADAPT
TO THE WORLD
HINDUISM:
THE WORLD AS A WHEEL THAT TURNS AROUND
ITSELF AND MAN AS PART OF THIS WHEEL
BECAUSE OF HIS PREMATURE DEATH,
WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION REMAINED
UNFINISHED
THEREFORE WEBER DID NOT STATE CLEARLY
HIS THESIS ABOUT EFFECTS OF ACTIVISM
THE WORD ARCTIVISM, IN THE CONTEXT OF
RELIGION, WAS COINED BY THE THELOGIST
TROELTSCH
WEBER LIVED WITH TROELTSCH IN THE SAME
HOUSE IN HEIDELBERG
THEY TRAVELLED TOGETHER, WITH THEIR
WIVES, THROUGH THE UNITED STATES
RONALD INGLEHART’S BOOK FROM 1977
ON THE SILENT REVOLUTION IN VALUES
IN WESTERN SOCIETIES
IS BEST UNDERSTOOD AS THE ADDITION
OF TWO NEW WORLD VIEWS TO WEBER’S
LIST
MATERIALISM:
MAN AS MASTER OF THE WORLD
POST-MATERIALISM:
MAN’S MASTERY OF THE WORLD LEADS
TO DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD
THE ORIGIN QUESTION
THEOLOGY MAINTAINED AND
PERHAPS STILL MAINTAINS THAT
EVERY HUMAN BEING MAKES SENSE
OF THE WORLD BY BELIEVING IN
‘THAT THERE IS SOMETHING IN
BETWEEN HEAVEN AND EARTH’ AND
BY RITES ADDRESSED AT THESE
ENTITIES
FOR THAT REASON, EVERY SOCIETY
HAS A RELIGION
THIS FINDING WAS ACCEPTED BY
MANY A SOCIOLOGIST AND EVEN
MORE ANTHROPOLOGISTS
SO, WHY DOES EVERY
SOCIETY HAVE A RELIGION?
THE FUNCTIONALIST
ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION:
RELIGION IS THE PRIME
CAUSE OF SOCIETAL
COHESION, AND
DISCOHESIVE SOCIETIES DO
NOT PERSIST
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
MALINOWSKI MORE OR LESS
GAVE THIS ANSWER
THE SOCIOLOGIST MERTON
POINTED OUT THAT THIS
ANSWER REQUIRES THAT THERE
ARE NO OTHER POSSIBLE
SOURCES OF SOCIETAL
COHESION (NO FUNCTIONAL
ALTERNATIVES)
ULTEE:
IT IS NOT WISE TO CALL THESE
ALTERNATIVES RELIGIONS TOO
PHILOSOPHERS OF SCIENCE
HEMPEL AND NAGEL
POINTED OUT THAT AN
EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN OF
SOMETHING THAT INVOKES ITS
CONSEQUENCES IS
UNSATISFACTORY
CAUSES PRECEDE EFFECTS, BUT
HERE THE EFFECT IS THE CAUSE OF
THE UNIVERSALITY OF RELIGION
THE QUESTION OF WHY EVERY
SOCIETY HAS A RELIGION
PRESUPPOSES THAT EVERY SOCIETY
HAS A RELIGION
SO THE WHY-QUESTION OF THE
SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION MAY BE A
FALSE QUESTION
DOES INDEED EVERY SOCIETY HAVE A
RELIGION?
OF COURSE, ANSWERS DEPEND UPON
THE DEFINITION OF RELIGION
UPON EVEN NOT-SO-CLOSE AND NOT
VERY DESTRUCTIVE READING OF
DURKHEIM’S 1899 PIECE ON THE
DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS
PHENOMENA
IT TURNS OUT THAT DURKHEIM
WIDENS HIS DEFINITION OF RELIGION
SO THAT MORE AND MORE SOCIETIES
HAVE A RELIGION
DESPITE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
AND THE GERMAN WORD
‘GOTTESDIENST’ AND THE DUTCH
WORD ‘GODSDIENST’
DURKHEIM REFUSED TO EQUATE
RELIGION WITH WORSHIP OF GOD(S)
ACCORDING TO DURKHEIM, THERE
ARE RELIGIONS WITHOUT GODS AKIN
TO THE GOD OF CHRISTIANITY
AS DURKHEIM NOTED
SYSTEMS OF IDEAS DOMINANT IN
MAJOR AGRARIAN SOCIETIES
DID WITHOUT A RELIGION, IN THE
SENSE OF AN OFFICIAL GOD OR GODS
ALTHOUGH LARGER-THAN-LIFE
STATUES WERE MADE OR BUDDHA,
BUDDHA IS NOT A GOD
CONFUCIUS IS NOT A GOD,
CONFUCANISM DOES NOT HAVE GODS
DURKHEIM:
THE CHINESE EMPEROR PERFORMED RITES
TO SAFEGUARD THE HARMONY OF MAN AND
WORLD
DURKHEIM WAS PREPARED TO CALL THIS A
RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY
WOUT ULTEE:
THIS CERTAINLY IS A RELIGIOUS-LIKE
ACTIVITY
BUT A RELIGION WITHOUT A GOD IS NOT A
SOCIETY WITHOUT GODS
WOUT ULTEE:
IF CONFUCIUS AND BUDDHA ARE NOT GODS,
THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE PEOPLE
FOLLOWING CONFUCIUS AND BUDDHA DO
NOT BELIEVE IN GODS
IN CHINA THE EMPEROR AND ITS
BUREAUCRATS FOLLOWED CONFUCIUS,
BUT THE MASS OF CHINESE PEOPLE
WERE TOLD BY CONFUCIUS’ FOLLOWERS TO
REVERE THEIR ANCESTORS
AND THE MASS OF CHINESE PEOPLE
BELIEVED IN GODS
ULTEE’S THESIS:
SEVERAL AGRARIAN SOCIETIES AND
HERDING SOCIETIES HAD PERSONS AND
BOOKS TO BE FOLLOWED
BUDDHA IS A PERSON TO BE FOLLOWED,
AND CONFUCIUS IS A PERSON TO BE
FOLLOWED,
AND SO IS JESUS OF CHRISTIANITY
WITHIN JUDAISM PEOPLE ARE TO
FOLLOW THE LAWS GOD GAVE TO
MOSES
AND WITHIN THE ISLAM THE CORAN WAS
TOLD BY GOD TO MOHAMMED
SO, WHEN DEFINITIONS ARE AT STAKE,
TAKE CARE NOT TO WIDEN THE SCOPE
OF DEFINITIONS IN SUCH A WAY THAT
YOUR FAVORITE HYPOTHESIS
REMAINS CORROBORATED
AND DO NOT BE MISLED BY THE
POSSIBILITY OF RELIGIONS WITHOUT
GODS
REMAIN FOCUSED ON THE QUESTION
OF SOCIETIES WITHOUT GODS
DURKHEIM’S DEFINITION OF
RELIGION:
A SYSTEM OF BELIEFS AND RITES
WITH RESPECT TO THE HOLY SHARED
BY THE MEMBERS OF A COMMUNITY
MORE CRITICISM
DURKHEIM’S DEFINITION REST UPON THE
HYPOTHESIS
THAT THE IDEA OF A PERSON-LIKE ENTITY
WITH POWERS SURPASSING THOSE OF
INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS
IS FORMED IN RITES IN WHICH A LOT OF
PERSONS PARTAKE
DEFINITIONS SHOULD NOT CONTAIN
HYPOTHESES
THE LATER SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION
NEGLECTED THIS HYPOTHESIS
AND FIDDLED AROUND WITH DATA FROM THE
EUROPEAN VALUES SURVEYS
THIS LEAD TO A FAKE CORROBORATION OF
THE HYPOTHESES THAT, DESPITE EMPTY
CHURCHES, PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE
GRACE DAVIE, BELIEVING WITHOUT
BELONGING, 1994
THE EUROPEAN VALUES SURVEYS WOULD
MAKE CLEAR THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE
BELIEVE IN GOD WITHOUT BELONGING TO A
CHURCH
DAVIE’S TWO TABLES, FROM THE EUROPEAN VALUES SURVEYS
THE CORRELATION AT THE COUNTRY
LEVEL BETWEEN WEEKLY CHURCH
ATTENDANCE AND FOR INSTANCE
BELIEF IN HELL IS 0.8
THE INDIVIDUAL CORRELATION IS 0.3
SO, CONTRARY TO DAVIE’S
HYPOTHESIS AND IN AGREEMENT
WITH HER DATA AND WITH
DURKHEIM’S HIDDEN HYPOTHESIS
BELIEVING AND BELONGING DO GO
TOGETHER
IN ADDITION,
DAVIE DID NOT ENTER INTO
THE QUESTION OF HOW MANY
OF THE BELIEVERS WHO DO
NOT BELONG
WERE RAISED BY PARENTS
WHO BELONGED AND
BELIEVED
SO, THE FUNCTIONALIST
QUESTION IS
WHY DOES EVERY SOCIETY HAVE
A RELIGION?
DURKHEIM WAS ABLE TO RAISE
THIS QUESTION BECAUSE HE
WIDENED THE USUAL DEFINITION
OF RELIGION
WHEN REJECTING COMMON DEFINITIONS,
DURKHEIM INSISTED THAT
SOCIOLOGISTS SHOULD NOT USE THE
IDEAS ON GOD OF THEIR OWN SOCIETY
TO CLASSIFY EVERY OTHER SOCIETY
ACCUMULATED REPORTS BY
MISSONARIES, AND FIELDWORK BY
ANTHROPOLOGISTS
MADE CLEAR THAT NOT EVERY PREINDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
HAD THE IDEA OF A SUPREME CREATOR
WHO PUNISHES EVIL AND REWARDS THE
GOOD
THIS IS AN INTERESTING FINDING
ARE THERE BETTER QUESTIONS
THAN THE QUESTION OF WHY EVERY
SOCIETY HAS A RELGION?
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WITHIN
BIOLOGY DID NOT ONLY RAISE THE
QUESTION OF THE ORIGIN OF MAN,
IT RAISED THE QUESTION OF THE
ORIGIN OF SPECIES,
OR RATHER THE QUESTION OF WHY
THERE ARE SO MANY SPECIES, WHY
THERE IS SO MUCH BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY
FOR THOSE WISHING TO APPLY
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY WITHIN
SOCIOLOGY
THE QUESTION THEREFORE IS NOT WHY
EVERY HUMAN SOCIETY HAS A RELIGION
BUT WHY RELIGIONS DIFFER SO MUCH
BETWEEN SOCIETIES
AND DIFFER THEY DO, SINCE DURKHEIM
BEGGED TO DIFFER FROM THE COMMON
DEFINITION OF RELIGION
DIFFERENCES IN THE CONTENT OF
RELIGIONS ACCORDING TO THE
SOCIOLOGIST SWANSON, THE BIRTH
OF THE GODS, 1960:
* NO SUPREME CREATOR
* A SUPREME CREATOR WHO NO
LONGER IS ACTIVE IN THE WORLD
* A SUPREME CREATOR WHO STILL
IS ACTIVE, BUT DOES NOT FOSTER
JUSTICE
* A SUPREME CREATOR WHO IS
CONCERNED WITH MORALITY
THE APPLICATION OF THIS
TYPOLOGY TO MURDOCK’S
SAMPLE OF PRE-INDUSTRIAL
SOCIETIES IS QUITE
STRAIGHTFORWARD
LENSKI DEVISED
TECHNOLOGICAL EVOLUTIONISM,
TO ACCOUNT FOR DIFFERENCES
IN EQUALITIES BETWEEN
SOCIETIES
LENSKI ALSO SHOWED THAT
GODLY IMAGES ARE ASSOCIATED
WITH TYPES OF SUBSISTENCE
TECHNOLOGY
Image of god according to society type (in percentages)
A
B
C
N
Hunting and gathering
60
37
2
85
simple horticulture
60
37
2
43
advanced horticulture
21
63
16
131
agriculture
23
11
67
66
fishing
69
21
10
29
herding
4
16
80
50
Societal type
A = no belief in an all-powerful god,
B = belief in an all-powerful god that is not involved in
human morality,
C = belief in an all-powerful god that is active and
remains involved in human morality.
Source: Lenski (1970: 134).
THIS TABLE WAS OBTAINED BY
CODING MONOGRAPHS REPORTING
FIELDWORK OF ANTHROPOLOGISTS
IN VARIOUS PRE-INDUSTRIAL
SOCIETIES, LEADING TO MURDOCK’S
ETHNOGRAPHIC ATLAS
A SIDE-NOTE: THIS IS WHY THE
COMMON DISTINCTION BETWEEN
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE
RESEACH IS MISLEADING
RESULTS FROM QUALITATIVE
RESEARCH CAN BE TURNED INTO
QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
LENKSI’S FINDING LEADS TO A SERIES
OF SIX QUESTIONS
1. Is the relation between a society’s
subsistence technology and the belief in
a moralizing all-powerful god a spurious
relation, in which ecology is actually the
determining factor of both the
subsistence technology of societies and
the godly images they employ?
THIS FIRST QUESTION IS IN ORDER
SINCE WITHIN EVOLUTIONISM
SUBSISTENCE TECHNOLOGY IS ONLY
A PROXIMATE CAUSE
ULTIMATE CAUSES IN
EVOLUTIONISM ARE ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTORS
A SECOND QUESTION IS IN ORDER
BECAUSE OTHER SOCIOLOGISTS
CORRELATED GODLY IMAGES WITH
SEVERAL OTHER FACTORS, INCLUDING
A SOCIETY’S ECONOMY AND A
SOCIETY’S POLITY
2. Is the relation between subsistence
technology and the belief in a moralizing
all-powerful god in societies a direct one?
Or does it run via other societal
attributes?
EVOLUTIONISM POSTULATES A TIME
SEQUENCE FOR THESE FACTORS
Figure 1: model explaining
belief in a moralizing all-powerful god
ENVIRONMENTAL
LIMITATIONS
-
SUBSISTENCE
TECHNOLOGY
+
+
POLITICAL
DIFFERENTIATION
ECONOMIC
COMPLEXITY
+
BELIEF IN A
MORALIZING
GOD
+
THERE IS NOT MUCH OCCUPATIONAL
SPECIALIZATION IN HUNTING AND
GATHERING SOCIETIES AND IN SIMPLE
HORTICULTURAL SOCIETIES
OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALIZATION TAKES
OFF IN ADVANCED HORTICULTURAL
SOCIETIES
NEW SOCIAL RELATIONS TAKE OFF IN
AGRARIAN SOCIETIES; IN PRE-AGRARIAN
SOCIETIES MOST RELATIONSHIPS INVOLVE
COMMANDS BY OLDER FAMILY MEMBERS
IN AGRARIAN SOCIETIES THERE ARISES
THE RELATIONSHIP OF BEING COMMANDED
BY A SOCIETY’S RULER
LENSKI HINTS AT A DEEPER EXPLANATION OF
HIS TABLE
PEOPLE SEEK TO UNDERSTAND THE UNKNOWN,
AND DO SO BY MAKING ANALOGIES WITH THE
KNOWN
THE UNKNOWN IS THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD
THE KNOWN IS A SOCIETY’S SUBSISTENCE
TECHNOLOGY
THE MORE THE SUBSISTENCE TECHNOLOGY OF
A SOCIETY AMOUNTS TO INTERVENTION IN
NATURE,
THE MORE ACTIVE THEIR GODS WILL BE, NOT
ONLY BY CREATING THE WORLD BUT ALSO BY
INTERVENTIONS IN HUMAN AFFAIRS
3. Assuming that people understand the
unknown by analogy with what is known
and important to them, then how can we
explain: a) the strong presence of belief
in a moralizing all-powerful god in
agricultural societies, b) the strong
presence of belief in a non-moralizing allpowerful god in advanced horticultural
societies, c) the strong absence of belief
in an all-powerful god in fishing societies,
and d) the strong presence of the belief in
a moralizing all-powerful god in herding
societies?
THE HYPOTHESIS THAT PEOPLE
REASON BY WAY OF ANALOGIES
SUPPLEMENTS THE THEORY THAT
PEOPLE ACT RATIONALLY
THE LATTER THEORY CANNOT
EXPLAIN WHERE THE FIRST
PREMISES IN A REASONING CHAIN
COME FROM
AND MORE OR LESS ASSUMES THAT
PREMISES ARISE BY BLIND
VARIATION
THE ANALOGY HYPOTHESIS IS NOT NEW
IT WAS USED BY, AMONG OTHERS, THE
PHILOSOPHER DAVID HUME AND THE
SOCIOLOGIST DURKHEIM
THEY DIFFERED IN THE MODEL THAT
WAS SUPPOSEDLY USED FOR MAKING
ANALOGIES
DAVID HUME POINTED TOWARDS
TECHNOMORPHISM, OR WHAT
DURKHEIM CALLED
ANTHROPOMORPHISM:
JUST LIKE PEOPLE HAVE INTENTIONS
AND REALIZE THEIR PLANS BY
INSTRUMENTS,
SO GOD IS LIKE A PERSON WITH AIMS
AND PLANS, BUT WITH A BIT MORE
POWERS
ACCORDING TO DURKHEIM IN THE
ELEMENTARY FORMS OF RELIGIOUS
LIFE FROM 1912
ANTROPOMORHISM IS NOT PRESENT
IN SOCIETIES OF LIMITED
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
PEOPLE IN SOCIETIES OF LIMITED
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
LIVE IN GROUPS,
AND GROUPS PROVIDE THE
ANALOGIES FOR UNDERSTANDING
THE UNKNOWN
THE MEMBERS OF AUSTRALIAN HUNTING AND
GATHERING SOCIETIES LIVED IN FAMILIES AND
WERE ADVISED BY THEIR ELDERS
THE TIES BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS AND
BETWEEN MEMBERS AND ELDERS BECAME
MODELS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE UNKNOWN
AMONG HUNTERS AND GATHERERS, GODS DO NOT
CREATE THE EARTH, AS LEADERS ARE WEAK
JUST LIKE CHILDREN DESCENT FROM A MOTHER,
PEOPLE DESCENT FROM PLANTS AND ANIMALS
IN AGRARIAN SOCIETIES WITH FORMAL
LEADERSHIP, GODS ARE (ALL-)POWERFUL
ACCORDING TO THE AUSTRIAN PHILOSOPHER
ERNST TOPITSCH IN AN ARTICLE FROM 1954
THE KNOWN THAT PROVIDES ANALOGIES IS
THREEFOLD
BIRTH AND DEATH: MEN RESULTED FROM A
MARRIAGE (PAIRING) BETWEEN HEAVEN AND
EARTH; SUCH ANALOGIES ARE CALLED
BIOMORPHISM
TECHNIQUES: GOD MADE ADAM OUT OF CLAY;
SUCH ANALOGIES ARE CALLED
TECHNOMORPHISM (OR ANTHROPOMORPHISM)
SOCIAL RELATIONS: GOD COMMANDED THAT
THERE WOULD BE LIGHT, AND THERE WAS LIGHT;
SUCH ANALOGIES ARE CALLED SOCIOMORPHISM
MOOR & ULTEE IN 2010 COMBINED
LENSKI’S TYPOLOGY OF MODES OF
SUBSISTENCE
WITH THE THREE POSSIBLE
THOUGHT MODELS OF TOPITSCH
THEY DID SO IN THE FOLLOWING WAY
Figure 2: Subsistence technology,
thought models and godly images
Subsistence
technology
hunting and
gathering
Dominant
thought model
Godly image
biomorphic
no god or only gods
without a high god
simple
horticulture
advanced
horticulture
biomorphic
no god or only gods
without a high god
technomorphic non-moralizing allpowerful god
agriculture
sociomorphic
moralizing allpowerful god
IF THERE IS SOMETHING TO THIS LINKING
OF VARIOUS TYPES OF ANALOGICAL
REASONING AND TYPES OF SUBSISTENCE
TECHNOLOGY,
ADDITIONAL PREDICTIONS ARE POSSIBLE,
LEADING TO NEW QUESTIONS
HERE ARE TWO NEW QUESTIONS,
FOLLOWING UP ON THE THREE EARLIER
ONES OF OUR STRING
4. Is belief in a non-moralizing all-powerful
god more probable in societies with a
lower level of subsistence technology,
and belief in a moralizing all-powerful god
more probable in societies with a higher
level of subsistence technology?
5. If the dependence on fishing in a hunting
and gathering or a simple horticultural
community is greater, is the belief in an
all-powerful god then less probable? And
when the dependence on herding in
agricultural communities is greater, is
belief in a moralizing all-powerful god
then more probable?
MARX VERSUS WEBER:
DOES THE MATERIAL FOUNDATIONS OF A
SOCIETY DETERMINE ITS SPIRITUAL
SUPERSTRUCTURE
OR DOES A RELIGIOUSLY ANCHORED
WORK ETHIC MAKE FOR ECONOMIC
RATIONALIZATION?
ECOLOGICAL EVOLUTIONISM RECASTS
THIS QUESTION ABOUT POSSIBLE
MUTUAL INFLUENCES BY BRINGING IN A
THIRD FACTOR AND ASKING WHETHER
THE INFLUENCE OF ONE OF THE TWO
OLD FACTORS ON THE THIRD NEW ONE
IS STRONGER
WHAT MIGHT THAT THIRD FACTOR BE?
THE PARAMOUNT QUESTION TO BE
ANSWERED IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
CONCERNS THE REPRODUCTUVE
SUCCESS OF A POPULATION OF A
PARTICULAR SPECIES
CAN IT BE SAID OF HUMAN SOCIETIES
THAT THEY HAVE MORE OR LESS
REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS?
Reproductive success shows up when the members of a
society’s population live longer, balance less often on the edge
of survival, and subsist in larger numbers from the product of a
smaller area of land.
The question is whether religion, irrespective of technology,
influences the reproductive success of societies and, if both
factors have consequences, which factor has the largest effect.
The sixth and final research question in our series of questions
therefore reads:
Is the effect of subsistence technology on reproductive success
larger than the effect of a society’s godly image?
TO WHAT EXTENT ARE QUESTIONS
ABOUT GODS THAT CREATE THE
WORLD TO THE POINT,
GIVEN THE HYPOTHESIS THAT
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE UNKNOWN
BY ANALOGY WITH THE KNOWN?
THE UNKNOWN TO BE EXPLAINED BY
ANALOGY WITH THE KNOWN IN THE
EXPLANATION JUST OUTLINED
WAS THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD
THAT ORIGIN SOMETIMES IS A PERSONLIKE ENTITY WHO CREATED THE
WORLD, CALLED A GOD
FORMULATED THIS WAY, LENSKI’S TABLE
ABOUT A GOD WHO NOW AND THEM CREATES
IS A BIT OFF THE MARK
WE NEED TABLES ON STORIES FROM
VARIOUS SOCIETIES ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF
THE WORLD
THESE STORIES SOMETIMES WILL INVOKE A
GOD WHO CREATES
BUT IN OTHER CASES ORIGINS OF A
DIFFERENT KIND
THE QUESTION NO LONGER IS
ABOUT GODS WHO SOMETIMES
CREATE
BUT ABOUT ORIGIN STORIES THAT
SOMETIMES INVOKE A CREATIVE
ACT OF A GOD
AND IN OTHER CASES SPECIFY A
DIFFERENT ORIGIN
THE ISSUE IS TO SPECIFY THESE
DIFFERENT ORIGINS
MOOR AND ULTEE, FOR THE PH.D.
OF MOOR, WENT BACK TO THE
ORIGINAL MATERIALS FOR THE
ETHNOGRAPHIC ATLAS
THEY BROUGHT TOGETHER THE
STORIES ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF
THE WORLD IN THESE
MONOGRAPHS
AND CODED THESE ORIGIN
STORIES
BY WAY OF A TOPITSCH-LIKE
SCHEMA FOR THOUGHT MODELS
Hypothetical Link Between a Preindustrial Society’s Level of
Technology and the Thought Models in its origin stories
Hunting and gathering :
*Spontaneous creation analogies, sexual reproduction analogies
* Kinship analogies, female influence analogies
Fishing :
* Spontaneous creation analogies, sexual reproduction analogies
* Kinship analogies, female influence analogies
Simple horticulture :
* Sexual reproduction analogies
* Kinship analogies, female influence analogies
Advanced horticulture :
*Sexual reproduction analogies
* Technical analogies
* Kinship and ruler analogies, female influence analogies
Agriculture :
*Technical analogies
* Ruler analogies, male dominance analogies
Herding
*Technical analogies,
* Ruler analogies, male dominance analogies
Absolute Frequencies for the Content of
Creation Stories of 116 Preindustrial Societies
Yes
No
Appearance of creator
Inanimate natural entity
Animal
Ancestor or hero
Distant human being
Creator(s) as parent or ruler
Parent
Ruler
Gender of creator(s)
Female
Male
Creative act(s)
Spontaneous creation
Sexual reproduction
Technical achievement
Command
21
20
41
60
95
96
75
56
33
22
83
94
30
105
86
11
22
34
37
27
94
82
79
89
TO LEARN HOW WELL THIS
SCHEMA WORKED
SEE THE DISTRIBUTED ARTICLE
BY MOOR & ULTEE
IT IS QUITE CLEAR NOW THAT IN
SEVERAL (POST)INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE
DOES NOT BELONG TO A CHURCH,
DOES NOT WORSHIP A GOD,
AND DOES NOT BELIEVE IN ONE:
SOME POST-COMMUNIST SOCIETIES,
THE NETHERLANDS,
SOME SCANDINAVIAN SOCIETIES
IN ADDITION, IN ALMOST ALL THE
(POST)INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES THE
NUMBER OF PERSONS BELONGING AND
BELIEVING IS DECLINING
PEOPLE ASSERTING THIS TREND, ARE
TAGGES AS ADHERING TO
THE THEORY OF
SECULARIZATION
HOWEVER, A TREND-STATEMENT IS
NOT A THEORY
A THEORY SPECIFIES A CAUSE AND
‘THE THEORY OF SECULARIZATION’
DOES NOT DO SO
INDEED, EXPRESSIONS LIKE ‘THE
THEORY OF … ’ ARE UNEQUIVOCAL
SOMETIMES THEY STATE THE
PHENOMENON TO BE EXPLAINED,
SOMETIMES THE PHENOMENON
DOING THE EXPLANATION
IN COMMENTS ON DURKHEIM’S BOOK
LE SUICIDE
ONE MAY READ THE EXPRESSION
DURKHEIM’S THEORY OF SUICIDE,
THE EXPRESSION DURKHEIM’S THEORY OF
INTEGRATION
AND THE EXPRESSION DURKHEIM’S THEORY
OF ANOMIE
INTEGRATION AND ANOMIE DO THE
EXPLANATION, SUICIDE IS TO BE EXPLAINED
SO, AVOID THE EXPRESSION
‘THEORY OF …’
AND ALWAYS TALK OR WRITE ABOUT
‘THE THEORY THAT …’
DURKHEIM’S THEORY WAS THAT
INTEGRATION LOWERS SUICIDE AND
THAT ANOMIE INCREASES IT
WHAT MAKES FOR THE SECULARIZATION OF
INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES?
THE FUNCTIONALIST EXPLANATION:
LIVING IN BIG CITIES, WORKING IN LARGESCALE FACTORIES AND OFFICES, AND
ATTENDING SCHOOLS WITH LOTS OF PUPILS
ARE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF
INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
AND MEETING PERSONS WITH ANOTHER
RELIGION AND ATTENDING SCHOOL HAVE THE
UNINTENDED EFFECT OF LOWERING THE
PLAUSIBILITY OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
EMPIRICAL SOCIAL RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT
INDEED IN MOST INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES
RELIGIOSITY IS LOWER IN CITIES AND THAT
EDUCATION LOWERS RELIGIOSITY
THIS EVEN IS THE CASE IN THE UNITED STATES
HOWEVER, THE UNITED STATES TELL AGAINST
THE FUNCTIONALIST THEORY THAT
INDUSTRIALIZATION MAKE FOR SECULARIZATION
THE UNITED STATES IS THE MOST
INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY OF THE WORLD
BUT IT HAS MORE BELIEVERS AND BELONGERS
THAN MOST OTHER INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES
WHY IS THERE SO MUCH RELIGIOSITY IN
THE UNITED STATES?
WHY IS THERE MORE RELIGIOSITY IN
THE UNITED STATES THAN IN EUROPE?
THIS QUESTION SINCE THE 1980S HAS
BEEN ADDRESSED BY RODNEY STARK
AND FOLLOWERS BY WAY OF
‘RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY’
BUT MORE APPROPRIATELY CALLED
‘THE MARKET PARADIGM’
ACCORDING TO THIS
EXPLANATION, THE CHURCHES
OF EUROPE ARE LAZY
MONOPOLIES,
WHEREAS RELIGIONS IN THE
UNITED STATES ARE ACTIVIELY
COMPETING
OF COURSE, ACCORDING TO THE
THEORIES PRODUCED BY SOME
ECONOMISTS
MONOPOLIES ARE ALWAYS LAZY,
WHILE COMPETITORS ARE
ALWAYS ACTIVE
DOES THIS EXPLANATION ANSWER THE
QUESTION OR SHIFT THE QUESTION?
WHY WOULD EUROPEAN CHURCHES BE MORE
LAZY THAN UNITED STATES CHURCHES?
THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION INVOKES THE
PREVALENCE OF STATE RELIGIONS IN
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AT THE END OF THE
AGRARIAN ERA
AND SURVIVALS OF THAT INTO PRESENT DAY
EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL STATES
AND THAT ANSWER INVOKES THE UNITED
STATES AS A HAVEN FOR RELIGIOUS REFUGEES
FROM EUROPE
SO, THE THEORY THAT THE UNITED
STATES IS MORE RELIGIOUS THAN
EUROPE
DOES NOT ONLY INVOKE MARKETS
FOR EUROPE IT INVOKES
TRADITION
AND FOR THE UNITED STATES IT
INVOKES IMMIGRATION BY
PERSONS VERY RELIGIOUS TO
BEGIN WITH
IS IT RIGHT FOR EVERY EUROPEAN COUNTRY TO
INVOKE SURVIVALS OR TRADITION?
FRANCE HAD FOR CENTURIES A STRONG ANTICLERICAL TRADITION AND SINCE A CENTURY A
STRICT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
SWEDEN, NORWAY, DENMARK HAVE ONE STATE
CHURCH
THE NETHERLANDS DOES NOT HAVE ONE STATE
CHURCH SINCE 1815, AND BEFORE THAT THE
REFOREMD CHURCH WAS PRIVILEGED, BUT NOT A
STATE CHURCH
IN GERMANY THE STATE COLLECTS TAXES FOR THE
LUTHERAN AND CATHOLIC CHURCH
AN ALTERNATIVE TO THIS HYPOTHESIS INVOKING
FACTORS IN A DISTANT PAST
IS THE STRONG PRESENCE IN CONTEMPORARY
EUROPE OF WELFARE POLICIES
A FUNCTIONAL ALTERNATIVE TO RELIGIONS WITH
THEIR CHARITY AND FAVOURS FOR THEIR OWN
MEMBERS IS
UNIVERSAL RIGHTS TO WELFARE FROM A STATE
IF CHURCH CHARITY IS A FAVOUR, THIS MAKES FOR
MORE BELONGING AND MORE BELIEVING
THE MONTHLY OF THE GERMAN WEEKLY
NEWSPAPER DIE ZEIT FOR CHRISTMAS:
EVEN HARDNOSED EVOLTIONARY
BIOLOGISTS MUST ADMIT THAT,
HISTORICALLY SPEAKING,
RELIGION IS A BIG SUCCESS.
OTHERWISE IT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED
WHY THERE IS SOME FORM OF RELIGION IN
EVERY CULTURE.
THE REBUTTAL OF THE EVOLUTIONARY
SOCIOLOGIST WOUT ULTEE:
SINCE RELIGIONS DIFFER FROM SOCIETY TO
SOCIETY,
RELIGIONS OFTEN WERE FAILURES
HISTORICALLY SPEAKING,
WHY DID CATHOLICISM COLLAPSE UNDER THE
PRESSURE OF PROTESTANTISM?
WHY DID JUDAISM GIVE RISE TO A SECT
DEVELOPING INTO CHRISTIANITY?
WHY DID BUDDHISM ALMOST REPLACE HINDUSIM?