Such an interesting article in Slate about marketing religion. The article begins with the idea that Hanukkah is a minor holiday in Judaism yet it has turned into a 'Jewish Christmas' in America as "American Jews concerned with assimilation are the most likely to go all out for Hanukkah to entice their kids to keep the faith."
The idea of applying economic analysis to spiritual life isn't new. Adam Smith, the great-granddaddy of modern economics, described churches as though they were profit-maximizing firms, and congregants as their customers. Just as competition between Samsung and Sony pushes each company to make better flat-screen monitors at ever-lower prices, Smith felt that clergy in a competitive religious marketplace would provide services with greater "zeal and industry" than religious leaders in places where one faith had a monopoly.
After a lapse of some centuries, economists have rediscovered their religion, and Smith's hypotheses on the benefits of religious competition have been borne out by modern statistical analysis. One recent study compares countries where a single religion has a lock on the market—like France or Italy—with more pluralistic societies like the United States.
Almost all Italians identify themselves as Catholic, yet in one survey only half reported attending church at least once a month and the same fraction reported believing in God. The bishops and vicars, the thinking goes, have grown complacent, offering the same tired sermons and Sunday school lessons year after year because they have no competition from rival faiths.
By contrast, America is full of megachurches built by marketing-savvy pastors and featuring customer-friendly amenities like day care, cafes, and large-screen TVs, which simulcast electrifying orations to overflow crowds. Apparently, they're more effective at attracting audiences of believers than their Italian counterparts. Nearly 60 percent of Americans attend church monthly, and almost 90 percent report believing in God.
19 comments:
no way, they have day-care at church? It does sound tempting...
sounds like my kind of article...
Still I think I prefer churches to be churches rather than a cross between a cinema and a shopping mall.
Only 60% of Americans attend church at least once a month?
I'm surprised - I thought it would be higher.
Elizabeth? Did you read that e-mail I sent you re: this topic in a similar vein?
Brody, yes, thank you for that comment. It's going up later today. I should have said earlier, sorry.
The fact that con-men throughout history have exploited religion to extract cash (and sex) from the gullible and the innocent isn't the interesting bit IMO since that's a well trodden path, the really interesting bit is why all those billions fell for it, fall for it now and will probably continue to fall for it for some considerable time to come; does it really all boil down to being scared of death?
Steve, given a choice between the probably wrong, definitely wrong or being identified as a threat to the social order and persecuted which would you prefer?
Personally I think to use the word 'exploited' is inaccurate and insulting. At the very least it is a sweeping statement which infers no good ever came from the subject, nor ever could.
And of course nobody has ever used 'science' as a pretext for pulling the wool over anybody's eyes!
OP, So pointing out that religion has been exploited by crooks since the dawn of time is "insulting", I really don't understand this comment, should I be showing the hucksters more respect?
If I pointed out that science has been exploited by greedy people too would that be "insulting" to Biologists? If I pointed out that politics has been exploited by people over the years to line their own pockets would that be "insulting" to Liberal Democrats?
Or is it just religion that must be wrapped in cotton wool in your view?
As for being wrong or a threat, I wasn't aware this was a choice anyone could make, you are either right or you are wrong regarding say the existence of ghosts, spirits or angels, the persecution part is nothing to do with that it seems to me?
Steve, fear of death might play a part, but not a major one IMO.
I think religion fulfils a need in (some) human beings - the need to believe that we don't live in a random, hostile universe and that there's someone or something powerful looking out for us. In other words, it helps us perceive the universe as more ordered.
Add to that the sense of belonging that membership of a church gives, and presto - instant commercial appeal.
Steve,
okay, I'm happy to apologise for reacting to the implication I assume hides behind your words rather than the words alone.
Belief exists because it fulfills an important function in socially constructed areas (such as knowledge) and I fully accept that this position leaves it highly vulnerable to conscious or unwitting manipulation as a means to control choice options.
As for being purely right or wrong, because the control of perceptions regrarding truth is a highly powerful social tool to legitimise decision-making in a political context this makes the holders subject to and a target of other social forces.
A good recent example of this was the case of the leaked professional emails of climate scientists at UEA which were portrayed in a way and at a time which had an undeniable effect.
But regarding ghosts, spirits and angels, I find it difficult to understand your resolutely prosaic stance in favour of literal truths as the only acceptable form of truth, except as a manner of manipulating perceptions and controling the consequent choice options according to your own preferences and even in situations beyond your imaginings where those prescriptions may not apply.
Yet I also don't believe you'll be treating tomorrow like any ordinary day.
So perhaps you'd care to correct me on that belief (which is a conclusion I arrived at as the logical extension of your comments).
mel,
do we live in a random hostile universe?
isn't your claim predicated by a subjective definition of what death, and therefore life, is?
are you afraid of death?
The universe is certainly random. And hostile in the sense of arbitrariness that follows as a consequence. For example - a hailstorm doesn't care that it condemns you to starvation or poverty when it eradicates your crop before it can be harvested.
As for using a subjective definition of death, I'm using it here (as I assume Steve was) in the commonly understood sense - you know, when a doctor calls "time of death" and funeral invitations get sent out.
And no, I'm not afraid of it. What I am afraid of is life.
Interesting.
I disagree that the universe is random, just infinitely complex - coincidence is not accident, it is inevitable.
So there are things we cannot explain with current levels and standards of knowledge due to the scale of complexity, I still fail to see how physics and maths is arbitrary.
I don't understand the application of ethical frameworks to inanimate objects and chemical processes and I'm particularly confused by the statement you can be afraid of life - surely the experience of emotion is a signifier of individual existence.
The laws of physics and maths are not random, but random events do occur. It's not simply a question of our not understanding the complexity - according to quantum physics, subatomic mechanics are not deterministic but probabilistic - embodied in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Priciple. For us, there is a large element of randomness in the universe and that's something we can never do anything about.
As for not being able to apply ethical standards to random physical events, that's entirely my point - you can't. But if you have a superbeing watching over you, you can at least feel better about it.
OP, You would be right about tomorrow, I do celebrate Christmas but just not as a religious festival. I'm not sure why that would negate anything I say (in principal?) I am passionate about rationality, but I am human too, subject to the same fears, hopes, needs and emotions as everyone else, I like a bit of ritual and carol singing along with everyone else, I also enjoy reading books without having to believe they are true.
I think questions of existence are binary by definition, and therefore scientific questions. Clearly you would prefer a more fuzzy interpretation. I'm certainly not disputing the obvious historical importance of religious faith, if members of your religion slaughter the neighbouring tribe then I'd say there are definite evolutionary benefits to that!!
mel, I think fear of death is perhaps a bigger factor than you give it credit, the theme of eternal life and redemption are very common ones so far as most religions have been concerned.
I do agree with you though that there is more to it than just that, the evolutionary advantages of tribalism, a hard wired desire to have explanations for seemingly inexplicable natural phenomenon and revenge for earthly inequality to name but a few factors.
Randomness is a vital component of the universe, we wouldn't be here without it (photosynthesis in plant cells is based on quantum effects necessitating that electrons be in more than one place at one time) As mel says Heisenberg worked that out years ago much to the dismay of Einstein. (hence his "God doesn't play dice" remark)
"Random and hostile" is a relative measure, today we know why earthquakes, plagues and floods happen, until recently people didn't. I don't think we can relate our feelings of insecurity to our ancestors; the pressure on them to come up with seemingly rational explanations for these things (i.e. Gods) must have been overwhelming, they mostly just got them wrong.
The way I see it the it is an entirely human conceit to conceive of a non-human 'super-being' which has its advantages as an intellectual device that can be used in objective reasoning through which the projection of personal ideals enables the initiation of action.
The trouble with this is that the conceit can also be used as a means to avoid conscious thought processing and gives rise to dispute of any conclusions on the grounds that they are presumptive.
So ultimately the truth of the matter is less important than the ability it creates to formulate a basis of decision on how to advance society - put simply, without ever allowing ourselves to make mistakes we would prevent ourselves from learning.
And to be frank I find that the vitriol aimed across the divide from either side is just not conducive to enabling greater insight to be gained into the wonder of existence.
More specifically, Heisenberg is a theoretical cul-de-sac which nevertheless has practical applications - because sole dependence on resolving solutions down to singular answers is a risky strategy when proliferation and plurality is an equally logical and useful method.
Existence is paradoxic - Heisenberg is a logical development of Einstein, just as quantum mechanics is a logical development of the chaos in Heisenberg; mind-bending stuff to wrap your head around.
And this is part of the point - I think we can all agree that the universe (or multiverse, or however you wish to describe an all-encompassing existence) is not static, and this therefore means we have to understand the processes involved whereby forces are created from the interplay of opposites and how this develops choice, causality and consequence.
Logical speaking this leads to the somewhat perverse conclusion that truth and falsehood can exist simultaneously.
For me the impossibility of drawing absolutist responses from a subjective position is pretty obvious because at the very least this thereby enables the denial of deterministic or fatalistic predeterminations - it's about degrees of truth, rather than just truth itself.
In other words the need to reformulate the 'god question' is a constant, and in fact is done so in all the other subjects the human mind has created to occupy ourselves.
Consider competitive sport as an example - there is a scale of objectives from scoring goals, to winning, to improving the mind and body to reach higher performance, all of which have a range of benefits and positive effects despite an immediate apparent vacuuity of running around in the cold with a bunch of like-willed people.
So can't you say that there is an irony in the representational iconography of contemporary culture in that it is comparable to encyphered religious values?
Now, to be hypercritical for a moment, I look at the statement "I think questions of existence are binary by definition, and therefore scientific questions" and find it unsatisfactory on almost every level.
Apart from the imprecise grammar and the redundancy of the subordinated clause, answers may possibly be, but questions are defined in their asking.
At the very least it forces me to question how much thought went into composing the thought as I try to understand what exactly is being got at, so is it to be too rude to request a clarification?
Post a Comment