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 ULTRA- CONSERVATIVE 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 19 TH 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 PRE- INDUSTRIAL 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) Societal type ABCN Hunting and gathering simple horticulture advanced horticulture agriculture fishing herding 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 all- powerful 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 Dominant thought model Godly image hunting and gathering biomorphicno god or only gods without a high god simple horticulture biomorphicno god or only gods without a high god advanced horticulture technomorphicnon-moralizing all- powerful god agriculturesociomorphicmoralizing all- powerful 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 PERSON- LIKE 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 27 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 LARGE- SCALE 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 ANTI- CLERICAL 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?