They would state this, but they behave as though it’s a popularity contest.
I don’t fully agree, but the divergence between real beliefs and stated beliefs, in religious matters, is a very important one.
Most people do not pursue Christianity with the fervour of those defending it against an oppressor. I note you are having to draw on historical examples to try to counter a statement about the present day.
Ok I’ll try to stick to the present day. The fact that most people end up in the dominant religion of their community is much better explained by the parent->child influence than by the society->individual influence. If people mostly choose their religion based on societal factors, then why do we see stable religious minorities, even when it is a disadvantage to be in a minority? Why, to pick a nice uncontroversial example, don’t lots of Palestinians convert to Judaism? There are good partial answers to this question, but I think it still calls the hypothesis into doubt.
Ok I’ll try to stick to the present day. The fact that most people end up in the dominant religion of their community is much better explained by the parent->child influence than by the society->individual influence. If people mostly choose their religion based on societal factors, then why do we see stable religious minorities, even when it is a disadvantage to be in a minority? Why, to pick a nice uncontroversial example, don’t lots of Palestinians convert to Judaism? There are good partial answers to this question, but I think it still calls the hypothesis into doubt.
OK, I’m finding that a lot more convincing :-)
What I got from the original linked post was that it was about the effects of there being minimal penalty for irrationality compared to the social (or familial) penalty for not being religious. Since rationality has won so big that Western civilisation suffers the effects of too much food, the living is relatively easy so people are freer to believe any old rubbish to fit in. (And I’ve lost the link to where I first found someone stating this idea, and would welcome anyone’s assistance finding it.)
That wasn’t it, but point 2 states it very well: “Rich folks like us have larger buffers of wealth to cushion our mistakes; we can live happily and long even while acting on crazy beliefs.”
I don’t fully agree, but the divergence between real beliefs and stated beliefs, in religious matters, is a very important one.
Ok I’ll try to stick to the present day. The fact that most people end up in the dominant religion of their community is much better explained by the parent->child influence than by the society->individual influence. If people mostly choose their religion based on societal factors, then why do we see stable religious minorities, even when it is a disadvantage to be in a minority? Why, to pick a nice uncontroversial example, don’t lots of Palestinians convert to Judaism? There are good partial answers to this question, but I think it still calls the hypothesis into doubt.
OK, I’m finding that a lot more convincing :-)
What I got from the original linked post was that it was about the effects of there being minimal penalty for irrationality compared to the social (or familial) penalty for not being religious. Since rationality has won so big that Western civilisation suffers the effects of too much food, the living is relatively easy so people are freer to believe any old rubbish to fit in. (And I’ve lost the link to where I first found someone stating this idea, and would welcome anyone’s assistance finding it.)
Perhaps Hanson’s This Is The Dreamtime
That wasn’t it, but point 2 states it very well: “Rich folks like us have larger buffers of wealth to cushion our mistakes; we can live happily and long even while acting on crazy beliefs.”