I'm sure I'm not mistaken.

[ippy]

The large majority of really poor countries are mostly either Roman Catholic or Muslim, with a scattering of various other religions in India, an India that seems to me has a lot more poor people than it seems to me that it should have.

I assume any one of the many religions followed by fewer people in India are probably followed by millions.

Just a thought, I don't think I've got it wrong and would be interested in anyone's views on this.

ippy 

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

The large majority of really poor countries are mostly either Roman Catholic or Muslim, with a scattering of various other religions in India, an India that seems to me has a lot more poor people than it seems to me that it should have.

I assume any one of the many religions followed by fewer people in India are probably followed by millions.

Just a thought, I don't think I've got it wrong and would be interested in anyone's views on this.

Religiosity and poverty are heavily correlated, though the case for the causality of the former for the latter is unclear. Clearly unsustainably large families impoverishes them, but consider the religiosity of the USA too for example.

[L.A.]

ipster,

Religiosity and poverty are heavily correlated, though the case for the causality of the former for the latter is unclear. Clearly unsustainably large families impoverishes them, but consider the religiosity of the USA too for example.

But as they always say on More or Less, "correlation is not causation" - it would be perfectly logical for the poor to turn to the only organisations that offers them support.

[ippy]

But as they always say on More or Less, "correlation is not causation" - it would be perfectly logical for the poor to turn to the only organisations that offers them support.

Good point, couldn't be linked to anything lacking in the educational levels present amongst poorer populations? 

ippy

[Harrowby Hall]

But as they always say on More or Less, "correlation is not causation" - it would be perfectly logical for the poor to turn to the only organisations that offers them support.

Or to an organisation that provides a simplistic and supposedly authoritative explanation for their condition.

[L.A.]

Or to an organisation that provides a simplistic and supposedly authoritative explanation for their condition.

Indeed, but religious organisations are not homogenious - there's the Good,the Bad and the Ugly   

[bluehillside Retd.]

L.A.

Indeed, but religious organisations are not homogenious - there's the Good,the Bad and the Ugly   

But they are homogeneous to the extent that they all privilege faith over just guessing about stuff. And that's the problem with them.

[Brownie]

Certainly there is a lot of poverty in many South American countries, where the majority follow the Catholic faith.  Naturally there are ''fat cats'' too but they are in the minority.  Bigger families obviously contribute to family poverty but only the most ignorant don't know how to limit their families.

I was surprised to see Islam mentioned in the same way, I don't believe Muslims on the whole are thought of as poor.  They may live in a country where there is great poverty for various reasons.  Some of the Muslims who live is what might be called ''Muslim areas'' in this country aren't particularly well off but they are aspirational and not on the bread line.  'Working class'.  Our new mayor comes from that sort of background.  They aren't known for having big families.  Plenty of quite well off and well educated ones too, who send their children to the top schools.

The Indian subcontinent is so vast with remote areas, places where there are floods and droughts, there's bound to be extreme hardship but not necessarily connected to religion.   We mustn't forget the Zoroastrians who are considered to be elite, not many in number but highly educated, enlightened and aspirational, especially for their children.

Hindus in India and abroad have a huge demographic and, again, aren't known for having very big families.

[L.A.]

L.A.

But they are homogeneous to the extent that they all privilege faith over just guessing about stuff. And that's the problem with them.

Obviously they all have a religious 'ethos' of some kind, but how that translates to 'morality' varies hugely.

[ippy]

Certainly there is a lot of poverty in many South American countries, where the majority follow the Catholic faith.  Naturally there are ''fat cats'' too but they are in the minority.  Bigger families obviously contribute to family poverty but only the most ignorant don't know how to limit their families.

I was surprised to see Islam mentioned in the same way, I don't believe Muslims on the whole are thought of as poor.  They may live in a country where there is great poverty for various reasons.  Some of the Muslims who live is what might be called ''Muslim areas'' in this country aren't particularly well off but they are aspirational and not on the bread line.  'Working class'.  Our new mayor comes from that sort of background.  They aren't known for having big families.  Plenty of quite well off and well educated ones too, who send their children to the top schools.

The Indian subcontinent is so vast with remote areas, places where there are floods and droughts, there's bound to be extreme hardship but not necessarily connected to religion.   We mustn't forget the Zoroastrians who are considered to be elite, not many in number but highly educated, enlightened and aspirational, especially for their children.

Hindus in India and abroad have a huge demographic and, again, aren't known for having very big families.

Brownie I may be wrong but I think you may have read my post and missed some of it, like where I mentioned Muslims, 'Muslims living in poor countries and nothing about our resident Muslim population' perhaps you misread me.

I also mentioned that even the smaller religions in India probably number in millions something else you seem to have missed, if in fact you were referring to my post in both cases.

ippy

[ippy]

Obviously they all have a religious 'ethos' of some kind, but how that translates to 'morality' varies hugely.

The word 'Ethos' where mentioned in connection with religion would, for me, be interchangeable with the word 'Dogma'.

ippy

[L.A.]

The word 'Ethos' where mentioned in connection with religion would, for me, be interchangeable with the word 'Dogma'.

ippy

'World View' I would have said. Lets face it, we all have a world view of some sort and they all have their short-comings.

[Nearly Sane]

'World View' I would have said. Lets face it, we all have a world view of some sort and they all have their short-comings.

Do we? As I have mentioned before I seem to get by on a few rules of thumb, which were I to tart them up, I might call heuristics. Some of them when I get into the long dark Grenache-time of the soul seem pretty contradictory. Having a world view seems very exhausting.

[L.A.]

Do we? As I have mentioned before I seem to get by on a few rules of thumb, which were I to tart them up, I might call heuristics. Some of them when I get into the long dark Grenache-time of the soul seem pretty contradictory. Having a world view seems very exhausting.

What you describe is a world view of sorts, be it a rather minimalist one, but from your political comments on other threads, I suspect it is actually much more complex than you admit.

[bluehillside Retd.]

L.A.,

Obviously they all have a religious 'ethos' of some kind, but how that translates to 'morality' varies hugely.

Indeed, but that's not the point. Rather I'd call myself an "antitheist" because the common and fundamental characteristic of them all is that faith beliefs are in some way more reliably arrived at than just guessing about stuff. Now sometimes those guesses lead to happy outcomes, and often not - the point though is that it's still guessing, and guesses are by magnitudes more likely to be wrong than they are to be right.

And the problem with that is that - having guessed/arrived at a faith belief - there's no way to argue someone out of it as many of the threads here show.

[L.A.]

L.A.,

Indeed, but that's not the point. Rather I'd call myself an "antitheist" because the common and fundamental characteristic of them all is that faith beliefs are in some way more reliably arrived at than just guessing about stuff. Now sometimes those guesses lead to happy outcomes, and often not - the point though is that it's still guessing, and guesses are by magnitudes more likely to be wrong than they are to be right.

And the problem with that is that - having guessed/arrived at a faith belief - there's no way to argue someone out of it as many of the threads here show.

I would say that it's not so much whether those guesses are right or wrong, is more a case of whether the resulting 'culture' works or not - i.e. does it result in a fair and just society?

[Nearly Sane]

I would say that it's not so much whether those guesses are right or wrong, is more a case of whether the resulting 'culture' works or not - i.e. does it result in a fair and just society?

Isn't the judgement of the outcome a further guess?

[Udayana]

On many questions there is no reliable way to arrive at an answer. That's why people have faith in the belief system or world view that they have adopted, and also why they can't be argued out of them.

And what is a happy outcome or not, or fair or not, depends how/from where you are looking at it.

[Nearly Sane]

Given Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts in the area of science with a clear methodology is it surprising that changing people's views on areas with no methodology is hard to change? And yet it does, though for those of us who see room only for a determinist, or deterministic pls random world, any change will happen or not based on that.

[Brownie]

Brownie I may be wrong but I think you may have read my post and missed some of it, like where I mentioned Muslims, 'Muslims living in poor countries and nothing about our resident Muslim population' perhaps you misread me.

I also mentioned that even the smaller religions in India probably number in millions something else you seem to have missed, if in fact you were referring to my post in both cases.

ippy

I did read your post ippy but my mind was wandering when I replied, going off topic.  Partly because I've been reading about the Islamic school ('Muslim Eton'), down the road and can't stop thinking about it!  Though it has been there for years I knew little about it before googling and am thoroughly intrigued.   So, sorry.  I'm great for going off topic.
I'll read all your other replies.

[L.A.]

Isn't the judgement of the outcome a further guess?

I think it is probably true that most religions have some teachings that even the hardest 'antitheist' might endorse. The prime example perhaps being the 'Golden Rule' that appears under many guises in many religions. Maybe here it's useful to consider the inverse situation: who would want to live in a society where people were encouraged to treat others in a way that they themselves would least want to be treated themselves? Would such a society be fair, just or even stable?

[Nearly Sane]

I think it is probably true that most religions have some teachings that even the hardest 'antitheist' might endorse. The prime example perhaps being the 'Golden Rule' that appears under many guises in many religions. Maybe here it's useful to consider the inverse situation: who would want to live in a society where people were encouraged to treat others in a way that they themselves would least want to be treated themselves? Would such a society be fair, just or even stable?

Which is surely just an argumentum ad populum. The best position we have on this, imo, is Rawls veil of ignorance which is about choosing how you might want to be treated based on not knowing your position in it.

[L.A.]

Given Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts in the area of science with a clear methodology is it surprising that changing people's views on areas with no methodology is hard to change? And yet it does, though for those of us who see room only for a determinist, or deterministic pls random world, any change will happen or not based on that.

Given our current understanding of Quantum Mechanics, I'm don't think we can describe the world as being totally deterministic.

[L.A.]

Which is surely just an argumentum ad populum.

But we are people - we are 'The observers' of reality.

The best position we have on this, imo, is Rawls veil of ignorance which is about choosing how you might want to be treated based on not knowing your position in it.

Maybe in some abstract reality totally unpolluted by all lifeforms such a pov might be useful - but who would ever know?

[Hope]

The large majority of really poor countries are mostly either Roman Catholic or Muslim, with a scattering of various other religions in India, an India that seems to me has a lot more poor people than it seems to me that it should have.

I assume any one of the many religions followed by fewer people in India are probably followed by millions.

Just a thought, I don't think I've got it wrong and would be interested in anyone's views on this.

ippy

Not quite sure that you've explained the purpose of this thread very well, ippy.  Are you trying to tell us that nations that have high religiosity are always poor?


If so, why was Britain, at its richest, one of apparently (according to folk like yourself) high religiosity?  Why, on the other hand was a country like Albania so poor under an atheist regime?

India is very strongly Hindu - some 88% of the population when I last checked about 10 years ago.  Some of these folk are extremely wealthy, many of them are amongst the poorest the world knows.  I would suggest that the correlation between poverty and religiosity isn't necessarily as strong as you would like it to be.  At the same time, there is a distinct difference between religiosity and having a living faith.