I don't remember where it was I ran across a review of this book (probably
Harper's or
The Atlantic), but it sounded interesting. Now that I've read it, I have to say that I was not at all disappointed; it is very thought-provoking and a worthwhile read.
The book is
Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment, by Phil Zuckerman (New York University Press, New York and London, 2008.) The author lived in Scandinavia (mostly in Denmark) in 2005-2006 and while there conducted tape-recorded interviews with hundreds of people, asking them about their religious beliefs (or, more commonly, the absence of such).
Here's the premise of his book:
“First of all, I argue that society without God is not only possible, but can be quite civil and pleasant. This admittedly polemical aspect of my book is aimed primarily at countering the claims of certain outspoken, conservative Christians who regularly argue that a society without God would be hell on earth: rampant with immorality, full of evil, and teeming with depravity. Well, it isn’t. Denmark and Sweden are remarkably strong, safe, healthy, moral, and prosperous societies…”
He's careful not to extol the absence of religious belief as preferable for a society, while arguing strongly that when religious belief (or dogma) is absent, society can crank along just fine. Herewith some excerpts and some of my notes from the book -
p. 6 - “…their overall rates of violent crime – such as murder, aggravated assault, and rape – are among the lowest on earth. Yet the majority of Danes and Swedes do not believe that God is “up there,” keeping diligent tabs on their behavior… In fact,
most Danes and Swedes don’t even believe in the very notion of “sin.” Almost nobody in Denmark and Sweden believes that the Bible is divine in origin. And the rate of weekly church attendance in these Nordic nations is the lowest on earth…”
p. 8 – religion hasn’t disappeared from Danish or Swedish culture altogether…
the majority are still tax-paying members of their respective national churches, prefer to get married in church, and baptize their children. But overwhelmingly they participate in these Christian rituals out of a sense of cultural tradition. They pay about 1% of their annual income in taxes to support their national church because “that’s what one does.” One pastor asked couples he was marrying why they chose to get married in church. Out of 200, only 10 mentioned God – the rest said they were just following a tradition “with a white dress in this old church.”
p. 10 – Most Danes strongly believe in reason – 82% accept Darwin’s theory of human evolution (one of the highest proportions in the world).
p. 10 – "When they say they are “Christian” they are just referring to a cultural heritage and history.
When asked what it means to be Christian, they said 'being kind to others, taking care of the poor and sick, and being a good and moral person.' They almost never mentioned God, Jesus, or the Bible in their explanation of Christian identity. When I specifically asked these Nordic Christians if they believed that Jesus was the Son of God or the Messiah, they nearly always said no – usually without hesitation. Did they believe that Jesus was born of a virgin or that he rose from the grave? Such queries were usually met with genuine laughter – as through the mere asking was rather silly.”
p. 104 – Most people express “benign indifference” to religion, think church buildings are nice, services at Christmas are lovely and pastors are decent and thoughtful men. Religion to them (Lutheranism) is harmless and innocuous and it helps some of their fellow men. And Jesus must have been a nice guy, and the Bible has good stories and admirable ethics.
They are not anti-religion, as some outspoken atheists in the U.S. are.p. 110 – Notes the decline of religion in many western countries. 100 years ago 100% of Dutch belonged to a church, now only 40%. France baptism rates have fallen from 91% to 51% 1958-1990. Several possible reasons why –
a) in some countries (Denmark), one church has monopoly, so no competition, no proselytizing, no effort to attract new members.
b) when people feel secure, they have less need for religion. Danes have food, jobs, housing. Poverty has been essentially eradicated, life expectancies are high, medical care excellent, crime limited.
c) working women have less time for religion
d) lack of need for cultural defense. During conflict people often rally around a church as around a flag (cf Irish Catholics and Protestants). Might change as Muslims immigrate.
e) education levels are typically high in countries where religion is less important. In the U.S. belief in resurrection of Jesus, Virgin Birth, existence of Hell correlates inversely with college education. Denmark and Sweden have 99% literacy rates for adults.
p. 160 – re baptism. “ “For most parents… the religious aspect is of minor importance, and the church ceremony is just part of the ritual. They use the christening ceremony as an excuse to have a party to introduce their baby to their relatives and friends.” The undeniable fact is, almost everyone who witnesses, enjoys, and engages in the baptizing of babies in Denmark and Sweden doesn’t actually believe in the literal existence of sin or the devil, the deliverance from death, or eternal salvation as promised by God. I doubt if even most Danish and Swedish pastors truly believe it.”
p. 170 – Compared to Denmark, the U.S. has much more immigration and more varied ethnic groups who take refuge in religion as a mark of their identity. Also the church is separated from the state (in Denmark and Sweden church is supported by state and by taxes). “Whether the framers of the Constitution intended it or not, the First Amendment has actually played a significant role in helping to keep religion alive and well in this country” (by preventing a monopoly). U.S. has religious pluralism to an extreme degree unlike anywhere else on the planet. Religion in U.S. aggressively marketed. Also Americans much less secure – has highest poverty rates of all developed democracies.
This was not a truly “scientific” study, and the number of interviews cannot guarantee that a true cross-section was interviewed, or that observer bias by the author didn’t influence the responses or the interpretation. But it’s not meant to be hard science. It’s an observational study, a compilation of anecdotal observations, by someone who has thought long and hard about the subject. I find his hypotheses and conclusions to be quite logical, but of course my own biases may be at work there. The book will not change the opinions of those who feel strongly that religion is important and crucial to a society, but it should at least provide some food for thought. It is well written and easy to read; if you're in a hurry, just skip the prolonged transcriptions of the interviews and jump to the conclusions of the chapters, and you should be able to finish it in an evening or two.
Reposted from way back in 2009 to accompany an adjacent post.
