Researchers conclude that the government can replace religion, because the ‘exchange model’ of religion postulates that, if people can get their needs, such as health care, education or welfare, met by the government, they’re less likely to turn to a divine power for help. Churches used to be an important neighborhood safety net that provided personal charity, but the government is an impersonal system that forces redistribution of wealth. Churches create a sense of community and belonging instead of simply meeting physical needs. Those in need who receive “free stuff” from the government are separated from the giver and develop a sense of entitlement instead of gratitude. -GEG
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people” -Karl Marx
A group of researchers agrees. They think they have proven that if you have a government you don’t need religion. They concluded that “religiosity” wanes as people get more help from government programs. They think that people replace spiritual help from God with tangible help from the government.
Researchers call it an exchange model of religion: If people can get what they need from the government (be it health care, education or welfare) they’re less likely to turn to a divine power for help, according to the theory.
But are people actually more likely to drop religion in places where governments provide more services and stability? In a new paper, psychology researchers crunched the numbers — and found that better government services were in fact linked to lower levels of strong religious beliefs.
Those findings held true in states across the U.S. and in countries around the world, researchers said.
The article, “Religion as an Exchange System: The Interchangeability of God and Government in a Provider Role,” was published April 12 in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
What they are really highlighting is how the government undermines traditional community institutions. The church has been one of the most important neighborhood safety nets for centuries, possibly millennia. But these warm, personal institutions are being replaced by cold government programs. People are treated like numbers, not neighbors. People are provided help not from the charity of others, but from the forced redistribution of wealth.
This tears apart the foundation of why churches have always worked so well as a safety net. And it really doesn’t have much to do with religion. It has much more to do with community and strong neighborhood social ties.
I am not convinced that the researchers were measuring what they thought they were measuring. Going to church and participating in a religious community is not so clearly a deeply religious experience for all attendees. Community and social ties are likely the main reason most people gravitate towards religion.
Yuval Noah Harari argues in his book Sapiens that after industrialization, government and industry teamed up to get people hooked on markets and government instead of family and community. They knew that they had to replace more than the physical things that people depended on.
Markets and states do so by fostering ‘imagined communities’ that contain millions of strangers, and which are tailored to national and commercial needs. An imagined community is a community of people who don’t really know each other, but imagine that they do. Such communities are not a novel invention. Kingdoms, empires and churches functioned for millennia as imagined communities…
The two most important examples for the rise of such imagined communities are the nation and the consumer tribe. The nation is the imagined community of the state. The consumer tribe is the imagined community of the market. Both are imagined communities because it is impossible for all customers in a market or for all members of a nation really to know one another the way villagers knew one another in the past…
Consumerism and nationalism work extra hours to make us imagine that millions of strangers belong to the same community as ourselves, that we all have a common past, common interests and a common future.
People abandon the God that provides them with a community for a “god” that provides them with “free” stuff. The government is much easier to satisfy. You don’t have to be polite and grateful to your neighbors when they help you. The government obscures where the help really comes from, and leaves people with a sense of entitlement.
And the community has no control over who receives its help. In a community, you can tell who needs help, and who might be gaming the system. You can isolate the type of support that neighbors need most. Instead of handing out government dollars to buy fruit roll-ups and Capt’n Crunch, a family might offer to cook dinner for another family or take their kids in for certain meals or extended stays.
There are actual “regulatory” mechanisms at work in communities and small-scale warm institutions like churches. For instance, Sapiens also point to gossip as an important social regulator. It is a way of making sure people in your social group know who they are truly dealing with.
Read full article here…