For instance, those facing greater hardships such as those in poverty are more likely to be theist since it will explain several questions massively relevant to their lives
So you're suggesting that impoverished individuals are unable to understand economic situations combined with life choices and family history, location, etc... and are instead more likely to attribute their hardships to a deity?
You are misunderstanding what I have said, but, that aside, it is true that a lesser percentage of those in such a situation are able to understand those particulars and their interactions with one another. I understand that this is a sensitive spot for you, but one shouldn't debate with exceptions in mind, but the majority as it is more relevant
( ... )
Yeah, but poverty and lack of available education really doesn't explain defaulting to religion. That's a personal thing based on family background and upbringing, and hell, rich conservatives, with all of their available resources default to religion, as well.
It's a misguided generalization based on an assumption. Most poor people in the States have access to television, books, the world, as a whole. Which means more exposure, and less chance of a default mindset.
It's a fact that there is a correlation between wealth and poverty. I'm not saying one causes the other for certain, but I am attempting to explain the correlation that, unfortunately, does exist based on various studies. It exists on a global basis and national one, if you're interested in researching the correlation.
Regardless of their access to television and books, they still face hardships and struggle more than those with greater wealth. They may need that emotional boost, which isn't a negative. I've never denoted as much regardless of my beliefs.
Rich conservatives may identify with a religion, but they are less religious than the poor. And there are a greater number of non-believers among those who are not poor.
The fact that the poor are more religious, in general, is not a debate here, in any case. Just the "why".
That aside: Many classes struggle with many life-altering hardships, and there are a number of ways that humans cope with the emotional and/or psychological burden this puts on them, but the question is why do people resort to religion? Why is it so ingrained and embedded that it's the natural default?
"I don't understand why this is happening to me, so instead of considering realistic factors, I'm going to look to something that's unexplainable, in itself."
It's using the unexplainable to explain the easily explainable. Sounds funny, but it's true.
I've gone off-track, haven't I? *amused* I do that.
Comments 7
So you're suggesting that impoverished individuals are unable to understand economic situations combined with life choices and family history, location, etc... and are instead more likely to attribute their hardships to a deity?
Reply
Reply
It's a misguided generalization based on an assumption. Most poor people in the States have access to television, books, the world, as a whole. Which means more exposure, and less chance of a default mindset.
Reply
Regardless of their access to television and books, they still face hardships and struggle more than those with greater wealth. They may need that emotional boost, which isn't a negative. I've never denoted as much regardless of my beliefs.
Rich conservatives may identify with a religion, but they are less religious than the poor. And there are a greater number of non-believers among those who are not poor.
The fact that the poor are more religious, in general, is not a debate here, in any case. Just the "why".
Reply
That aside: Many classes struggle with many life-altering hardships, and there are a number of ways that humans cope with the emotional and/or psychological burden this puts on them, but the question is why do people resort to religion? Why is it so ingrained and embedded that it's the natural default?
"I don't understand why this is happening to me, so instead of considering realistic factors, I'm going to look to something that's unexplainable, in itself."
It's using the unexplainable to explain the easily explainable. Sounds funny, but it's true.
I've gone off-track, haven't I? *amused* I do that.
Reply
Reply
You're not debating anymore. You switched topics. *pets, winsss*
Reply
Leave a comment