FAITH EQUALS FERTILITY

children.jpgReligious people have more babies than non-believers--and not just for the obvious reasons. Anthony Gottlieb looks into a philosophical puzzle ...

From INTELLIGENT LIFE magazine, Winter 2008

If a Martian were to look at a map of the Earth’s religions, what he might find most surprising is the fact that such a map can be drawn at all. How strange--he might say to himself--that so many of the world’s Hindus are to be found in one place, namely India. And how odd that Muslims are so very numerous in the Middle East. With the disconcerting curiosity that is so typical of Martians, he might wonder what explains this geographical clustering. Do people move countries in order to be close to others of the same faith? Or do people simply tend to adopt the religion they grew up with?

The answer, of course, is the latter--on the whole. There are exceptions: Jews moving to Israel, for example, and there are many other cases of religious migration. Still, the huddling of the faithful is mainly explained by the fact that religion runs in families. If you have a religion, it is probably the same one as your parents. Earlier this year a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that nearly three-quarters of American adults professed the religion in which they were raised. But instead of finding this glass to be three-quarters full, newspapers preferred to notice that it was one-quarter empty. It was the minority of Americans who either switched religions, or abandoned religion altogether, who were highlighted in reports of the survey (“Poll Finds a Fluid Religious Life in US”, ran a headline in the New York Times). Plainly it does not count as news that religion remains largely a family affair. Yet it should do, because of its largely unnoticed consequences. Some religious groups are dramatically outbreeding others, in ways that have an impact on America,  Europe and elsewhere.

Consider the Mormons, who grew from six people in a log-cabin in upstate New York in 1830 to 13.1m adherents around the world in 2007. At the beginning of the 20th century, Mormons were a fringe sect in America, with decidedly unusual beliefs. (They officially hold that God once had a body; that people exist as spirits before they are physically conceived; and that Jesus will one day commute between somewhere in Israel and somewhere in the United States.) Today Mormons are about to overtake Jews in America; in fact, they may already have done so. And they almost had their own presidential candidate, in the person of Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts. The rapid rise of Mormons in America, growing by an average of 40% every decade in the 20th century, is mainly due to their large families. The American state with the highest birth rate is Utah, which is around 70% Mormon. In America, on average, Mormon women have nearly three times more children than Jewish women. 

Ultra-Orthodox Jews, however, do have plenty of offspring. This fact is changing the face of Israel, where such families have three times more children than other Israelis. As a result, at least a quarter of Israel’s population of under-17s is expected to be ultra-Orthodox by 2025, according to Eric Kaufmann at Harvard. A similar but more gradual increase in the religious right has been taking place in America for decades, and not just because of Mormons. Conservative Protestant denominations as a whole grew much faster than liberal ones in 20th-century America, and it has been estimated that three-quarters of this growth is due simply to higher birth rates. Were it not for the fact that Evangelical Christians reproduce faster than other Protestants, George Bush--who attracted most of the Evangelical votes--probably could not have made it back to the White House in 2004.    

Like other demographers, Eric Kaufmann expects western Europe to become markedly more religious in the course of the 21st century, as a result of the relatively low fertility of unbelievers and immigration from more pious places. Not only do denominations with traditionalist values tend to have higher birth rates than their more liberal co-religionists, but countries that are relatively secularised usually reproduce more slowly than countries that are more religious. According to the World Bank, the nations with the largest proportions of unbelievers had an average annual population growth rate of just 0.7% in the period 1975-97, while the populations of the most religious countries grew three times as fast.

If they want to spread their gospel, then, one might half-seriously conclude that atheists and agnostics ought to focus on having more children, to help overcome their demographic disadvantage. Unfortunately for secularists, this may not work even as a joke. Nobody knows exactly why religion and fertility tend to go together. Conventional wisdom says that female education, urbanisation, falling infant mortality, and the switch from agriculture to industry and services all tend to cause declines in both religiosity and birth rates. In other words, secularisation and smaller families are caused by the same things. Also, many religions enjoin believers to marry early, abjure abortion and sometimes even contraception, all of which leads to larger families. But there may be a quite different factor at work as well. Having a large family might itself sometimes make people more religious, or make them less likely to lose their religion. Perhaps religion and fertility are linked in several ways at the same time.

Mary Eberstadt, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, California, has suggested several ways in which the experience of forming a family might stimulate religious feelings among parents, at least some of the time. She notes that pregnancy and birth, the business of caring for children, and the horror of contemplating their death, can stimulate an intensity of purpose that might make parents more open to religious sentiments. Many common family events, she reasons, might encourage a broadly spiritual turn of mind, from selfless care for a sick relation to sacrifices for the sake of a child’s adulthood that one might never see.  

Eberstadt argues that part of the reason why western European Christians have become more secular is that they have been forming fewer stable families, and having fewer children when they do. This, she suggests, may help to explain some puzzles about the timing of secularisation in certain places. In Ireland, for example, she notes that people started having smaller families before they stopped going to church. And, she argues, if something about having families can incline one to religion, this might shed some light on another mystery: why the sexes are not equally religious.

According to Rodney Stark, an American sociologist of religion, the generalisation that men are less religious than women “holds around the world and across the centuries”. In every country--both Christian and non-Christian--analysed by Dr Stark, based on data from the World Values Survey in the 1990s, more women than men said they would describe themselves as religious. There is no agreed explanation for this striking difference. Perhaps the fact that women play a rather larger role than men in the production and rearing of children has something to do with it. If family life does contribute to religiosity, then having larger families might backfire on unbelievers. It might make them more religious. And since faith is still largely a family affair, their children would then be more likely to be religious, too.

Picture Credit: freeparking (via Flickr)

(Anthony Gottlieb is a former executive editor of The Economist. Author of "The Dream of Reason", he is working on a book about nothingness. His last piece for Intelligent Life was about the science of humour.)

ISSUES & IDEAS  religion  Winter 2008  

Comments

overlooked explanantion


It seems to me that the author and commentators have overlooked one likely explanation. It may be that religious people, of many denominations, are less concerned with overpopulation and find greater comfort in producing more offspring, regardless of the long term consequences on the world and the environment. In other words,m the focus is on people, not the world in which people live. We should not take this too far, of course. But I think we can see that same forces at work in the fact that traditional Christians in the United States have found it so difficult to embrace environmentalism and have been a bastion of resistance to concern about global climate change. It may be that a religious outlooks tends to (but does not guarantee) an overconfidence that people are not a problem, no matter how many of us there are. As a corollary, it may be that a religious outlook encourages one to be less worried about the long-term fate of the planet, as a lesser concern perhaps beneath our highest ethical obligations.

Overpopulation and Environmentalism?


I would agree that the larger, more religious families don't concern themselves with overpopulation. This would be because they typically believe that the world is not at the brink of being overpopulated. They would see the problem of abject poverty as a matter of distributing the world's resources, not too many people. Many of these same families, I would posit, are greener than many others out of necessity. They tend to use and reuse clothing, drive their vehicles longer etc... This necessity is borne out of financial resources being somewhat limited compared to a two-income, suburban family with the standard 2.5 kids.

Amen, Big Tex! Being from a


Amen, Big Tex! Being from a big family, and having a big family, your observations are so true. Moreover, traditionally religious people do not buy into the "religion" of environmentalism and will not adhere to its tenants until there is incontrovertible proof of "global warming", now retermed "climate change," and we are far from having that proof, quite the opposite. We see this movement as nothing more than a ploy to limit our freedoms: economic, individual and religious.

I don't see this as a


I don't see this as a difficult question. Religious people have larger families because Western religions encourage having children. Further, as a general proposition (there are, of course, exceptions), religious people tend to place a higher emphasis on altruism, whereas secular people tend to be more self-focused. Thus, for a religious person, children provide the opportunity to nurture and benefit other human beings. For many secular people, however, children merely consume time and resources that otherwise could have been devoted to their own amusement.

Wrong Again Secularists...


People of faith are more open to having children because they love God. God is life, so what better way to celebrate life than to have children. Hence the Culture of Life. Secularists, atheists, non-theists, tend to not believe in something more than themselves, so they think ONLY of themselves. High rates of narcissism are rampant amongst non-believers so hence you have higher rates of abortions. Abortions are more prevalent since non-believers are pretty selfish and since they don't believe life beyond their material existense they want evertying now. Sex without responsbility is probably the number one narcisistic value amongst non-believers. Why have children sucking away your money, when that money can be better spent on vacations, a second home, third car, misstress, etc. It's rather quite simple. But as St. Thomas Aquinas said, "those with faith, no explanation is necessary. Those without faith, no explanation is possible." In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph, Tito

Wow, just wow.


I am appalled by this sentiment, Tito. I am an atheist who teaches instead of working in a field where I could easily make quite a bit more money. I choose not to have children, not because I am selfish, but because I do not believe that bringing a child into a world as broken as ours is currently responsible. I, like many secularists I know, give more money to charity than my religious friends, treat people with more respect and care a great deal about every person on the planet. It's about being human, not about believing in beings that may or may not exist.

Smaller families leading to


Smaller families leading to secularization makes sense, though not for the reasons described here. The larger a family is, generally, the earlier one has to start producing it. Smaller families means more time for education and intellectual exploration that would otherwise be taken up caring for children. And more education is strongly correlated with nonbelief.

This is easy. Religious


This is easy. Religious people with big families don't have time to read and reflect, but must to work and take care of their children. That make them easy prey for the simplistic solutions that religion can offer.

atheism is a religion


The problem with this article and the comments is that no one recognizes that atheism is in fact a religion. Is is a religion with the self being the deity...or as the self's mind being the deity...however you care to view it. Only-children tend to be atheists and atheists tend to have only one child, or no child. Marriage and procreation require recognizing that the self is not the most important thing in the universe, and thus not a deity. growing up with many siblings forces one to confront these sorts of things early on in life and so reduces the chances that a child with many siblings will grow up to be an atheist. The reason atheists think having children is a selfish act is because atheists view a child as a continuation of the self, and thus another deity, or the continuation of the same deity. They are not creating a new life, they are creating a copy of themselves. That is a selfish act and they themselves recognize it as such. So when an atheist sees a christian with 6 kids, they naturally believe the person to be selfish in the extreme...and ego-maniac...and dangerous.

Overpopulation; the irreligious religious


What did jehovah say? Go forth and multiply. And what did christians do? Went forth and divided. Those who don't recognise the urgent need to deal with global warming (or who look forward with perverse glee to a prophesied armageddon) ought at least to see the problems of overpopulation. Alas, as we see in comments above, blind faith compels believers to view large numbers of children as 'god's work', rather than as an irresponsible and, yes, selfish decision in an already overstretched world. Another reason for the link between large families and religiosity is that those children are brought up in an environment where lots of folks around them reinforce the same beliefs. For any atheist in that situation, it means there are more people to confront, to disappoint, and perhaps to become estranged from. There's no easy way of measuring how many people who profess to be Hindus, Sikhs, Parsees or Lutherans actually don't believe but can't bring themselves to say so. That forced silence is just one of many intellectual chains that the religious are unnecessarily burdened with.

John - don't be daft. You're


John - don't be daft. You're showing yourself up. Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel. Atheism just means not believing in any gods. You don't believe in most of 'em yourself - shame you can't bring yourself to go one further. Come on in, the water's fine!

Perhaps religious people are


Perhaps religious people are just better at evolving than their secular counterparts.

Children represent our hopes and dreams


As a university educated man (Engineering and Mathematics) married to a university educated woman (Mathematics). I take umbrage at the allegation that religious people are uneducated people who do not have time to read and reflect. My wife and I have children to express our faith that there will be a future, which, if not perfect, will have as many occassions for rejoicing as times both past and present. As with all other things in Life, there are risks of heartbreak and disaster, but the only people that feel no pain are those already dead. People with faith tend to be happier. How that correlates with us having more children is anyone's guess. It is probably that happier people worry less about the future, so they can take the leap of faith that is parenthood.

Faith does not equal fertility.


Did you know that the vast majority of the statistics implied in these comments have no basis in any kind of evidence? That's a fact--look it up. Speculation is one thing, one might even be tempted to call it a belief, but keep in mind that there is only a correlation between faith and fertility, not necessarily a causal relationship. I'm very concerned about overpopulation, as are quite a few people I know who have a variety of different beliefs. There are quite a few reasons why I don't plan on having a bunch of children, but that's beyond the scope of this conversation. I come from a large, religious family, and we are all very altruistic and not very selfish. However, I am an agnostic. I would join "steerpike" in the dark waters of atheism, but I don't particularly enjoy being presumptuous. ("God does not exist" is an unprovable belief--to use your own analogy, you can choose to turn the TV off, but that would not help you decide if there is anything good to watch. Just trust me, there isn't.) Anyway, it is important to understand that the most populous religions today have been around for many centuries, and until very recently many good people like me (or even suspected to be somewhat like me) were already a minority, called "heretics," and murdered. That's not a very promising way for a nebulous subculture to start in modern society, if you ask me. The U.S., and I would imagine most other American countries, still isn't a hospitable place for non-Christians. The same could be said for many Muslim countries. Naturally some religious people tend to have this notion that their God-given duty is to marry, be fruitful, and multiply the number of evangelizers in the world. That is not everyone, and there are so many religious people that it might be easier to understand why more atheists and agnostics do not think this way. I can't speak for all of them, but not because you're more intelligent than me.

Who, apart from yourself,


Who, apart from yourself, says that atheists think having children is a selfish act? I've been an atheist for nearly two decades and I've never encountered such a suggestion before. Do you have any evidence in suport of the claim that atheists think having children is selfish? I doubt that you do. To be honest, I doubt you have any evidence to support any of the slanders you direct at atheists in your comment at all. You're simply sharing your prejudices with us. You assert that atheists see religious people with large families and automatically think of them as selfish in the extreme. Well I don't! But I'm curious to know how it is that you're able to read other people's minds. As for the stuff about the (atheist) self's mind becoming a deity, get over yourself. I don't think of my mind as a deity. It's an evolved organ! As for atheism being a religion, well by the same logic 'not collecting stamps' is therefore a hobby!

women and faith


I have two points to make about this article: Firstly, this article doesn't actually discuss fertility rates, it discusses the decision to have children, which is possibly also related to how religious a country is in terms of whether they permit access to birth control and family planning information. Second, there are lots of possible reasons why women might identify as religious. For one thing, many cultures expect women to be virtuous and pure which may be associated with religion. Also, religious groups may provide support for those with children which may be too expensive to access elsewhere (e.g. playgroups) and thus act as an incentive to stay with the group. Finally, in a conservative traditional religious society being involved with a local faith community may provide the best opportunities for a woman to learn new skills and hold a position of responsibility.

Rather Simple?


Hi Tito: That's an awfully bigotted thing to say. I'm an atheist and I believe in a lot of things bigger than myself. I know many atheists and none of them fit the description you've provided--how many atheists do YOU know?

2 comments:


First, as a life-long atheist (who was not raised by atheists, by the way), I am creeped out by the suggestion that atheists should adopt one of the major tenets of popular religions and treat their children as ripe for indoctrination. One of the things that really disgusts me about religion (all religion) is precisely that point of view. Moreover, statistics aside, it strikes me as foolish for anyone to think that their efforts alone will cause any particular child to turn into any sort of particular adult. Some lucky children will actually grow up to be their own person, independent of their parents' views. And if it was easy to rear children with a particular result in mind, we would have a world full of athletic, artistic, religious, highly-motivated super-beings, don't you think? Second, regarding the author's remark that "[n]obody knows exactly why religion and fertility tend to go together": This is something only a man would say. As a woman, it has long been clear to me that all of the world's major religions share an interest in oppressing women, and specifically in having them breed as many children as possible. To my knowledge, all major religions have at one time or another decreed that women are not welcome to hold leadership roles within the religion (as priests or so forth) because of their inherent inferiority, and all have decreed at one time or another that the ideal role for a woman is as a birthing machine. (Look, for example, at Catholicism, in which the ideal, iconic woman -- the only one worth paying any attention to, really -- is one who magically popped out a baby without letting anyone $%#* her). How, then, can it be a mystery that religion and fertility go together like peanut butter & jelly?

I think the author got it


I think the author got it right when he expressed the idea that what is the cause & what is the effect is unclear. Or, whether both are effects of something else for that matter. That is the nature of statistics. Personally, I think belief in a personal diety does provide a worldview that is more positive and views bringing children into a fallen world in a more favorable light.

Nah.


Nah.

Some awfully nasty comments


Some awfully nasty comments have been written in response to this article by those who seem to be religious. However, I am just chiming in to say that I am a lifelong atheist (raised by atheists in a religious community) and have six children. There is no god, but I love my family. Just sayin'.

35 yo atheist with 3 kids


I'm a atheist(raised catholic) and I have three kids. I think the global warming propaganda is a bunch of bunch designed to convince us to accept a worldwide carbon tax or give up other individual freedoms. A slave planet seems to be the goal of the elite running this world. Maybe, I'm wrong, but does anyone else think it is odd that when the Bilderberg group meets every sumemr the worldwide media says almost zero about it...I bet most of you don't even realize their is a Bilderberg group. Well...my children will know how to shoot a gun and when and they will know how to protect their financial capital as well. Do I have a selfish desire to see my genes survive? yes...We may adopt a kid or two as well, because I do love mankind...but the bastards who think they are charitable just because they vote for high taxes are self delusional thieves.

Atheism is a Religion - the truth hurts but brings freedom!


John, I noticed you got a lot of flack over your comment that atheism is a religion. Boy, did you strike a nerve with the atheists! ;D You know why? Cause there's some truth to what you said! When people get free from being ruled by what they think and feel then they are able to live for Someone who thinks and feels at a level higher than our human comprehension!

Childless Squanders Generational Gain


Here's a bit of God's word for those who choose to be childless: Without children, a lifetime's work and gain are wasted and handed over to a stranger or someone outside of the bloodline. (Genesis 15:2-3 and Jeremiah 49:1) It squanders generational gain that is purposed to increase from generation to generation. "...This is God's verdict: 'Write this man off as if he were childless, a man who will never amount to anything. Nothing will ever come of his life. He is the end of the line. The last of the kings." - Jeremiah 22:28 MSG See, the truth is, each of our lives give us an opportunity to leave a legacy that endures long after we are dead and forgotton. Hopefully, that legacy is a good, Godly one.

effects of the penal law


In this piece there is no control for born unwanteds just because of abortionforbidding legalization or the lack of access to an abortionprovider because of religious arsonists. For example: I have no children and chose to devote my life to fighting abortionforbidding laws because my mother was forced to have the product of rape - me. She had no chance to decide about anything. Perhaps she should have stopped to crawl to church inspite of having migraines later on in her life??? I did, beginning at age 9 - and it was a harsh fight.

but...


If there was no God there would be no atheism.

I'm sure any blanket


I'm sure any blanket observations I could make about religious or secular people would be just as laughable as all the ones above me. For me, getting married and having children were both promises to commit my life regardless of future circumstances. That's a very scary prospect. If I felt I was doing it alone, it would be even scarier. In that way, my faith enables me to have a larger family. And I thank God every day for my family because it establishes a daily praxis of self-sacrifice and devotion to others. Since this is the stuff my faith is made of, my family facilitates my faith. I tell my children that you become an adult when you can take care of yourself but you don't finish the transition until you dedicate your life to taking care of others. I find that faith and family has helped me with that transition.

Correction: I meant to say


Correction: I meant to say "James Robison" and his biography can be found and www.jamesrobison.org.

Selfish or Selfless


Faith does equal fertility, though the fundamental reason why people have faith and bear children is one of servitude. People of faith serve their god and also others, whereas godless people tend to serve themselves. This is not to be confused with "giving" or "charity". Those who truly serve others, put others before themselves. With this in mind, truly conservative religions believe in life (no abortions) and love (offspring), all without encumbrances (contraception). Godless people are more selfish simply because they believe there is no higher power than humankind (self), versus a higher power that is well above humankind (god). Selfish people tend to prioritize much differently than selfless people. The selfish focus more on their career, their material possessions, vacations, activities instead of family rearing, feeding their copious amounts of children, and their families. it's that simple. Large families can't afford to be selfish, or they die. Small families can focus more on themselves.

To everyone, whether atheist or religious


To everyone, whether atheist or religious, who insulted the other side: grow up. Just because you're on the internet doesn't mean you can act like a child. If you don't have anything nice (or useful) to say, don't say anything at all. Out in the real world, mature people from both sides have interesting, constructive conversations about this sort of thing. You should be ashamed.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.