The Reproductive Advantage of Religiosity Religious Demography benefitting Evolutionary Fitness Dr....

The Reproductive Advantage of ReligiosityReligious Demography benefitting Evolutionary Fitness

Dr. Michael Blume

( www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de )Conference “Explaining Religion 2010”, Bristol University

Observation & Hypothesis

Religiously affiliated humans reproduce (on average) more successfully than

their secular peers.

Of course, this doesn‘t mean that Religion is the ONLY demographic factor, but that it is an

INDEPENDENT one.

As assumed by Charles Darwin, Religiosity evolved – and is evolving - as

an adaptive, biocultural trait.

Example Judaism & Israel

Cp. Eric Kaufmann: „Shall the Religious inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the 21st century“, London 2010

Haredim growth in Israel: 6-8 children per woman throughout generations

Example Old Order Amish in the USA

Other high-fertile religious

communities in the US (Example):

- Hutterites- Old Order Mennonites- Mormons

- Orthodox Jews

Cp. D.B. Kraybill & C.D. Bowman: „On the Backroad to Heaven. Old Order Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish and Brethren“, Johns Hopkins Univ. 2002

Secular demographics

In contrast, we still found NOT A SINGLE CASE of a SECULAR population retaining

replacement fertility rates of more than two children per woman for a century!

Religious Non-Affiliation

Note: Demographically, it is NOT possible to fully substitute the potentials of Religiosity!

Cp. P. Norris & R. Inglehart: „ Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide“, Cambridge 2004

Swiss Census 2000Denominational category

(CFR) Births per woman

% academiceducation

% higher occupational class

Hinduism* 2,79 (1) 17,0% (12) 7,4% (14)

Islam* 2,44 (2) 11,4% (15) 6,1% (15)

Jewish 2,06 (3) 42,7% (1) 42,4% (1)

Other (smaller) Protestant 2,04 (4) 20,1% (5) 19,2% (6)

New Pietism / Evangelical 2,02 (5) 19,2% (6) 17,9% (8)

Pentecostal 1,96 (6) 17,1% (11) 15,7% (10)

Other (smaller) Christian 1,82 (7) 39,1% (2) 31,8% (2)

Didn’t answer 1,74 (8) 19,1% (7) 5,3% (16)

Christian-Orthodox* 1,62 (9) 18,0% (10) 9,8% (13)

Swiss Average 1,43 19,2% 19,6%Buddhist* 1,42 (10) 20,3% (4) 13,4% (11)

Roman-Catholic 1,41 (11) 16,8% (13) 18,5% (7)

New Apostolic 1,39 (12) 13,9% (14) 17,6% (9)

Reformed Protestant 1,35 (13) 18,9% (8) 22,2% (4)

Yehova’s Witnesses 1,24 (14) 6,8% (16) 11,2% (12)

Christian-Catholic 1,21 (15) 18,4% (9) 22,2% (5)

Non-affiliated 1,11 (16) 30,6% (3) 26,7% (3)

r / Spearman Rank Correl. 0,054 -0,269

USA, General Social Surveys

Data Source: V. Skirbekk, A. Goujon & E. Kaufmann, Vienna Institute of Demography 2008

Exploring Bio-Cultural Evolution I

Religiosity is bringing forth VARIANTS of RELIGIONS pursuing diverse reproductive (r- and K-)strategies!

Examples from the USA:

High-Fertile Old Order Amish (expanding)

All-Celibate Shakers (dissolving)

Methodist Variants

19th century: K-Strategy20th century: r-Strategy

Exploring Bio-Cultural Evolution II

Religiosity is offering POTENTIALS to culturally diverse, reproductive strategies

Hutterites, Haredim, Old Order Amish

etc.

Shakers

Non-Affiliated

USA, China, France, Sweden,

Austria etc.

Religion & Fertility

Data Source: Dominik Enste, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln 2007

Worship Attendance Adults / No. of Children 82 Nations & Germany

World Value Surveys 1981 - 2004, IW 2007

1,661,8

1,67

2,01

2,23

2,5

1,98

1,441,39

1,78

1

1,21,4

1,61,8

2

2,22,4

2,6

never onHolidays

once perMonth

once perWeek

> more often

Children Germany Children globally

Proximate Mechanisms• Individual Level:

1. Belief in Supernatural Agents selecting for prolific Commandments

• Social Level:

2. Belief in Supernatural Agents selecting for prolific Cooperations

• Institutional Level:

3. Belief in Supernatural Agents selecting for prolific Institutions

1.1 Belief in Supernatural Agents perpetuating prolific Commandments

Cp. Charles Darwin („Religion = Belief in spiritual Beings“), F.A. von Hayek („Guardians of Traditions - Reproductive

Advantage“), Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran, Jesse Bering („The God Instinct“), Deborah Kelemen („Intuitive Theism“), Bruce

Hood, Jay Feierman, Paolo Mantovani et al.

Natural Animism by HAD & TOM

1.2 Belief in Supernatural Agents perpetuating prolific Commandments

Comparative Examples:

„Be fruitful and multiply!“, Bible, Genesis 1.28 Authoritative Motivation for Believers

„Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in a way that

they too can pass those genes on.“, T. H. Clutton-Brock, University of Chicago 1990

Explanation. Motivation would constitute a Naturalistic Fallacy

Allensbach Survey 2006: People aged 16 to 29 in Germany were asked if they were religious and which

values they would deem „important“ for their lives

Having Fun

Non Rel. / Rel.

76%67%

Helping Others in Need

46%

69%

Assuming Responsibilities

for Others

26%

43%

Having Children

42%

61%

1.3 Belief in Supernatural Agents perpetuating prolific Commandments

2 Belief in Supernatural Agents perpetuating prolific Cooperations

„We propose that the clearest identifiable effect of religious behavior is the formation of close kinship-like

cooperative social relationships.“

* Craig Palmer, Ryan Ellsworth & Lyle Steadman: „Talk and Tradition. Why the Least Interesting Components of Religion May Be the Most

Evolutionary Important.“, in: E. Voland, W. Schiefenhövel (eds.): The Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and Behaviour. Springer 2009Cp. Charles Darwin, F.A. von Hayek, Ara Norenzayan & Azim

Shariff, Richard Sosis, Matt Rossano, Montserrat Soler, Jesse Bering, Dominic Johnson, Ryan McKay, David Lahti et al.

Cooperative Signalling: From religious networks to religious groups

Cooperation in Reproduction: Marriage vowsAllbus Survey 2002, Germany

„A married man has a love affair with another woman…“

95,7%82,5%

78,9%69,1%

78,6%74,1%

64,7%58,7%

0,0% 20,0% 40,0% 60,0% 80,0% 100,0%

Women

Men

...is considered "bad" or "very bad"

Independent Protestant Roman-Catholic

Mainstream Protestant Non-Affiliated

Data: ALLBUS 2002, Germany / fowid 2005

Gretchen‘s Question

‚Gretchenfrage‘

by Johann Wolfgang von

Goethe

FAUST, Martha‘s Garden

Margaret: Promise me, Henry!

Faust: What I can!

Margaret: How do you feel about religion? Tell me, pray.You are a dear, good-hearted man,But I believe you've little good of it to say.

Faust.: Hush, hush, my child! You feel my love for you.For those I love, I'd give my blood and body too,Would no one of his feelings or of church bereave.

Margaret: That's not enough. We must believe!

Comments of Goethe‘s Devil

MEPHISTOPHELES: I've heard it all and understood,The Doctor was put through the catechisms.I hope that it will do you good.Girls have a great desire to know, it's true,If one is sleek and pious, true to ancient isms.They think: if there he knuckles, us he'll follow too.

On average, stronger Beliefs of WomenShell Youth Study Germany 2006, p. 210

28%31%33%

26%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Belief in Personal God Neither God norSupernatural Power

Male Female (Aged 12 to 25)

Distribution of Voluntary ActivityVoluntary Survey Report, Baden-Württemberg 2007

4%

1% 1%

11%

8%

10%

5%5%

3%

5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Politics Fire & RescueServices

Kindergardens /Schools

Social Work ReligiousCommunities

Males Females aged 14+

Specific Beliefs of Male and Female Students (Kassel University 2004, Harald Euler)

1 = strong disbelief to 5 = strong belief

2,772,43 2,36

2

3,053,31

3,07 2,912,52

2,24

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

Life afterDeath

Effects ofPrayer

Miracles Astrology Aliens &UFOs

Male Female Students

Swiss Census 2000Denominational category

% of membersfemale

% pairs married % pairs living with children

% single parents

Yehova’s Witnesses 57,4% (1) 99,3% (1) 53,3% (4) 5,2% (6)

Protest.-Methodists 56,4% (2) 97,1% (5) 49,8% (8) 3,0% (1)

Smaller Christian 54,9% (3) 93,9% (6) 51,2% (6) 6,8% (7)

Pentecostal 54,6% (4) 98,5% (3) 63,8% (2) 5,1% (5)

Independent Protestant 54,6% (5) 97,8% (4) 59,4% (3) 4,2% (4)

New Apostolic Church 54,1% (6) 91,1% (8) 44,6% (9) 5,9% (10)

Christian-Catholic 53,9% (7) 89,4% (10) 41,7% (11) 5,6% (9)

Evangelicals 53,5% (8) 98,9% (2) 65,6% (1) 5,9% (10)

Protestant-Reform. (M) 52,7% (9) 88,2% (11) 44,0% (10) 5,4% (7)

Roman-Catholic (M) 51,6% (10) 89,8% (9) 51,4% (5) 5,5% (8)

Judaism 51,0% (11) 93,9% (7) 51,0% (7) 6,3% (11)

Swiss Average 51,0% 89,0% 48,5% 5,8%

Non-affiliated 45,9% (12) 81,5% (12) 40,0% (12) 7,8% (12)

r / Spearman Rank C. 0,696 0,622 0,378

Marriage vows and Sexual Selection

No. of Children living with Women 35-44 yrs., Switzerland Censusses 1970 - 2000

0,40

0,90

1,40

1,90

2,40

Average 1,99 1,74 1,50 1,33

Catholics 2,05 1,83 1,59 1,39

Reformed 1,95 1,71 1,48 1,33

Non-Aff. 1,23 1,09 1,02 0,87

Indep. Prot. 2,3 1,77 1,98 2,24

1970 1980 1990 2000

Belief in Supernatural Agents perpetuating prolific Institutions

„The nuns/catholic effect provides evidence that religion affects fertility not only through preferences

but also functionally, through social service provision.“

* Eli Berman, Laurence Iannaccone, Giuseppe Ragusa: „From Empty Pews to Empty Cradles. Fertility Decline among European Catholics.“, UC

San Diego 2007

Cp. Adam Smith, Eric Kaufmann, Richard Sosis

Cooperative Breeding / As-if Kin

Teachers & Celibates as As-if kin - „Helpers at the Nest“, enhancing survival &

reproduction of community members

Cp.:

Pater = Father (syn.)

Nun, etym. from nonna, nana = tutor, aunt, grandmother, same root with „Nanny“!

Reopening of the Jewish Grammar School in Stuttgart / Germany, 08.09.2008

Offering Education, All-Day Care & Religious Knowledge

No. of Children living with Women 35-44 yrs., Switzerland Censusses 1970 - 2000

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

Average 1,99 1,74 1,50 1,33

Jews 1,79 1,86 1,94 1,73

New Apost. 2,11 1,75 1,48 1,34

Non-Aff. 1,23 1,09 1,02 0,87

1970 1980 1990 2000

Swiss Census 2000Denominational category

(CFR) Births per woman

% academiceducation

% higher occupational class

Hinduism* 2,79 (1) 17,0% (12) 7,4% (14)

Islam* 2,44 (2) 11,4% (15) 6,1% (15)

Jewish 2,06 (3) 42,7% (1) 42,4% (1)

Other (smaller) Protestant 2,04 (4) 20,1% (5) 19,2% (6)

New Pietism / Evangelical 2,02 (5) 19,2% (6) 17,9% (8)

Pentecostal 1,96 (6) 17,1% (11) 15,7% (10)

Other (smaller) Christian 1,82 (7) 39,1% (2) 31,8% (2)

Didn’t answer 1,74 (8) 19,1% (7) 5,3% (16)

Christian-Orthodox* 1,62 (9) 18,0% (10) 9,8% (13)

Swiss Average 1,43 19,2% 19,6%Buddhist* 1,42 (10) 20,3% (4) 13,4% (11)

Roman-Catholic 1,41 (11) 16,8% (13) 18,5% (7)

New Apostolic 1,39 (12) 13,9% (14) 17,6% (9)

Reformed Protestant 1,35 (13) 18,9% (8) 22,2% (4)

Yehova’s Witnesses 1,24 (14) 6,8% (16) 11,2% (12)

Christian-Catholic 1,21 (15) 18,4% (9) 22,2% (5)

Non-affiliated 1,11 (16) 30,6% (3) 26,7% (3)

r / Spearman Rank Correl. 0,054 -0,269

Religion and Fertility – A long-lived Team

Willendorf, ca. 22.000 BCE

Hohle Fels, ca. 36.000 BCE

Laussel, ca. 25.000 BCE

Tursac, ca. 20.000 BCE

3. The Evolution of Religiosity – Naturalistic? Emergent? Materialistic? (Latin Materia from Mater = Mother!)

2. The Role of Women in the Evolution of Religiosity and Religions has been greatly underestimated (Cp. David Hume, Volker Sommer)

1. Religiosity is evolutionary advantageous. The trait is showing the potential and tendency to raise the reproductive success throughout generations