Refuting the "Geography" Argument from non-believers (if you were born in...then you would be a ....)

[scottm]

This argument is just a probabilistic generalisation, and the probability varies depending on the geographic region and the characteristic being ascribed.

To say, “If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be a muslim” is just plain wrong, and easily falsifiable.

However, it’s fair to say that if you’re born in Saudi Arabia, you’re probably born to native Muslim parents, and will probably be brought up in a Muslim culture, and will probably adopt most if not all of the tenets of that culture, so you’ll probably be a Muslim. Ditto for other highly religious cultures. In that sense, it’s a valid argument for why theists shouldn’t be so adamant that their religion is the right one and all others are wrong. If you had been brought up in different circumstances, your beliefs would probably be different to what they are, based purely on cultural observation.

Yes, that’s it exactly. And for emphasis, because so many people aren’t even listening, I’m going to repeat the conclusion that atheists draw from this argument. The conclusion atheists draw is this (quoting you):

“In that sense, it’s a valid argument for why theists shouldn’t be so adamant that their religion is the right one and all others are wrong. If you had been brought up in different circumstances, your beliefs would probably be different to what they are, based purely on cultural observation.”

I would say that a more accurate statement would be that one’s religion is an arbitrary by-product of one’s upbringing, environment, and innate gullibility, rather than of a specific birth location.

Well, yes, but upbringing and environment are tied to location. I prefer to use the word “culture.” It too is tied to location.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Yes, that’s it exactly. And for emphasis, because so many people aren’t even listening, I’m going to repeat the conclusion that atheists draw from this argument. The conclusion atheists draw is this (quoting you):

“In that sense, it’s a valid argument for why theists shouldn’t be so adamant that their religion is the right one and all others are wrong. If you had been brought up in different circumstances, your beliefs would probably be different to what they are, based purely on cultural observation.”

It’s not a valid argument for not being “adamant that my religion is the right one” because I live in the information age, have researched various religions, and come to the conclusion that Roman Catholicism is the correct religion on intellectual, historical, moral, and philosophical grounds.

The fact that other people have been indoctrinated, born in other countries (or perhaps even other universes), or brainwashed, if you will, has no effect at all on the veracity of my religion.

Just like if you were brought up in a culture that believed there were monkeys on the moon manufacturing morphine and I wasn’t, the fact that you were lied to, doesn’t mean that I’m wrong that there are no such monkeys.

 

[scottm]

We’ll talk again when you’re not so arrogant. I’ve spent so much time actually talking about religion with atheists that I have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in atheism. You stated up front that you do not discuss religion with atheists because they don’t want to talk with you, and I can see why. I don’t even want to talk with you about religion when you’ve got such an arrogant attitude as that.

You asked for advice on how to fix the geography argument. I fixed it for you. Done.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

We’ll talk again when you’re not so arrogant. I’ve spent so much time actually talking about religion with atheists that I have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in atheism. You stated up front that you do not discuss religion with atheists because they don’t want to talk with you, and I can see why. I don’t even want to talk with you about religion when you’ve got such an arrogant attitude as that.

You asked for advice on how to fix the geography argument. I fixed it for you. Done.

Taking pride in a doctrine of humility isn’t arrogance. It’s probably the only form of pride that doesn’t anger God. If you are that insecure about your faith or if you are having doubts as to if yours is the correct one, then you might not be in the “state of grace” required to receive the sacraments. Just some friendly advice. Believing that all other religions are wrong other than Roman Catholicism is a logical consequence of being in communion with the church; it’s not arrogance. If you believe the contrary, you not only reject the True God, but also logic.

I’ve probably spent much longer in dialogue with them than you have…well over 5 years, but not face to face. The reason my atheist friends do not want to talk to me about religion is because it is not a subject that interests them. When they do wish to speak about it, they get frustrated because they don’t know that much about religion to begin with, and I usually win the “debate”.

I never asked for advice on how to “fix” this argument. I maintain that it is broken beyond all repair.

 

[LilyM]

No, because it is not a true statement, inasmuch as people can and do get out of poverty; in fact, that is one of the core American beliefs, that anybody can do so.

And people can and do convert from one religion to another as well - and it’s usually a lot easier to do so than to get out of poverty, so it’s not an infrequent occurrence.

Look at the many WASP Americans who these days declare themselves to be Buddhist.

 

[wanstronian]

OK.

If you were born in Germany in the 1920’s, you would probably be a Nazi.
Therefore the reason you are not a Nazi is your upbringing, environment, and innate gullibility.

If you were born in South Carolina in the early 1800’s, you would probably own slaves and be racist.
Therefore the reason you do not own slaves and are not racist is your upbringing, environment, and innate gullibility.

If you were born significantly underweight in Sparta at the time of Leonidas I, then you would probably have been left outside of the city to die.
Therefore you have no good reason to be alive.

Well, that would just be misrepresenting what I wrote, wouldn’t it.

 

[dskysmine]

Hi,
If I may be allowed to say something: I don’t think that the argument is the same that is used by atheists. Atheists presume that everything is random. That is why they don’t believe in God. They think that I could have been born in Saudi Arabia… The problem with that is that if a child with my DNA was born in Saudi Arabia it wouldn’t be me it would be someone else. I am the product of my DNA, upbringing and environment. And the fact is that I wasn’t born in Saudi Arabia, I was born in Portugal. My father is portuguese and my mother is portuguese. If my father didn’t marry my mother but married a saudi arabia woman I wouldn’t have been born. If my father and my mother would not have raised me a catholic I could be a different person altogether.

We are free. In fact, we are significantly free. Our choices can not only change our future but also other people’s futures. This does not change what is true and what is a fact. The fact we are significantly free makes it possible that we can make right choices and wrong choices.

I think the argument most similar to what you said that Atheists have is that we tend to adhere to our parent’s religion which would most probably be the same as the majority in their country. It doesn’t make salvation less factual or more factual… it has nothing to do with salvation in and of itself. It just makes it that much more important for us to spread the truth, and that is why we consider so important missionary work.

Did this help?
Thanks
Daniel

 

[wanstronian]

It’s not a valid argument for not being “adamant that my religion is the right one” because I live in the information age, have researched various religions, and come to the conclusion that Roman Catholicism is the correct religion on intellectual, historical, moral, and philosophical grounds.

Not everybody has. Hence the “probably.”

Were you born to religious parents? Were you brought up in a religious culture?

The fact that other people have been indoctrinated, born in other countries (or perhaps even other universes), or brainwashed, if you will, has no effect at all on the veracity of my religion.

I’m sure those other people would say exactly the same thing.

Just like if you were brought up in a culture that believed there were monkeys on the moon manufacturing morphine and I wasn’t, the fact that you were lied to, doesn’t mean that I’m wrong that there are no such monkeys.

Quite so. An excellent argument against theism in general.

 

[wanstronian]

Atheists presume that everything is random.

Do we really? Well I never.

That is why they don’t believe in God.

Wrong. It’s the absence of evidence that leads us to that conclusion.

They think that I could have been born in Saudi Arabia… The problem with that is that if a child with my DNA was born in Saudi Arabia it wouldn’t be me it would be someone else. I am the product of my DNA, upbringing and environment. And the fact is that I wasn’t born in Saudi Arabia, I was born in Portugal. My father is portuguese and my mother is portuguese. If my father didn’t marry my mother but married a saudi arabia woman I wouldn’t have been born. If my father and my mother would not have raised me a catholic I could be a different person altogether.

I see your point here, but that doesn’t diminish the validity of the “Geography” argument.

We are free. In fact, we are significantly free. Our choices can not only change our future but also other people’s futures. This does not change what is true and what is a fact. The fact we are significantly free makes it possible that we can make right choices and wrong choices.

I think the argument most similar to what you said that Atheists have is that we tend to adhere to our parent’s religion which would most probably be the same as the majority in their country. It doesn’t make salvation less factual or more factual… it has nothing to do with salvation in and of itself. It just makes it that much more important for us to spread the truth, and that is why we consider so important missionary work.

Of course, it’s a matter of subjective argument as to whether missionary work is spreading truth or lies (or at best, disinformation). Not to mention the arrogance of thinking you have the moral right/obligation to rock up and start converting people to your own subjective belief system. Such practices have, quite rightly, been condemned by various rights-based organisations.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Not everybody has. Hence the “probably.”
Were you born to religious parents? Were you brought up in a religious culture?

Everybody should. I was born into a culture that offers exposure to every religion in existence and our government doesn’t censor or disallow investigation or critical inquiry of other faiths. Everyone who is concerned with the “higher” questions of life should be allowed to have this experience. The religion that I chose after I had been an atheist for quite some time was Roman Catholicism.

I’m sure those other people would say exactly the same thing.

If we are still using my example of Saudi Arabia, it would be without merit since I was an atheist at one point and my culture allows religious freedom. Anyway, assuming that a correct religion exists, if someone is indoctrinated, or brainwashed, into the correct religion…does that change the fact that it is the correct religion, or does it even matter than some people are brainwashed into an incorrect religion? (for the sake of this hypothetical thought exercise, you will have to assume that one religion is correct)

Quite so. An excellent argument against theism in general.

Thank you. You have to remember that I am also an atheist and that when talking about “religion in general” we will usually agree about 99% of the time. The only difference between your atheism and mine, is that I reject one less God than you do. I am an atheist with respect to 4,199 religions while you are an atheist with respect to around 4,200. Although many religions have certain things in common, and according to the book The Ratzinger Report, every religion contains “grains of truth”, I find the claims in other religions that are not similiar to Catholicism equally absurd as “monkeys on the moon manufacturing morphine”. The queer thing is that the commonality usually involves morality.

You are misrepresenting what I wrote.

I was not trying to misrepresent what you wrote. I was using hyperbole/parody to illustrate the absurdity of the “geography” argument. I was hoping you would be able to catch on to that. It’s ok though because humor doesn’t always emerge well through text.

 

[scottm]

+1 to what wanstronian said.

Atheists presume that everything is random. That is why they don’t believe in God.

I’ve spent a decade discussing religion with atheists all around the world. I can’t recall any of them saying that.

dskysmine:

We are free. In fact, we are significantly free. Our choices can not only change our future but also other people’s futures. This does not change what is true and what is a fact. The fact we are significantly free makes it possible that we can make right choices and wrong choices.

Agreed.
Now find me the Mayan jungle people of the time and place of Mel Gibson’s movie who were Catholic. I don’t think there were any. I belive there were none, in spite of their “freedom.” They were just as free as you and I today, the same as us, but none of them chose Catholicism. None of them did.

Why do you suppose that is? Could the reason be that Catholicsm was not part of their culture?

I am unaware of a single Buddhist in the whole of Italy in, say, 20 BC. Not even one Buddhist. But there were a whole bunch of Jupiter fanatics. Why is that? Did every single Roman in that era exericise his or her personal freedom to reject Buddhism in favor of Jupiter-ism?

No, I think the Romans chose from what was in their culture, and Buddhism wasn’t one of the choices.
The Mayans chose from what was in their culture, and Christianity wasn’t one of the choices.
With the pasasge of time things change, and we today stand tall and proud in the belief that all those ancestors were wrong, but what will happen 1000 years from now? Will our descendants think us wrong? We think that Christianity will last forever because, from our perspective, it is “ultimate truth.” But the Mayans thought that about their religion, and the Romans of theirs.

Put yourself in their shoes. The geography argument from the point of view of an atheist is about recognizing that religions are saturated with subjectivity. From the point of view of Christians, it is about recognizing that there are other ways to heaven besides the Sinner’s Prayer.

dostoyevskyfan:

If we are still using my example of Saudi Arabia, it would be without merit since I was an atheist at one point and my culture allows religious freedom.

“Your culture” is the key word. Your culture. Now, here, when you’re alive. But what about the culture of the other guy, in the other time and the other place? That difference is the whole point! The other guy, exposed to other and different things, will make a different choice. Were you living in the Mel Gibson movie you would not ever be a Roman Catholic. That’s so obvious.

 

[dskysmine]

Do we really? Well I never.

If you don’t think the universe started because of a random event you are not an atheist.
That is that it happened for a reason. (If you argue for multiple universes it stands for all of them, and if you argue for a multi-verse it would just push the question further…)

Wrong. It’s the absence of evidence that leads us to that conclusion.

I honestly think that that is not “true”. Many people lived and witnessed what Jesus did and what other prophets and saints did but I know of no one who was converted from atheism without actually witnessing those things. It is a problem that can only be resolved through “freedom” elimination. That is to say that if not everyone can “touch” or experience God in the same manner they will not be “free” to have a relationship with Him because they would have no choice but to follow Him. It is actually a tricky thing =)
Just like I may “choose” to believe some one over the internet even though I’ve never seen them (albeit I know how the internet works but not how communication with God does… at least exactly).

I see your point here, but that doesn’t diminish the validity of the “Geography” argument.

If the argument is solely: that we “usually” learn what our parents teach us… then no…
The problem is that we don’t have to follow what our parents teach us… in fact there are many people who don’t. And the biggest problem is that there are many countries where there are no “big” majorities of religions (like the US)… heck… I have a friend that lives in France where almost no one views religion as important and he is very religious.
Such an argument has no conclusion whatsoever…
X is born in country where the majority of people are Q then X is probably a Q. Does “it” make religion Q anymore false or true? What is it an argument for?

Of course, it’s a matter of subjective argument as to whether missionary work is spreading truth or lies (or at best, disinformation). Not to mention the arrogance of thinking you have the moral right/obligation to rock up and start converting people to your own subjective belief system. Such practices have, quite rightly, been condemned by various rights-based organisations.

It is the matter of your subjective reasoning to assume that truth and morality don’t exist. Just like you “feel” “righteous” in spreading your “subjective morality” “truth” when it makes no sense, truth cannot be contained and hidden it is rightly so that we teach our youngs of what is true and will teach it to whoever listens we are social animals, we are made to live in relationship with each other, and through it to God.

Take care.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

"Atheists believe everything is random"-Daniel

Do we really? Well I never.

The Sun is usually around 93 million miles from Earth, depending on the earth’s place in orbit. This is the exact distance there needs to be for life to emerge.
There are 2 options:

1. A “higher consciousness” intentionally preplanned and brought about this exact distance prior to the Big Bang (the best scientific explanation of the origin of the universe proposed by a Catholic priest, Lamaitre).
2. Life on earth and human beings won the “cosmic lottery”…in other words we all got very, very, lucky and were on the receiving end of an enormously improbable RANDOM cosmic event.

If you reject #1, and #2, please describe the third option because I am deeply curious and have not thought of one, except:
3. A complete rejection of logic altogether.
But if my third option above is what you believe, then there is no point in even having a conversation or argument to begin with is there? Since argumentation itself presupposses the existence of logic in the first place.

Wrong. It’s the absence of evidence that leads us to that conclusion.

“Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.” Bonus points if you know who said that. Also I’d rather not get into this because there are hundreds of other threads discussing “evidence” and “standards of evidence”. I can just tell you we don’t agree on what constitutes “evidence”; otherwise I would still be an atheist. I’ll point you in the direction of what I believe to be empirical evidence of the resurrection, but I can’t force you to accept my standard of evidence, nor research it in as much depth as I have. If you want to discuss the link I gave you, I would be happy to in another thread but not here.

I see your point here, but that doesn’t diminish the validity of the “Geography” argument.

You didn’t say why it doesn’t diminish the validity of the argument! If you want others to agree with you, you cannot merely assert something, you must explain your position. I personally think Daniel made mince meat out of the argument.

Of course, it’s a matter of subjective argument as to whether missionary work is spreading truth or lies (or at best, disinformation). Not to mention the arrogance of thinking you have the moral right/obligation to rock up and start converting people to your own subjective belief system. Such practices have, quite rightly, been condemned by various rights-based organisations.

1.I don’t believe my belief system is “subjective” but rather a set of objective truths revealed by a compassionate God who became fully human and fully divine, walked among us, and revealed everything we need to know about God for the time being.
2. I don’t think proclaiming a truth is “arrogant” if it is in fact the truth. I wouldn’t call someone arrogant for trying to explain to someone who believed that the earth is flat, that it is actually round, or more accurately, eggshaped.

 

[scottm]

The Sun is usually around 93 million miles from Earth, depending on the earth’s place in orbit. This is the exact distance there needs to be for life to emerge.
There are 2 options:

1. A “higher consciousness” intentionally preplanned and brought about this exact distance prior to the Big Bang (the best scientific explanation of the origin of the universe proposed by a Catholic priest, Lamaitre).
2. Life on earth and human beings won the “cosmic lottery”…in other words we all got very, very, lucky and were on the receiving end of an enormously improbable RANDOM cosmic event.

If you reject #1, and #2, please describe the third option because I am deeply curious and have not thought of one, except:
3. A complete rejection of logic altogether.

You have your cause and effect backwards in choice 2. We weren’t lucky. To say that we were lucky is to presume that we were the goal of the great whatever that made the universe. In other words, you are assuming that we were supposed to be here, and, whew, big relief, it all worked out well. You’re assuming that we are, in part, the cause behind of the solar system’s design.

You don’t have to assume that.

We both recognize that if you tweak this and that in the solar system, maybe you’d get a different species on this planet. Maybe humans would have turned out differently. But you’re not dwelling long enough on the agreed-upon fact that life on this planet is the way it is BECAUSE our solar system is the way it is. The solar system is the cause. We are the effect. Change the cause, and you change the effect.

There’s no luck because there is no presupposition regarding how the effect is to turn out. We didn’t have to have these bodies. Trees didn’t have to be the way trees are. Etc. We are a mere effect, a mere by-product, of things being the way the are, **without any presupposition of how we should have turned out. **

The boldface part is where you went wrong.

 

[AntiTheist]

Maybe your atheist friends are different than mine. My atheist friends don’t use this argument specifically to conclude “God does not exist.” They use it to undermine the doctrine that nobody gets to heaven except by invoking, specifically, the name of Jesus. The punch line of my atheist friends is that if I had been born in Saudi Arabia or Indonesia to Islamic parents and grandparents, then I would have grown up Islamic. And I’d be talking about Mohammad instead of Jesus. By blind fate I was born in the USA to a family of Christians rather than in Saudi Arabia or some such place, to a family of Moslems, and THAT is why I am a Christian instead of a Moslem (so the argument goes).

That’s the geography argument.

That’s more or less the geography argument, yes, though I wouldn’t draw the conclusion “THAT is why you (specifically) are a Christian!” and I certainly wouldn’t argue that it demonstrates that gods do not exist. Anyone who would seriously use the argument to draw those conclusions is making a pretty glaring logical error.

The point of the “geography argument” is that religion is a cultural force, and most people profess belief in a particular religion because it’s a part of their culture. Whether or not that happens to be true of any one particular person I’m talking to is irrelevant.

You would think that if there really were a “one true religion” that we could use reason to discover, then religion wouldn’t be such a matter of geographical and cultural happenstance. If there were such a “true religion,” then we might see, for example, that the vast majority of intellectuals – from all cultures – subscribe to a particular religion.

But we don’t see that, do we?

It’s not an airtight argument or anything, but it’s supposed to make you think. It’s not much more than that.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

You have your cause and effect backwards in choice 2. We weren’t lucky. To say that we were lucky is to presume that we were the goal of the great whatever that made the universe. In other words, you are assuming that we were supposed to be here, and, whew, big relief, it all worked out well. You’re assuming that we are, in part, the cause behind of the solar system’s design.

I never assumed that, nor did I mention anything about “cause” and “effect”. If the solar system had turned out differently (and you didn’t mention how that could be. 93 million miles from the sun is the magic number—we don’t see life on venus or mars…) that would have been an equally random process with the same ratio of probability.

Your subjective assessment of existence is extraneous. If you don’t like the term “lucky”, fine…then we got “unlucky”…it doesn’t make a difference, you still haven’t explained how “it” (existence) isn’t random.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

If we ignore theology for a moment and instead take a look at what we actually learn from culture, there are quite a few ideas that are much more universal than this discussion would have you believe. Here are a few examples:

1. Pleasure of any kind is always preferable to suffering.
2. The accumulation of money is the greatest guarantor of happiness.
3. My well being increases the more I am able to dominate others.

This is a short list of the kind of stuff that all of us, regardless of country, inherit. We would be surprised to see a person in Saudi Arabi praying before a statue of Mary, and somewhat surprised to see a Texas rancher bowing to Allah. But none of us would be surprised to see either of these men screaming at an associate for refusing to give back a $500 loan (item 2). We must unlearn many of the things that culture teaches before we can see clearly enough to identify theological truth.

Theological truth is just as concrete as scientific truth. Everyone knew they should cook their meat long before they knew what a bacterium was. No one knew that ice was crystalline in structure but it was used for many things nonetheless. Discovering the true religion is simply a matter of observing theological truths and then finding out where they are most densely concentrated. Attempting to do this without tossing out all the nonsense fed to us by the world is a waste of time.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

You made some very reasonable points in your last post. It’s much more satisfying to have a conversation with someone who has a logical mindset. As for this…

You would think that if there really were a “one true religion” that we could use reason to discover, then religion wouldn’t be such a matter of geographical and cultural happenstance. If there were such a “true religion,” then we might see, for example, that the vast majority of intellectuals – from all cultures – subscribe to a particular religion.

But we don’t see that, do we?

I would argue that your insight is quite prophetic. I would imagine that this will inevitably happen. As to when…I can’t say. I could list all of the reasons why I think this hasn’t happened already, but that would probably take the thread off topic. We are in the information age and intellectuals who are concerned about spirituality are becoming forced to engage each other on the internet and via other means whether they like it or not. In this sense, the popular militant atheism that we see now is actually serving a very good, and even higher purpose, because it is catalyzing and encouraging serious inter-faith dialogue among believers. Many of the moderately religious people without strong convictions are challenged to the point where they abandon their beliefs. For this, I personally thank all atheists.

I will warn you, however (and you may already be aware of this), but the belief of “intellectuals” as a basis for anyone’s own personal beliefs is merely an appeal to their authority, which is an informal logical error. Intellectuals pride themselves on the fact that they are the “academic elite”, and this emotion (pride) will invariably interfere with the pursuit of truth, especially if the “truth”, whatever it may be, cannot by definition, ever be known by the conceited.

I also would be careful with the assumption that “all intellectuals value truth” or are even consistent in their philosophies. Take for example the philosopher, Schopenhauer, and compare his philosophy to the way he lived his life. One of the most intriguing and consistent philosophers I have encountered before the time of Christ (I consider Jesus one of Plato’s “philosopher kings” in that he was both a king and a philosopher) was Diogenes of Sinope. He is greatly under-appreciated.

 

[AntiTheist]

Many of the moderately religious people without strong convictions are challenged to the point where they abandon their beliefs. For this, I personally thank all atheists.

I can’t say that I’m thrilled that one day the only religious people left will be the fanatically crazy ones, but…you’re welcome.

I will warn you, however (and you may already be aware of this), but the belief of “intellectuals” as a basis for anyone’s own personal beliefs is merely an appeal to their authority, which is an informal logical error.

I’m not making an appeal to authority. I’m not arguing, “There can’t be a true religion because otherwise all those super-smart experts would have figured out which one it is!”

I’m saying that if there were a true religion that you could discover through reason, we’d expect to see lots of people – particularly the people who best know how to use reason – from all cultures of the world mutually coming to agree that one religion is the best one.

But we don’t see that. Religion – even the religion of highly intelligent people, when they are religious, that is – seems to be very much a cultural, local force, dependent in the majority of cases on accidents of birth.

That doesn’t prove anything in and of itself, but it should give you some pause if you really think that there’s one true religion that an application of reason will reveal.

 

[kenofken]

If religious really was an enterprise driven by reason, the major relgions would not need to press so hard to indocrinate people long before the age of reason. If a particular faith is really so reasonable as to be almost self-evident, why the push to baptize within weeks of birth to get them on the permanent church rolls? Why were we confirmed at age 13 when we lacked the reason and judgement to execute the simplest of secular contracts?

One would think that if it were a truth that revealed itself in reason, confirmations would be held at age 21 or even later, and that there would be a strong influx of young adults beating down the doors to get into churchs and practice. Of course the exact opposite is true. Just at the time people gain the capacity (if not the inclination) to higher order reasoning, their religiosity almost always drops off. Culture and geography are clearly the main drivers in religious identity for all but two groups of folks: converts and reverts. They’re usually about the only people who ever weighed their belief against other possibilities and can articulate why they believe what they believe.

Another indicator is the huge ratio of nominal believers to true believers in most of the major branches of Chrisitanity and Judaism, and to some extent, even Islam. Every other thread on this forum boils down to a complaint about “Cafeteria Catholics,” the ones who don’t really buy into the program, but still retain their Catholic identity out of cultural momentum, respect for their parents etc. They go to church for funerals and weddings, maybe Christmas and Easter. Based on Mass attendance and other measures of basic conformity with Rome, I would say between two-thirds and three quarters of Catholics, certainly in the developed world, fit this profile. If we look at the Church of England and Jews, probably upwards of 80%.

If people were led to religion primarily, or even significantly by reason, we would expect to see a bit more ardor among the faithful, even allowing for the usual human frailties of sloth, cultural rot etc.