Four flavors of godbagism
According to a new study released by Baylor University, Americans — who are already the most god-sick people in the world, after the Philippines and Vanuatu — actually worship four distinct versions of the Great Godbag in the Sky. Here are the four gods, as defined in the Baylor study (the numbers indicate the percent of respondents who identified that god as the god):
Authoritarian God (31.4%): “Individuals who believe in the Authoritarian God tend to think that God is highly involved in their daily lives and world affairs. They tend to believe that God helps them in their decision-making and is also responsible for global events such as economic upturns or tsunamis. They also tend to feel that God is quite angry and is capable of meting out punishment to those who are unfaithful or ungodly.”
Distant God (24.4%): “Believers in a Distant God think that God is not active in the world and not especially angry either. These individuals tend towards thinking about God as a cosmic force which set the laws of nature in motion. As such, God does not “do” things in the world and does not hold clear opinions about our activities or world events.”
Benevolent God (23.0%): “Like believers in the Authoritarian God, believers in a Benevolent God tend to think that God is very active in our daily lives. But these individuals are less likely to believe that God is angry and acts in wrathful ways. Instead, the Benevolent God is mainly a force of positive influence in the world and is less willing to condemn or punish individuals.”
Critical God (16.0%): “Believers in a Critical God feel that God really does not interact with the world. Nevertheless, God still observes the world and views the current state of the world unfavorably. These individuals feel that God’s displeasure will be felt in another life and that divine justice may not be of this world.”
This is interesting, though I’m rather annoyed by the clumsiness of the published report. For example, the authors include a section on “The War on Terror” in which they list the first question as, “Was the United States justified in entering Iraq?” Nice GOP framing! And in the section of the report on belief in god, they helpfully explain that, “Atheists are certain that God does not exist. Nevertheless, atheists may still hold very strong perspectives concerning the morality of human behavior and ideals of social order but have no place for the supernatural in their larger worldview.” Only a godbag could even think it necessary to explain that people who don’t believe in god can still possess a sense of morality and ethics. The actual survey instrument doesn’t include these prejudicial references, which is the main thing, but the reporting is sloppy.
6 Responses to “Four flavors of godbagism”
-
cicely says:
Whoops – I mixed my toasties. Half of my comment in the ‘New Style Patriarchy’ belongs here ;) I repeat then…with regard to a belief in god being any kind of requirement to behave well – fairly and humanely – some reports have non-believers in god in Sweden – one of the most egalitarian and socially healthy societies in the world – as high as 85% of the population.
September 14th, 2006 at 12:27 pm EST -
Violet says:
We can never have too much cicely.
Having a god-sick society clearly does not correlate with being a healthy and moral nation, as immediately becomes apparent when you compare, say, Sweden, with, say, the United States. But then, the god-sick in the U.S. cannot see this because they measure moral righteousness in terms of belief in God, and equate lack of belief in God with moral degradation. So to them, a god-sick nation that invades and tortures is always morally superior to an irreligious nation that practices pacifism and egalitarianism and all that other silly stuff.
-
richard cherry says:
People often seem to quote Sweden as a generally nice place, but ‘received wisdom’ also has it as a place with a high suicide rate (probably nonsense; it’s a kind of a ‘bloke down the pub told me’ sort of comment). And apart from making Volvos and Saabs (which are truly awful and truly awesome respectively) how do we know it’s so nice. It gave us depressive misogynist August Strindberg (actually misogynist is probably a bit harsh; he strikes me from his plays as more of an equal opportunities misanthrope); Norway came up with Henrik Ibsen – good plays and maybe ahead of his time with regard to women and their getting a not great deal from society. Queen Christina – good thing, but not a happy bunny, from what I hear. Olaf Palme – good bloke – what happened to him? Is there an index of ‘nice countries’? And in Sweden the beer is incredibly expensive and if you have more than two someone reports you as an alcoholic – I know cos a bloke down the pub told me.
I think Canada is a nice place – never met a nasty Canadian – but you don’t really hear them quoted as an example. Maybe we should start. -
cicely says:
richard cherry says:
People often seem to quote Sweden as a generally nice place, but ‘received wisdom’ also has it as a place with a high suicide rate (probably nonsense;…….
I think Canada is a nice place – never met a nasty Canadian – but you don’t really hear them quoted as an example. Maybe we should start.I’ve heard about the high suicide rate too, Richard. There’s a theory that the lack of sunlight over much of the year has something to do with it. Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, I wouldn’t suggest Sweden is perfect. The country is facing new problems with globalisation as well, but it’s still, indisputably, a healthier society on most measurable indicators of overall social health than almost all other countries in the world. (Far more supportive of its poor and disadvantaged than ‘god-sick’ America.) And that’s because it’s leaders had ‘valuing’ all it’s citizens through egalitarianism as a real and actual goal from the early part of last century. I don’t know whether Canada has espoused such goals as clearly and deliberately as Sweden has, even if Canadians are nice people too. It’s that overall motivation and what it’s achieved in Sweden in peoples real lives that impresses me and gives me hope for the rest of us, if we’re willing to learn something from them. One thing for sure, as I said, is that you don’t need god to do good.
-
cicely says:
the god-sick in the U.S. cannot see this because they measure moral righteousness in terms of belief in God, and equate lack of belief in God with moral degradation.
There are none so blind etc.
Secularism v Religiosity is a more real battle these days than I ever felt it to be earlier in my life. I’ve always been used to watching Americans thanking god for their talents and prizes on televised award ceremonies , but Australia and NZ have been experiencing an ever increasing ‘presence’ of things godly over recent decades too. I find this pretty bloody disheartening to be honest. Australian Idol contestants thanking god doesn’t sit well in my living room. Even worse though is the elbowing of religious influence into the political process. TV footage of Oz’s Deputy Prime Minister, Peter Costello, addressing a massive rally at the Hillsong Church; The Health Minister Tony Abbot’s obstruction of pro-choice abortion legislation based on his Catholic beliefs – this type of thing. (Abbot had his veto power removed though and the legislation passed with a conscience vote in Parliament.) There’s a real battle on to keep the separation of Church and State, even if it is very early days in this part of the world compared to the situation in the US. Oz and kiwi godbags take their lead from America. We secularists have to be vigilant.
I guess as the world feels less and less secure the tendency for people to concentrate on an ‘afterlife’ grows accordingly too, and the relgious are nothing if not opportunistic. Well, I guess you would have to say that much about most of us who have strong views about how society should work – hence the battle!
Thanx for your nice comment in response to my little error too, Violet.
-
Diane says:
Speaking of Sweden a few years ago the Swedish church was still part of the state. As a state employer the state(theoretically) could not discriminate against an atheist if they were to apply for the job of priest.
Of course some Swedes do bad things, but most are like clark kent. In a little town where my mother in law lives there are no police after 5. I wondered why everyone still observed the traffic regulations so conscientiously. Being from New York-Im like –one way street–whose gona know.
