Study: More Religion Means Less Scientific Innovation

[Warren Stupidity]

New research finds that religious countries and US states produce fewer patents per capita.

"Places with higher levels of religiosity have lower rates of scientific and technical innovation, as measured by patents per capita," comments Bénabou. He adds that the pattern persists "when controlling for differences in income per capita, population, and rates of higher education."

That's the most salient finding from the paper by Bénabou and his colleagues, which uses an economic model to explore how scientific innovation, religiosity, and the power of the state interact to form different "regimes." The three kinds of regimes that they identify: A secular, European-style regime in which religion has very little policy influence and science garners great support; a repressive, theocratic regime in which the state and religion merge to suppress science; and a more intermediate, American-style regime in which religion and science both thrive, with the state supporting science and religions (mostly) trying to accommodate themselves to its findings.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/religion-quashes-innovation-patents

[DetlefK]

1. Maybe it's not religion but the mindset behind religion: dogma.

I think it depends on the mindset: How willing are you to think outside of the box?

China is dogmatic on a political level, but copying, producing and inventing has a long tradition (on a practical level). Something similar goes for Japan, which was rebuilt after WWII and became a society hungry for innovation.

Personally, I think the US' lack of foreign neighbors and the focus on its own exceptionalism has led to a self-satisfied, isolated attitude.

The Middle-East has the problem that an anti-scientific stream of Islam came to power in the Middle-Ages, which effectively undid the progress of the earlier centuries and prevented the establishment of an intellectual infrastructure as it happened in Europe with its monasteries, libraries and (later on) universities.

[Dorian Gray]

42. I think you nailed

a lot of why. But I'm shocked that Portugal and lithuania are higher on the religiosity scale than Saudi Arabia.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. I'm shocked. Are you shocked? I'm shocked.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I'm totally fucking shocked.

I expected far more 'splainin' by now.

On edit: oh, I see "ignored" has shown up to splain things. I feel less shocked now.

[rug]

3. I'm sure there are other things going on in Egypt and Portugal that explain this.

I'm not ready to affirm the consequent.

[amuse bouche]

5. Look how low the U.S. is on that chart

Outrageous, disgusting and shameful but not surprising, considering the influence of the right
and all the other b.s in this country

[Jim__]

8. What do you think the US position on that graph means?

The US actually had a higher per capita patent registration than China did. It just had a smaller residual on a previous regression that controlled for a number of selected factors. The Mother Jones article does not tell us what the standard error was on that original regression. Without that information, we don't know what that graph is telling us.

Also, the data in that graph does not appear to have any linear relationship - you can always draw a straight line based on a set of data points, the line doesn't always have significance.

From the article:

One important point of to keep in mind before comparing individual countries with one another: The figure above should not be interpreted as saying (for example) that China produces more patents per capita than the United States. Indeed, that isn't actually true: While Chinese residents filed more total patent applications (560,681) in 2012 than citizens of any other country including the United States (460,276), the US still filed more patents per capita, since its population is less than a third of China's. Rather, what this result means is that after controlling for other factors, China appears to have more unexplained innovation "left over" than the United States. (For stats nerds: What we are talking about here is the residual after a regression analysis.) It is this leftover or residual value—the differences in innovation that can't be explained by other factors—that the researchers are saying is associated with religion.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Yes that must be it, after all the idiots doing the analysis didn't have your help.

The graph is telling us that religiosity is a drag on innovation. And yes that is just correlation not causation. You could of course go read the study first hand, given the information in the article, or you could do what you are doing instead.

[Jim__]

12. You're the one using words like "idiots" - not me.

And, what do you think the US position on the graph means?

And, yes, the paper does contain some information that I could not get clear from the MJ article. Namely, they are measuring patent applications, not patents granted. Personally, I'd consider patents granted a better indicator of innovation. The US has a much better record at grants per application than China. Here's the data from 2012:

----------------------------- China ------------ US

Applications ---------- 652,227 ------- 542,815

Grants ----------------- 217,105 ------- 253,155

% Grants/app ----------- 33.3 ------------ 46.6

[Warren Stupidity]

14. yeah I get that you don't like the implications.

So please do conduct your own study. Perhaps you can get it published and peer reviewed and make a name for yourself.

[Jim__]

15. I get that you can't make the case that patent applications are a stronger indicator ...

Last edited Wed Sep 3, 2014, 06:42 PM - Edit history (1)

... of innovations than patents granted.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. You're right, it ain't my study. By the way, nor have you made the case that they are, or that that

data point would alter the outcome.

[Jim__]

26. The study you cited makes the claim.

From the abstract - my bolding:

This paper analyzes the joint dynamics of religious beliefs and scientiÖc-economic develop-
ment. It emphasizes in particular how this coevolution is shaped by (and feeds back on)
political conáicts and coalition formation, along both religious and income lines. As part of
our motivating evidence, we also uncover a new fact: in both international and cross-state U.S.
data, there is a signiÖcant negative relationship between religiosity and innovativeness (patents
per capita), even after controlling for the standard empirical determinants of the latter.

The abstract ties innovativeness to patents per capita. It's just that they don't measure patents per capita, they measure patent applications per capita.

[goldent]

36. I haven't read it closely

but they use the trick of "normalizing" the data by attempting to factor out (statistically) other variables of their choosing. This conveniently causes countries like the US and China to swap positions.

[Jim__]

43. I'd like to see the results when run against "patents per capita."

That is what they claim to be running against in their abstract, that information is available in the database they're using, and that sounds like a legitimate indicator of innovativeness. Instead, the information in the report is based on patent applications per capita. They don't explain why they they use that rather than patents per capita, nor do they explain why patent applications per capita should be accepted as an indicator of innovativeness. In the case of China, a large portion of the residual appears to be due to an excessive number of invalid patent filings - invalid in the sense that they are rejected - rather than being due to religiosity. Rejected patent applications definitely do not represent unexplained innovation.

[Starboard Tack]

6. Interesting yardstick to use "patent registration"

Makes one wonder what all those patents might be for, besides securing the intellectual integrity of ideas any profits that may be forthcoming. Is there an implication here of some kind of moral integrity that attaches itself to registering patents?

If we compare the so-called Religion/Innovation map to the Carbon Footprint maps we get quite a different picture.

Carbon Footprint by Country overall


Carbon Footprint by Country per capita


Makes one wonder who is doing the most destruction, the religious or the innovators.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. um, I suppose you think you made a point there.

China and Japan the least religious and best innovators. The cluster-fuck of religiosity includes the US and Saudi Arabia, both of which are high carbon footprint and not so good at innovation. However indeed religiosity is highly correlated to general backasswardery, as in low tech low carbon still mired in developing status.

[rug]

9. That raises an interesting point.

How much of China's innovation is simply imitating others' innovations?

I wonder if parroting others is more indicative of religion or irreligion.

Baseless association is fun, isn't it?

[okasha]

21. Have they patented putting cadmium in kids' toys?

Or melamine in pet food ingredients? Very innovative, to be sure.

[Starboard Tack]

11. I thought you might spot Saudi Arabia. Bravo!

China, the biggest polluter. Innovator at what, Warren? Coming up with more garbage for Americans to consume?

Yes, I think I made a good point and, as usual, you helped reinforce it. Thank you.

My point, of course, is that your OP has no value. None! It is less than pointless. I'm surprised that Mother Jones would publish such crap. The study is so flawed in every sense of the word.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Perhaps you should take this up with Roland J. M. Bénabou

He's at that crackpot institution "Princeton" where he has some bogus creds:

Theodore A. Wells '29 Professor
of Economics and Public Affairs

Bénabou is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fellow of the Econometric Society, Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Research Fellow of the Center for Economic Policy Research, Senior Fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Research Fellow of the Institute for the Study of Labor, Senior Fellow of the Bureau for Research and Economic Analysis of Development, and a member of the Behavioral Economics Roundtable. He has been a member of the Institute for Advanced Study and a Guggenheim Fellow. He has served or currently serves on the editorial board of numerous journals such as the Review of Economic Studies, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the Journal of Public Economics, the Journal of Economic Growth and the Journal of the European Economic Association. Ph.D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/

I'm sure he would be fascinated with the opinions of the superior intellects on Ark Bayer.

[Starboard Tack]

16. You think this is about intellect Warren? It's about economics.

It's about the correlation of religion with fucking patent registration. It's about fucking priorities. Don't you get it?
You think humanity is about patents and economics versus religion? Look at what you excerpted and count the number of times "economics" comes up. That's the religion that paid for this survey. Economics and innovation will not save humanity any better than religion, unless the innovation is focused on sustainability rather than profit. Those concerned with patent registration are more focused on profits and the economic status quo of increased consumerism. There are lots of innovative projects going on all over the world that do not involve people running down to a patent office to secure his financial future.

[rug]

19. But . . . . Princeton!

[Warren Stupidity]

22. You really are on to something. Perhaps if we all lived in religiously afflicited shitholes

global warming wouldn't be a problem. That is an amazing thesis. You might be in Nobel territory. Or perhaps luffing, adrift, aimlessly tacking....

[Starboard Tack]

30. Wouldn't that be nice, Warren?

I'm not sure what "afflicited shitholes" are, but I'm glad to see you recognize my brilliance. Quite astute of you, for someone living in the Walmart wonderland of shopping malls and SUV's.
Come out and aimlessly tack with me someday and you'll see for yourself how awfully afflicted (I think thar's the word you meant to use) the religious shitholes really are. I'll show you how innovative the indigenous people can be, how they love and respect the earth that sustains them, how they don't spend their days between shopping malls and the patent office, or pontificating on how we need to grow the economy so that we can manufacture and consume more garbage.
Come luff with me, baby!

[cleanhippie]

29. Ark Bayer!??!!!

Instant classic!

And if you look closely (ignore may be masking it for you), there is even a swimmer in the water desperately vying for attention to get brought aboard.

[Starboard Tack]

31. Sorry, bud!. We're all full!

Warren took the last life preserver, and we don't allow guns on board.

[cleanhippie]

35. Well, my biceps are well developed...

... But I don't need a ride. Best inform your sycophant desperately signaling for your attention of your equipment shortage, for he may keep trying to tread water, praying for rescue.

[rug]

37. I can think of a group that encourages sycophants.

[cleanhippie]

38. The Bar Association?

[rug]

41. I'd like to see how you handle legal trouble.

[Starboard Tack]

39. You don't need to worry about Warren

He's a good boy and he doesn't need to tread water, 'cause we're throwing him a line.
You can stand by and shoot the sharks while he gets on board.

[cleanhippie]

44. No thanks, the food on the Stultifera Navis is terrible.

You really should consider replacing your cook.

[WovenGems]

17. Times Change

Now a days that is true but in the past the Muslims and the Catholics furthered science and math. Then in the seventies a poll was taken and so many said that science would solve all coming problems that the war began.

[Htom Sirveaux]

18. I wonder what would happen if they re-ran the study and offered

"spiritual but not religious" as an option.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. I suspect people in many countries would say "spiritual but not religious? What does that mean?"

Since 'spiritual' is infamously poorly defined in English, I think the chances of it translating well to other languages are small.

[Starboard Tack]

32. "'spiritual' is infamously poorly defined in English"

Maybe it's more "infinitely" misunderstood by some who speak any language. It actually translates very well into most languages. Many atheists and agnostics are spiritual. Spirituality has little to do with the existence of a deity for many people, regardless of their beliefs.

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. The word can describe various conditions depending upon who is speaking.

A person defining themselves as "spiritual" may be talking about their nature, their religion, their beliefs, or some mystical malarkey about the an unseen source of "energy" (which is a better example of an "infinitely misunderstood" word). So, when somebody says "I am spiritual", the listener cannot tell, specifically, what they mean. Clarification is almost always required.

A well-defined word, on the other hand, would require little or no additional information from the speaker or author.

[Starboard Tack]

40. A word like "religious" you mean?

I'll go with the following

Spiritual
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2
a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs>
b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3
: concerned with religious values
4
: related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5
a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

— spir·i·tu·al·ly adverb

1spir·it
noun \ˈspir-ət\

: the force within a person that is believed to give the body life, energy, and power

: the inner quality or nature of a person

: a person
Full Definition of SPIRIT
1
: an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms
2
: a supernatural being or essence: as
a capitalized : holy spirit
b : soul 2a
c : an often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible; specifically : ghost 2
d : a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being

[Act_of_Reparation]

45. Not really, no.

Religion has been of particular interest to sociologists, and while there is disagreement, the term has been defined with appreciable specificity. I find Durkheim's definition -- and those derived therefrom -- most useful: "A unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things", being things that are "set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."

A "religious" person is, therefore, an individual whose sacred beliefs and practices are shared across a community.

"Spiritual" relates to private belief, and, as the definitions you posted clearly illustrate, can be taken to mean practically anything. Posting the definition of the word doesn't change that, because the definitions themselves include vagaries. Do they relate to sacred belief? Some do. Others don't. And with others still, it is not entirely clear.

What is a person's "inner quality"? What is their "nature"? What does it mean to be "of or relating" to these things? Does it mean one is simply aware of their own character or personality, or they believe they are aware of why they are the way they are, or that their character was predetermined by some supernatural consequence?

Two people who say they are "spiritual" may in effect, be describing completely different positions. It is a manifestly useless descriptor.

[Starboard Tack]

46. So, at the end of the day do you consider yourself "spiritual" in any of those senses?

Personally, I rarely use the word, for the same reasons as you give, but that doesn't mean any individual may not define themselves in spiritual terms. I think we all have a spiritual side to our nature, and each of us defines it in our own way. This fact neither negates nor diminishes the importance of human spirituality.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Act_of_Reparation summarises the problems well; but it's not just us

For instance, here's the Brill Dictionary of Religion:

Summary Article: Spirituality from The Brill Dictionary of Religion

‘Spirituality’ is a fashionable word, used in contemporary religious discourse for a spiritual attitude toward life, a style of piety. It occurs in the Christian and the non-Christian areas alike. This diffuse application is connected with a twin history. From the French (spiritualité), the word has been taken over into other languages, especially so since the 1960s, by Catholic theologians, who wished to describe certain forms of piety actively lived: from a contemplative monastic life (for laity, as well, who occasionally share this life, and integrate it into their daily lives), to a political and social engagement from Christian motives, for example in the ‘spirituality of liberation’ (G. Gutiérrez; ? Liberation Theology). Behind all of this stands the Latin adjective spiritualis, which in the Middle Ages meant ‘pertaining to monasticism.’ In this sense, then, spirituality is a modern form of active Christian piety that applies itself in the direction contrary to that by which religion withdraws from the world, and/or holds contemplative elements to be important. Similarly, the category has been adopted in the Evangelical area as well.

From Anglo-Saxon linguistic space comes a second, independent line of tradition. As early as the close of the nineteenth century, ‘spirituality’ began to denote a free-spirited attitude that appealed to inner experience in religious things, by contrast with Christian tradition's ‘blind belief in dogma.’ Unitarians and other free religious movements molded the word in this sense. Others transferred it to non-Christian religions, as for example, at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swami Vivekananda applied it to Hinduism. In this application, it denotes a ‘mystical’ nucleus of potentially any religion, which—unlike its theological or dogmatic formations—is experienced preponderantly, or only, in the individual, private religious practice of the ‘God-seeker.’ In the West, the ? New Age movement has been among the agents propagating this meaning, adopting it as a self-description of ‘unchurched religiosity,’ ‘nature-based spirituality,’ etc.

So, 2 quite different meanings, and you also might take it to mean "believes in the existence of spirits, separately from physical bodies" - as in spiritualism.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. I wonder why the religionists are all allergic to this data.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

25. I wonder why Warren is so attached to this dubious data

As was pointed out above, the line on the graph is essentially meaningless. And counting patent applications as more significant than actual patents is questionable.

I'm reminded of the Pastafarian chart showing the considerably stronger correlation between number of pirates and global warming.

[rug]

27. Somebody should look into that.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Well not so attached that I attempted to pass it off as my own research.

Although there seems to be some confusion about that upthread.