7th
From this article.
Marx was right. But check it - the U.S. proves to be something of an outlier: highest per capita GDP while also having a higher religiosity score than all of Europe, some of Asia, and even some of Latin America.
The article makes the mistake, I think, of treating religion much like any other economic matter:
‘Religious monopolies or near-monopolies, such as state-sponsored churches, generally throttle religious practice over time, especially as a country becomes wealthier; the European experience amply demonstrates this. Lacking any incentive to innovate, churches atrophy, and their congregations dwindle. But places with a free religious marketplace witness something very different: entrepreneurs of the spirit compete to save souls, honing their messages and modulating many of their beliefs so as to appeal to the consumer. With more options to choose from, more consumers find something they like, and the ranks of the religious grow.’
Maybe this is meant merely analogically, but the temptation to explain everything through some sort of economic reductionism is certainly strong. Marx attempted it. It is certainly a powerful way to explain much of what goes on - but maybe it is too easy an answer. Certainly economic concerns exert some degree of influence over everything that we want to explain. Explanations of this sort just seem to miss some important part of what is going on; they do not provide a satisfying explanation, an explanation that fully satisfies the questions we were asking.
