This is the third and last email I’ll post from people reacting to the recent re-publication on Yahoo! News of my Conversation article, “Yes, there is a war between science and religion.” I stand by what I said and assert again that the incompatibility between the two—war, if you will—is that religion accepts certain truths about the universe without good reasons to do so, while science, with more rigorous standards, has empirical methods for supporting or eroding what we think is true. In other words, religion itself has no way to verify its beliefs, though they can be knocked down by science.
It may sound harsh to say so, but the Abrahamic religions, like most religions—some “secular” faiths like Quakerism or Unitarian Universalism are exceptions—are fairy tales, pure and simple. They may make you feel good, and even motivate some people to do good things, but in the end their factual stories, like that of Jesus, Muhammad and Gabriel, as well as Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu, are just myths. We have no need to support our morality or behavior with myths.
But some people still like religion because even if it isn’t “true” in the sense of being grounded on genuine circumstances or beings, it still makes them feel good. They like sitting in a warm pew, singing, hearing the soothing ministrations of the pastor, and admiring the stained glass while sniffing the incense. Or they like the sense of ritual involved in a daily puja. Well, the email below came from one of these folks.
Hello Jerry,
Read your recent article. I would have to disagree a little bit.
I am a secular minded person who still attends Christian church. I don’t believe any of the theology. But I find the service comforting nevertheless. And in our church we are constantly reminded to be better persons — not to escape hell but just because it feels right. Why would we throw out the arts, music, dancing, etc. because they don’t express thoughts verifiable by science? Religion to me is in the same category as the arts. It’s part of human expression. Some of Mozart’s music is very powerful to me. It raises my spirts. Religious services do the same thing.
Best,
Name redacted
I really don’t have much quarrel with this person’s feelings. If he likes the morality preached from the pulpit (assuming that he doesn’t go to an evangelical Christian or Catholic church, where the “morality” is ludicrous), that’s fine.
I tossed off the email below about about 4 a.m. yesterday, so it’s not particularly eloquent, and I’ve edited it a tiny bit so it doesn’t sound like I just woke up. What I would also say to this person, which I wasn’t sentient enough to add, is that the Scandinavians and northern Europeans, who are by and large atheists, manage to find solace and meaning without having to go to church, much less believing in God. Yet I bet the average Swede still goes to musical performances and museums much more often than he goes to church. You don’t need religion to get the kind of solace that this guy gets from church. And stuff like music and art can arouse the emotion without making you believe in nonexistent divinities. Finally, as I emphasize below, patronizing a religion has the side effect of enabling faith, a defect in the human character that is mistakenly regarded as a virtue.
Anyway, my reply:
Hi,Yes, if all religion was involved providing a place to go and appreciate the music and quietude and smell the incense and to meditate, that would be fine. It’s all the other stuff that bothers me–the things that Catholicism, Judaism, and Christianity do to people and make them do to other people. You’re admirable in not believing the theology, but religion enables all the people who do believe to create all the bad things that religion does to the world. It’s the factual beliefs, which undergirds the invidious moralities, that cause these problems. Surely you realize this–that by saying that we need religion because you yourself enjoy the non-theological benefits–you’re advocating keeping systems that oppress women and gays, terrorize children with thoughts of Hell, keep little Orthodox boys and girls from getting an education, and so on and so on and so on.Religious services are fine; it’s what they lead to and support that is bad.cheers,jac
Invariably, whenever you come across this claim it is a believer, or a believer in belief, that is making it, not an atheist. I must admit that of all the standard anti-atheist / pro-believer arguments, this one never fails to irritate me because it is so stupid, on so many levels, and just reeks of that hoping-to-look-like-but-not-really-humble superiority so common among believer’s.
It’s Category Error used as an apologetic.
You’ve described it much more precisely and with much fewer words than I.
When I read this sentence, I reacted much as you have. But I think it makes more sense when read with the sentence that follows it. The writer is making the case that scientists appreciate non-sciency things so why can’t one regard religion as just another non-sciency pastime? I think you can but I doubt whether this person is being honest about their religious feelings.
When I was young, I went to church with my friend’s family. I was never a believer. I did it because my friend’s family invited me, I was a bit curious, and had nothing better to do on Sunday mornings. It only lasted a few months. I learned what I needed to learn but I also felt bad being an unbeliever among so many believers and in a place where believing was expected of attendees. I’m sure if I asked, they would have said believing isn’t a requirement for attendance but I would also know that they would strongly hope to “convert” me.
So, no, you can’t treat religion like another kind of art or music, at least not by going to church and pretending to be a believer.
“…but I would also know that they would strongly hope to ‘convert’ me.
So, no, you can’t treat religion like another kind of art or music…”
Actually, art and music are FULL of people trying to convert you. (My undergrad degree was in Viola Performance, so I have some experience with it.) Go to what’s called a “period performance” of Baroque-era music, and offer the opinion that they’re all wrong about this gut strings and “vibrato only as an ornament” nonsense. Then try to escape with your scalp.
And oh, BTW, Jackson Pollock was a genius. Or not; either way, you’re going to piss someone off. But probably not enough to get killed over it.
An interesting point! However, it is what’s said in church that makes all the difference. They attempt to define how the world works. Music and art only try to convert you into someone who appreciates their work. Also, not many promise damnation if you decide to leave or tell the ensemble about another artist that you like.
Certainly the arts are full of strong opinions on style! 🙂
Commemoremus, de gustibus non est disputandum.
Speaking of arts, and you a luthier and all, ever come across this kid before? I just “found” him the other day and I keep telling other people about him. Amazing how talented he is, for any age but he’s only 18 or 19.
Paganini’s Caprice no. 24 on One Guitar – Marcin Patrzalek
As good a preparation for law school as any, I suppose.
Oooo – a Two Set Violin-level burn – and you didn’t even realize it
Two Set are great. And BTW, I (like most violists) also play violin.
At least, if they give me enough money to lower myself to it.
Two Set get their asses kicked enough, I suppose they have to pick easy targets.
True dat, Ken. Especially the way that I did law school… https://smile.amazon.com/Over-Hill-Round-Bend-Gullibles/dp/1981738002
In law school I was always reminded of the saying: “What do they call the student in law school at the bottom of his class when he graduates?”.
They call him “a lawyer”.
hehehe
D.A., J.D.
NYC
I like the one about what you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50…
“Your Honor.”
Indeed, and it is a wan attempt (indeed failed) to sneak in a mythico-religious *dualism*.
I am in perfect agreement with you about science vs faith. Your book on the subject is on my shelf and has been waiting to be read for a couple of years now but I have maybe one hundred other books on the waiting list. I buy faster than I read.
I have just looked at data about atheism in Europe and found that, dependng on the poll, the Czech Republic and France seem to be more atheistic than most of the Northern countries. Spain, Slovenia and Estonia can also rank before most Scandinavian countries (safe Sweden). Surprisingly to me, Sweden and other Northern countries rank very high in the proportion of people who believe in some sort of spirit or life force (perhaps theres are still some trolls and elves in their forests).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe
I can’t get the books off the waiting list fast enough either. FvF is still there and Xmas is around the corner!
Just ran across this, of which I am mightily guilty: “tsundoku.” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44981013
LOL
I’ve got a touch of that too. Not as bad as pictured though.
It looks like Dom’s bedroom (and I’m intrigued by his blonde visitor)!
Hell, the books in your home library you’ve already read are nowhere near as important as the potential for enlightenment stored therein.
Or at least that’s what I keep telling myself when I look at the uncracked spines on lo those many volumes. 🙂
Sweden ranks next to last in religious belief and #4 in non-belief 2010.
No, it isn’t troll and elves – I think you have to go to Iceland for that – as much as postmodernist weak tea feel-goodism.
You killed all the trolls!? You bastards!
🤣
The trolls all moved to Mt. Horeb, WI.
Your correspondent’s reasons for going to church are not surprising. Even before the pandemic the “bowling alone” phenomenon was apparent. In today’s world, as Derek Thompson in the Atlantic argues, it is even starker. Attending a religious service provides people an antidote to loneliness and a sense of separation from others: the bond of community, the benefits of belonging to a group, and a purpose in life that is hard to find elsewhere, although extremist groups such as Qanon serve a similar function. Of course, the beliefs preached at many churches are dangerous and absurd, which does not stop many religionists from embracing them. All of this convinces me that religion will never go away (despite fluctuations in membership) until society comes up with non-theological equivalents. The only slight indication that this is happening is the growth of right-wing extremist groups that are more dangerous than traditional religions.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/how-2020-shattered-shared-reality/617398/
No it isn’t hard to find elsewhere. It is easy. I find it in gathering with friends to chat over a beer on Thursday evenings. Qanon and Jesus are not required. (Admittedly, Covid has made this more problematic. But that is true over in church-villa, too.)
You may find it easy. All too many people don’t. Your anecdote doesn’t seem typical of what social science research seems to indicate.
Your assertion, if you think of it, is nothing but the old “little people” argument. If religion were required for people to find purpose then there would be no atheists but for a few hermits living lonely, meaningless lives. Honestly, Historian, you know better than that,
I took Historian’s comment as meaning only that many people have trouble finding companionship and are lonely. That’s not a “little people” argument but one reasonable explanation of the popularity of religion.
The little people need the church because they can’t find meaning elsewhere.
I don’t need meaning in my life. I simply accept that there is none. My neighbor’s dog seems perfectly content and happy without meaning. But he doesn’t know he’s just going to end-up dead.
I understand the “little people” argument but it is often made as a justification for promoting religion, which is a point that Historian was not making, in my reading.
Not promoting religion, but accepting it as inevitable “until society comes up with non-theological equivalents”. The non-theological equivalents already exist. They are found all over the place. The fancy anthropological word for them is “sodalities” (not to be confused with the Catholic use of the word). We’re social animals. We don’t need religions to make us social.
I don’t think non-theological equivalents are really equivalent. They do not include most of the community and aren’t a good cross-section of society. Go to bars and you are mostly only going to meet alcoholics and a certain type of person. Go to a book club and you’re only going to meet people interested in reading. If you approach a book club member and ask them if they want to go out for a beer, you may well be told that this is inappropriate since people are only there for the books. Of course, go to church and you mostly are only going to meet religious people, so there’s that. 😉
Comfort and companionship. Take your fill but NOT at the cost of lies as truth.
Truth, as in science evidenced explanations has laid religious sentiment bare as ancient propaganda.
Google:
The term “propaganda” apparently first came into common use in Europe as a result of the missionary activities of the Catholic church. In 1622 Pope Gregory XV created in Rome the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.
You answered yourself there, Paul, and saved me from having to do so.
And this seems to be borne out by the data. People are mixing and meeting less (pre-COVID).
Indeed. We humans have needs for both autonomy and affiliation. I’m a member of the Unitarian Universalist Association, which fulfills my need for affiliation while really not conflicting much if at all with my autonomous irreligious outlook. I also have affiliated with the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago, which has a nice building in Skokie, Illinois. https://ethicalhumanistsociety.org/
Hehy, I was too! At least when I lived in the city, now it would be a long trip. They had nice presentations, homemade goodies and were friendly to unknown folks who wandered in. Am also a member of The Satanic Temple, for their political stances. Have recently gotten into gardening, and it seems the real greenhouses have a religious bent. As none of these try and convert me to anything, I’m fine.
This is undeniably true, but, also given that religion isn’t the only way to get those things, I think there is something more to it. Some thing(s) that make religion so much more successful (selection-wise, not necessarily outcome-wise) than other ways.
One of those things, perhaps, is a sense of security from outsiders. Religions tend to both create (in a sense) outsiders and provide a sense of security against, and even superiority over, those outsiders.
We need more rave parties. I am completely serious, although they don’t have to be rave parties specifically. Music and dancing answer the need, which is probably why Ayatollah Khomeini banned music broadcasts.
“Attending a religious service provides people an antidote to loneliness and a sense of separation from others:”
In times gone by religious activities were the only local source of spiritual order, community spirit, shared experience, and explanation for the inexplicable happenings of the world. My suggestion is that the human desires for these things led to the creation of religious beliefs, which then took on a life of their own. It seems like a parsimonious explanation for why there are so many different religions – arising from similar causes but unfolding in so many different ways.
Reminds me of the closing scene of Lebowski where professional Barry Asher — the only real bowler in the whole damn movie — rolls that big, beautiful hook all alone in the background while Townes Van Zandt covers The Stones “Dead Flowers” on the soundtrack:
During this pandemic, we must make like The Dude and abide.
Quote: “Religion to me is in the same category as the arts. It’s part of human expression.”
No, it’s a claim about how the universe/reality works, and it has been shown to be false. This individual must have a broken BS meter, for the nonsense emitted from the pulpit ought to make anyone with any decent level of critical thinking skills scream.
As Ralph Waldo Emerson said: “If I stepped out of church whenever I heard a false statement I could never stay there five minutes.”
“It’s part of human expression.”
So is violence.
Also, you can sometimes find lonely, kinky chicks at church. /s
Truth!
Like in Harold and Maude? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_and_Maude
I enjoy choral church music – as an ex-chorister -but have no need to see any link with religion although I understand it exists because of religion. Atheist or agnostic composers have written church music.
What has happened to the website – all was fine but the mobile version has forgotten me again & it somehow feels different but not sure what…?
Coral?!
Deleted my other mistaken comment below.
Ta corrected just in the knickers of time! 😂
But why do I have to sign in again every time on iphone?! 😩
Dear redacted, since you want to mix arts and religion (if I understand you correctly), I enjoy Handel’s ‘Messiah’ or Bach’s ‘Matthäuspassion’ even more after becoming an atheist. In that sense, in the arts, there is really no contradiction. But I think it is the only area where rationality and religion are not at war.
Ever noticed how mathematically competent eg. Bach’s fugas are? For some more elaborated thoughts about this, I recommend you read Douglas Hofstadter’s “Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid”, a really enlightening book. You will not be sorry.
I’m with you, and indeed some of my favorite music of all time (Monteverdi’s 1610 Vespers, for example) is religious, even though I’m a flaming anti-theist. Yet I wonder how I’d feel if I actually believed the toxic language that accompanies those glorious notes? Or what it would be like to enter a Gothic cathedral if I thought there really was a Christ who had died for my sins? Am I missing half of the intended effect?
Or is it more like you say, like Dawkins describes in Unweaving the Rainbow, that without the false supernatural baggage we can more clearly see and appreciate the beautiful complexity that lies underneath?
” …the toxic language that accompanies those glorious notes? ” Precisely! I have often marveled at the really disgusting theology that is expressed in the most beautiful hymns. When we travel back to the homeland in Northern Indiana, going to the College Mennonite Church is a treat because of the amazing four part a cappella singing. I ignore the words [or change them] and enjoy the sound of 1000 folks singing together.
Since the whole jesus and god stuff is not real, it won’t make a difference – but I think it is part of the mechanism of religion, to grip the mind by repetition of the myths – sooooo… dunno….
But for the German Bach material I think it is essential to pronounce all the words or it would be ugly.
Having spent a fair amount of time in opera pit orchestras, and speaking some German, it has often occurred to me that German is a perfectly serviceable language.
Right up until that moment when some idiot tries to sing in it.
Soooo… not a Magic Flute fan, I guess….
There was a year of my life, some decades ago now, where I listened to nothing but The Magic Flute. It was my introduction to opera. I broadened my tastes in the years following. 😉
My entry to opera (still not a big fan) was the Deutsche Grammophon edition of the highlights of the Marriage of Figaro. (The Duettina was used in The Shawshank Redemption which is what hooked me in.)
(And I love the movie Amadeus.)
Amadeus got me listening to Mozart’s choral music, in particular his Requiem. After obsessing on that I figured it was time for me to learn about opera so I obsessed over Die Zauberflöte. Then came Marriage of Figaro and the rest. Eventually I obsessed over Verdi, Puccini, and the rest of the greats. I miss going to theaters.
Actually, snark about the language (and the constant use of the *Königen der Nacht* in TV commercials) aside, I’m a big fan of *Die Zauberflöte*.
Ca. 1991, Gail and I rode her little VT500FT from where we were living in Palermo, to Venezia, to audition for the chorus at the *Teatro della Fenice*. (In its then-present iteration, long since lost to an arson fire. But rebuilt yet again; Wiki has a good history of it.)
Two arias were required. I was just smart enough NOT to choose anything in Italian, although I was fluent by then. So for my 2nd, I worked up “Old Man River.” For my 1st? Sarastro’s Aria.
Your 1991 tidbit reminded me of one of our strangest opera outings. In Buenos Aires, we were guests for the opera “Jonny spielt auf”. It was presented in German with Spanish subtitles above the stage, and my mind could not keep up trying to translate either to English 🙂
Cools story, Brujo! Not being a musician myself, the closest to operatic participation I got was writing software for Milwaukee’s Florentine Opera back in the ’90s so they could manage ticket sales. And once playing the role of Pu-Tin-Pao in their 2000 production of Turandot. It was the thrill of a lifetime for me.
GBJames: now THAT is a cool story! Turandot is one of the greats, even if *Nessun dorma* is abused nearly as much for TV commercials as the Queen of the Night. I knew that Puccini had died before finishing it, and it had been finished by Alfano with a suspiciously happy ending. I DIDN’T know, until I just stumbled upon it, about the new production with a more appropriately ghastly ending: https://www.efe.com/efe/english/life/puccini-s-unfinished-turandot-debuts-in-japan-with-tragic-ending/50000263-4021440
Interesting. A tragic ending is much more appropriate, IMO.
Actually my motivation for learning German was because of The Magic Flute – I wanted to understand what I was singing 🙂
Argh! Having to sign in every time again!
Found a New Scientist – pardon me – article by (the now vanished) Lawrence Krauss from 8th July 2006, p.20, that concludes,
“Attempting to use science to discredit religion will not only fail, it also does a disservice yo science itself”…”from a strategic point of view it’s a waste of energy. It plays into the hands of those who claim that the scientific method itself is akin to atheism, and it weakens any efforts to speak out against those groups who regularly distort scientific education in the name of religion, preferring to promote ignorance rather than risk any threat to the faith of their flock. To counter these threats we need to argue compellingly that people of faith are ill-served by ignorance, rather than argue that faith and ignorance are synonymous.”
I hate the phrase people of faith. I do not agree with him, but that view is widely held by a lot of people as I see on twitter.
My friend Brent points out that people use that expression: “He was a man of faith,” or “We are people of faith,” without realizing what a grievous insult they have just leveled.
He says: “WE…are people of EVIDENCE.”
Evidence, Wyoming, population 345! (Ok, I made that up.)
I’ll call you and raise you Boring, OR!
My sister lives not too far from Boring. It’s twinned with Dull in Scotland: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dull,_Perth_and_Kinross#Twin_towns
Funny, she went there to escape the rest of the family! 😰🤣
“Religious services do the same thing.”
Nope. It’s THE MUSIC. That’s why it’s there. There’s no requirement for music in order to worship imaginary gods. THE MUSIC is the hook.
A little off topic but I wonder if anyone knows the source of a half remembered quote. Something like “If God does not exist then it would be best if that fact were not generally known.”
It was by the wife of some famous English clergyman, if I remember correctly.
While inquiring of the hive mind re quotations: there is one, which I cannot find, but for some reason I’m thinking Voltaire? (If so, I’d like it in the original as well.) Something to the effect of: “Wanting something to be true has no effect on whether it is true.” There are, of course, variations, like the more concise “Wishing does not make it so,” but I’m looking for the other one.
“Wanting something to be true has no effect on whether it is true.”
Am reminded of hearing Professor Dawkins on a radio interview show in the late 90’s (the first time I had heard of him):
“The palatability of a proposition has no bearing on its truth.”
Filippo: do you know the source for that first one?
I can’t find it. But there’s a nice Francis Bacon quote about confirmation bias: “It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human intellect to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives; whereas it ought properly to hold itself indifferently disposed towards both alike.” (Novum Organum)
Thanks, JezGrove. That’s an excellent one too.
Hugh LaFollette, at the time a philosophy professor at East Tennessee State University in Johnson City, Tennessee, had a Sat (Sun?) program on the local public radio station titled “Issues and Answers.”
Try https://www.hughlafollette.com/radio/dawkins.mp3 to hear the Dawkins interview May 4, 1997. I’ll listen again, to make sure that I in my approaching dotage didn’t imagine hearing the quote. 😉
Well, Senor Brujo Feo, to follow up, I listened to the interview this evening. I did not hear the quote. I emailed Professor LaFollette to ask if he possibly interviewed Professor Dawkins more than once. Waiting for a reply. I’m quite sure I heard him say it, somewhere. I’m not ready to give up on it. I’m not yet (totally) nutty. If necessary I’ll take it as a needed lesson in epistemic humility. To my ear it sounds typically concise Dawkins. And if he didn’t say it, he ought to have said it. 😉 Cheers!
Thanks, Filippo. You’re right–that phrase does sound exactly like Dawkins; I can practically hear it in his voice.
But the attribution I was looking for was for the first one in your previous comment: “Wanting something to be true…”
“There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so” – Hamlet, Shakespeare
“Thinking something does not make it true. Wanting something does not make it real.”
Michelle Hodkin, The Unbecoming of Mara Dyer
Search Google Books… I did a lot of quote detecting for PCC[E] for f v f…
I was up at 4 am once — on my way home from a poker game. Jesus, boss, dunno whether anyone’s clued you in, but you’re emeritus now; you could sleep in, at least till 4:30, hell, maybe even 5 am. 🙂
I understand this early bird gettin’ the worm stuff, but there’s no excuse for starting your day at an ungodly hour like 4 am — unless maybe it’s to go fishin’, and your favorite spot is a couple hours’ drive away, where they bite best at dawn.
PCC(E) was probably after a chocolate covered worm to celebrate National Chocolate Covered Anything Day, and only the really early birds get those!
“… the Abrahamic religions, like most religions—some “secular” faiths like Quakerism or Unitarian Universalism are exceptions—are fairy tales, pure and simple. They may make you feel good, and even motivate some people to do good things, ..”
and furthermore, anyone can do and get all those positive things without religion, except religion itself keeps its victims from trying this. Borrowing from Dennett, I call this mechanism disbelief in disbelief.
Our very good friend Redacted states that he/she doesn’t believe any of the theology. I wonder if he/she gets up and leaves when the priest intones: “Credo in unum Deum” and expects the congregation to complete the litany of beliefs. How can one profess belief and non-belief in the same breath? And yet Redacted finds comfort in this state of contradiction. I don’t get it.
Re. the music,
“Do you know where you got it,” I asked the 20-something kid who had just emerged from 2-wk COVID quarantine.
“Yes, from my father-in-law.”
“And does he know where he got it?”
“Yes, from their church. They all go in masked, then take them off and start singing.”
Presumably that was because it made them feel good to do that. Apparently nobody had heard of exactly the same things happening in multitudes of other churches.
So it’s all very nice to attend church for the ceremony, warm feelings, and having an occasion where you connect with other nice people. Just like if you attended a drawing class, or joined a garden club. I’ve joined in on some hiking clubs. Nice people in hiking clubs. We go to parks … stuff like that.
But… imagine if our hiking club was an appendage to a vast and powerful global corporation that held enormous power to decide on elections, and their favored candidates were people like Trump? What if they were the main influence behind denying women’s’ rights to choose? And they worked to ‘de-program’ gay people?
That is the club that this person is basically joining. Amazing how people partition their minds, and see only what is right in front of them.
Excellent observation!
Agreed absolutely!
Given that until fairly recently membership in xtian churches was not optional and backed up with penalties up to and including death for non-compliance, it is hardly surprising that churches have a monopoly on fulfilling the human need for connection with others.
It will take time to repair the damage caused by this dysfunctional system, one of the best things xtianity has to offer now is the increasing number of empty and abandoned buildings that can finally be put to some actual good as restaurants, cafes, bars etc.
As an added bonus, all these properties that were formerly tax exempt now pay municipal taxes and no longer leach off of services like roads, sewers, garbage collection etc.
I should add one additional virtue of venerable stone Church buildings. On hot days in summer in Paris, an old church is an excellent refuge from the heat.
And yet…. “Faith Versus Fact” mentions the deeply impressive story of Thomas Vander Woude, who drowned while saving the life of his Down Syndrome son. As it happened, Mr. Vander Woude was a devout Roman Catholic, and the conventional view is that his action in saving his son and his faith were connected. Our host’s intuition, and mine, is that they were not; that Mr. Vander Woude was the kind of man he was, period, and he would have done the same if he had been a Unitarian or an atheist. But I have to admit that the conventional view is certainly possible—and there is no way, in this particular case and in ones like it, to test our view versus the conventional view.
The proselytising religions like Christianity and Islam are spread by conquest, compulsion, childhood indoctrination and occasionally by conversion. They are maintained by conformity and lack of critical-thinking skills.
All religions seem to interfere with the ability to actually think or to try to understand a little about our incredible ‘universe.
Income from performances in Sweden was 3.8 billion SEK or about 400 MUSD 2014 – it was pretty steady over a 6 years period [ https://static1.squarespace.com/static/584ecd35725e2509ff6e669e/t/598afbe76f4ca31c8b33ce32/1502280689270/MusikbranschenISiffror_2014_webb.pdf ]. If a ticket is 100 SEK (minimum cost 60 SEK says Google) there were 40 million visitors in a 10 million population, or average 4 visits per person and year.
Number of museum visits was 26 million 2018 [ http://www.sverigesmuseer.se/pressrum/statistik-och-fakta/ ], or an average of 3 visits per person and year.
Number of church visits has dropped from 9 million 2095 to 4 million 2015 [ https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/ost/farre-kyrkobesok-men-sjalavarden-okar ], or an average of 0.4 visits per person and year.
At a ratio of 7/0.4 or almost 20 times more secular visitor activity that corresponds rather nicely to the proportion of active church visitors in Sweden (5 -10 % depending on Google search answer – and of course some may do both). You could say Swedes visits concerts and museums religiously (or in our case, infrequently).