Do perceived levels of personal and societal security affect the importance of religion and religious behavior? Compelling data says “yes,” as revealed in the Existential Security Thesis (EST) of religion.

EST was developed in 2004 by Pippa Norris, lecturer in comparative politics at Harvard University, and Ronald Inglehart, political scientist at the University of Michigan. As a theory of religious change, EST suggests that the erosion of religious values, beliefs, and practices is shaped by long-term changes in existential security (itself linked to human development and socioeconomic equality) and each society’s cultural and religious traditions. These authors define existential security as the extent to which people feel that survival is secure enough that it can be taken for granted.

As the statement above suggests, the theory is based upon two axioms:  a cultural traditions axiom that says a country’s religious or cultural heritage influences the ideological views of the citizens; and a security axiom, which says because societies around the world differ greatly in their levels of human development and socioeconomic equality, they subsequently differ in the extent to which they provide their citizens with a sense of existential security.

Because world societies differ in these regards, subsequent exposure to individual and country-level risks varies from person to person and country to country. The differences in perceived levels of existential security result in higher or lower strength of religious values and practices across individuals and nations. In laying out the theory in their 2004 book, Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide, Norris and Inglehart suggest these patterns can clearly be seen when contrasting three types of societies: agrarian societies, which have a mean per capita income of $1,098, and economies based on agriculture and natural materials; industrial societies, with a mean per capita income of $6,314, and economies based on manufacturing and industry; and postindustrial societies, with a mean per capita income of $29,585, and service-sector economies based on knowledge professions.

Across these three society types, the authors show that conditions of human development and socioeconomic inequality relate in predictable ways to various subjective and objective indicators of religiosity. Specifically, examining these society types over time shows that where levels of human development are relatively high or have been increasing, and where socioeconomic inequality simultaneously decreases, people tend to hold God and religion as less important in their lives, and they also engage less often in religious practices (e.g., religious service attendance, prayer).

The authors also show that the relationship between existential security and religiosity holds at the individual level, and is not based just on objective economic conditions at the societal level. Analyzing data from 55 countries, they demonstrate that as the pursuit of secure surroundings becomes more important to a person, that person is also more likely to say that God is important in their lives. Conversely, as individual risk-taking becomes more acceptable in a person’s life, that person is more likely to say that God is less important in their life.

Many other studies support the notion that religious change is related to security and risk perceptions. Thus, the role of religion in the lives of others is just as much a matter of practical and psychological conditions as it is spirituality, faith, and devotion.

By Joseph Langston

Published April 27, 2016 with quotation below

 “I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life.”
                                     --- Albert Einstein