An alternative view: secularisation and security

What is Existential Security Theory and how does it criticise Religious Market Theory?

• Norris & Inglehart reject Stark & Bainbridge’s theory.

• They argue religious market theory mainly fits America and lacks global evidence linking religious choice to participation.

Existential security theory:

• Religiosity depends on levels of existential security — the feeling that survival is safe and secure.

For example, poor, low income societies have high insecurity of survival rates so have higher religiosity than rich, high societies.

How do Norris & Inglehart explain differences in religiosity between Europe and the USA?

• Norris & Inglehart argue religiosity depends on existential security.

Western Europe:

• Highly equal, strong welfare states, comprehensive healthcare & pensions.

• Low insecurity → lower demand for religion → increasing secularisation.

USA:

• More unequal among rich nations.

• Weaker welfare safety net & individualistic culture.

• Higher poverty and insecurity → higher religiosity than Europe.

Key point:
America is religious compared to Europe, but still less religious than poorer, insecure societies — supporting existential security theory.

What does Gill & Lundegaarde argue about Existential Security Theory?

They agree with it as from their findings they found:

• The more a country spends on welfare, the lower its religious participation.

• European welfare states spend more than the USA → Europe is more secular.

• Historically, religion provided welfare for the poor.

• From the 20th century, Western states took over welfare provision → reduced reliance on religion → contributed to decline.

However:
Religion will not disappear completely, because welfare provides material security but does not answer ultimate questions about meaning and purpose.

How does Vásquez (2007) criticise Norris & Inglehart?

Criticisms:

1. Over-reliance on quantitative data – They focus on income levels and statistics, but ignore how people personally define and experience “existential security.” Qualitative research is needed.

2. Negative view of religion – They treat religion mainly as a response to deprivation, ignoring positive motivations for belief and why religion can appeal to wealthy groups.

Overall: Their theory is useful but too narrow in how it explains religious participation.