Chicken or the Egg: Family Size vs. Secularism

Interesting article from the Hoover Institute (so must be taken with grain of salt) that posits that the decline in family size may be a driver towards lower levels of religiosity in society, rather than the prevailing assumption that rising secularism in the modern age results in lower rates of child bearing.

[But look carefully at that common formulation, because it contains the same hidden assumption as that of secularization theory — i.e., it assumes that because people are more religious, therefore they have larger families. But where is the evidence for putting things in that order? It is at least as plausible — in fact, given the evidence, it is more plausible — to assume the opposite: that something about having larger families is making people more religious, at least some of the time.]

The article goes on to note that rates of child-bearing in Europe went down prior to declines in church attendance.

Not sure that this totally coheres for me. While acknowledging that the article is intentionally speculative in nature (note the rather weak claim of "at least some of the time" in the quote above -- could this be falsified??), the facts, such as they are, that are marshaled in defense of the claim are far from comprehensive or convincing.

The article cites the American experience as the exception for Western societies (i.e. we are more religious, therefore more children than Europe -- or alternately, that we marry and have children at higher rates therefore we are more religious, as the author would have it). But, I have seen other statistics before which claim that if one controls for immigration (i.e. Latino immigrants have higher birthrates than native-born in the US) that we are not significantly different than Europe.

Additionally, within Europe, one finds higher birthrates in relatively secular Scandinavian countries than in more socially traditional and religiously observant ones, such as Italy. It has thus been speculated that a society needs either a) a more open labor market, such as in the US, that makes it less onerous for women to leave/re-enter the workforce or b) a more generous social welfare policy, such as in Northern European countries, to ease the financial burden of child-bearing in a modern industrial economy.

In the sense that the author is simply calling to attention the general presumption that, "after all, religious people tend to have larger families; so what?" and suggesting that the lazy causality assumed therein is tenuous, then I can agree. But, the overall thrust of the article clearly aims for much broader claims and implications.

I think that one of the footnotes feels a little closer to the truth:

[Wilcox also suggests three reasons for “why churchgoing is so tightly bound to being married with children”: because they find other couples like themselves in churches — i.e., those navigating family life; because children “drive parents to church” in the sense of encouraging them to transmit a moral/religious compass; and because men are much more likely than women to fall away from church on their own.]

In short, for people with children, churches can form a natural community within which the burdens of childbearing can be shared and from which desired socialization of their children can be obtained.

Many statistics cite, in spite of the frequent claims of US religiosity, that many "religious" Americans are deeply ignorant about some of the most elemental facts of Christian doctrine. Thus, I am left to wonder if one can fully explain their church-going behavior as specifically "religious" in nature. It seems that the benefits one may get from church cover a far broader set of social needs, not simply spiritual ones.

Mostly, I don't think that the causality is clean in either direction. Clearly Mormons have a much higher birthrate that Americans as a whole. But, the author would imply that childbearing comes first, then religious faith follows (or "at least some of the time" -- snark). But, why would Mormons consistently have more children to begin with, before faith has taken hold? Something in the water in Utah?

More plausibly, it would seem that many Mormons are raised in relatively cohesive communities where church-attendance is the norm. And, a host of social expectations (both those imposed from without, as well as that one internalizes from growing up in such an environment) guide both the decision to have children and to attend church within the community.

In short, banning the pill isn't going to bring masses back to the Mass.