I want more people to read, and I complain about reading in America. Then, on the other hand, I wish that people read less of the same ol', same ol' religious stuff and tried a solid philosophical treatise on morality or metaphysics. It really seems that a lot of what people read is fluff and at least partially ahistorical, given Americans' preferences for religious reading. The trend is moving at least in part away from these books, so that's encouraging...
That said, there is evidence that people who are nonreligious and those who are politically liberal read more than those who are religious and political conservatives.
People from the West and Midwest are more likely to have read at least one book in the past year. Southerners who do read, however, tend to read more books, mostly religious books and romance novels, than people from other regions. Whites read more than blacks and Hispanics, and those who said they never attend religious services read nearly twice as many as those who attend frequently.Can we infer causation from correlation? I don't think so.
There was even some political variety evident, with Democrats and liberals typically reading slightly more books than Republicans and conservatives.
The Bible and religious works were read by two-thirds in the survey, more than all other categories.
One of the reasons I reject IQ comparisons between theists and atheists is the point that if you can find me even a few people with very high IQs who are theists (or atheists), then any "argument" based on studies that show a disparity in IQ between the two person groups is flawed: even if on average, smart people are believers, or disbelievers, it would be cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Although I don't imply causation from correlation with reading, I do think it's worth thinking about why the correlation exists. Before I'm accused of meanness or prejudice, I pointed out that the anti-intellectualism on display in many Evangelical churches is not to be taken as a logical connection between religion and anti-intellectualism. That said, I think that part of being religious is taking doubt and skepticism seriously, and I think that this requires a lot of reading outside of one's own "comfort zone(s)" and world view(s). Here, there is real evidence that certain forms and brands of religion, especially those that equivocate on faith as certitude, discourage reading materials that may "incur doubt" or "lead one astray" or some similar sentiment. Perhaps there is truth in it.
After all, if, as I think to be the case, religions are all based on ahistorical myths and/or false premises about the nature of god(s) and revelation, then a serious analysis of religion done by smart skeptics will poke holes in anyone's certitudes. And if the religion one adheres to carries a threat of everlasting torment if said adherent doubts or loses faith, then it is logical for its religious leaders to exhort followers to avoid reading treatises on atheism/skepticism. Hell, just look at what Paul said about wisdom and philosophy, and his warnings of those with "false teachings" and such. So, is it prudent, then, to "flee" from reading materials whose conclusions you know to be in opposition to the religion you espouse?
Perhaps it is.
Maybe believers are right for sticking to reading materials that don't "endanger" their souls. I guess Calvinists don't worry about such subtleties.
I wonder, if the Bible and religious books were filtered out of reading surveys, what the results would look like. Until I have some data, I'm just speculating and pissing in the wind...
I did like the statistics that show the most popular books on college campuses, and the correlation with SAT scores at those schools has to mean something. But what conclusions can be drawn between one's reading habits and one's IQ or religious preference? Not too much. I know that I and a lot of other nonbelievers spend what is probably a surprisingly large amount of time reading "religious materials" and/or scriptures. Obviously, we do so in large part due to education and arguments' sake, rather than edification.
