People who believe in supernatural evil are more likely to point fingers at society for poverty, while those who believe in a supportive deity tend to do the opposite. These findings come from a recent survey of South Korean adults published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. The research shows how specific theological ideas intersect with political ideology to shape public views on social inequality.
The study analyzed data from an online survey of 1,632 South Korean adults conducted in August 2024. Researchers measured two distinct theological concepts: belief in divine support, which asked if respondents felt they had a warm relationship with God and if God was responsive to their personal needs, and belief in supernatural evil, which asked about the existence of demons, hell, and the devil. Participants then rated the importance of various causes of poverty, including personal irresponsibility and lack of thrift for individualistic explanations, and low wages, prejudice, and failure of private industry to provide enough good jobs for structuralist explanations. Neither religious belief was associated with individualistic explanations for poverty. However, belief in divine support was negatively associated with blaming systemic and economic issues, while belief in supernatural evil was positively associated with structuralist views. Among conservative respondents, those with the strongest belief in supernatural evil were nearly identical to liberals in their tendency to blame the system for poverty.
The authors interpret the link between supernatural evil and structuralist views through the lens of a spiritual warfare worldview, which sees the universe as a battleground between good and evil. According to the report, believers might view oppressive social structures, rampant discrimination, or failing schools as manifestations of these dark forces. The researchers suggest that the lack of association between religious beliefs and individualistic explanations might stem from the charitable aspects of religious involvement, where believing in a supportive deity might increase a person's sense of compassion for others.
The report explains the negative association between divine support and structuralist views through what sociologists call the insurance effect. Religion provides psychological comfort and a sense of security that functions much like a social safety net. People who rely on a divine figure for support during hard times might feel less need for government intervention, prompting them to discount systemic explanations for economic hardship. The researchers note several caveats: the survey captured a single snapshot in time and can't prove a specific directional relationship between the variables. It's entirely possible that a person's preexisting views on poverty and inequality shape how they interpret their religious faith, rather than the other way around. Cultural differences also matter—research indicates that people in East Asian societies often lean toward environmental and situational explanations for human behavior, whereas Westerners frequently favor individualistic explanations. This cultural baseline in South Korea might suppress any potential link between religious beliefs and individualistic views on poverty, a dynamic that could look entirely different in the United States or Europe. Future research will need to untangle how specific doctrinal teachings within different faiths interact with public opinions on wealth and inequality.