Today's New York Times includes an article that discusses research on the relationship between religious beliefs and economic performance. In particular, it reports on a study by Harvard University's Robert Barro and Rachel McCleary that, as summarized in the Times , finds
First, in two countries where religious service attendance is essentially the same, the one whose people have a greater belief in heaven and hell would experience faster economic growth. Second, in two countries where the populations have similar rates of belief in heaven and hell, the one in which church attendance is greater would have slower growth.
The article -- and Professor McCleary -- have an explanation:
This "quantitative approach to the study of religion," as Professor McCleary calls it, rests on the assumption that religion can affect economics by fostering beliefs that influence productivity-enhancing traits like thrift, hard work and honesty. A widespread feeling that such behavior may ultimately be rewarded (a belief in heaven), or that a lack of such behavior may be punished (a belief in hell) may therefore spur economic growth. And if more people and resources are devoted to holding religious services without producing the desired output (a higher level of belief), that would tend to lessen productivity in an economy.
In other words, countries' economies may perform best when people have relatively higher levels of religious belief than religious participation.
In the paper cited in the previous post, however, Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson express some skepticism about causation.
... this evidence does not show a causal effect of religion on economic growth, since religious beliefs are endogenous both to economic outcomes and to other fundamental causes of income differences...
Nonetheless, liability considerations compel me to remind you that you ignore that heaven and hell thing at your own risk.