Answer:
Religion declines with economic development. In a previous post that rattled around the Internet, I presented a scholarly explanation for this pattern: people who feel secure in this world have less interest in another one.
The basic idea is that wealth allows people to feel more secure in the sense that they are confident of having their basic needs met and expect to lead a long healthy life. In such environments, there is less of a market for religion, the primary function of which is to help people cope with stress and uncertainty.
Some readers of the previous post pointed out that the U.S. is something of an anomaly because this is a wealthy country in which religion prospers. Perhaps taking the view that one swallow makes a summer, the commentators concluded that the survival of religion here invalidates the security hypothesis. I do not agree.
Explanation:
The first point to make is that the connection between affluence and the decline of religious belief is as well-established as any such finding in the social sciences. In research of this kind, the preferred analysis strategy is some sort of line-fitting exercise. No researcher ever expects every case to fit exactly on the line, and if they did, something would be seriously wrong.
Answer:
for everyone one to be equal
Explanation:
Just added answer for corrupted so he could get brainliest
Before the Portuguese explored and went to the East, in order to obtain the Asian goods, they had to trade with the Muslims and was more expensive. But, after Vasco de Gama reached India, the Portuguese had a sea route that gave them direct access to Asia which meant no more trading with the Muslim. They could trade with the rest of Europe and sell for cheaper.
Answer:
Peer testimony
Explanation:
A testimony is simply called a given statement by a person who possesses a reasonable or logical connection to the subject, field or topic and He or she must be a credible source. Mostly, it can be used to either clarify or prove a point.
Peer testimony can simply be defined as when a statement or testimony is being given by an individual who does not have expertise in the that particular area, field or subject that is in question. they can also be called antiauthorities because it's testimony source that is neither expert nor celebrity, but likely to the subject of an audience. Paul may not be an expert in that field but he has personal experience with the issue in question.
