Study suggests religion does not lead to healthier society

[SeeingRed]

Skeptic Magazine

Religious Belief & Societal Health
New Study Reveals that Religion
Does Not Lead to a Healthier Society
by Matthew Provonsha

It is commonly held that religion makes people more just, compassionate, and moral, but a new study suggests that the data belie that assumption. In fact, at first glance it would seem, religion has the opposite effect. The extensive study, “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religi-osity and Secularism in the Prosperous Demo-cracies,” published in the Journal of Religion and Society (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html) examines statistics from eighteen of the most developed democratic nations. It reveals clear correlations between various indicators of social strife and religiosity, showing that whether religion causes social strife or not, it certainly does not prevent it.

The author of the study, Gregory S. Paul, writes that it is a “first, brief look at an important subject that has been almost entirely neglected by social scientists…not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health.” However, the study does show a direct correlation between religiosity and dysfunctionality, which if nothing else, disproves the widespread belief that religiosity is beneficial, that secularism is detrimental, and that widespread acceptance of evolution is harmful.
Paul begins by explaining how far his findings diverge from common assumptions. He even quotes Benjamin Franklin and Dostoevsky to show how old these common-misconceptions are. Dostoevsky wrote, “if God does not exist, then everything is permissible.” Benjamin Franklin noted, “religion will be a powerful regulator of our actions, give us peace and tranquility within our minds, and render us benevolent, useful and beneficial to others.”

To this day, the belief that religiosity is socially beneficial is widespread in America, especially amongst politicians, as Paul notes: “The current [at that time] House majority leader T. DeLay contends that high crime rates and tragedies like the Columbine assault will continue as long schools teach children ‘that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup of mud.’” But this view is not exclusively Republican, Paul explains, or even conservative: “presidential candidate Al Gore supported teaching both creationism and evolution, his running mate Joe Lieberman asserted that belief in a creator is instrumental to ‘secure the moral future of our nation, and raise the quality of life for all our people,’ and presidential candidate John Kerry emphasized his religious values in the latter part of his campaign.” Surveys show that many Americans agree “their church-going nation is an exceptional, God blessed, ‘shining city on the hill’ that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly skeptical world. ”This assumption flies in the face of the actual statistical evidence that Paul examined.

The study focuses on the prosperous democracies, because “levels of religious and nonreligious belief and practice, and indicators of societal health and dysfunction, have been most extensively and reliably surveyed” in them. Also, “The cultural and economic similarity of the developed democracies minimizes the variability of factors outside those being examined.” With a database of 800 million people, this study is far more reliable than results based on smaller sample sizes used in other such studies. The data are also current and extensive, collected in the middle and latter half of the 1990s and early 2000s from the International Social Survey Programme, the UN Development Programme, the World Health Organization, Gallup, and other well-documented sources.

For this study’s purpose, “dysfunctionality” is defined by such indicators of poor societal health as homicide, suicide, low life expectancy, STD infection, abortion, early pregnancy, and high childhood mortality (under five-years old). Religiosity is measured by biblical literalism, frequency of prayer and service attendance, as well as absolute belief in a creator in terms of ardency, conservatism, and activities.

Paul’s results are presented in nine charts. The first compares acceptance of evolution with various indicators of religiosity. From this Paul concludes that, “The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the lack of a significant religious revival in any developed democracy where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with evolutionary science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical.” He adds: “When deciding between supernatural and natural causes is a matter of opinion large numbers are likely to opt for the latter,” and that, “Conversely, evolution will probably not enjoy strong majority support in the U.S. until religiosity declines markedly.”

All of the subsequent results that compare religiosity against dysfunctionality show a basic correlation between the two, though anomalies exist. Paul’s second figure (Figures 1 and 2 here) shows a positive correlation between religiosity and homicide rates.

The United States is a strong exception, experiencing far higher rates of homicide than even (strongly theistic) Portugal, while Portugal itself is beset by much more homicide than the secular developed democracies. Hardly a “shining city on a hill” to the rest of the world, Paul writes that, “The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly.” This deviates immensely from what most Americans consider to be common wisdom: that religion is beneficial. “But in the other developed democracies religiosity continues to decline precipitously and avowed atheists often win high office, even as clergies warn about adverse societal consequences if a revival of creator belief does not occur.”

Despite the best efforts of “pro-life” Americans, abortion rates are much higher in our Christian nation, and lowest in relatively secular ones such as Japan, France, and the Scandinavian countries (Figures 3 and 4). In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 5 and 6). This would seem to indicate that there is a positive correlation between religiosity and dysfunctionality, but what does that mean?

The question is one of causation, and there is no clear answer. Whether religion leads directly to dysfunctionality, or religions merely flourish in dysfunctional societies, neither conclusion from this study flatters religion. The first tells us that religion is a hindrance to the development of moral character, and the second that religion hinders progress by distracting us from our troubles (with imaginary solutions to real problems). This study is complicated enough that I do not think that we can draw definitive negative conclusions about religion. But we can at least conclude, contrary to popular belief in this country, that it is not a given that religious societies are better, healthier, or more moral. What we can be clear about from this study is that highly religious societies can be dysfunctional, whereas by comparison secular societies in which evolution is largely accepted display real social cohesion and societal well-being. As is always the case in science, more data and additional research will help clarify our conclusions.

I don't know if I like the metrics he chose, and perhaps they don't necessarily justify the broad conclusion in the title of the article, but the results are interesting nevertheless. There are a lot more charts of additional indicators in the original study, which can be reached via the link in the first paragraph.

[Batman]

I think my reaction can be reasonably summed up by the words 'you don't say'.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, anyone who seriously subscribes to the notion that religion causes social stability is a flaming idiot. Just look at the world's most horrible hotspots; are they all characterized by atheism?

[Wyrm]

For the STD and pregnancy (and therefore, abortion) rates, here's the causation:

extreme religosity
=> abstinence-only sex-education
=> young adults with raging hormones and no idea how to use a condom or any other method of safe(r) sex
=> unprotected sex
=> pregnancy, STD transmission
=> abortions

Fundie idiots. Millions of years of evolution pwns your silly "abstaining 'till marriage" bullshit.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Frankly, anyone who seriously subscribes to the notion that religion causes social stability is a flaming idiot. Just look at the world's most horrible hotspots; are they all characterized by atheism?

Try that argument, and the theists go for atheism = Communism = Stalin = mass murder and gulags routine every time. That, and they like to claim Hitler was an atheist.

[SeeingRed]

That, and they like to claim Hitler was an atheist.

Actually, wasn't he fairly religious? As far as I know, his upbringing was fairly heavy into catholicism, and even though he strayed away from the church later in his life, he still retained many of his religious/spiritual beliefs.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

That, and they like to claim Hitler was an atheist.

Actually, wasn't he fairly religious? As far as I know, his upbringing was fairly heavy into catholicism, and even though he strayed away from the church later in his life, he still retained many of his religious/spiritual beliefs.

He was a Catholic - he met with cardinals, and believed he was on a Mission from God (tm), but he was also obsessed with the Occult. Part of the plan of the Third Reich was to create a state religion of Occultist Christianity. Of course, Hitler did imprison Catholic priests, but that was more because they dissented against his politics.

[K. A. Pital]

That seems quite right.

“The current [at that time] House majority leader T. DeLay contends that high crime rates and tragedies like the Columbine assault will continue as long schools teach children ‘that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup of mud.’”

Until Americans stop listening to raving lunacy like this, how can there be any progress?

[Darth Wong]

That, and they like to claim Hitler was an atheist.

Actually, wasn't he fairly religious? As far as I know, his upbringing was fairly heavy into catholicism, and even though he strayed away from the church later in his life, he still retained many of his religious/spiritual beliefs.

Read Mein Kampf. Hitler believed that Aryans were special because they were created by God in his image, while the other races evolved from apes. Where do you think he got the term "sub-human" from? He didn't think other races were actually human; he thought that blacks and Asians and Jews were evolved apes, aryans were divine humans, and interbred children were "half-man, half-ape monstrosities" (his words).

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, anyone who seriously subscribes to the notion that religion causes social stability is a flaming idiot. Just look at the world's most horrible hotspots; are they all characterized by atheism?

Try that argument, and the theists go for atheism = Communism = Stalin = mass murder and gulags routine every time. That, and they like to claim Hitler was an atheist.

That's when I point out that nobody claims atheism causes anything; it is the absence of a belief system, and as such, cannot actually preach anything. They, on the other hand, are claiming that religion causes social improvement, so the "you too" technique doesn't work.

[K. A. Pital]

Hitler believed that Aryans were special because they were created by God in his image, while the other races evolved from apes.

He also believed interracial marriage is the Original Sin. I'm not exactly sure why, but many clergies support interracial marriage bans. So perhaps Hitler was not so far from the wishes of the faithful.

[Darth Wong]

Hitler believed that Aryans were special because they were created by God in his image, while the other races evolved from apes.

He also believed interracial marriage is the Original Sin. I'm not exactly sure why, but many clergies support interracial marriage bans. So perhaps Hitler was not so far from the wishes of the faithful.

They interpret the "unequally yoked" line in the Bible to mean that people of different classes, religions, or races should not marry.

[Lord Zentei]

Frankly, anyone who seriously subscribes to the notion that religion causes social stability is a flaming idiot. Just look at the world's most horrible hotspots; are they all characterized by atheism?

Try that argument, and the theists go for atheism = Communism = Stalin = mass murder and gulags routine every time. That, and they like to claim Hitler was an atheist.

That's when I point out that nobody claims atheism causes anything; it is the absence of a belief system, and as such, cannot actually preach anything. They, on the other hand, are claiming that religion causes social improvement, so the "you too" technique doesn't work.

Yarr. Apart from the fact that it is also fallacious.

And may I second (third, fourth, whatever) the "wow, what a surprise" sendiment.

[CmdrWilkens]

I think this quote:

It reveals clear correlations between various indicators of social strife and religiosity, showing that whether religion causes social strife or not, it certainly does not prevent it.

sums up the real truth here. Even if the apologist could argue and rail for hours based on the lack of causation the fact that the correlation exists at all shows that religion lacks an identifiable positive benifit.

[Havok]

Hitler believed that Aryans were special because they were created by God in his image, while the other races evolved from apes.

He also believed interracial marriage is the Original Sin. I'm not exactly sure why, but many clergies support interracial marriage bans. So perhaps Hitler was not so far from the wishes of the faithful.

They interpret the "unequally yoked" line in the Bible to mean that people of different classes, religions, or races should not marry.

Hmmm.. Have you ever considered doing an interpretation of the Bible? That would be an interesting read.

[Lost Soal]

Lets see now, what links between religion and society are easily observable which demonstrate the impacts?
Lets start with Afganistan and the Taliban. Obviously an example of a healthy society right? Oh wait, oppresion and murder aren't healthy. Damn. And it was demonstratably a result of religious belief.

Iraq. Leaving aside the feelings which result from having there buildings leveled by an invading force, religion must be a stableising effect on that country. No. In fact its causing problems.

I know whats being said though. Its the wrong religion thats the problem isn't it. If countries simply followed the one true religion, Christianity, there wouldn't be any problems right?

Wrong again. Hitler already been mentioned enough times, but some people don't accept him as a representative, and their christians. Imagine that.

Fine, put him aside just for the moment and lets look at somewhere else, like say, Northern Island. Now I'm sure all the murders and bombing there had nothing to do with religion, it was just a disagreement between two factions. What were they called again? Oh yes, Protestants and Cathlics... well there goes that idea.

Yup, I'm truley surprised at the results of this study. Really

[mr friendly guy]

Fine, put him aside just for the moment and lets look at somewhere else, like say, Northern Island. Now I'm sure all the murders and bombing there had nothing to do with religion, it was just a disagreement between two factions. What were they called again? Oh yes, Protestants and Cathlics... well there goes that idea.

Lets also not forget lets not forget the Crusades. And if the Christian apologists starting ranting against Islam, point out the fourth crusade was a purely Christian vs Christian affair resulting the the sacking of Constantinapole.

Also lets also take time to remember the numerous Christian sects the Catholic church suppressed with varying degrees of success, for example the Gnostics and Carthars. And finally lets remember how the Catholic church was forced to learn tolerance when there was another Christian sect they couldn't wipe out. What was it called again. Oh yes, the Protestants under the anti-semite Martin Luther.

And to reiterate what others have said, "tell me something I didn't already know". Although it is nice to have a study to shove right up to certain religious people, not just Fundies since moderates also have no trouble claiming some moral superiority based on belief.

[CaptJodan]

The problem I always run into when trying to explain such things to people I know is the instant disconnect between themselves and, say, Hitler or the events of the Crusades. In effect, it generally goes that they were wrong then, but Christians are better now, and "We're not suicide bombing anything." They try and play the card that they don't harm people like other religions do and that it is a religion of tolerance and peace yadda yadda.

Of course, you point out that Bush has as much said he's on a mission from God, and the deaths and misery he's caused and if they don't fully support Bush, then they have to work around that by saying he's wrong too, but that that isn't their belief. Classic moving of the goalposts. The primary defense here is that it's not religion's fault if you have a few bad apples that cause attrocities.

[Darth Wong]

The problem I always run into when trying to explain such things to people I know is the instant disconnect between themselves and, say, Hitler or the events of the Crusades. In effect, it generally goes that they were wrong then, but Christians are better now, and "We're not suicide bombing anything." They try and play the card that they don't harm people like other religions do and that it is a religion of tolerance and peace yadda yadda.

Of course, you point out that Bush has as much said he's on a mission from God, and the deaths and misery he's caused and if they don't fully support Bush, then they have to work around that by saying he's wrong too, but that that isn't their belief. Classic moving of the goalposts. The primary defense here is that it's not religion's fault if you have a few bad apples that cause attrocities.

I like to point out that the Bible has not changed, so western Christian pacifism is arguably the result of a social movement rather than anything intrinsically in the Bible.

The "unequally yoked" Bible line is a good example. It's not an unreasonable interpretation to say that it prohibits inter-class, inter-faith, and inter-race marriages. In fact, any honest theologian will admit Paul's writings are extremely protective of the social status quo. People are supposed to accept their station in life and stay there. Slaves, obey your masters. Wives, obey your husbands. Know your place. But when western materialist meritocracy became a major social movement, people started creatively re-interpreting or ignoring material like that, so that class mobility became Scripturally acceptable. More recently (quite recently, in fact), interracial marriage became acceptable too, even though people as recently as the previous century were insisting that it was against the will of God.

These changes were motivated by the secular western social movement of materialist meritocracy, not by any new religious revelation that priests suddenly found in the Bible. Yet Christians try to take credit for them, as if the religion itself has changed rather than being moderated by secular western social trends.

[wilfulton]

Fundie idiots. Millions of years of evolution pwns your silly "abstaining 'till marriage" bullshit.

Uh-uh! Denial trumps all!

[Durandal]

When you criticize the Bible, you invariably run into Christians who will say "But they're misinterpreting the Bible! You can interpret the Bible to justify almost anything!" Well then how the fuck can anyone misinterpret it if, by its nature, the Bible can justify anything?

The argument itself is evidence that moderate Christians start from a preconceived notion of good that comes from modern secularism. Religious people "interpret" their holy books to conform to societal norms. This is nothing new.

[SeeingRed]

When you criticize the Bible, you invariably run into Christians who will say "But they're misinterpreting the Bible! You can interpret the Bible to justify almost anything!" Well then how the fuck can anyone misinterpret it if, by its nature, the Bible can justify anything?

The argument itself is evidence that moderate Christians start from a preconceived notion of good that comes from modern secularism. Religious people "interpret" their holy books to conform to societal norms. This is nothing new.

It's just a method of self-confirmation. They NEED the Bible to be able to justify anything, because otherwise it would have lost relevance centuries ago. Only by constantly "interpreting" it can they have it so that the Bible gets out of the way when Science or societal customs repudiate various things that are said therein. And of course, since it's a religion, based on faith and not reasion, your initial argument doesn't hold (unfortunately), becuase while the Bible CAN be interpreted to justify anything, there is a group of people that determine what it DOES justify (even though that standard is really a sliding scale). Everyone else has to shut up and have "faith" in the Lord.

[Ryushikaze]

He also believed interracial marriage is the Original Sin. I'm not exactly sure why, but many clergies support interracial marriage bans. So perhaps Hitler was not so far from the wishes of the faithful.

They interpret the "unequally yoked" line in the Bible to mean that people of different classes, religions, or races should not marry.

Hmmm.. Have you ever considered doing an interpretation of the Bible? That would be an interesting read.

I second this motion.
And that leads my brain to an interesting idea. Not just the bible as according to DW, but as rewritten by DW. I for one would love to see the new and improved hebrew laws in DW's Leviticus. Anal sex would not only be kosher, it might even be mandatory.

[Wicked Pilot]

Try that argument, and the theists go for atheism = Communism = Stalin = mass murder and gulags routine every time.

There is a distinction between countries who became majority atheist through natural societal evolution, and those where communism came to power, stomped out religion, and left atheism as the default position filling the void.

[Zor]

Does not take me by suprise at all.

Zor