Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

[thebullet]

September 27, 2005

The Times


By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethicalfoundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social performance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“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.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is ctually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. “I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states,” he added.

He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said.

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

 

[English Lady]

Can it be seen the difference between true faith and proclaimed faith?

What other factors are there? A lot of them I reckon. America is a bloody big place in comparison to the UK and France and Japan. And I thought Japan was a fairly religious place, or am I wrong in that?

Different political set ups, different racial make up etc etc.

Also, is this just based on Christianity or are all Faiths included -as there is alot of religion in the UK, just not neccessairily Christian right now.

I don't think I have the right arguing skills to really express the gut reaction I have to this. I disbelieve it essentially, I'm hoping someone else with more knowledge will jump in and enlighten me as to why *L*

 

[BlackShanglan]

It compares the social performance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution.

Thank goodness this couldn't have been skewed by a staggering number of *other* differences between the cultures. Otherwise this would have been a pointless exercise in attempting to justify one's prejudices with a veneer of pseudo-empirical cant.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is ctually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

This was particularly amusing given the recent identification of Scotland as the place in the developed world where one was most likely to be violently assaulted, with England and Wales taken as a unit taking second place. Rather embarassingly for the above, one of the lowest placed countries was, ah, Italy actually. That Vatican place.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18092005/140/jock-slap-scotland-most-violent-country.html


And of course there is this:

“Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world."

Ah, yes. Sweeping unsupported generalizations and exaggerated, emotionally loaded language attributed to an opposition not permitted to speak for itself. The hallmarks of patient scholarship.

Shanglan

 

[thebullet]

EL:
I perceive it as the type of religion practiced. I am quite familiar with the extreme fundamentalist brand of religion that now semi-controls America. They are a hard-hearted bunch. During my Christian days, I understood Christ to be about love. But the majority view in America is that Christ is about judgement.

The vitriol that is thrown at average American children in their litttle Southern churches is disheartening and astounding to me. They are born sinners. Their only redemption is to follow the instructions of their parents and ministers to the 't'.

Paradoxically, they can commit almost any sin as long as they accept Christ as their personal savior. For then they will be forgiven and will be accepted into heaven. The most virtuous of non-believers are condemned to hell. And by non-believers, most mean not only non-Christians, but also Catholics and those wishy-washy 'liberal' sects like Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians (Anglicans) and especially Quakers.

BTW - Quakers are the MOST 'Christian' group - and by Christian I mean loving, non-judgemental, committed to truth and justice. Their kind of religion is anethema to the fundamentalists.

EL, the kind of Christianity that you recommend, at least as far as I understand it having read a number of your posts, just won't do in Southern and Western America.

 

[Penelope Street]

Thank goodness this couldn't have been skewed by a staggering number of *other* differences between the cultures. Otherwise this would have been a pointless exercise in attempting to justify one's prejudices with a veneer of pseudo-empirical cant.

LOL. I think that pretty much covers it.

 

[thebullet]

Thank goodness this couldn't have been skewed by a staggering number of *other* differences between the cultures. Otherwise that would have made this a pointless exercise in attempting to justify one's prejudices with a veneer of pseudo-empirical cant.

BS - the source of this article is the Times - a reputable news source if ever there was one. I have no other information about the study done, but is it necessary to assume that the study began with a preconceived goal in mind?

By 'other differences between the cultures', are you referring to the hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of Americans? Are you referring to the dramatic class differences in America? Are you talking about the huge percentage of American children living below the poverty level? Are you talking about the lack of access to healthcare by a large percentage of the American population? Are you referring to an American government that prefers ignorance over science? Are you talking about the country that glorifies violence and vilifies sex?

Yes, you may have something there. Maybe it isn't all religion.

 

[English Lady]

Thank goodness this couldn't have been skewed by a staggering number of *other* differences between the cultures. Otherwise that would have made this a pointless exercise in attempting to justify one's prejudices with a veneer of pseudo-empirical cant.

Love you horsey


Bullet, you know love, it saddens me deeply to see the judgemental view of so many Christians(or christian groups anyway)today. Right this moment I'm reading alot at the taize site, Brother Roger (the founder of the ocmmunity of peace and prayer) was recently murdered. I've just been reading details of the prayers said after his death, and they all talk of love, peace and forgiveness.

I cannot see how this kind of faith, a faith that shares everything, that takes nothing for itself but gives,gives, gives can be a bad thing.

I just pray more Christians take the true message of love, forgiveness and understanding to heart and start living it and spreading it.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Well, that explains why the Soviet Union strives as the only superpower left on Earth!

 

[thebullet]

EL:
I live in an area where Quakers thrive. We are members of the local Peace organization and a majority of the members are Quakers. Where I live, people of all religions attempt to send their children to Quaker schools. The atmosphere is so loving, so non-judgemental, so calm, and yet so committed to academic excellence.
If all Christians in America acted like the Quakers and like many other believers in love and kindness - this would be a far more wonderful place.

Unfortunately, religous fundamentalism is the primary religion of a majority of Americans, it would appear.

 

[English Lady]

bullet, love and peace are the only way to go.

I believe prayer is the key, so I'll keep on praying.

try not to fall into the trap of thinking that all Christians are the same, we may be one in Christ but we're all individuals, and I see some Christians and seriously doubt the reality of their faith. Just 'cos you hollar that God's on your side and you're doing God's work, doesn't make it so.

If you see the fruits of the spirit

(The Fruit of God's Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
Galations 5:22-23)

then God's work is being done -if you don't see it, God isn't in it, simple as that.



(EL retires to bed, I'll catch up in the morning)

 

[BlackShanglan]

BS - the source of this article is the Times - a reputable news source if ever there was one. I have no other information about the study done, but is it necessary to assume that the study began with a preconceived goal in mind?

I think that there are two germane points here. First, the story comes from the Times; the study does not. Aside from some little problems with Mr. Blair a year or so back - a reminder that no source is above querying - the Times is generally a reputable source for what it purveys: news. It is not, however, an establishment dedicated to sociological research, and therefore has no authority in that area. To be fair to the Times, it's not claiming to; it's only reporting that someone published a study. The proper credentials to question are those of the individuals conducting the study, not those of the Times correspondent who simply reported that the study exists.

The second is your question: "Is it necessary to assume that the study began with a preconceived goal in mind?" I would answer with this quotation taken from the study:

“Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world."

As I suggested in a later addition to my first post, sweeping unsupported generalizations and exaggerated, emotionally loaded language attributed to an opposition not permitted to speak for itself are strong indicators of personal bias. This statement strongly suggests to me that the authors did have a preconceived goal, just as that author of a study stating that "many atheists consider themselves an enlightened intellectual elite striving to educate their inferiors" would also seem likely to have a pre-formed opinion on the topic.

By 'other differences between the cultures', are you referring to the hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of Americans? Are you referring to the dramatic class differences in America? Are you talking about the huge percentage of American children living below the poverty level? Are you talking about the lack of access to healthcare by a large percentage of the American population? Are you referring to an American government that prefers ignorance over science? Are you talking about the country that glorifies violence and vilifies sex?

Yes. And if your last comment was meant to suggest that that's all the fault of religion, I'd be delighted to have the connections explained to me. There are no universal panaceas; the corellary, although less popular in its acceptance, is that there is no universal poison either. These diverse difficulties do not spring from a single limited source.

I might add a few other items to your list: the history of Western expansion in the United States, the relative population densities of the countries, the effect of pre-industrial class structures on modern England, the effect of having state-mandated religion classes - in England, not in the United States, the predominance of hunting as a means of subsistance in the history of both countries and the time periods and class structures involved, the rates of reported vs. unreported behaviors, the influence of immigration and emigration, the military and political histories and structures, the role of the church in interaction with the government - much more pronounced in England until very recent times, the history of religious conflict and/or warfare in the country, the economic structure and ramifications of socialist and capitalist models, the history of movements for the rights of workers, women, animals, etc. ... well, really. This is why I was rather brusque in the first place. There's no real point in attempting to enumerate everything other than religion that could have affected the results; we'd be here all day.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

Bullet? Although our philosophical positions are somewhat similar, I must ask, why do you insist on chumming the water so much?

It only works people into a frenzy.

 

[Liar]

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

I love it how she equals promiuscuity in with three forms of, well, death.

What can I say... I live in the most secular place on earth (except maybe Antartica), and yes, we have very low murder rates. But we also have really high suicide numbers, people screw around alot and abortions are not uncommon.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

It took a while to find more information about the study... it doesn't appear to be a terribly clear effort at the isolation of a variable or variable-category. It takes a current extreme (The US, time period being now and religious fervor being what it is now instead of, say, pre-Bush) and fails to address the other extremes thoroughly enough. If I even grant their premise that the UK is a more moderate example of society than the US, it doesn't sufficiently take into account deeply religious societies that have prospered on the notion of peace (taking into account one of their contentions, that of violence) from a religious standpoint (things like Tibet come to mind, as do the Amish). It doesn't appear to give enough treatment to cause of other horrid things... like the massive AID's outbreak in Africa runs thoroughly counter to the reasonable outcome should religiously-inspired abstinence and monogamy thrive more so.

Eh.

I can see their point, that moderation is possibly (maybe even probably) better for society with regard to religion... but it doesn't make the case either convincing or compelling that religion itself is the cause of the problems.

I can agree that moderation, should the article's ultimate point be "religious moderation", is an excellent thing and societies have greater chances at prosperity, peace, and security with its being practiced. But a more strong point than that appears to be beyond the scope of the article.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Causation is not the same as correlation, as most have posted in one form or another.

Still, the concluding paragraphs:

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

are accurate.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I would maintain that "refuted" is far, far too strong a term. The article doesn't refute, only show a lack of evidence currently toward. That's not refutation.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I would maintain that "refuted" is far, far too strong a term. The article doesn't refute, only show a lack of evidence currently toward. That's not refutation.

I think that's the least of the problems with those two conclusions.

"The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator."

Outside the US, no one would ever even think of coming up with the term "non-religious, pro-evolution democracies" - that in itself is very telling of the spirit with which it was written. The article makes no mention of religious pro-evolution democracies, or non-religious pro-evolution non-democracies, or any other equally nonsensical* combination.

Furthermore, who dictated the dictum? What does "ardently" mean? If my democracy is non-religious pro-evolution and each individual person believes ardently in a moral creator, will "good conditions" come to us? What if each individual person believe only moderately in a moral creator?

"The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted."

This fear is widely held by whom? Every society in the world - Godless or not - has gone through societal disaster at one time or another, so this fear may be pointless and idiotic, but it hasn't (and I would dare say can't) be refuted.


* to anyone outside the US.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I love it how she equals promiuscuity in with three forms of, well, death.

What can I say... I live in the most secular place on earth (except maybe Antartica), and yes, we have very low murder rates. But we also have really high suicide numbers, people screw around alot and abortions are not uncommon.

Haven't you ever heard of orgasm being referred to as "le petit mort"?

And yes, we have a high level of depression and suicide, but I can't see how you could possibly list "screwing round a lot" as something NEGATIVE?

 

[sweetnpetite]

I would maintain that "refuted" is far, far too strong a term. The article doesn't refute, only show a lack of evidence currently toward. That's not refutation.

Yeah, I saw that too. Refuted is definatly too strong a word.

 

[oggbashan]

I think that all the article shows is that there is a lack of intellectual rigour in the study.

Were it to be presented as a thesis at most UK universities it would get an 'F'.

However some social science disciplines accept such rubbish as 'proof'.

Og

 

[sweetnpetite]

LOL, I think I changed my title above my picture just in time to go with this thread.

I agree in certian ways with what the study is saying. I also agree that the language (is it the language of the study or the article) is too emotional and needs to be quantified. (Many american's beleive should be "polls show that up to 85% of Amarican's beleive" or something similer)

I think that the closing statements overstate the case. 1 study does not "absolute truth" make.

I belive that a secular government is better, but I think that spirituality is important on a personal level. (spirituality, not necessarily religion)

I do think that the religious ideas of many cause too much conflict, repression and acting out. (sinners on saturday, saints on sunday) When we're taught that our natural urges are evil, we pit ourselves against ourselves, and rather than expressing these urges in a natual way, we end up overindulging and doing things to cover our tracks. Things that are often worse than our original 'sins.'

[Yes, I realize that all christians are not the same. But I disagree that large religious movements of fundamentalists don't have more influence on government and society than individual believers. There's no way to discuss each and every christian individual or to cover every exception. MOST christians (and many of them are intellegent good people) believe what they are told to beleive- they are followers. And the most powerful leaders are the fundamentalists- very religious and not very spiritual.]

A better example than this study might be how the stated goals of the Moral Majority (or whatever they call themselves) where better met during the Clinton years than the GWB years- less teen pregnancy, less abortions, ect. HOwever, that is not what they wanted. They want to push there morals onto the public. They don't want teen girls to not get pregnant, they want them to feel bad for having premarital sex, and they want them to pay the price. Because they see pregnancy and STD as God's punishment on the little Tramp rather than a medical situation.

There *is* a religious movement in this country, in politics and they are not the quiet peace and love believing average or individual christian's beliefs they are touting- rather they exploit that christian, trying to pass themselves off as 'christians' so therefor we must believe what you do.

I don't think that the bullet is confusing all christains as the same. He clearly has stated that Quakers are different from the fundamentalists who seem to be running the show. He's not saying that there are no good christians. He's talking about fundamentalism and those who think that they own all rights to define morality for the rest of us. And in fact, people who are too ridged and too focused on morality in the first place, and less concerned it seems with *being a good person.* Does God really care if you touch yourself at night? Or does he care weather or not you help those in need? I do believe that a too high *moral* standard with no room for compation can lead to a worse and not better society. those Puritans in Salem Village where quite high and mighty with there morals and religious standards.

 

[Liar]

Haven't you ever heard of orgasm being referred to as "le petit mort"?

And yes, we have a high level of depression and suicide, but I can't see how you could possibly list "screwing round a lot" as something NEGATIVE?

I didn't. They did.

I just said that that part matched their assumption of what goes on in a secular society. We are secular, and pretty promiscuous little buggers.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I can see their point, that moderation is possibly (maybe even probably) better for society with regard to religion... but it doesn't make the case either convincing or compelling that religion itself is the cause of the problems.

Agreed. Moderation tends to be useful in many things, and fanatacism in almost nothing.

 

[elsol]

Agreed. Moderation tends to be useful in many things, and fanatacism in almost nothing.

HA!

Fanatically pro-Yui.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Huckleman2000]

I would maintain that "refuted" is far, far too strong a term. The article doesn't refute, only show a lack of evidence currently toward. That's not refutation.

Well, if you're going to insist on adding "...so far" to anything that doesn't have current evidence, that's an impossible standard. I mean, "Monkeys won't fly out of my butt" is a pretty safe assumption, even though I can't prove that in the future monkey's won't fly and they won't be able to fit in my butt. the fact that they don't and can't today is all anyone can go on.

The study (and it's a meta-study, incorporating analysis of previous work) seeks to disprove a link between fundamentalist religious beliefs and broad indications of societal success. What it finds is not a null hypothesis - that broad fundamentalist religious belief has no correlation with broad indications of societal success - but actually a negative correlation. Broad fundamentalist religious belief in a society correlates with lower indications of societal success.

So, you can argue about the variables used to indicate religious belief and societal success, or you can argue about how pervasive they are - neither of those variables are described or quantified very well in this article. However, it does seem to have been peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal, so the definitions meet at least a common acceptance.

Moreover, people who espouse the belief that natural disasters and disease and timing of supreme court nominations are the result of divine intervention are not marginalized in terms of political and financial influence in the US. The president even supports presenting "intelligent design", a purely faith-based explanation of natural phenomena, as an alternative to scientific study.

Comparing states with that level of cultural acceptance of faith-based beliefs, with states that have a lower acceptance of faith-based beliefs, on the basis of societal goals that both types of states share (lower abortion rates, murder rates, suicide rates, less abuse of drugs...) is not an invalid exercise. And the argument that gay marriage, sex education, teaching of evolution, etc, undermine positive societal attributes is the primary argument made by proponents of suppressing exactly those ideas.

I realize that sociological analysis lacks the irreducibility (such as it is...) of physics or chemistry, but it doesn't deal with particles of known behavior. It deals with tendencies and probabilities and correlative factors that may seem counter-intuitive. Nevertheless, political parties, corporations and academics all agree on the utility of quantitative sociological studies.

Do you really think that a couple dozen armchair sociologists can come up with refutations off the top of their heads in five minutes that haven't been considered in publishing this research?

Maybe the researchers had an axe to grind - Do you actually think that most reasearch is conducted without any idea of a hypothesis to prove or disprove?

If you believe that "a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator", prove it. Unless you can come up with something better than this study, you're relying on faith alone.