Societies Are Worse Off With God

[yoshomon]

The Times

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
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 ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance 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 actually 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.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

[Shlep]

Whereas aggressively agnostic societies such as the Soviet Union and North Korea have been known for their continued upward surge politically, socially, and economically?

Look, I'm no fan of governance based on religion, and I'm hardly anyone's idea of devout. But to say that there's an inverse relation between religion and national prominance is facile and stupid. Religion is but one of a host of things that can either be used wisely and in moderation (which brings benefits) or abused, overdone, and used incorrectly (which does not).

This country rose from 13 fractuous colonies to international prominence and eventual world leadership during a time when God and references to God were far more abundant in daily life. If the thesis of the article were true, we'd be part of France right about now.

[yoshomon]

Go back and read the article. The study focused on modern first world "democracies" - which I assume included neither the USSR or North Korea.

[akip]

i'm not sure if the difference is religion per se---there are other things that set america apart from the european democracies. i'd say it's more the spirit of individualism, the mobility, the lack of cultural cohesion (beyond entertainment), lack of history, etc.---things that are "good" on the one hand, but which also create alienation. i think the more rigid religions are offering people a sense of community, which is largely disappearing in america. so they're a symptom, not the cause.

i also wouldn't pin it on god, which is a fluid concept. god isn't necessarily the paternalistic, judgmental entity of organized religion. god can be transcendence, connection, meaning---essential experiences without which we're fucked.

[miami2112]

i wonder what god has to say about this?

[Orville Wrong]

anyway, I do think that fundamental religious beliefs and lifestyles cause great problems particularly in the young and the raising of youth. It's just too narrow. Most people simply cannot live within such narrow confines especially a devleping person trying to define their own boundaries. It's basically a set up for failure.
I think you're generalizing from personal experience. I've spent my share of time around Pentecostals (I nearly married one long ago), and found them to be no more or less happy and prosperous than any other group. Some are repressed, and they leave the faith. Some, I imagine, stay and suffer, but I hardly think anyone's pursuing faith as a means to feel shitty about themselves.

Except Catholics of course.

[markalot]

Fundamentalists are bad no matter what the religion.

This study seems to have a very big flaw ... no control. This is just another America has been taken over by fundamentalists, but this time wrapped up in a 'I hate religion' study. It's sick, really. I'm not religious at all, but I despise studies that come out that try to promote an anti-religion agenda, and this is one of those.

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.”

Really Yosh, I'm suprised you would forward this propoganda bullshit. Where is the science? America attacks Iraq, George Bush is a religious nut job, religion is baaad.

Oh, and last I checked the theory of evolution DID enjoy majority support. It's just that most of us don't like to go on camera and preach it.

Oops:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

[purple_octopus]

Except Catholics of course.
Hey, some of us get off on guilt and suffering.



And short plaid skirts. ;)

[Bill Lee]

Hey, some of us get off on guilt and suffering.

And short plaid skirts. ;)
And hand-cuffs. You forgot to mention hand-cuffs:
http://www.wildchildclothing.com/aEL048.jpeg

[Studebaker289]

Except Catholics of course.


I hate to tell you YOU'RE WRONG! but I feel you are (besides I think you might be J/K)
And lord knows if you speak against Orville you better be prepared to get a boot up your ass

But I'm Catholic, have been all through my childhood and I can say from what I've seen in other churchs that Catholics have nothing differnt in how people are effected by the church. I don't feel full of guilt all the time like most people think, I don't feel sexualy opressed, I think so much of it comes down to the person and the many other "x" factors in that persons life

[skidminix]

Hey, some of us get off on guilt and suffering.



And short plaid skirts. ;)
Not to mention bingo and drinking. Lord, the drinking!!! :D

[GOD]

i wonder what god has to say about this?

The Priests who wrote the Bible got it all wrong. Blame any inaccuracies on them and not me. I am infallible.

However, such human inventions as television and the merging of corporate dictatorship and the media wouldn't have anything to do with this either, would it?

*whistles, walks away to show up in a cheese sandwich*

[Orville Wrong]

I hate to tell you YOU'RE WRONG!
It was offered in jest by a lapsed crackersnapper. Lighten up.

[dragonflier]

I didn't think that Catholics were filled with guilt. My impression was always that Catholics could do whatever they want and just confess it away later :p .

And the plaid skirts kick ass.

[The Sheck]

And hand-cuffs. You forgot to mention hand-cuffs:
http://www.wildchildclothing.com/aEL048.jpeg

I have no remorse about drooling over a girl in a plaid skirt and handcuffs.

*DROOL*

:p

[akip]

The Priests who wrote the Bible got it all wrong. Blame any inaccuracies on them and not me. I am infallible.

However, such human inventions as television and the merging of corporate dictatorship and the media wouldn't have anything to do with this either, would it?

*whistles, walks away to show up in a cheese sandwich*

you yammer too much to be god.

[BigSugar]

Go back and read the article. The study focused on modern first world "democracies" - which I assume included neither the USSR or North Korea.

which is exactly why the study is flawed, incomplete and quite ignorant. if i close my eyes, it's always midnight, no matter how much sun i feel on my face. right?

[Shlep]

Go back and read the article. The study focused on modern first world "democracies" - which I assume included neither the USSR or North Korea.

And did read the article, yosh, and I'd prefer not to read it again since reading pseudo-scientific offal that ordinarily should have been rejected by a peer-reviewed newsletter for a grade school science club makes my eyes sting.

Apparently, greater belief in God = more problems. If that's the thesis, then it would seem to me that the more agnostic a population is, the better off they are. They're not. I suppose it's entirely possible that the author deliberately narrowed the study to avoid having this glaring contradiction to his flimsy thesis muck things up.

The author did nothing more than declare that there's a positive correlation between faith in God and murder, suicide, abortion and teen pregnancy. Now then: considering that devout Christians are vehemently opposed to all of the aforementioned, and I would wager are not the ones murdering people, killing themselves, getting knocked up and then aborting the fetus, what is the basis of this correlation? I don't recall the author making one. Just showing lots of one thing + lots of another = a relation.

Based on this rigorous scientific standard, I could compare the United States to Japan, Great Britain, Germany, France, and Scandanavia and conclude that a reduced overall national belief in God is bad because it leads to an increased instance of overcrowded subways and rape comics (Japan), bad teeth, bad weather, and worse food (UK), smelly sausage farts and beer belches, greater incidence of loudly barking orders (Germany), rude service industry workers and body oder (France), and horrific taxation (Sacandanavia).

[juggles]

“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.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html


Cause/effect, effect/cause . . .

OK, I should stay out of this but I think it's really pretty simple:

The author of the article makes the baseless argument that less god equals greater morality. Bullshit.
The author of the actual study however seems to make no such claim. Rather, his study appears to refute the opposite claim that more god equals more morality. I think this effectively counters the religious right attitude that crime, drug use and teen pregnancy would all go away if we posted the Ten Commandments in court houses and allowed prayer in school. Clearly, in western democracies these social ills can be addressed without religion playing a major role. To turn that around and say that religion is the cause of said social ills is absurd. Ruth Gledhill got herself a catchy headline, but I think it has nothing to do with the actual study she's reporting on. Shame on her.

[yoshomon]

The author of the actual study however seems to make no such claim. Rather, his study appears to refute the opposite claim that more god equals more morality. I think this effectively counters the religious right attitude that crime, drug use and teen pregnancy would all go away if we posted the Ten Commandments in court houses and allowed prayer in school. Clearly, in western democracies these social ills can be addressed without religion playing a major role. To turn that around and say that religion is the cause of said social ills is absurd. Ruth Gledhill got herself a catchy headline, but I think it has nothing to do with the actual study she's reporting on. Shame on her.

I love people who know how to read. :cool:

[the happy prole]

Maybe someone should actually read the study before blasting the results or the reporter.

[Shlep]

Oh, but of course. The only way someone could possibly not be enlightened by the brilliance contained within the report would be to have not read it.

I've already responded to this (baseless, inaccurate, untrue) assertion once, and I may or may not be responding to it again. Since I blasted the report and the author, I suspect I may be. Just to lay any doubts to rest, let me respond specifically.

First, the thesis:

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

And to support this thesis, the author points to empirical data showing the following:

“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.

Corrolate HOW?

Now: if higher rates of the aforementioned occur among devout members of certain faiths, or anything that suggests one leads to the other, then he's got an open and shut case. I see nothing in the article that suggests any actual relation, even a vaguely tenuous one, has been established. No explanation given that would point to any actual causality. He has simply said: "The US has lots of religion and also lots of murder, abortion, infant mortality etc. Other Western democracies have less religion and less of same. Therefore, there is a positive correlation between religious belief and social ills."

The conclusion is empirically, scientifically, and moreover logically weak in the extreme. You could likewise say that since we call the sport known as "football" everywhere else in the Western world as "soccer," that there is a positive corrolation between calling certain sports "soccer" and murder, infant mortality, sexual promiscuity, et al and be just as correct and if we'd only get in line and start calling it "soccer," dammit, we'd be better off.

Come to think of it, we're way behind in our use of the metric system then most of Western Europe. I'll just bet that if I examined rates of various social ills in the '70s when the US government tried cramming it down our throats compared to today, against data for Western Europe for the entire time, I could come up with one hell of compelling case to start using the metric system. Though some to think of it, there is a strong positive correlation between the metric system and drug abuse in the US with the exception of weed, which is relatively innocuous compared to coke and smack.

In conclusion, he states:

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.

Well, I doubt the theory of evolution can be overturned. And since proving the existence of God is even far, far more unlikely and furthermore in many ways at odds at the concept of religious faith (notice that people often refer to "religious faith" and not "religious proof"), this conclusion is likewise absurd.

[Shlep]

For anyone who's interested, the full article can be found ---> HERE (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html).

I notice this journal is apparently published at Creighton University; I knew a girl who went there once. It's in Nebraska and, I believe, attended by plenty of earnest, Midwestern church-going kids (like the girl I knew). Ought to spark controversy.

[akip]

i'm about as secular as you can get and i still don't buy it.

this religious biz has been ramping up again only very recently. america was more liberal and less religious in the 60s and 70s. after vietnam and watergate, we didn't particularly believe god was on our side. piety was not the national mood, but the crime rate went up anyway.

[Shlep]

One more thing that just occurred to me: I understand that polls over the years consistently show that a majority of Icelanders believe not only in a race of elves that populates their country, but in the prevelance and potency of spirits, ghosts, and other higher-plane beings.

Iceland has had parliamentary-style democracy, the oldest one in almost continual existence in the West (the Althing, which I believe has met regularly since 931 A.D.) Iceland is one of the cleanest, safest, healthiest, and most educated and literate countries in the entire world, bar none.

Maybe we ought to start believe in elves and adopt Celtic/Nordic mythology. Then we could enjoy social benefits and have a good reason to get cool-looking, hip Celtic tattoos. :)

[akip]

i actually printed up that article to take to bed tonight, cause it surely is gonna put me to sleep.

[Shlep]

i actually printed up that article to take to bed tonight, cause it surely is gonna put me to sleep.


Really? I find peer-reviewed academic articles in professional journals to be real page-turners.

I'll never forget 843-870: Effect of Investor Speculation on Earnings Management in The Journal of Accounting Research. I was on the edge of my seat until the very end. :D

[the happy prole]

The report isn't comparing the US to all other countries. It shows a correlation between what they find as level of religiousness and the societal ills measured throughout all of the included countries. These would include several countries that use the metric system and call soccer "football."

The US is a strong outlier in the sense that it scores abnormally high in both level of religion and shittiness, but it's NOT just the US. If you're looking for something in common other than religion that ties the high scoring countries together, they're Italy, Spain, Ireland, and the US. If you took out the US the correlation would no doubt be less strong, but I can't think of a good reason why to take the US out.

No there is no control group, but it's not possible to have a control group in this kind of study. And no there's no causation, but it would be pretty irresponsible to try to assign causation in a statistical study. That's probably the next step-- take this further and see if it's coincidence or what might be the underlying factor.

I don't know much about the field or this particular journal, but I know it at least is blind peer reviewed. Still might be full of shit, I dunno. Peer review isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Once again shlep, I haven't said the report is brilliant. As a matter of fact, I'm kinda skeptical. I'm also not saying that you have to believe it. I'm just saying maybe you should READ it. Because some of your criticisms aren't valid.

[the happy prole]

I notice this journal is apparently published at Creighton University; I knew a girl who went there once. It's in Nebraska and, I believe, attended by plenty of earnest, Midwestern church-going kids (like the girl I knew). Ought to spark controversy.

It's more than that, shelp-- Creighton is a Jesuit University. the inclusion of teenage abortions as an evil should have been the tip off. ;)

[weeone]

I believe in elves.

[Shlep]

Once again shlep, I haven't said the report is brilliant. As a matter of fact, I'm kinda skeptical. I'm also not saying that you have to believe it. I'm just saying maybe you should READ it. Because some of your criticisms aren't valid.

I *have* read it.

Insofar as the data refutes the assertions made by individuals such as Benjamin Franklin that more religious belief would surely mean we'd have fewer societal problems (which the author mentions early on) then he has a much stronger case.

So far as this business of religion being a detriment: I don't think the report comes anywhere near establishing that. I'll read it again later and see if I find anything new, as there is a lot to take in.

[Shlep]

It's more than that, shelp-- Creighton is a Jesuit University. the inclusion of teenage abortions as an evil should have been the tip off. ;)

Wow...I seriously did not know this. Casts things in a new light.

I imagine this Greg Paul fellow will be enjoying a sort of celebrity he might wish to do without on campus (assuming he's in some way or another tied to it).

[the happy prole]

Wow...I seriously did not know this. Casts things in a new light.

I imagine this Greg Paul fellow will be enjoying a sort of celebrity he might wish to do without on campus (assuming he's in some way or another tied to it).

I looked him up. He's actually a fairly well-known paleontologist from Johns Hopkins so this is way outside his field. That maybe explains the odd emphasis on the evolutionary aspect of it.

The article itself seems kinda mixed bag. It's not an outright hatchet job, but there's some hints/assertions made that aren't really backed up by the data.

There's no regression or any sort of deep analysis done which is pretty lame. If we accept the caution that this is all kinda back-of-the-envelope, preliminary type stuff to suggest further analysis then that's fine. Paul does state that a few times, but he doesn't do such a great job of convincing me he really believes it.

It was pretty interesting to see how religious we are compared to other countries though. I would have thought Spain and Ireland were way more religious than us, but I can't find fault with the measures he uses for religiousness. I'm not sure those are the best measures of shittiness of society, but they aren't horrible either.

Not really a focus of the study, but the weirdest thing to me is that the US is way religious, and yet we have crazy high rates (comparatively) of teen abortion and suicide-- two things that are considered sins by most of the major religious groups in the US. I dunno. Maybe we just have some really messed-up heathens making the rest of the religious US look bad.

To me the better study would be to toss just focus on religion within a country. Are US Christians killing poeple more than agnostics? How about Muslims? That way you make sure the people contributing to the "bad" elements are in fact the religious ones. And you get rid of tons of extraneous stuff like variances in laws and government and non-religion based cultural influences.

[yoshomon]

To me the better study would be to toss just focus on religion within a country. Are US Christians killing poeple more than agnostics? How about Muslims? That way you make sure the people contributing to the "bad" elements are in fact the religious ones. And you get rid of tons of extraneous stuff like variances in laws and government and non-religion based cultural influences.

Well, the acts could also be committed by the ex-religious or people raised christian/muslim/hindu/jewish/whatever who became agnostic/atheist as adults.

Even though I am not religious AT ALL, I'm still influenced and affected by all the religion around me... whereas if I lived in a more secular environment I wouldn't be.

[agate0ph0be]

Whereas aggressively agnostic societies such as the Soviet Union and North Korea have been known for their continued upward surge politically, socially, and economically?

Look, I'm no fan of governance based on religion, and I'm hardly anyone's idea of devout. But to say that there's an inverse relation between religion and national prominance is facile and stupid. Religion is but one of a host of things that can either be used wisely and in moderation (which brings benefits) or abused, overdone, and used incorrectly (which does not).

This country rose from 13 fractuous colonies to international prominence and eventual world leadership during a time when God and references to God were far more abundant in daily life. If the thesis of the article were true, we'd be part of France right about now.

i don't know if they were so much trying to prove that religion and national performance have an inverse relation. i think they were trying to more disprove that religion and national performance have a direct relation. or maybe that's just my own brain talking.

it seems to me that what they're saying is more that there are in fact countries that are performing quite well and prosperously without a heavy creationistic foundation.

[purple_octopus]

And no there's no causation, but it would be pretty irresponsible to try to assign causation in a statistical study.
This is the most significant contribution anyone has yet to make in this thread.

[akip]

well, i put toothpicks under my eyelids to prop them open and read the damn thing.

it's about as flimsy as they come. you might as well say americans are fatter than europeans because they're more religious.

[markalot]

well, i put toothpicks under my eyelids to prop them open and read the damn thing.

it's about as flimsy as they come. you might as well say americans are fatter than europeans because they're more religious.

McDonalds.

Duh

What was that about elves again?

[dragonflier]

It's been said before but it bears repeating--correlation is NOT the same thing as causation. However, the media often (purposely?) confuses the two.

Given the data, I could probably argue that the differeces between the US and other industrialized nations (like most of Europe) could come from things like a difference in drinking age/driving age or the lack of decent public transportation in the US. Then I could say that if we only funded Amtrak and more monorails, then the crime rate would certainly drop, along with abortions, etc.

I haven't read the article, but I wonder if a stronger argument might be made for the religious squabbling that the US is so famous for might to be more of a contributor to any social ills. I don't believe that most European nations are so religously fractured as the US.

I could also argue that 300-400 years ago Europe did a pretty good job of exporting most of their religious nuts to the New World. :cool:

[akip]

McDonalds.

Duh


more religious people eat at mcdonalds than at wendy's salad bar.

see, it is their fault.

[the happy prole]

Whatever you postulate causes the differences between the US and other countries on the dependent variable would have to be present in Ireland, and Spain and Italy as well and absent (or comparatively absent) in Japan.

So, no. You cannot just as easily say that eating at McDonald's, Amtrak, drinking age, or use of the metric system causes bad societies.

No statistical study is ever going to show causation. That doesn't mean that we throw them all out. Even scientific observation with a control group doesn't show causation, eg. Lightning does not cause thunder.

[PeterABnny]

The way I look at it, people always have and always will suck. With or without religion. Keep God in the equasion and they'll suck. Take God out of the equasion an' they'll still suck. It's called human nature, kids.













BTW, I believe in elves, too.

[yoshomon]

The way I look at it, people always have and always will suck. With or without religion. Keep God in the equasion and they'll suck. Take God out of the equasion an' they'll still suck. It's called human nature, kids.

This is an annoying way to look at the world because it doesn't explain anything.. like why large groups of people stop sucking or why some people suck more than others. I mean, why would society change and evolve if we were determined to be a certain way by "human nature"? If one blames social problems on "human nature", how does one explain changes or offer solutions?

[Shlep]

well, i put toothpicks under my eyelids to prop them open and read the damn thing.

it's about as flimsy as they come. you might as well say americans are fatter than europeans because they're more religious.

Well, I hear that Communion wafers are positively loaded with carbs. And they're always having bakes sales of some sort...

[purple_octopus]

Well, I hear that Communion wafers are positively loaded with carbs.

Mmmm.... church cookies. I need to make a trip to the church supply store. The whole wheat ones are the best. Awesome with peanut butter, too.

[markalot]

This is an annoying way to look at the world because it doesn't explain anything.. like why large groups of people stop sucking or why some people suck more than others. I mean, why would society change and evolve if we were determined to be a certain way by "human nature"? If one blames social problems on "human nature", how does one explain changes or offer solutions?


Because human nature is the thing that evolves. We suck because our intelligence is still evolving. Most people now know the world is round, not flat and the concept is easy to understand. That's mental evolution. Read a Thoreau nature book and listen when he discusses how the theory of spontanious plant reproduction was still the norm. I think most people now know that plants make seeds and the seeds spread and make new plants. We are taught this when young either in school or as a lesson from a parent. That's mental evolution.

If religion makes people suck then, as our 'human nature' evolves religion will go away, but in my opinion religions don't make people suck, stupid people make people suck. Human nature is the root cause, education is the only cure. Education is experience and experience comes painfully slow.

[akip]

some people are hard-wired to suck more than others.

i'm a little deterministic about it.

[Tess Greengrass]

Grandmama says that God makes the meadows and the forests. How can that be bad?

This thread makes me a little sad.

I'm going to go and twirl by the pond with the butterflies!

[Orville Wrong]

Grandmama says that God makes the meadows and the forests. How can that be bad?

This thread makes me a little sad.

I'm going to go and twirl by the pond with the butterflies!
Ferchrissakes. I just ralphed. I'm reporting this to the mods.

[markalot]

A single post and already an animated avatar and a long signature.

Shoot to kill.

[purple_octopus]

Ferchrissakes. I just ralphed.
You and me both. I knew I shouldn't have had such a heavy lunch. :eek:

[Vodka-7]

The study is sound.

Paul states that "theists often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society."

Yet, despite USAmerica's overwhelming popular belief in a creator it's far less healthy a society than Western democratic nations that embrace secularism.

Therefore, the assertions of theists, the instance that creation good evolution bad is not substantiated by the facts. Popular religiosity is not socially beneficial.

Crowded godless subways and crooked English teeth are irrelevent. You're missing the point. We're not talking genetics or urban planning.

[Shlep]

Crowded godless subways and crooked English teeth are irrelevent. You're missing the point. We're not talking genetics or urban planning.

Okay then, what about hospital management? One of the social pathologies measured was infant mortality. What the hell does religious belief have to do with infant mortality rates? Is there some new trend involving priests delivering babies in church?

The study correctly points out that religiousness != a swell society (there are plenty of Middle Eastern examples to back that up). To suggest that it is likely detrimental is nonsense, at to the extent that he does a poor job of establishing a causal relationship. He could have blamed any number of things-- increased prevelance of reality TV shows, higher rates of country line-dancing, backwards baseball cap-wearing by frat boys-- and arrived at the same conclusion.

[yoshomon]

Religion has a deep impact on all sectors of American society because it is so prevalent.

[the happy prole]

No he couldn't have, shlep.

If he had used country line dancing the plot would have looked like a bunch of points basically next to the vertical axis, and ONE point way off by itself. There wouldn't be enough variance in the sample for him to draw any sort of conclusion.

Granted, there probably still isn't enough variance to make a positive statistical correlation. But it's not as bad as you say. I'm not much of the biggest fan of data-mining, but there has to be some leeway for implying causation from correlation. Otherwise, I could play that game with any study ever done and you might as well toss all emprical evidence out the window.

[mikeatthemadfro]

there was a study a few years ago that found the highest divorce rates in america were among southern baptists.

the lowest were among atheist populations.

[back2vinyl]

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


Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the claim made in the above passage:

A: The study only used one example for the religious democracy verses many examples of Godless democracies.
B: People who are living dysfunctional lives often turn to religion for solace.
C: Other factors, such as poor drug policies, have a greater effect on social disfunction than religion and were not accounted for in the study.
D: The democracies in the non-religious group were all smaller and less culturally diverse than the democracy in the religious group.
E: Non-religious countries that were likely to score poorly on societal functioning were excluded from the study.

[Slar]

Okay then, what about hospital management? One of the social pathologies measured was infant mortality. What the hell does religious belief have to do with infant mortality rates?Once we ban birth control and abortions you'll have your answer.

[Shlep]

Once we ban birth control and abortions you'll have your answer.

Yep...right about the same time that the Sun dies out and becomes an inert lump of coal.

[yoshomon]

C: Other factors, such as poor drug policies, have a greater effect on social disfunction than religion and were not accounted for in the study.

In an extremely religious society which has religious politicians... wouldn't such policies be influenced by religion?

[DaHood]

In an extremely religious society which has religious politicians... wouldn't such policies be influenced by religion?

I think that politics have always been influenced by religion and they always will in some way, shape or form.

Dammit I can't believe I posted in this thread! :mad:

[back2vinyl]

In an extremely religious society which has religious politicians... wouldn't such policies be influenced by religion?

That's a very good point. I still think drug policy is mainly based on maintaining growth in law enforcement and government social program budgets and keeping the drug lobby happy. The resultant crime wave also helps keep the citizenry in line from fear of becoming a victim. But our puritan heritage certainly is a great tool to keep the masses supporting prohibition. Facts certainly wouldn't work.

The thing that most calls into question their claim (for me anyway) is that over the last fifty years, fewer and fewer Americans are participating in organized religion, yet crime seems to be increasing. Maybe both these trends are only an illusion. Trends in crime and religion are likely different in various segments of our society, so the study should sort data into demographic groups to see what conclusions fall out. Their current conclusion appears to be too broad.

[candy4140]

We have more diet centers and weight loss clinics than any other free country, yet have more fat people. We have more alcohol and drug rehab options also, yet have a higher rate of alcoholism and drug abuse.

This totally doesn't surprise me that the more religious dogma you jam down people's throats, the more negative behaviours will result. Not that this is statistically relevent, but every "loose" friend I had in college, was ironically raised in a super religious family. I totally saw that correlation in the way they believed about sex...ie...it was "bad", they were "bad"..they feel like sh*t, so they continued to do stupid stuff, like have lots of random sex.

It's a theory.

[akip]

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the claim made in the above passage:

A: The study only used one example for the religious democracy verses many examples of Godless democracies.
B: People who are living dysfunctional lives often turn to religion for solace.
C: Other factors, such as poor drug policies, have a greater effect on social disfunction than religion and were not accounted for in the study.
D: The democracies in the non-religious group were all smaller and less culturally diverse than the democracy in the religious group.
E: Non-religious countries that were likely to score poorly on societal functioning were excluded from the study.

thank you, b2v. i really didn't have time to list these myself. you nailed it.

i would only add my original point as "F"---that american social malfunction and relatively high rate of religiousity might both be the consequences of something else (and a combination of things) more basic. i still say it's the general rootlessness of a country much newer and diverse than any of the others, as well as our geographic isolation.

[despondent]

thank you, b2v. i really didn't have time to list these myself. you nailed it.

i would only add my original point as "F"---that american social malfunction and relatively high rate of religiousity might both be the consequences of something else (and a combination of things) more basic. i still say it's the general rootlessness of a country much newer and diverse than any of the others, as well as our geographic isolation.
I would tend to agree. Our nation's population base was founded upon the influx of immigrants. These people were leaving their nation of birth to find something better here than what they had. When you think about it, their situations must have been very bad in order to make to tough decision to leave behind everything they knew and move to an unknown place thousands of miles away. I'm sure that their bad situations breeded dysfunction. A change in scenery in of itself does not erase that dysfunction. That dysfunction was passed on generation to generation. I know that in my own personal situation, the dysfunctional family behavior goes back at least 4 generations to ancestors that immigrated here from Europe. I'm sure that would be the case for many other family systems as well.

[the happy prole]

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the claim made in the above passage:

A: The study only used one example for the religious democracy verses many examples of Godless democracies.
B: People who are living dysfunctional lives often turn to religion for solace.
C: Other factors, such as poor drug policies, have a greater effect on social disfunction than religion and were not accounted for in the study.
D: The democracies in the non-religious group were all smaller and less culturally diverse than the democracy in the religious group.
E: Non-religious countries that were likely to score poorly on societal functioning were excluded from the study.

A) If true, would seriously weaken author's case. However, the study used a several democracies across a spectrum of religiousness. Whether the spectrum was broad enough is a matter of debate. But it wasn't just one country.

B) Irrelevant. If people turn to religion for solace and religion helped them, then you shouldn't see any instances of high religiousness AND high dysfunction. The fact that the US scores high on both does prove that religion causes societal ills rather than the other way around. But it at least indicates that religion does not seem to be the right fix. And one could make the claim that non-religious societies are turning to something else, and it's working.

C) If proven, would obviously weaken the case. But it would have to be demonstrated that the US drug policy is "poor," in relation to the other countries and that graphing quality of drug policy against social ills results in the same correlative relationship.

D) Kind of irrelevant, same as C. It would first have to be shown that those countries are less culturally diverse. Then that cultural diversity plotted against social ills will show the same relationship.

E) If bias can be shown, obviously the study loses its validity. The author definitely had a huge hand in selecting countries and there's no real quantifiable evidence as to why these are the only valid democracies. You buy the author's reasoning for selecting these countries or you don't.

Mostly, it comes down the "if true" parts. None of us know for certain if any of those things are, in fact true. So go ahead and do a study and account for drug policy differences or whatever you want and see if the graph changes. Until then, you're putting your opinion up against someone who has actually looked into it and has some numbers. So you lose.

[PeterABnny]

Because human nature is the thing that evolves. We suck because our intelligence is still evolving. Most people now know the world is round, not flat and the concept is easy to understand. That's mental evolution. Read a Thoreau nature book and listen when he discusses how the theory of spontanious plant reproduction was still the norm. I think most people now know that plants make seeds and the seeds spread and make new plants. We are taught this when young either in school or as a lesson from a parent. That's mental evolution.

If religion makes people suck then, as our 'human nature' evolves religion will go away, but in my opinion religions don't make people suck, stupid people make people suck. Human nature is the root cause, education is the only cure. Education is experience and experience comes painfully slow.


Couldn't have said it better myself, Mark. Good show!

I believe that the state that people progress to wherein there are no civil problems like we have today is called "utopia." If and when that ever happens, religion probably would have played a very small role in it. But please don't ask me for odds as to whether or not people will ever get to that point.