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

[cleanhippie]

September 27, 2005
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.

--snip--


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. (emphasis mine)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

----------------------------------------
:bounce: :think: :wow: :headbang:

[RKP5637]

1. Glad to see this! I came to that conclusion for myself over half a century ago. When a

kid I looked around at religions and could only conclude WTF. Can't these people think for themselves or what. All I saw was mostly guilt, punishment, falsehoods, hypocrisy and blind submission to some dominating people in religions.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

2. That's not a study, it's bigotry. (nt)

[darkstar3]

11. Data cannot be bigoted.

Correlation is mere fact, and nothing more. What we DO about that correlation is what matters.

Not everything that is critical of religion is bigotry. Catch that knee.

[patrice]

25. There are assumptions inherent to the collection of data that, while not necessarily bigoted, must

be recognized, because it is not as though they have NO effect upon what is collected.

That recognition doesn't mean that the data is useless, only that its uses are RELATIVE to those assumptions.

[darkstar3]

26. The same can be said of any poll or study,

namely that there is a focus or push. The fact remains that there is a correlation. More information may be necessary to illuminate the cause of that correlation, but this correlation is a good reason for further investigation.

[patrice]

40. Of course it can, Science has NEVER claimed otherwise, because it is, in fact, against the nature of

Science to claim that contextual assumptions don't matter.

I'm not disputing that there is/could be a correlation. I am disputing that there is no bias in the data-set. By its very nature, Scientific methods and processes introduce a certain amount of bias into its subjects. Certainly there are ways of enhancing validity and reliability and controlling to reduce the effects of "extraneous" factors, but the only way to avoid bias entirely is to do no Science at all. Scientific tasks are designed to reduce bias as much as possible and to identify any bias which is unavoidably introduced by METHODS and then always to see results within that contextual frame, never independent of it.

Unfortunately, Scientific findings are almost universally discussed independent from their methods. Professionals do not look at it that way. To them, the way that context limits, biases, knowledge is essential to their quest for understanding.

[darkstar3]

41. In other words, the correlation is there and merits further investigation into root causes.

All this prevaricating about the bias of investigation doesn't change facts. Results are facts. Bias affects what we investigate and what we take away from the results. The results themselves are facts, and facts cannot have bias.

[patrice]

43. And just how did I lie? Perhaps you meant equivocating rather than prevaricating. Whatever . . .

I don't think we disagree as much as you seem to want us to. My point was simply that in anything but the most direct and immediate of experiences*, "the facts" are anything but absolute, in no small part because they are, as all things are, in process.

Results are not absolute facts; they ARE statements of probability derived from assumptions about methods and mathematical assumptions contained in statistical techniques, so probability, no matter how high, is never 100%, because of the nature of what is referred to as "proof".

The phenomenological universe is full of events that are what they are independent of anything to do with us. The moment that anyone introduces any kind of discrete artifact into that situation, artifacts such as: "f", "a", "c", "t" and all of the baggage that pertains thereto, artifacts such as something referred to as "value", something else referred to as "meaning" or "significance", and another thing called "purpose", or "cause", or "effect" any and all of that stuff requires unstated and usually untested assumptions. Those assumptions, to the extent that they exclude other assumptions, represent bias. "Facts", anything that is filtered through the human mind, always have a bias of one sort or another. It is impossible to "know" without some form of bias.

*And if you've ever seen a photograph of self-immolation, there's even some doubt about "direct and immediate experiences".

BTW, I'm not equivocating here either. I'm doing the opposite of equivocation. For isn't it, instead, equivocating to assume that all of the assumptions that go into anything that can be referred to as a "fact" are equally ir-relevant?

[darkstar3]

45. We disagree more with each of your posts.

I hold no truck with those who would denigrate the scientific method and the work of true researchers by injecting any and every kind of doubt they can think of into scientific results. I can't say it any plainer than the old adage of "numbers don't lie." If you want to cast doubt on the facts revealed by this study, stop cloaking yourself in useless vocabulary words like "phenomological" and come right out and say what you mean: You believe, like so many who speak of doubting direct experience, that there is no way to truly "know" something. You are a solipsist, and your wandering middle paragraph proves it.

That is your opinion. I do not accept it, and neither do research scientists who spend every day of their working lives in pursuit of the knowledge that you are treating as unattainable.

[patrice]

47. Denigrate? I TAUGHT Advance Placement Psychology as SCIENCE, for 5 years, quite successfully

I might add.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about and you need to read up on the philosophy of Science and the nature of proof. When you finish some basic works on that subject matter, I'd like to recommend Thomas R. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, one of the books that was the subject of my RESEARCH for my Master's of Science in Curriculum Development.

There is NO denigration in truth. Denigration comes from the pretty fairy tales, lies, people want to tell themselves about absolute knowledge.

All knowledge is relative to the untested assumptions that go into constructing it. There is no denigration in that, except amongst those who wish to make a religion out of Science.

[patrice]

48. While you're at it, you'll need to call Texas A&M and tell them to revoke my graduate hours there.nt

[patrice]

49. & you'd probably better notify the National Science Foundation that they made a mistake in the grant

they gave me for graduate school tuition.

[cleanhippie]

54. Is it possible....

even with your extensive education, that you may just be...wrong?

I'm not saying you are, but you seem to think that just because you possess degrees that that makes you automatically correct about the entire subject. Kinda the argument from authority, no?

[patrice]

55. Is it possible that you don't understand the point?

"... just because you possess degrees ..." couldn't be further from the truth. I have actual EXPERIENCE in what we are talking about. The fact that you say it's "... just because ..." is evidence of your own bias. Consider the CONCEIT in saying something like, "The facts are what I/we SAY they are and nothing other than that."

"Facts" are only RELATIVELY facts. Science is NOT a religion, no matter how much anyone wishes it was. The contextual nature of "data" is exquisitely vital to what we refer to as "knowledge". And people who can't accept that don't want knowledge at all. They want faith.

BTW, I wouldn't mind being called a liar and wrong, if those doing so were capable of recognizing the extent to which those traits just possibly DO apply to them too and, if you can't do that, then your assumption of the irrelevance of assumptions means that you think you are what is referred to as "God" and you aren't talking about Science at all, but, rather Religion.

[cleanhippie]

61. It was really a rhetorical question...

but considering you posted FOUR defensive responses leads me to believe you are feeling insecure. Sorry, that was not my intention.

[patrice]

56. BTW, why is it that when someone defends the truth, to the objection of prevailing forms of social

conformity, it's called lying, denigrating, and exaggeration of one's qualifications?

[patrice]

57. Is it possible that you have some problem with people who have degrees?

[cleanhippie]

65. Certainly, as anything is possible.

But its not probable, so no, I do not.

Why so defensive?

[patrice]

58. You ignore the fact that I was called a liar & it was said that I denigrate the truth. WHY do you ig

nore those two facts? IS the fact that you attack me and ignore those two facts evidence of your own bias?

One edit: for grammar

[cleanhippie]

64. Friend, I did not ignore anything, I simply asked a question.

Man, Oh man, are you defensive, or what?

[darkstar3]

62. I seem to have struck a nerve.

You know, my sister has a Master's, too. It isn't worth the paper it's printed on because she cheated to get it. How do I know? Because she asked for help in doing so, and when I refused on account of the fact that I found the idea reprehensible she received her assistance from our cousin, the PhD and college professor. Darksister teaches 6th grade English now, and I'm sure she would say she does so quite successfully. Of course there is a cruel irony there, because she is incapable of using the language she teaches at the collegiate level from which she supposedly graduated.

So you see, knowing the education field as deeply as I do, thanks to this experience and my having been a teacher as well, I can tell you that your claims, even if you could verify them, mean nothing to me. They confer upon you no extra authority on this topic, and do nothing to negate the following facts:

1. The correlation shown in the study cited in the OP shows a clear link between societal happiness and lack of religion. Further investigation will be necessary to determine true causation.

2. I never called you a liar. "Prevaricating" was the correct word because your attempts to cast doubt on everything related to this study are evasive. You wish for people to avoid or ignore the facts contained therein by attacking the idea of "fact" itself.

3. You are a solipsist, as clearly shown in #43, and that is an anti-scientific, not to mention egotistical, logical position. Science is all about repeatability and third-party verification, which is why tools like microscopes and finely-tuned measurement equipment have been invented and refined for centuries. As repeated third-party verification became harder to argue with centuries ago, solipsism was abandoned as a logical position by most. Yet it finds a home here in R/T repeatedly, because it allows people to prevaricate using pseudo-scientific language in order to cast enough doubt on scientific fact to leave room for whatever belief they want.

4. Your solipsism is causing a problem with your definition of fact. There are absolute facts, just as there is absolute knowledge. If you'd like an example, how about the fact that the earth rotates around an axis that is tilted?

5. Accusing me of treating science (note the lack of a capital S there) as a religion is a massive and final FAIL on your part. The only people who trot out that ridiculous straw man are the ones who have no concept of the difference between "belief" and "knowledge". Religion is about belief. Science is about the quest for knowledge, and in fact the scientific method eliminates belief, either by eventually proving the hypothesis or not. In that way, science serves as an antithesis to religion.

6. Finally, you keep talking about assumptions in a general sense, but you avoid both describing in detail what assumptions were used in this study that you take issue to, and also the fact that good scientists carefully control for assumptions AND take them into account when printing their results. The final fact that you ignore about assumptions is that the problems they can sometimes cause only happen in EXPERIMENTAL studies, while this one was analytical.

You don't get to piss on facts, knowledge, and scientific progress just because you have a Master's degree and an antiquated logical viewpoint on what we can and cannot know. Not without people like me calling you on it. Of course, the next question is, why should you care? The logical progression of the solipsistic view you've taken is that I'm just a figment of your imagination, so why do you need to convince me of anything? Am I perhaps a manifestation of your own self-doubt?

[cleanhippie]

32. If you say so...

I still does not make it true.

Care to elaborate on why you feel that way?

[humblebum]

37. If not bigoted then certainly biased and easily refuted.

I believe the country with the highest rate of abortion is China. Do they consider God to be on their side? Suicide? If I recall correctly, one or all of the Scandinavian countries have the highest rates there. These are not noted for being religious nations.

[humblebum]

38. Nope, I was wrong about the suicides - top 30:

1 Lithuania<4> 58.5 8.8 31.5 2009
2 South Korea<5> (more information) N/A N/A 31.0 2009
3 Kazakhstan 46.2 9.0 26.9 2007
4 Belarus<6><7> N/A N/A 25.3 2010
5 Japan (more information) 35.8 13.7 24.4 2007
6 Russia<8> N/A N/A 23.5 2010
7 Guyana 33.8 11.6 22.9 2005
8 Ukraine<9> 40.9 7.0 22.6 2005
9 Hungary<4> 37.1 8.8 21.8 2009
10 Sri Lanka<10> N/A N/A 21.6 1996
11 Latvia<4> 37.6 6.7 20.7 2009
12 Slovenia<11> 32.1 7.9 19.8 2008
13 Serbia and Montenegro 28.4 11.1 19.5 2006
14 Finland<4> 27.3 9.5 18.3 2009
15 Belgium<4> 26.5 9.3 17.6 2005
16 France 25.5 9.0 17.0 2006
17 Estonia<4> 29.1 6.2 16.5 2008
18 Uruguay 26.0 6.3 15.8 2004
19 Moldova 28.0 4.3 15.7 2007
20 South Africa<12> 25.3 5.6 15.4 2005
21 Hong Kong 19.3 11.5 15.2 2006
22 Poland 26.8 4.4 15.2 2006
23 Switzerland<4> 21.8 9.1 15.1 2007
24 Croatia<4> 26.1 5.5 15.0 2009
25 Suriname 23.9 4.8 14.4 2005
26 Sweden 18.1 8.3 13.2 2006
27 Seychelles<13> N/A N/A 13.2 1998
28 New Zealand<14> 20.3 6.5 13.2 2008
29 Austria<4> 20.9 5.7 12.8 2009
30 Czech Republic<4> 21.8 3.7 12.4 2009


Haiti is last on the list - Go figure.

WIKI

[darkstar3]

42. Then find or lead a study that does so.

Should be easy, right?

[eridani]

51. I thought the study only compared developed Western countries n/t

[humblebum]

53. There are several developed western countries near the top of the "suicide" list

but the US isn't among them. However, the article itself is hardly to be considered quantitative and scientific and is yet another example of New Atheist bigotry, which has become an epidemic of intolerance and very much in line with its historical past.

[darkstar3]

63. How does "New Atheism" have a historical past?

Seriously, do you proofread your hate?

[ingac70]

3. Kick.

[AlecBGreen]

4. a perfect example of correlation =/= causation

are they more likely to suffer because they are religious, or are they more religious because they suffer? or neither?

[patrice]

9. The complete form of that statement is: Correlation is not NECESSARILY causation.nt

[AlecBGreen]

14. somewhat

as written, I meant "correlation is not the same thing as causation"

[patrice]

19. Sorry.

I get a little rushed between loads of laundry and vacuuming and such . . .

:hi:

[darkstar3]

12. Or is there an X factor that causes both religious belief and higher suffering?

You seem to have left that possibility out of your rejection of this causal claim.

[AlecBGreen]

15. that is a possibility

we Christians could be worshipping the wrong God. As a rule, I tend not to write out every possibility because if I did I would do little else, especially here in R/T.

Back to your reply Darkstar3, do you think there is "an X factor that causes both religious belief and higher suffering?"

[darkstar3]

18. I do, as a matter of fact.

The vast number of adults in this country who fail to graduate from the authoritarian thought stage of development and continue to require a monolithic leader to make decisions and take responsibility for them. I guess you could call it "Daddy issues."

[AlecBGreen]

23. lol

So Im a basket case with a head full of psychological trauma? Thanks DS3! Good to know where you really stand!!1!

(j/k of course :P)

[Lucian]

5. If you look at secular nations like Norway and Sweden...

they have the highest rate of happiness, the best social welfare, and low mortality rates.

This study's results doesn't surprise me.

[AlecBGreen]

16. IIRC its Bhutan who ranks as #1

and they are a pretty devout Buddhist nation. You are correct in saying Scandanavian countries consistently rank near the top of the list.

ETA: I believe Bhutan is #1 in happiness. I do not know how they rank in other areas such as social services, infant mortality, etc.

[darkstar3]

22. Scandinavian countries consistently trade the #1 spot

for the combination of happiness and general prosperity. As for happiness, I didn't know that a sense of non-being allowed for such, but then, I'm not a Buddhist.

[AlecBGreen]

39. I dont think its the non-being

I think its the continual contemplation of impermanence and a drive for non-attachment. According to my limited understanding of Buddhism, suffering is caused by attachment and desire. By freeing ourselves of both, we are more free to enjoy whatever life gives, both the good and the bad.

Reading Buddhist literature, specifically Suzuki, Thich Nhat Hahn & Chogyam Rinpoche was like a mallet upside my head (in a positive way :)) I can recommend some good books if you are interested.

[darkstar3]

46. Thank you, but I am not.

Buddhism is the way for some, but not for me. I have researched enough of it to know that, while it has some nuggets of deep wisdom, it doesn't fit with my experience of humanity.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

6. "Gott mit uns"

[patrice]

7. 'cause religion is ALL about abdication and ir-responsibility.

[saras]

8. From the study, from history, and from personal experience

There's little or no doubt that religion is, in many cases, the CAUSE of these effects.

Part of the problem is that liberal religious people don't want to own their own religion - they like to claim that if everyone did it right, they would all be liberals, when in fact the liberals are often rebelling against the historical mainstream of the religion.

One example of this is that small minority that suggests Christianity means trying to live as Jesus lived, with Jesus' values. Jesus may have wanted this, but the brute fact is that the institution of Christianity has rejected it in principle and in practice. If you choose the values of Jesus over the values of organized religion, then you may be a follower of Jesus, but you aren't religious in the normal meaning of the word. And you certainly didn't get your values from an organized church.

[cleanhippie]

33. 100% correct.

Part of the problem is that liberal religious people don't want to own their own religion - they like to claim that if everyone did it right, they would all be liberals, when in fact the liberals are often rebelling against the historical mainstream of the religion.


Well put, well said.

[patrice]

44. Re those Liberals: As I was saying elsewhere earlier, "the Left" and Liberals in general don't like

to admit that there's no way of knowing whether "the red pill" isn't, actually, "the blue pill" and vice versa.

This is why I opt for, as close as possible, a phenomenological perspective over an ideological one. The important questions have to do with how to identify our EXPERIENCES.

[frebrd]

10. A society is bound to be in trouble......

if it's composed of people who are not capable of forming and following their own value system.

:shrug:

[AlecBGreen]

17. Did you form your own value system?

If so, from what?

I think none of us form a value system in a vacuum. It is the product of a mixture of tradition, parents, religion (if any) and personal experience.

[darkstar3]

20. You left out sociology, social psychology, social contracts, and more...

[AlecBGreen]

24. pft, nonsense

I have no use for such big words (yes, Im in a snarky mood today)

[Silent3]

27. Not to mention biology and instinctual social behavior. n/t

[patrice]

21. so the question is to what extent do you own/identify with it, or is it just simply acquired

[AlecBGreen]

28. thats a tough question to answer

and Im not sure Im up to the task right now. Entering late afternoon food coma and in need of a short nap. But Ill take a stab at it. Please be gentle in your rebuttal :)

I think our moral system is a product of all the things mentioned, so in a sense it is out of our control. OTOH, we are liable for the influences we choose to follow. Allow me to offer two analogies:

You cannot get mad at a person for BEING an alcoholic b.c that is out of their control. You CAN and SHOULD hold them accountable for their choices. Likewise with a value system. I have students who have not been taught good manners, respect for adults, etc. I cant be mad at them for the failure of their parents but I can insist they abide by the rules of my classroom. Likewise I cannot fault a person for their moral upbringing, the influence of their culture or their religion or what experiences have occurred to them.

A man told his grandson: "There are two wolves battling in your soul, one good and the other evil." The child asks, "Who will win?" The grandfather replies, "Whichever one you feed." We all contain good and evil, but we are responsible for which one we allow to take dominance in our life.

[otohara]

13. Six Years Later

from this time this study was done, not much has changed in the good ole USA.

Islam hysteria during election seasons went way up in 2010 and expect 2012 to be another year of Obama is a secret Muslim bullshit.

[GeorgeGist]

29. Is it accurate to blame God ...

for being on their side?

[Odin2005]

30. That's because "God" is an authoritarian asshole.

[rug]

31. That article is 5 1/2 years old.

[cleanhippie]

34. And?

Its age does not negate its validity.


Unless you have something else to offer...?

[rug]

35. Nothing more recent?

Is there a particular reason you're posting it now?

[cleanhippie]

36. Nope.

Found it today, so its new to me. But again, its age does not negate its validity.

[struggle4progress]

50. "Creighton University is a private, coeducational, Jesuit, Roman Catholic university located

in Omaha, Nebraska ..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creighton_University

"The Kripke Center is dedicated to facilitating scholarly activity in the areas of religion and society. Special attention is given to promoting understanding between and among faith communities, including especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam ... The Center is named in honor of Rabbi Myer and Dorothy Kripke ... Creighton faculty interested in religion and society are invited to become Faculty Associates of the Kripke Center ... " http://moses.creighton.edu/kripke/

"The Journal of Religion & Society has been established to promote the cross-disciplinary study of religion ... The editorial board is comprised of the Faculty Associates of the Kripke Center ..." http://moses.creighton.edu/kripke/

"Faculty Associates are faculty of Creighton University who work in the areas of religion and society ..." http://moses.creighton.edu/kripke/Faculty.html

Gregory Scott Paul .. is a freelance .. author and illustrator who .. for his work .. on theropod dinosaurs and his detailed illustrations ... Paul authored a paper in 2005 entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look" ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_S._Paul

Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
A First Look
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
... Data sources for rates of religious belief and practice as well as acceptance of evolution are the 1993 Environment I (Bishop) and 1998 Religion II polls conducted by the International Social Survey Program ... Data on aspects of societal health and dysfunction are from a variety of .. sources including the UN Development Programme (2000) ... Regression analyses were not executed ...
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

So Gregory S. Paul seems to have some experience with dinosaur fossils and dinosaur illustration. And a few years back he wrote an article for a small journal published by a Jewish-funded center (promoting "understanding between and among faith communities") at a Jesuit university. Paul's article contains what epidemiologists call an "ecological" analysis: he simply plots (for eighteen countries) things like percentage of self-identified atheists versus homicide rate or life expectancy, without further analysis; not all data is available for all countries; outside Europe, he considers only Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the US. Presumably he picked a religious tolerance journal, because such "work" wouldn't pass the review for a public health or sociology journal

[eridani]

52. There are three possible explanations for the correlation of A and B

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. Both A and B are csuased by oner or more factors C

I'd vote for 3. Social welfare states increase equality and overall quality of life. Therefore social ills like venereal disease and murder are reduced, and also the need to call on higher powers out of deperation over lack of control of your life.

[Evoman]

59. Maybe it's an education thing. Ignorant people tend to do all those things

and they tend to be religious

[KurtNYC]

60. religion is based in institutions, instutions are inherently corrupt

therefore mass religion is a path to corruption.