Two centuries ago there was relatively little dispute over the existence of God, or the societally beneficial effect of popular belief in a creator. In the twentieth century extensive secularization occurred in western nations, the United States being the only significant exception (Bishop; Bruce; Gill et al.; Sommerville). If religion has receded in some western nations, what is the impact of this unprecedented transformation upon their populations? 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. Many also contend that widespread acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to these goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet to be published.
Thus begins a 2005 study designed to check the truth of those claims. The author is Gregory S. Paul, a freelance paleontologist, author and illustrator whose work influenced part of the Michael Crichton novel, Jurassic Park.The study, entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look," was published in the Journal of Religion and Society. It attempted to compare statistics from 18 different developed democracies (including the USA) on aspects of societal health and dysfunction, and compare them to rates of religious belief. Religiosity was plotted based on surveys data on things like belief in a creator, bible literalism, frequency of prayer and attendance at services. Societal health was measured for things like youth suicide rates, STDs, teen pregnancies, homicide and other crimes.
The study's conclusion was that there was an inverse relationship between religion and poor societal health rates. What that means is that the higher the level of religious belief in a country, the lower the level of societal health (more violent crimes, suicides, teen pregnancies, etc.).
Now while Gregory Paul cautioned that the study was "not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health" (check this article "Liars & Statistics" for an explanation of why correlation is not equivalent to causation), it's publication caused an immediate storm of protest, particularly in the United States, which was #1 in religiosity of all the developed nations and at or near the bottom in all factors relating to societal health. As one journalist put it, "as soon as this paper hit publication, Greg Paul essentially joined the 'Anti-Christ of the Month Club'" (see video).
Less hysterical criticism was provided by another paper published in the next (2006) volume of the Journal of Religion and Society (Religiosity, Secularism and Social Health by Gerson Moreno-Riano, Mark Caleb Smith and Thomas Mach, Cedarville University). This paper was mainly critical of Paul's methodology, saying that there are great difficulties concerning national and cultural differences in social structures, religiosity and the way statistics are gathered that make any comparison almost moot. Concerning studies like this, the only thing they state with certainty is that there can be no certainty, or as they put it, "one cannot in any way be certain as to the effects of religiosity and secularism upon prosperous democracies." Other statisticians say that on the strict terms of what Greg wrote, the study does hold up (see video).
If you liked my article, you can click on "Subscribe by email" to be notified whenever another one is posted.
Photo Credit: Illustration by Gregory S. Paul
Comments
Weren't there some studies which showed that atheists are a disproportionately small percentage of incarcerated criminals? That would tend to support these conclusions, too.
Yes, Carol. There's a 1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons analysis that lists atheists as 0.209% of the prison population, a number far below their representation in the non-prison population. I discuss that in my essay, "Liars & statistics: How to know when you're being played".
Remember though, correlation is not the same thing as causation either in this study or Greg Paul's. Paul can't and doesn't say that religiousity causes societal ill health. He only says that there is a positive statistical relationship between the two. All the study shows with any certainty is that the claim that religion is a beneficial force in society just isn't supported by the findings. To use less temperate language, that claim is baloney.
This is a fascinating article! The divisive language (and behavior) of religious fanatics makes religion fall upon its own sword.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!