God is bad for you

[English assassin]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...798944,00.html

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

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.

Corrolation isn't causation of course but this does surely call for comment from the godly amongst us?

[A.Saturnus]

I all have to say to that is confounding factors.

[English assassin]

I all have to say to that is confounding factors

Aha, I knew you would say that. Could you, err, just translate it from statistician into English for, err, everyone else?

[A.Saturnus]

I highly doubt that this study has taken into consideration to control all factors that also correlate with these effects. It is an old fact that religious belief is stronger and more widespread for lower classes and lower educated people, which are also higher in most of these variables. It is rather obvious that not religiousness causes for example early adult mortality, but people of higher classes live healthier, less dangerous and are also less religious. One exception is maybe teen pregnancy. In that case religious convictions concerning safer sex may play a causal role. But in general, the conclusions presented in that article are quite unfounded.

To sum it up: I´m convinced that if you control for socio-economical status, most of these effects would disappear.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Huh, that must be why China is such a great place to live. Too bad these guys can't get back to the good ole Soviet Union.

And they seemed to ignore Ireland, which has, it appears, much less of the 'anti-social behavior' present in Britain.

Correlation, after all, is not causation, as any statician with half a brain who's not pushing an agenda knows.

Crazed Rabbit

[King Henry V]

I fail to see how Christianity, which preaches against sex before marriage, can be the cause of high std rates and the rest. It is just pure coincidence.

[Devastatin Dave]

[Adrian II]

I'm convinced that if you control for socio-economical status, most of these effects would disappear.

Well, maybe you guys should all read the article a little better. The author sets out to check the claim made by theists 'that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society'. He concludes that this claim must be refuted on the grounds of all the social indicators mentioned. This process of checking a theory to see if it stands up to facts is known in science as falsification. The theists' claim has been falsified:

If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards.

The author also concludes that the surprisingly high correlation between degree of theistic belief (which is not the same as religion, witness the case of Japan that he expressly mentions) and said social indicators warrants further research:

It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions?

Nowhere does the author say that religion 'causes' social misery.

[Don Corleone]

Okay, either things have RADICALLY changed since I went to school, or you European friends of mine are focusing on a red herring with this creationism business. Do people believe in it? Sure, but just because you can find a school district here and there that proposes offering it alongside creationism does not mean that the VAST majority of Americans, Christians and otherwise don't hold evolution as the prevalent theory explaining current biodiversity. Criminy, should I go find some backwater trend in the Netherlands and offer it as evidence that you're all a bunch of whackos?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

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

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.

Amen brother...

You should listen to some music from my favorite band. Godsmack

[Derfasciti]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...798944,00.html




Corrolation isn't causation of course but this does surely call for comment from the godly amongst us?

I am sure you and whoever you quoted are in the very least a little intelligent and I won't attack your moral or character backgrounds. But almost ALL religion preaches against what you say are bi-products of a religious society. I would love to see the unbiased statistics. To say this is true is simply absurd.

Lets take a look at the Soviet Union. Stalin alone had about 20 million people killed, many of which were simply due to "religious fervor".

China today is officially Athiest and they are not moral at all. Many religious people there are persecuted for trying and attending their faith's houses of worship.

Religion will only hurt society if witch hunts against others happen. Athiesm will almost definitely hurt. With no moral need to keep society moral and just, it is only logical that those societies will decay and die. Simple as that.

[Soulforged]

Lets take a look at the Soviet Union. Stalin alone had about 20 million people killed, many of which were simply due to "religious fervor".

If you don't see at least the correlation the other way then you can't see it here...

Religion will only hurt society if witch hunts against others happen. Athiesm will almost definitely hurt. With no moral need to keep society moral and just, it is only logical that those societies will decay and die. Simple as that.

Not true at all. Society is kept by law, not morals. If you want to be a moral man, then do it, the other shouldn't be forced to be a moralist. And atheism will almost definitely hurt? WOW In wich unbiased statistic this is founded...

[Azi Tohak]

Atheism hurt Cult-of-reason France, USSR, China, North Korea. Care to give me an atheist society that was/is not a disaster?

Azi

[Soulforged]

Atheism hurt Cult-of-reason France, USSR, China, North Korea. Care to give me an atheist society that was/is not a disaster?

Azi

Saying atheist society is a very relative thing, as saying religious society. Some are atheist some not. The state of those countries could never achieve to simply change the way people think. In any case let me see if I understand your logic. Atheism + society= disaster. Certainly it's flawed logic. You can't propose causalism over that premise, don't even correlation. All communist nations did wrong, not because of the lack of institutionalized religion, but from the lack of real power of the majority. In all those countries I remember the cult to the "leader" and not the "cult" to society in general, or to the proletariat at least. So no you can't stablish correlation between atheism and disaster. Besides atheism doesn't propose the lack of morality as many think or doesn't presume the systematic anihilation of relgion from human mind, only the beheading of it.
Another thing, inductivism is not good for stablishing general rules. A (being atheist society), B (being disaster): A1=B,A2=B, A3=B....->A always= B...certainly not.

[Azi Tohak]

Atheism + society = disaster

Yup! Come on now, disprove it. Isn't this how evolution was confirmed? It was not disproven. Inductive reasoning worked wonderfully for that didn't it? Moths were natually selected, therefore all of us were too. Right?

Azi

P.S. Soulforged, I don't know if English is your primary language or not, but I am having a heckuva time understanding your previous post. Yeah, it is late for me (class tomorrow and all), but I don't think that explains it.

[Adrian II]

Atheism hurt Cult-of-reason France, USSR, China, North Korea.

With all due respect, I believe you are making the same mistake as the Times journalist who misquoted the original scientific article. You will find all necessary references higher up in this thread...

The Times journalist stated that religion 'causes' an array of familiar social ills in western society. That is not what the original article says. The original article merely refutes a well-known claim, i.e. the theist claim that a wide-spread belief in a personal God and creator of the universe is the best remedy against these social ills.

I think we would make the same mistake if we attributed the woes of modern France, North Korea or the Soviet Union solely to atheism. There is a lot more to be said about its role in history, just as there is a lot more to be said about the role of religion in society.

One approach I have suggested before is functionalism, a theorem in anthropology that says certain institutions are ingrained in all known societies, and that the belief in some transcendent authority is one of those ineradicable institutions. The implication being that if we attempt to destroy one transcendental belief, it will merely be replaced by another.

I think the Soviet Union would be a prime example of this process: the irrational belief in the Orthodox doctrine and the infallibility of its patriarchs was replaced by an irrational belief in the infallibility of the Communist Party and a personality cult surrounding its leaders.

Care to give me an atheist society that was/is not a disaster?

As the original author demonstrates, atheism certainly did not hurt France and most other secular western countries in the sense that these social ills are less prevalent there than they are in the predominently theist United States: less crime and violence, less drug abuse, less unwanted pregnancies.

The conclusion is that theism does not prevent these problems. I think nobody except the Times journalist is suggesting that theism causes all sorts of social ills.

[Sigurd]

Having read nearly all replies in this thread and taken a brief look on the actual article, I must admit that I can agree with the allegation that religiosity in itself does not promote healthy societies.

However, I can see why it is believed that it does.
Those who believe in a literal God and believes that the stories in the religious texts were literal historical events can’t escape Zion.

It is said that the city of Enoch with its inhabitants were so righteous that they were all taken to heaven, city and all. Zion and its inhabitants where a religious society that shared all and lived in peace for 365 years before they were all taken to heaven. They had no poor among them.
Although this last section is more or less Mormon theology (because it is found in their book “Perl of great price”), it gives a point.

Throughout history there have been religious societies that have had nearly the same peace. I am thinking of monastic movements and other religious groups that have taken it upon them to gather into places consisting of likeminded people. An example would be the early members of Mormonism and their first cities. The problem has always been prosecution and outside temptation. Truly pious people would live in peace and give much to conquer poverty.
The crux is separation from the evil carnal world ("live in the world but not of the world"... "you can't serve both God and Mammon").
I can’t exactly remember where I read this, but I remember that the society created by Adam lived in high places (something to do with the fact that high places were considered holy unto God, mountain of the Lord, etc…) they all lived in peace until a society settled in the valley below. It was Cain & Co. They lived a promiscuous life with parties, dancing and other “fun” activities. The sons of God (for thus were the sons of Adam called) looked down and became tempted. Soon some went down and partook in the merriment.
The point is, somehow, every time exceptionally pious people gather and lives in peace, other not so pious people want to destroy them. We want to test their faith to see if they really can keep the natural man at bay. HAHA, see? They finally gave in; they are not so holy after all (even I have these inclinations).

Why do I keep apologising for religion?

[Derfasciti]

If you don't see at least the correlation the other way then you can't see it here...
Not true at all. Society is kept by law, not morals. If you want to be a moral man, then do it, the other shouldn't be forced to be a moralist. And atheism will almost definitely hurt? WOW In wich unbiased statistic this is founded...

I did not claim any statistical proof except the fact that any athiest society we've had has been terrible.

Also, law is based on morality. That's obvious.

[A.Saturnus]

I did not claim any statistical proof except the fact that any athiest society we've had has been terrible.

Also, law is based on morality. That's obvious.

The notion that atheists cannot have morality has been debunked before and would be off topic here.
The "atheist" societies you mentioned had the common feature that religions were outlawed. Outlawing religion is an act of oppression and it is therefore no wonder that these have been terrible. If you look at societies that were religious and opressive, you´ll notice that all of them have been terrible too.
You may notice that all societies that were not terrible were secular. But a secular society can neither be called religious nor atheist. It´s secular. In secualr societies religious people and atheists often manage to live quite happily with each other.

[Soulforged]

I did not claim any statistical proof except the fact that any athiest society we've had has been terrible.

Also, law is based on morality. That's obvious.

It's not that obvious. Law is now separated from morality, at least in my system, the common law is very obscure to me even now. So it will work fine without morality. In any case religion is not the only source of morals, it's not even the best one. Also you made a general rule of it, like the one on the article.

Yup! Come on now, disprove it. Isn't this how evolution was confirmed? It was not disproven. Inductive reasoning worked wonderfully for that didn't it? Moths were natually selected, therefore all of us were too. Right?

I can do the same proposition asking you to disprove what the article sais. Careful with double edge weapons.

P.S. Soulforged, I don't know if English is your primary language or not, but I am having a heckuva time understanding your previous post. Yeah, it is late for me (class tomorrow and all), but I don't think that explains it.

No my primary is spanish, I talk brazilian, and I'm on myway to german, my english is not that good, i admit it .

[Redleg]

No my primary is spanish, I talk brazilian, and I'm on myway to german, my english is not that good, i admit it .

Your English is better then my Spanish.