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]

[Don Corleone]

Now Dave, to be fair, the study addresses religious belief, not specifically Christianity.

[Don Corleone]

Interesting topic EA. You're right, I will abandon my faith right now. It's the only way to make certain my unborn daughter stays off drugs and doesn't get pregnant prior to completing her education...

[English assassin]

Interesting topic EA. You're right, I will abandon my faith right now. It's the only way to make certain my unborn daughter stays off drugs and doesn't get pregnant prior to completing her education...

my work progresses, oh satanic master....

[Devastatin Dave]

Now Dave, to be fair, the study addresses religious belief, not specifically Christianity.

I am being fair, I believe this is insulting to anyone that believes in "God" regardless of who is Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. So i responded to the thread. I didn't report it, that would be whining.

[Don Corleone]

Well, honestly EA, you asked for comments from the benighted fools. How else did you expect us to respond? In one breath, you say "correlation isn't causation" but then follow with a large BUT. I suppose you could attribute all of life's social ills to religion, but I seriously doubt that Jeffrey Dahmer was a God fearing man.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ha, the article calls the US a 'developing democracy'. What a tool. I mean, if we, the longest lasting and best democracy in the world, are 'developing' what does that make countries like England, which still has royalty, and France, now in its 11th regime in the same time span America has had 1.

And, as has been pointed out, Christianity preaches against premartial sex, violence, etc. In fact, the whole article presents no evidence of what it claims to support.

Crazed Rabbit

[English assassin]

No, DC, you misunderstand, I love Satan.

Even taking on board A Saturnus's point, there is a case to answer on STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion, shall we say? They might not be caused by "abstenance only" sex "education" which in turn is caused by religion?

I suppose you could attribute all of life's social ills to religion,

Absolutely not. That would be to deny the role played by Liberal Democrats and Manchester United fans.

[Goofball]

On the one hand I am annoyed with this article for trying to imply that religion or belief in God actually causes all of these societal ills. Yes, I know they actually specify "correlation" rather than "cause" in the article, but let's face it: the unwashed masses really don't understand the difference between the two. So as far as I'm concerned, the article (as written) is nothing more than a cheap shot at religion.

However, I will make the following points:

1) Religious folks often hold out faith in God as the "cure" for all of society's problems. If nothing else, this study shows that that is a dubious claim at best.

2) One of the biggest "correlation/cause misdirections" I see used is the old "marijauna leads to heroin" tripe that I quite often see conservatives throw around whenever the subject of drug use comes up in here. They seem to be quite willing to ignore the difference between correlation and cause in that case, but when ignoring that difference works against them, they all of a sudden become expert statisticians.

[Don Corleone]

Oy vey. It might surprise you to learn how many Christians don't believe in Satan, that the construct of the 'enemy' mentioned in the bible is our own sinful nature. One of these days, my enlightened European friends that so dogmatically adhere to secular humanism shall have to venture to the nescient land of America. I believe you'll be shocked to learn how different the majority of practicing Christians are from your caricature of us. I'm sure you'll be amazed to learn I haven't engaged in snake-wielding in three, maybe even four whole weeks now....

Well, I'm right there with you when it comes to Man United Fans, so long as you toss in New York Yankee fans to boot.

The author's point was perfectly valid. He's on step 2 of the 4 step scientific process. 1) Identify a phenomenon 2) propose a hypthesis 3) design experiments to prove or disprove your hypothesis 4) state your theory with supporting data. Interesting hypothesis, and I'll be happy to hear how me makes out with the rest of the investegation.

[econ21]

A statistical problem with this kind of study is that the unit of observation is the country and, as Saturnus says, there are potentially a lot of differences - confounding factors - between countries. For example, the Times report places a lot of emphasis on the UK: US comparison but clearly there are a lot of other differences between these societies which are unlikely to be controlled for in the study. One way of overcoming this would be to look at whether given countries fared better or worse as they got more religious, but I am not sure the study did that (ie used panel data).

One contrary bit of evidence to throw in to the discussion is that studies of self-reported happiness tend to show religious people are happier. Again there may be confounding factors - certain personalities may be more predisposed to faith - but I tend to believe this result. The causality seems plausible - Marx did not call religion the opiate of the people for nothing. Moreover, since the unit of observation is the individual within the same country, there are not so great cultural differences as between countries. Plus you have more observations and hence less problem trying to simultaneously trying to control for lots of confounders.

I wonder if both kinds of study could be true? ie happy religious people cause social problems for others?

[Byzantine Prince]

Society is the way it is because of people's developed nature. Stoping religion now will not solve anything.

[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?

[Don Corleone]

Society is the way it is because of people's developed nature. Stoping religion now will not solve anything.

You could knock me over with a feather.... never thought this would come from you....

[Adrian II]

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.

The article confirms something else I have been thinking for quite some time, i.e. that the movement to replace the teaching of evolution by that of creationism or intelligent design is in fact a political movement. It is not about religion or science, it is about power.

The continuing popularity of creationism in America indicates that it is in reality a theistic social-political movement partly driven by concerns over the societal consequences of disbelief in a creator (Forrest and Gross). The person most responsible for politicizing the issue in America, evangelical Christian W. J. Bryan, expressed relatively little interest in evolution until the horrors of WW I inspired him to blame the scientific revolution that invented chemical warfare and other modern ills for “preaching that man has a brute ancestry and eliminating the miraculous and the supernatural from the Bible”. In the United States many conservative theists consider evolutionary science a leading contributor to social dysfunction because it is amoral or worse, and because it inspires disbelief in a moral creator (Colson and Pearcey; Eve and Harrold; Johnson; Numbers; Pearcey; Schroeder).

[Don Corleone]

If you really think that the evangelical movement in America today is guided by the nascent hand of William Jennings Bryant and his arguments in the Scopes monkey trial, you don't know us as well as you think you do.

[Reverend Joe]

I honestly don't see any way that violence, etc. can be attributed to religion. Religion is a natural construct for human beings, as a result of the god gene (which, for those who don't know, encourages the creation of a system of worship of a higher being. That's not to say that that being isn't real; just that we have a gene that predisposes us to worship him.) Therefore, religion is as natural for humans as killing each other, and having sex. Eliminate religion, and more religion will appear in its place- and our violence and debauchery will be just as unaffected (I, for one, hope to help with the debauchery. )

[Adrian II]

If you really think that the evangelical movement in America today is guided by the nascent hand of William Jennings Bryant and his arguments in the Scopes monkey trial, you don't know us as well as you think you do.

You misquote the author; he writes that Jennings Bryant was the one who contributed most to politicising the creationism drive. The Scopes trial was a major landmark.

[Don Corleone]

It was in 1925! How can one claim that the recent blurring of the lines between Church & state by the religious right stems from this? Sorry, I'm just not following...

[Adrian II]

I honestly don't see any way that violence, etc. can be attributed to religion.

It can not. The article finds a high correlation between social ills and the belief in a personal God (not religion in general) but he does not state that correlation equals causation.

[Adrian II]

It was in 1925! How can one claim that the recent blurring of the lines between Church & state by the religious right stems from this? Sorry, I'm just not following...

Here is what the author states about him: '[W.J.B] expressed relatively little interest in evolution until the horrors of WW I inspired him to blame the scientific revolution that invented chemical warfare and other modern ills for “preaching that man has a brute ancestry and eliminating the miraculous and the supernatural from the Bible”.'

I hear echo's of that view all the time when reading or listening to proponents of the creationism drive. For instance in the latest thread about theThe March of the Penguins, a leading Christian promotor of the movie was quoted as saying that it 'really contains very little violence, jut like nature itself'. In other words: only the 'Darwinists' hold the view that nature is all about survival and inter-species violence, whereas nature is in reality quite peaceful.

[PanzerJaeger]

I dont understand why people hate religion so much. Most Christians certainly dont hate athiests or agnostics.

[Dâriûsh]

I bet someone can dig up a report that claims those conditions mentioned as the result of a general lack of belief.