Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Sinners in the hands of an angry phantasm

I knew it all along.

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.”

Now, to be fair, I don't think this necessarily says that being religious is bad for the individual; it's just not good for a culture. I also think it's a bit sweeping in associating these ills with religious belief in general, because the US is afflicted with particularly malignant forms of religion (and at the root, the problem may not be religion itself, but irrationality and anti-intellectualism and ignorance, something our country has in volume). On the other hand, countries with more traditional religions also seem to have some serious problems (who knew Portugal was such a mess?).

But heck yeah, it seems obvious to me that if you base national policy on pious ignorance and the low-rent tribal power fantasies of a bronze-age gang of thugs, you're not going to cope well with the real issues of a modern pluralist society.

Here's some of the data, correlating god-belief with homicide rates and mean life expectancy. That little "U" that's typically floating off by itself as an outlier (and not on the good side) is us.

A = Australia
C = Canada
D = Denmark
E = Great Britain
F = France
G = Germany
H = Holland
I = Ireland
J = Japan
L = Switzerland
N = Norway
P = Portugal
R = Austria
S = Spain
T = Italy
U = United States
W = Sweden
Z = New Zealand
image image

(via Omniorthogonal)


I've noticed that a few people are freaking out over this study, and are in denial. Mostly it is because they are misinterpreting it; it does not say that if you believe in God, you will get an abortion and start murdering strangers. It says that prevalent god-belief in a culture does not discourage that sort of behavior, and that more secular societies are clearly not hotbeds of sin and corruption.

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 non-religious, pro-evolution 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. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.

Why this should be triggering such knee-jerk antipathy is a mystery to me; is denying the efficacy of religion and the perfection of American society, and providing evidence for same, such a horrifying idea to people? Apparently, it is.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3007/6KXu6vgx/

Comments:
Trackback: Religion: Giving people hope in a world torn apart by religion Tracked on: Ablogistan (216.193.252.187) at 2005 09 27 09:45:09
This is at the least, interesting: 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...



Trackback: On the Social Value of Religious Beliefs Tracked on: Abnormal Interests (64.81.36.251) at 2005 09 27 20:41:01
Writing in the Journal for Religion and Society , Gregory S. Paul offers what he calls "a first look" at "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies." Let's start with his conclusion,...



's avatar #41981: PZ Myers — 09/28  at  07:59 AM
No. They are first of all showing that there is no correlation between religiosity and moral behavior (on a national, not individual level), but they are also pointing out that the elephant in the room is the United States, which is absurdly religious and is also suffering from a pattern of problematic behavior. They don't mention it, but our leadership is painfully religious, yet this is the administration that is one of the most criminal we've ever had -- it's fair to say that we're on the road to being a rogue state.

It's not pulling a fast one to point out the one data point that exhibits a pattern wildly contrary to what the religious claim. It would have been suspect to ignore it.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#41989: Orac — 09/28  at  09:10 AM
PZ,

I might agree with you IF the authors had the data to back up their conclusions. Unfortunately, their data does not really support their conclusions.

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com



#41996: — 09/28  at  09:44 AM
Orac: ... their [sic] data does not really support their conclusions.

From Paul's conclusion:
The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations.... The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent... 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. ... There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).

Though inevitably (for an initial survey) incomplete, Paul's data do point to the correlations and related questions he raises.

Certainly a lot of further research is indicated here (one of the hallmarks of worthwhile work, no?). Among the questions Paul begs is a solid definition of religiosity, which imho would include a major component of arationality, and probably jeopardize the funding/career prospects of serious researchers.

An aspect of this I'd like to (but don't expect to) see analyzed further is the degree of correlation of religiosity & nationalism. The uncritical worship (hmm - is there any other kind?) of "America" among many Americans approaches a religious fervor, close to what Japanese nationalism did, say, three generations ago - does this also correlate with societal dysfunction?



#41997: — 09/28  at  10:13 AM
To illustrate: abstinence-only education (which is definitely based on religion) has increased the number of abortions. Need I say more?



#41999: Alon Levy — 09/28  at  10:19 AM
PZ, there are tons of explanations why the USA has a high crime rate, none of which has anything to do with religion except very distantly. For example, it's known that high inequality leads to a high crime rate, and indeed the USA is more unequal than any other developed country but Singapore, which has a rock-bottom crime rate but a very obedient, acquiescing, almost fatalist culture. Alternatively, studies from the 1960s and 70s show that every time television was introduced to a region, its crime rate started soaring exactly 15-20 years afterward; and indeed, the average American watches television more than the average European. Further, the USA has high private gun ownership, though as every gun nut will tell you, its rates of rape and non-firearm homicide are still far above these of Europe. The culture of violence is another possible explanation - inside the USA, the states with the most violent culture, i.e. those that execute people frequently, also have the highest murder rate, and furthermore individual executions are correlated with spikes in the murder rate after the execution.



#42007: coturnix — 09/28  at  10:37 AM
You can look at some state-by-state statistics here:
http://www.topalli.com/blue/



's avatar #42040: — 09/28  at  12:31 PM
Cool link, PZ! I haven't had time to digest the paper, but I am glad, as some other posters, that the worship of the superior morality of religions are finally getting the factual slap in the face it deserves.

I see a discussion on whether or not there are correlations, but without numbers to back it up. Eyeballing the data, as I think the paper does, there are correlations in some plots.

Whether or not they are statistically significant, and to what degree, remains to be seen. Social science papers, like medicine, tend necessarily to have a more relaxed attitude towards the criteria for significance or trends than natural sciences. I am skeptic about some posters skepticism.



#42047: Orac — 09/28  at  01:01 PM
That's OK. I'm skeptical about your skepticism about some posters' skepticism. wink

One nit to pick: Medical papers aren't this relaxed about the criteria for significance or correlations. There isn't even an attempt at statistical analysis in this paper, just the "eyeball" test.

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com



's avatar #42051: — 09/28  at  01:04 PM
You may think I am naive, but let keep things in proportion. The United States is the only country that thoughout its history always justified its action by moral or ethical arguments, while the rest of the world needs no other reason than national interest. The United States, although is a very religious country, never acted for religious reasons, it did not invade Iraq because it was Muslim nor Japan because it was non-theistic.

Otherwise I agree with the conclusions of the paper that at a national level, religion seems to make no difference.

Quod natura non sunt turpia



's avatar #42052: PZ Myers — 09/28  at  01:06 PM
But what do you expect from this kind of paper? You can't expect rigorous numbers to determine an LD50 for religion, and it would be silly to come up with an equation to define religiosity vs. homicide rate. It's simple refutation of a ridiculous claim by the religious, and it's convincing: your problem is that you're looking at it as if it is measuring the effect of a drug on blood pressure.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#42074: Thud — 09/28  at  03:37 PM
I'm pretty disappointed in the quality of the paper. Confusing fundamentalist Christianity with religion in general, confusing correlation and causation, ignoring other arguably more significant and more directly responsible sociological factors in favor of the religious argument... I often felt like the author was trying to pull a fast one on me.

Speaking of the author, however. Did anyone notice the complete lack of listed credentials? The only other Gregory S. Paul I was able to find online was the illustrator, and both do apparently live in Maryland. I emailed the journal to get more information but the editor said he did not know Gregory's credentials and had lost contact with the author.



#42088: — 09/28  at  05:38 PM
There's a HUGE area PZ between computing the LD50 for a drug and throwing a few points on a graph and calling it a day.

As I said in an earlier post, just because it's social science doesn't mean it doesn't have to be good.



#42091: Orac — 09/28  at  06:19 PM
jbark: Exactly.

PZ, I can't believe you're criticizing me for expecting more rigor in an allegedly scientific paper. If that's what's bugging you about my criticism, I guess I'm guilty as charged--and proud of it. I do expect more than this, even in a preliminary analysis, and I don't think my expectations are unreasonable.

And I'm afraid you're taking down a straw man. I never suggested we needed an "LD50" for religion, nor did I say that an equation to define "religiosity vs. homicide rate" was necessary. That point about the second order polynomial I tossed off earlier was in answer to a comment that seemed to be implying that I was being too simplistic about correlations. (Although I note that economists make all sorts of bizarre equations between variables between which there is no reason to expect a specific mathematical relation and based on no real causation all the time, and few seem to think this "silly.")

What I did say is that some statistical look at the raw data to determine if there is a correlation (or even no correlation) is necessary. And it is, even if to prove that there is no correlation! Also, your examples don't apply. The closest medical example to which this study might be compared is an epidemiological study, not an LD50 study or a study of the effects of a medication on blood pressure. That's because epidemiological studies are usually looking for correlations, and the latter two studies that you mentioned are examples of examining causation.

In any case, the authors came up with this model and this numeric data. If even they didn't consider their numbers reliable enough to bother to apply some exceedingly rudimentary statistical analysis to them, then it's hard for me not to wonder about the validity of the numbers. Where I come from, the "eyeball" test isn't enough, at least not for publication. Nor should it be.

Now that I've poked around some more, I also have a question about the Gregory S. Paul who wrote the paper. Is it this same Gregory S. Paul, who wrote this book? I also find it most odd that no academic affiliation is listed in the study article or listed in the news report you cited.

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com



#42095: Frederick — 09/28  at  07:42 PM
I think it's more to do with an anti-intellectual, anti-science and generally poor public attitude to social issues that many Americans have.

Many Americans certainly do have those attributes, but IMO those attributes are largely attributable to religion, particularly fundamentalist Christianity. Religions like Catholicism and Judaism that let people believe in evolution and aren't so hostile to science and rational thinking (other than in the realm of religion itself) are a lot less destructive. The folks who think every word in the Bible is literally true tend, almost of necessity, to be pervasively irrational and hostile to science.



Trackback: Gloating Tracked on: The Uncredible Hallq (72.9.234.70) at 2005 09 28 21:06:47
Thoughtless gloating is just asking for fundamentalists to go touting some other shoody study on the evils of atheism down the road. On the, if it's possible to pin down definite reasons why some strains of religion cause X, say if discouraging birth...



#42116: Thud — 09/29  at  04:25 AM
Frederick: IMO those attributes are largely attributable to religion, particularly fundamentalist Christianity. Religions like Catholicism and Judaism that let people believe in evolution and aren't so hostile to science and rational thinking...

Exactly the point as far as I'm concerned. If the study had been framed as "Social Policies based on Fundamentalist Christianity are counterproductive," I'd have less of a beef. It'd still be a sloppy paper, but at least it would be something you could, you know, look at data for. As it stands, it's just the "I'm rubber and you're glue" response to the "evolution makes you an amoral atheist" slander.



Trackback: Chatter Tracked on: gelatinous cube (207.7.145.56) at 2005 09 29 05:28:12
The most interesting discussion anent the new study of correlation between religious belief and social indicators which I've yet found is Pharyngula's Sinners in the hands of an angry phantasm. The finest turn of phrase award goes to Norbizness for...



#42159: — 09/29  at  11:29 AM
There seems to be a lot of criticism of the actual data; however it looks like they certainly could have presented some significant correlations, had they wanted to. I did one for fun and picked approximate values from the first graph of figure 4 (child mortality in whole numbers, so that one was easier):

Absolute belief in God vs. under-five mortality:
correlation coefficient r=0.9, p<0.0001. Ie. very strong.

I too wonder why no statistics, maybe they felt the data set was too preliminary even for that? But it seems if they were simply trying to present some stuff to falsify the hypothesis "religiosity is socially beneficial", they have succeeded.

Then, only if you go on to say "Societies are worse off 'when they have God on their side'" (Times) or even "Social Policies based on Fundamentalist Christianity are counterproductive" (Thud's example), THEN you imply causation, which you shouldn't. Unless you get more data.



#42164: — 09/29  at  12:24 PM
When taken with George Lakoff's strict father-model of viewing (and acting UPON the world), this data does look valid.

JL



's avatar #42183: — 09/29  at  04:39 PM
"One nit to pick: Medical papers aren't this relaxed about the criteria for significance or correlations."

No, but that was not what I claimed. So it is not a nit. grin

"There isn't even an attempt at statistical analysis in this paper, just the "eyeball" test."

Agreed. But you are using exactly the same method to say that there are no correlations.

"Where I come from, the "eyeball" test isn't enough, at least not for publication. Nor should it be."

The author is clearly stating his facts and analysis. He doesn't claim more than eye-ball correlation, I think. He also says it's a first analysis. So it is valid and points to an area worth further (and better) studies. One could certainly wish for more, as you say.



's avatar #42184: — 09/29  at  04:47 PM
"Absolute belief in God vs. under-five mortality:
correlation coefficient r=0.9, p<0.0001. Ie. very strong."

Why, thank you Windy! While the cc doesn't really cut to the chase, one wants some test with confidence levels, I think, it is still very suggestive. "A number says more than 1000 words", eh?



's avatar #42215: — 09/30  at  02:47 AM
Darn, I was too tired when I visited last time. And perhaps emotional; I had viewed 'The Hitchikers Guide to The Galaxy' on late night cinema and laughed more or less constantly for 2 hours. I greatly recommend that type of social science, too. wink

Orac, I meant that social sciences and medicine, as well as paleontology, astronomy and cosmology, sometimes have only a certain data set to work with. So they cannot always shoot for some standard confidence. Of course, they have to report what they got.

Windy, I stupidly overlooked that one can do a cc test, as you apparently did. Pearson or Spearman tests will give a confidence p for correlations (Gaussian model respectively non-model), of course.



#42436: Archosaurian — 10/02  at  09:45 AM
Gregory S. Paul is an evolutionary biologist who is well known in the paleontological community for his theories on the evolution of birds. He was one of the first to ever illustrate dinosaurs with an extensive, well-developed, feathery integument and one of the first to call for well-researched scientific accuracy in paleolife art at a time when the so-called "balloon dinosaurs" were a common sight. Since then his art has been the inspiration for many other paleolife artists (there are probably none oth there who have not been influenced by him in some way). Along with John Ostrom and Robert T. Bakker, he was one of the most significant figures of the "Dinosaur Renaissance" of the 1970's and 80's. Some of his works include:
Dinosaurs of the Air : The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds (2001)
Predatory Dinosaurs of the World: A Complete Illustrated Guide (1988)
Along with a number of other books and papers relating to evlution, paleontology, and paleolife art. He is known for his skeletal reconstructions of dinosaurs and other archosaurs, which are considered among the best.

I happened to have the pleasure of meeting him at a talk at the Burpee Museum's "Paleofest 2003" where he discussed, among other things, the evolution of birds, and the speed of Tyrannosaurus (this was shortly after Hutchinson et al.'s biomechanics paper came out where Tyrannosaurs were compared to elephants[!]).



Page 5 of 6 pages « First  <  3 4 5 6 >

Next entry: Edward Daley

Previous entry: Great pelagic orgies!

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college