Religiosity and the numerous ills to society

The other day I posted this quote on Facebook and it got a lot of likes:

"Atheists are routinely asked how people will know not to rape and murder without religion telling them not to do it, especially a religion that backs up the orders with threats of hell. Believers, listen to me carefully when I say this: When you use this argument, you terrify atheists. We hear you saying that the only thing standing between you and Ted Bundy is a flimsy belief in a supernatural being made up by pre-literate people trying to figure out where the rain came from. This is not very reassuring if you’re trying to argue from a position of moral superiority."
~ Amanda Marcotte

Which of course reminded me about a lot of other things regarding morality and atheists. 
One of my favorite papers is from the Virtual World project (which lists itself also as Moses Creighton, and appears to be an educational site because of the .edu extension). They have a Jopurnal of Religion & Society.  I suggest you read Volume 7 from 2005.

To say that it shows rather interesting data is probably an understatement.  So why would the quote I posted on Facebook remind me of this paper?  Well, the ills of society that for some reason are so disproportionately high  in the US, even though we are supposedly such a religious nation are aspects of morality.  Just read the abstract (emphasis mine):

Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and antievolution America performs poorly.

Of course, correlation does not equal causation, but after a while, you may start to wonder.  And this isn't the only data-point to consider... For instance, this article talking about our religiously motivate prudishness also mentions a lot of dysfunction.  They also note the correlation of (emphasis mine again):

“Prudes,” they would argue, should be upheld as exemplary role models because a sexually repressive society is also a society with fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer sexually transmitted diseases. But not only do the facts not bear that out, they also demonstrate that the exact opposite is true. Countries that embrace many of the things social conservatives detest (comprehensive sex education, pro-gay legislation, nude or topless beaches, legal or decriminalized prostitution, adult entertainment) tend to be countries that have  less sexual dysfunction than the United States, not more. And when one compares sexual attitudes in the United States to sexual attitudes in Western Europe, it becomes evident that there is a strong correlation between social conservatism and higher rates of teen pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases.

Okay, so there is the whole societal ills thing, but what about some other measure of adherence to morality?  I think that maybe one measure could be prison populations.  What about them?  Well, generally Americans seem more inclined to believe a default position of christianity, but there was this one study that showed a much higher percentage of christians in jail than atheists.  Granted this is from 1997, and the past 15 years has changed the American landscape quite a bit.

Maybe a measure of morality that the religious would be more familiar with?  How about the so called "seven deadly sins"?  That may provide some insight?  The University of Kansas Geography department made a great info-graphic on those imaginary "sins" and how they stack up by region.  Although it would have been nice to overlay those maps with a measure of actual religiosity, however it is generally accepted that religiosity does run deeper in the southern US as supported by the Pew Forum. So AGAIN there is a correlation that is the exact opposite of what the religious claim regarding religion and morality.

Now in my opinion, I think the really telling part is that all religion does is give away a person's accountability.  Instead of someone actually internalizing their morality, they end up just following what is told to them by some authority figure with no supporting evidence.  Sound just like religion?  Of course.  Add to this the horrible morality contained in the bible and other holy books.  This is morality based on bronze-age misogynistic ignorant tribal nomads...  Seriously?

The worst part is that there are way too many people in legislative positions that think it's just fine to attempt to legislate these bronze-age misogynistic ignorant tribal morals on the rest of the population.  All in all it's abject failure, and then there is the whole problem that the people that actually believe the bullshit version of morality seem to have a problem adhering to it, while at the same time screaming about their freedoms.  And of course, they will gladly deny freedoms to groups they consider immoral just because of the same holy books, but in reality have no real bearing of morality

Well, I could go on, but I think you get the idea.  After so many correlations, I am starting to wonder if there is some causation here?  What do you think?

The world’s most prosperous (and happiest) countries are also its least religious, new research states.

Found this interesting article. I did have to emphasize something in the article based on intellectual honesty. However, it's pretty clear when you look at data that goes back years. It's been said quite often, and this confirms it more:

Who Needs God When We’ve Got Mammon?

From Dostoyevsky to right-wing commentator Ann Coulter we are warned of the perils of godlessness. “If there is no God,” Dostoyevsky wrote, “everything is permitted.” Coulter routinely attributes our nation’s most intractable troubles to the moral vacuum of atheism.

But a growing body of research in what one sociologist describes as the “emerging field of secularity” is challenging long-held assumptions about the relationship of religion and effective governance.

In a paper posted recently on the online journal Evolutionary Psychology, independent researcher Gregory S. Paul reports a strong correlation within First World democracies between socioeconomic well-being and secularity. In short, prosperity is highest in societies where religion is practiced least.

Using existing data, Paul combined 25 indicators of societal and economic stability — things like crime, suicide, drug use, incarceration, unemployment, income, abortion and public corruption — to score each country using what he calls the “successful societies scale.” He also scored countries on their degree of religiosity, as determined by such measures as church attendance, belief in a creator deity and acceptance of Bible literalism.

Comparing the two scores, he found, with little exception, that the least religious countries enjoyed the most prosperity. Of particular note, the U.S. holds the distinction of most religious and least prosperous among the 17 countries included in the study, ranking last in 14 of the 25 socioeconomic measures.

Paul is quick to point out that his study reveals correlation, not causation. Which came first — prosperity or secularity — is unclear, but Paul ventures a guess. While it’s possible that good governance and socioeconomic health are byproducts of a secular society, more likely, he speculates, people are inclined to drop their attachment to religion once they feel distanced from the insecurities and burdens of life.

“Popular religion,” Paul proposes, “is a coping mechanism for the anxieties of a dysfunctional social and economic environment.” Paul, who was criticized, mostly on statistical grounds, for a similar study published in 2005, says his new findings lend support to the belief that mass acceptance of popular religion is determined more by environmental influences and less by selective, evolutionary forces, as scholars and philosophers have long debated.

In other words, we’re not hardwired for religion.

Paul also believes his study helps refute the controversial notion that the moral foundation of religious doctrine is a requisite for any high-functioning society – what he dubs the “moral-creator hypothesis.”

Phil Zuckerman, a sociologist at Pitzer College whose research looks at the link between religion and societal health within the developed world, agrees with that assertion. “The important thing we’re seeing here is that progressive, highly functional societies can answer their problems within a framework of secularity. That’s a big deal, and we should be blasting that message out loud,” he contends.

Zuckerman says the findings are consistent with his own data, collected for his 2008 book Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment — a portrait of secular society in Denmark and Sweden — and his forthcoming Faith No More: How and Why People Reject Religion.

Scandinavian countries, in particular, have achieved high levels of economic strength and social stability, and yet the influence of religion there is in steep decline, perhaps the lowest in recoded history. Coincidence or not, those countries also rank among the world’s happiest populations. In The Netherlands’ Erasmus University Rotterdam’s annual World Database of Happiness the same Northern European countries that score low in religiosity rank high in reported levels of happiness. (The U.S ranked 27th).

What’s their secret? Zuckerman believe it lies in the historically strong sense of community — perhaps a survival response to long, harsh winters – that transcends religious life in these northern climates. Social well-being, economic strength (and happiness) are products of community interaction, not faith, Zuckerman conjectures.

If that’s true — and other researchers, such as influential Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, are touting the idea that mass religion’s greatest value lies in the web of personal interaction it weaves — then societies that reject religion may suffer if strong secular institutions are not in place to maintain community bonds and foster positive civic associations. Social interactions both inside and outside church structure, Bloom recently wrote, is far more beneficial than “a belief in constant surveillance by a higher power.”

Indeed, researchers in a variety of other studies are targeting the positive effects of church-based social interaction. One study published earlier this year in the Journal of Happiness Studies concluded that the quality and depth of personal relationships has a far greater effect on children’s happiness than does religious practice itself — church attendance, prayer, meditation. In many American communities, organized religion is the principal conduit to those kinds of close relationships, as well as to civic action and problem-solving.

Zuckerman warns against hasty emulation of the Danes and Swedes. “We can’t just say that secularity is good for society and religion is bad,” he warns. “And nor can we say the opposite. The connections are very complex.”

Paul is less compromising, characterizing organized religion, particularly the conservative Christian brand widely practiced in the U.S., as societal anathema, conspiring against real progress.

In his paper, Paul writes of an “antagonistic relationship between better socioeconomic conditions and intense popular faith” derived from fear that greater prosperity will loosen the grip of religion. That antagonism, though subtle, is evident in the debate over health care, he argues, noting the intense opposition of such groups as the Christian Coalition to universal coverage and other progressive, European-style fixes.

“These groups have a lot to lose in these kinds of debates. When you adopt progressive policy reforms,” Paul says, “in the long run, religion is bound to be road kill.”

Paul, 54, lives in Baltimore and is not affiliated with any university or think tank. He is largely self-taught. He has published three respected books on paleontology, claiming naming rights to a handful of species, and he earns a living as an artist and illustrator of prehistoric creatures. He migrated to the field of secular studies to wage a kind of scholarly assault on the right-wing fundamentalists who challenge both the evolutionary assumptions of paleontology and, it follows, his livelihood.

He isn’t shy about promoting progressive policy reforms and is quick to blame the Christian right for a range of societal dysfunctions. (A recent study published in the journal Reproductive Health found that states whose residents have more conservative religious beliefs have higher rates of teenagers giving birth).

Yet in spite of his findings, and his secularist agenda, Paul stops short of proposing measures to suppress the role and influence of religion in America. Why? It’s already happening, he insists. Although we remain largely a nation of believers, our faith and commitment are slipping. Religious affiliation, church attendance and belief in God are all in slow decline in the U.S. A recent Gallup poll found that two-thirds of adults believe the influence of religion in American life is waning, up from 50 percent just four years ago.

As these trends continue, he believes, policymaking will more effectively address the true needs of society, rather than the dogma of religious idealism. “People need to know that society without religion is not a bad thing,” Paul says. “And we’re seeing this in other countries. We don’t need religion to have a thriving, prosperous nation.”

Brain Drain

I ran into this article today in USA Today (hey, it's a shit news papaer, but the hotel leaves it at my door every morning). "More of World's Talented Workers Opt to Leave USA." I wonder why that is? (Before you think I am 100% serious, read the last paragraph of this blog first...)

For a long time, we were a world leader in science and technology. We could kick anyone's ass when it came to innovation, REAL science, and technology. Then McCarthyism and religious indoctrination started hitting our young. When those young started to get into the arena of reality, we saw a bit of a shift in the USA's position for science and technology. We were still the best, but now we were importing as much talent as we made ourselves. Other countries lamented that their best and brightest were heading off to the USA to make their dreams come true. We of course didn't mind.

Then introduce the funamentalization of the US. Now we can't even educate our children about the universe and things going on around them because we get distracted with the religious nutbags that insist the world is 6000 years old, and nothing like evolution ever happened, or will happen. Despite the irrifutable mountains of evidence to the contrary. These people who think they live in the 21st century insist on adhereing to Bronze Age myths and fables, and in the process distract themselves and policy makers from the actual goal of cultivating thinkers. It's no wonder that the US is one of the most illiterate developed nations in the world. Or that we have all the other social ills attached to religion running rampant through our society.

Smart people are abandoning ship if they have the opportunity to do so. I know that I seriously considered emmigrating to another country upon retirement from the Military. Thankfully I am now settled in one of the most secular states of the nation. I barely ever see one of those stupid fucking jebus fish on cars. People I meet here don't discuss their religiosity if they are religious (they have the common sense to keep it where it belongs!). And in general, people are a whole lot more intelligent here! Sorry bible belt folks. You are the epitome of the seven deadly sins anyway, and I'm glad to be away from your hypocritical influences.

Okay, so I am stretching correlations and causations in this whole entry, I will admit that freely. :) But come on, doesn't it make a lot of sense in the context of so many individual bits of data?