Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

Users who are viewing this thread

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
At the end of the video I posted here in regards to why the US has such a poor uptake of the understanding of Evolution, a study was mentioned that called the US the most dysfunctional society in the West, and correlated that with belief in God.

I decided to look into the report, and it's quite interesting to say the least.

The study, published 2005, compared the US with other, predominantly secular societies like the UK, and found that in all instances of what you might consider a dysfunctional society, the US came out far worse.

Not only does it seem that religion is unnecessary for a country to function, but it's actually detrimental to creating a harmonious society.

From the Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

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.

“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.”

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

It seems that the key factor in this is the acceptance of Evolutionary Theory, or lack thereof, in the case of the US:

He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said.

"The non-religious, proevolution 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."

So the question is, why maintain an institution/tradition that purports to increase the moral standing of a nation, when in fact the exact opposite is true?
 
  • 23
    Replies
  • 1K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Interesting side note:

In the last few years, statistical sociological science has finally solved the fundamental questions surrounding religion as a mass phenomenon. The results show that in most persons religiosity is a superficial psychological response to adverse or insecure socio-economic conditions, and organized religion is imploding in every first-world nation where the middle class is highly secure due to progressive government policies.

It seems unsurprising to me that an increase in religious belief correlates with an insecure socio-economic framework.
 

BornReady

Active Member
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
At the end of the video I posted here in regards to why the US has such a poor uptake of the understanding of Evolution, a study was mentioned that called the US the most dysfunctional society in the West, and correlated that with belief in God.

Yeah, I've read reports like this before. The idea religion is necessary for morality is just plain silly. I do propose narrowing the culprit some though. The real problem is fundamentalism.

It seems unsurprising to me that an increase in religious belief correlates with an insecure socio-economic framework.

I read about an interesting study done by some sociologists. They studied some primitive fishing tribes. The further out from shore the tribe was required to go to catch fish, the more superstitious the tribe was.

And just so no one thinks I'm picking on primitive people, take a look at baseball. Being the slightest bit off in your game when you're up to bat is the difference between a hit and an out. Even the best batters fail most of the time. It's no wonder so many baseball players are superstitious.
 

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Yeah, I've read reports like this before. The idea religion is necessary for morality is just plain silly. I do propose narrowing the culprit some though. The real problem is fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism brings other problems, but this is purely a look at belief in God and it's effects on society.

I read about an interesting study done by some sociologists. They studied some primitive fishing tribes. The further out from shore the tribe was required to go to catch fish, the more superstitious the tribe was.

And just so no one thinks I'm picking on primitive people, take a look at baseball. Being the slightest bit off in your game when you're up to bat is the difference between a hit and an out. Even the best batters fail most of the time. It's no wonder so many baseball players are superstitious.

This is really the point. When living in circumstances that are fragile, that is, 1 medical bill away from bankruptcy or something, solace is taken in believing in God. This really does show the purpose of God as a crutch, more even than an explanation about the natural world.

enough God bashing

Um, I didn't. Besides, Dana, if He exists and is omnipotent as he claims, then he's more than capable of sticking up for himself, I don't think He would need you to fight his battles for Him.

GOD is not the problem. It's secular religions (or cults, rather). Religion is ridiculous and shit like this happens because of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2OoErD0n3Q

Well the study shows that God clearly is a problem.

What's interesting is that God is a symptom of a fragile and unstable society, and in turn seems to feed the many problems that create that instability.

  1. You have people living in uncertain conditions, so they seek solace in a deity.
  2. This deity brings rules that humans seemingly aren't designed to follow, some of which perpetuate step one.
  3. It then creates a judgmental societal framework, further alienating the populous from each other, limiting any progress toward cohesion.
 

Dana

In Memoriam - RIP
Messages
42,904
Reaction score
10
Tokenz
0.17z
ed, who is sticking up for God? I'm not... I'm just sick of the religious/anti religious debates on here. When is enough, enough? You people bring up the same points in every tiopic. people who rebuttal say the same thing with every response. debate is futile. I say we abolish religious debate on this site and agree to disagree and everyone shuts up.
 

HK

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,410
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.03z
What's wrong with a good discussion? I like religious debate because I don't get a chance to do it much in my regular life, and a forum I was a member of for a long time never allowed it, because it was too inflammatory. But you can learn one hell of a lot about other religions and world perspectives through debate.

So long as everyone is capable of behaving like adults and recognising that someone saying 'I think you're wrong because...' doesn't equal 'I think your mum is a whore!' then what's the issue?


Anyway - I'm agnostic and I don't think if there is a God, that's it's the problem. Religion is the cause of the problems, not whatever possible deity is out there. Technically you could say that they don't stop religions causing problems in their name but then involvement from a higher being seems to be minimal if present at all. And more specifically, it's not so much the religion even as it is the people championing the religion. There's always going to be extremist groups that make everyone else look worse.

I've never thought religion is necessary for morality. Atheists are no more likely to break the law than religious folks. Most of the commandments for example are common sense, and I feel if you need a higher being and a rule book to understand that murdering and stealing are wrong, then you didn't have a very good upbringing. Plus it almost suggests that without religion, the world would descend into looting and raping, whereas that's obviously not the case as we gradually become more secular and yet haven't started beating each other the head with clubs.
 

BornReady

Active Member
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Most of the commandments for example are common sense, and I feel if you need a higher being and a rule book to understand that murdering and stealing are wrong, then you didn't have a very good upbringing.

Well said!
 

BornReady

Active Member
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Fundamentalism brings other problems, but this is purely a look at belief in God and it's effects on society.

I think the significant difference between Europe and USA is fundamentalism. Yes there are more people in the USA who believe in God. But if you include belief in the supernatural then the two are not all that different. For example, according to the Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, only 38% of the UK believes in God. But another 40% believe in a spirit or life force. Leaving only 20% who believe in neither.

Fundamentalism is the USA reaction to modernism. For example, if you show me a person who rejects evolution then I'll show you a fundamentalist or at least the child of a fundamentalist.

Fundamentalism is close minded and intolerant. By lumping open minded theists with fundamentalists and accusing the whole group of stifling progress risks alienating people who are really our friends.
 

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
ed, who is sticking up for God? I'm not... I'm just sick of the religious/anti religious debates on here. When is enough, enough? You people bring up the same points in every tiopic. people who rebuttal say the same thing with every response. debate is futile. I say we abolish religious debate on this site and agree to disagree and everyone shuts up.

actually these points haven't been brought up before at all. As these threads get longer then yes, they do tend to cover the same ground. But the points that start the thread are always valid and need to be raised.

If you don't like them Dana, just stay out of these forums.
 

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Anyway - I'm agnostic and I don't think if there is a God, that's it's the problem. Religion is the cause of the problems, not whatever possible deity is out there. Technically you could say that they don't stop religions causing problems in their name but then involvement from a higher being seems to be minimal if present at all. And more specifically, it's not so much the religion even as it is the people championing the religion. There's always going to be extremist groups that make everyone else look worse.

Clearly the report isn't directly blaming God - I mean, we don't know if he exists so that would be pretty silly. What it is doing, is pointing out the correlation between a belief in God and a dysfunctional society.

The extremist groups are simply made possible by a larger percentage of the population believing in God.

In the UK for example, an extremely secular society, there aren't any extreme or fundamentalist religious groups. Not enough people believe in God for that to happen. There may be some extremists, but there aren't enough to form any kind of groups with any kind of influence. You need a sizable percentage of the population to be religious for the fanatical edge to become large enough to notice. It's simply a by-product of mass indoctrination.

I've never thought religion is necessary for morality. Atheists are no more likely to break the law than religious folks. Most of the commandments for example are common sense, and I feel if you need a higher being and a rule book to understand that murdering and stealing are wrong, then you didn't have a very good upbringing. Plus it almost suggests that without religion, the world would descend into looting and raping, whereas that's obviously not the case as we gradually become more secular and yet haven't started beating each other the head with clubs.

This is the main point the study refutes: religious people have always claimed without the guidance of scripture and an omnipotent being there can be no morals. However, in reality the study shows that religious beliefs actually lead to more immoral behaviour.

The idea that morals are borne out of religion is highly false anyway. Humans have had morals since we first came down from the trees in africa and settled on the plains.

What I've always wondered, is that if religious people only act in a moral way because of the threat of eternal damnation... I've heard Christians say as much. In which case they must be pretty horrible human beings, because using that logic, if they lose their belief, they are free to be as morally corrupt as they want.

I think the significant difference between Europe and USA is fundamentalism. Yes there are more people in the USA who believe in God. But if you include belief in the supernatural then the two are not all that different. For example, according to the Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, only 38% of the UK believes in God. But another 40% believe in a spirit or life force. Leaving only 20% who believe in neither.

Well the fundamentalism in any country, as I explained above, is simply the extreme edge of a particular viewpoint. This only becomes visible when a larger portion of the population has religious views. There simply aren't enough religious people in the UK to produce an extremity like Christian Fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism is the USA reaction to modernism. For example, if you show me a person who rejects evolution then I'll show you a fundamentalist or at least the child of a fundamentalist.

Fundamentalism is simply the extreme edge of a shared view. I don't think it's a reaction to anything, it's just the more people believe, the more likely you'll find people that REALLY believe, creating a fundamentalist edge. In the US, with such a high percentage of the population believing in God, it's inevitable you'll get a decent portion of those believers taking the Bible as literally as they can. There are other factors at play too, conservatism and fear of change being the two main ones, but I think it's simply a numbers game.

Fundamentalism is close minded and intolerant. By lumping open minded theists with fundamentalists and accusing the whole group of stifling progress risks alienating people who are really our friends.

As I pointed out, the existence of the fundamentalists is caused by the "open-minded theists". The more theists you have, the higher the chance some will take a fundamentalist viewpoint. Countries with low religious uptake do not have the same problem because the numbers simply don't allow it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HK

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,410
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.03z
What I've always wondered, is that if religious people only act in a moral way because of the threat of eternal damnation... I've heard Christians say as much. In which case they must be pretty horrible human beings, because using that logic, if they lose their belief, they are free to be as morally corrupt as they want.

I've talked about this with other Christians and some of them are very adamant that fear has nothing to do with it, it's all about knowing what is right and following divine judgement etc etc. I think that's the sort of response you'll get from people who are generally good people anyway, and perhaps deep down do agree that religion is not needed to somehow tame humanity. It's damn hard trying to get someone who is extremely religious though to concede that any part of their religion might not be entirely necessary. I think they feel any weakness shown will lead to further cracks.
 

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I've talked about this with other Christians and some of them are very adamant that fear has nothing to do with it, it's all about knowing what is right and following divine judgement etc etc. I think that's the sort of response you'll get from people who are generally good people anyway, and perhaps deep down do agree that religion is not needed to somehow tame humanity. It's damn hard trying to get someone who is extremely religious though to concede that any part of their religion might not be entirely necessary. I think they feel any weakness shown will lead to further cracks.

It's interesting because I've heard that before too. But it doesn't make any sense: the evidence shows that a belief in God doesn't make a society any more moral. Moral behaviour comes from humans being social creatures - we need to get along otherwise we wouldn't survive.

But yes you've raised a very interesting point - it is incredibly hard to get anyone religious to concede any part of their belief.
 

BornReady

Active Member
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Fundamentalism is simply the extreme edge of a shared view. I don't think it's a reaction to anything, it's just the more people believe, the more likely you'll find people that REALLY believe, creating a fundamentalist edge.

I should have written fundamentalism with a capital F. This is the definition I meant:

Fundamentalism is an organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
Fundamentalism is more of a sect than a degree. There are devoted liberal Christians. There are also lukewarm Fundamentalists. Not that I'm complaining about them being lukewarm. :)

As Sun Tzu said, know your enemy.
 

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I should have written fundamentalism with a capital F. This is the definition I meant:

Fundamentalism is more of a sect than a degree. There are devoted liberal Christians. There are also lukewarm Fundamentalists. Not that I'm complaining about them being lukewarm. :)

As Sun Tzu said, know your enemy.

of course, but the point is that Fundamentalism is only made possible by having a sufficient number of moderates that believe. If there were only 2 people who believed in God in the whole nation, what do you think the chances of them becoming a significant fundamental force would be? Zero. The Fundamentalists are simply made possible by the large number of moderates that exist. They are just the extreme edge. Shrink the size of the moderate base and the fundamental base will shrink too.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
It seems unsurprising to me that an increase in religious belief correlates with an insecure socio-economic framework.
Do you not have any sense of history at all, Ed? The US is probably less religious than it has ever been, and near its lowest point of stability. The gov't inserted "under God" into our pledge and "In God We Trust" on our currency when we were the strongest economic power in the world. The US dollar was the currency of choice in international trade.


................................

Oh yeh, it still is.

....................


The dysfunction, imo comes not from the fact that many of our citizens are religious, but that so many non-religious people think we should be culturally homogeneous. It doesn't help that a minority of religious zealots believe the same thing. It isn't religion, it's intolerance, which is unChristian.

But even with all that said, I have to wonder why you even care. Why are you concerned? You call our society unstable, and that the instability comes about because of religion, which was strongest when the nation was strongest. If you're concerned because of how it affects your own society, I would think you would want to reinforce the religious ethic that has been our nation's mainstay lo these many years.

If it's not about how it affects your society, then how is it anything more than whispering unfounded gossip about the neighbors down the street?

I'd say that your main concern is that the US is not like the UK, and you don't understand why. Since anything you don't understand is suspect (that's human nature, y'know) then US society is suspect. So you pick at and point at anything that is different from you and label it evil. It makes you feel better; makes you feel like you understand.
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top