A Refutation of the Idea That a Godless Citizenry Must Experience Societal Disaster
In an article for the Journal of Religion and Society, Gregory S. Paul argues based on the sociological data from several different nations to this conclusion:
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.
12 comments:
Thanks goes to M. Tully for this reference.
I was overjoyed to see that study, and have been awaiting a follow-up for quite a while. Here's my favorite passage:
"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 (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S. […] is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a "shining city on the hill" to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health."
American christians regularly take their familines on vacation to these largely atheized countries like France, Sweden and the UK without giving a thought to their safety. That shows that even they concede that these nations have some positive things going for them.
The Catholic Church had a stranglehold on Spain for centuries. Lately Spain has become noticeably less religious, like most other European countries, without any deliberate plan to bring this about:
What Happens When a Country Gives Up Religion: as Spain Shows, Nothing Much
It's odd, I don't see very many of these smart-ass fundamentalists commenting on this post. It's almost as if they are willing to completely ignore this study.
Okay, since ya'll are practically begging for a Christian comment.
I'd say this is a load of bunk. Notice the total lack of a hard definition of "societal health". I could just as easily say "societal health"=="societal wealth", in which case the US far excells. Or "societal health"=="societal inventiveness"; again the US has more patents than all other countries in the world combined. Or correlate health to power, with the US the sole superpower.
I'd say the yardsticks were cherry-picked. Take teen pregnancies. What they don't tell you is that ALL PREGNANCIES are lower in these other countries; so low, in fact, that these societies are dying. One would hope that somewhere in any calculation of "societal health" would be an indication of whether population trends indicate a culture will still exist in 100 years, or whether they will be taken over and assimulated by invading (highly religious) Muslim populations.
But the greatest fallicy of these kind of statistical "correlation studies" is that they don't prove anything. They cannot prove cause and effect. I am sure all you atheists would howl "foul" if I tried to correlate US to Europe on wealth, power, inventive creativity, or population trends as "proof" of the value of religion. Likewise, I do the same here.
Rick,
You wrote, "I'd say this is a load of bunk. Notice the total lack of a hard definition of "societal health"." and "I'd say the yardsticks were cherry-picked."
Two comments:
First the author's definition of societal health; low juvenile mortality, low levels of violent crime, low teen pregnancy rates are pretty much agreed upon by social scientists (theistic and secular alike). If you want make wealth the qualifier, that's fine, but you're going to have to argue that a nation with as great a wealth as Mexico must be one of the most societal healthy countries in the world.
Second, if you think the data really were "cherry picked," you should write a rebuttal and submit it. A reputable, peer-reviewed journal cannot out-of-hand dismiss any submittal. Additionally, you certainly can't claim that the "Journal of Religion and Society" has some kind of anti-Christian bias to it.
So I say go for it. I'll be looking for your well-researched and strongly supported by an equally large body of data rebuttal in the next issue.
Oh, and Rick,
As for your comment that, "But the greatest fallicy of these kind of statistical "correlation studies" is that they don't prove anything."
The author is very clear in not wanting anyone to confuse correlation and cause. He makes clear that he is not stating that that religion leads to societal dysfunction, only that a lack of religion has absolutely no correlation with societal dysfunction.
You really have to read the whole thing.
Boy -- some people want you to be a scholar to have an opinion, or to have an army of scholars at ones disposal, cherry picked according to shared predelictions.
What are measures of merit? Is this a question for scholars? That's mighty priestly. I'm of the opinion that success validates merit, if it can even be called merit. It's just what happened to prevail in a given time and place, and is likely, but not guaranteed, to continue to prevail. That, or.... merit is validated by conformity with design, as the implimentation of a manufacturing process is validated by statistical variation of measured valued around a design specification.
It's natural selection (of memes, not genes) or intelligent design. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster has different validation criteria, where societies are judged by the wearing of bandanas, which too much resemble Robert Tilton prayer shawls.
So... dunno what validates the aggregate religious values of a society.... but how our kids thrive seems to be a good index. But I wonder, institutions endure beyond the forces that create them. And the institutions forged by Christian belief, (and I mean representative government and the Rule of Law, not religious denominations) moderated by enlightenment Deism, seem still with us, as we abandon our allegiance to what produced them.
Dying Christian institutions have served us, and continue to sustain us, though we've given up sustaining them -- I'm not so sure about other post-religionist societies. I don't think reactionary-fundamentalist societies care much for institutions.
And I wonder what institutions mature post-religionism will give us. And if any of the societies measured could be classified as such.
m. tully,
Well, there is an evaluation of Paul's study at the following:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html
Here is a couple snippets from paragraph (2) of that article:
Paul’s efforts and “first look” should be applauded since they bring to the attention of religious studies scholars and social scientists a very important and timely subject of study.
and
In what follows, some issues of concern are raised regarding Paul’s important study. It should be noted that the grounds for this research note are not substantively philosophical. It is not the concern of this response to address whether or not religiosity and secularity is indeed beneficial or detrimental to any polity. That would require a far different type and length of a response. Rather, this rejoinder addresses Paul’s thesis, analysis, and conclusions in terms of the various methodological assumptions and frameworks used to deploy his study. It is the opinion of the authors that once all of the methodological issues are considered, Paul’s findings and conclusions are rendered ineffectual. In closing, various suggestions are offered in the hopes of advancing Paul’s hopes for “future research and debate on the issue” of comparative analysis of religiosity, secularism, and democratic social health.
I'm still reading both the original study and the evaluation...
jaceppe,
I didn't have to look far into Moreno-Riano, et al. to find flaws. In their introduction they state, "H1 and, by inference, H2:
H1: “Belief in a creator is beneficial to societies”
H2: “Secularism is beneficial to societies”<1>"
As far as H2 is concerned, Paul specifically points out that he is not claiming this. So even in their intro a straw man is set up. Is their no shame amongst Theists?
And again, Moreno-Riano et al. make the argument that "For example, in defining secular polities one must take into account whether or not some institutional religion or its premises control its legal and judicial processes as well as whether or not such polities favor any religion."
No, Paul never makes any argument about whether theocracy makes a difference in societial health, only whether or not God-belief does. Another unapologetic straw man.
And finally (and most importantantly), what data do Moreno-Riano, et al. cite to show that a lack of God-belief does lead to societial dysfunction in educated western democracies?
That would be none. Paul's analysis stands. Unless of course, you could "produce an equally large body of evidence."
m. tully,
I appreciate your response and taking time to read the evaluation of Paul’s study. In regard to your answers though I think you are amiss…
You state…
I didn't have to look far into Moreno-Riano, et al. to find flaws. In their introduction they state, "H1 and, by inference, H2:
H1: “Belief in a creator is beneficial to societies”
H2: “Secularism is beneficial to societies”<1>"
As far as H2 is concerned, Paul specifically points out that he is not claiming this. So even in their intro a straw man is set up. Is their no shame amongst Theists?
Well, Paul most certainly is trying to assert something much like H2 for he states this in paragraph (19):
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 developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards.
That most assuredly is a statement that their secularlism is a factor in leading to their success; so Moreno-Riano et.al. are spot on in their identification of H2. And the funny thing is that Paul asserts that statement after saying at the beginning (as you point out) that he wasn’t trying to make such statements…
You also state:
And again, Moreno-Riano et al. make the argument that "For example, in defining secular polities one must take into account whether or not some institutional religion or its premises control its legal and judicial processes as well as whether or not such polities favor any religion."
No, Paul never makes any argument about whether theocracy makes a difference in societial health, only whether or not God-belief does. Another unapologetic straw man.
They are not referring to theocracy. What they are referring to is the institutions (e.g. rule of law and governmental structure, dignity and rights of the individual, etc…) the cultural and governmental fabric that Christianity had a significant influence in shaping in Western Europe in the hundreds of years since the fall of the Roman Empire. Bobcmu76 also hints at this in his post a couple posts back… One can’t talk about the West without talking about Christianity, one can’t assume that atheism or secularism would have produced these structures, nor can one assume that a society of secularism is no longer benefiting from structures whose creation was strongly tied to theistic belief ideologies. If you really want to talk about the glories of secularism let’s roll the clock forward a couple hundred years and see what these societies look like then: then you would have some real data!
Finally you state:
And finally (and most importantly), what data do Moreno-Riano, et al. cite to show that a lack of God-belief does lead to societial dysfunction in educated western democracies?
Maybe you missed them stating the following in paragraph (2):
It is not the concern of this response to address whether or not religiosity and secularity is indeed beneficial or detrimental to any polity. That would require a far different type and length of a response. Rather, this rejoinder addresses Paul’s thesis, analysis, and conclusions in terms of the various methodological assumptions and frameworks used to deploy his study.
So, their purpose is nothing of what you seem to think it is… it is to demonstrate that Paul has erred in methodology/assumptions in his study.
You don’t address in your response any of the methodology problems they point out in these sections:
Methodological Individualism
Conceptual Ambiguity
Comparative Analysis and Operationalizations
Real versus Artifactual Differences: A Note of Caution
So your response lacks an understanding of their intent and you ignore the real issues they articulate regarding Paul’s study thereby leaving ALL of their accusations on methodology still in force.
They state this in their conclusion:
What one can state with certainty is that one cannot in any way be certain as to the effects of religiosity and secularism upon prosperous democracies at least as based upon the methods and data of Paul’s study.
This is the most sound conclusion on the data in Paul’s study.
Post a Comment