[Peace-discuss] RE: Are religious societies better than secular
ones?
Phil Stinard
pstinard at hotmail.com
Thu Oct 13 21:18:28 CDT 2005
I don't think I'm going overboard on this, Mort. I'm just taking Monbiot at
his word. You are correct in that he is all over the map and contradicts
himself, trashing both secular and religious societies, but I quoted
Monbiot's conclusion verbatim, and he seems to take the Gregory Paul article
seriously. If he's not being serious, then his article is even more
pointless than I imagined. When I have more time tomorrow, I'll write about
some methodologies that could help get at the question of whether religion
is correlated with crime rate, etc.
--Phil
>From: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel4 at insightbb.com>
>To: "Phil Stinard" <pstinard at hotmail.com>
>CC: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: Are religious societies better than
>secular ones?
>Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:52:11 -0500
>
>I think you are going overboard, Phil. In fact, if I remember correctly,
>Monbiot stated that certain secularly oriented governments were as bad for
>their populations as any (He cited the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany
>[secular?]). I believe he was just having fun in teasing those who
>identify morality stems with religion, as his last quote flippantly
>indicated. Moreover, he never said anything about "proof", but
>correlations can be suggestive. A matter of inference here, not deduction.
>
>Just my reaction. Mort
>
>
>On Oct 13, 2005, at 6:41 PM, Phil Stinard wrote:
>
>>Monbiot's article is extremely annoying, because he's trying to base a
>>"scientific" attack on religion in society on an a flawed review article
>>in a religious journal that no one will probably ever read, but we're
>>expected to take Monbiot's word for it. Well, I managed to find the
>>journal and the article on-line, so here's the link:
>>http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
>>
>>Those who take Monbiot's article even semiseriously, please read the
>>review article and then ask yourself if the author, Gregory S. Paul, has
>>proven the thesis laid out by Monbriot, that crime rate, abortion rate,
>>STD rate, and other various societal ills are a direct result of a
>>society's religiosity. Clearly, no such conclusions of cause and effect
>>are drawn. The US stands out as having extraordinarily high rates of
>>dysfunction, and since the US is categorized as being the most religious
>>society in the study, it skews the correlations tremendously, but that
>>doesn't PROVE anything. Here is the conclusion of Gregory Paul's
>>article:
>>
>>"The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing
>>because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major
>>western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development
>>Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a
>>portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more,
>>than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000,
>>2004). 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, and doing so requires considering the
>>degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed
>>correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism.
>>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? 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). It is the responsibility of the research
>>community to address controversial issues and provide the information
>>that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses."
>>
>>It's a really big stretch to go from Gregory Paul's conclusion to
>>Monbiot's conclusion: "But if we are to accept the findings of this one
>>-- and so far only -- wide survey of belief and human welfare, the
>>message to those who claim in any sense to be pro-life is unequivocal. If
>>you want people to behave as Christians advocate, you should tell them
>>that God does not exist." First of all, Paul's article doesn't present
>>any original findings, and secondly, it's not a wide survey of belief and
>>human welfare. It's a review article, and it's hardly the first and only
>>one. Monbiot's conclusion tells me more about Monbiot's biases and lack
>>of critical skills than it does about the effects of religion on society.
>>
>>--Phil Stinard
>>
>>
>>
>>>Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
>>>From: Chuck Minne <mincam2 at yahoo.com>
>>>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Are religious societies better than secular
>>> ones?
>>>To: Peace <peace-discuss at lists.groogroo.com>
>>>Message-ID: <20051013142355.56287.qmail at web50906.mail.yahoo.com>
>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>>
>>>Better Off Without Him?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>By George Monbiot, AlterNet. Posted October 13, 2005.
>>>
>>>Christian fundamentalists claim religion is associated with lower rates
>>>of violence, teen pregnancy and divorce. A new study says they couldn't
>>>be more wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Are religious societies better than secular ones? It should be an easy
>>>question for athiests to answer.
>>>
>>>Most of those now seeking to blow people up -- whether with tanks and
>>>missiles or rucksacks and passenger planes -- do so in the name of God.
>>>In India, we see men whose religion forbids them to harm insects setting
>>>fire to human beings. A 14th-century Pope with a 21st-century
>>>communications network sustains his church's mission of persecuting gays
>>>and denying women ownership of their bodies. Bishops and rabbis in
>>>Britain have just united in the cause of prolonging human suffering, by
>>>opposing the legalization of assisted suicide. We know that the most
>>>dangerous human trait is an absence of self-doubt, and that self-doubt
>>>is more likely to be absent from the mind of the believer than the
>>>non-religious infidel.
>>>
>>>But we also know that few religious governments have committed
>>>atrocities on the scale of Hitler's, Mao's or Stalin's (though, given
>>>their more limited means, the Spanish and British in the Americas, the
>>>British, Germans and Belgians in Africa, and the British in Australia
>>>and India could be said to have done their best). It is hard to dismiss
>>>Dostoyevsky's suspicion that "If God does not exist, then everything is
>>>permissible."
>>>
>>>Nor can we wholly disagree with the new Pope when he warns that "we are
>>>moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which ... has as its highest
>>>goal one's own ego and one's own desires." (We must trust, of course,
>>>that a man who has spent his life campaigning to become God's
>>>go-between, and who now believes he is infallible, is immune to such
>>>impulses).
>>>
>>>The creationists in the United States might be as mad as a box of
>>>ferrets, but what they claim to fear is the question which troubles
>>>almost everyone who has stopped to think about it: if our lives have no
>>>purpose, why should we care about other people's?
>>>
>>>We know too, as Roy Hattersley argued in the Guardian last month, that
>>>"good works ... are most likely to be performed by people who believe
>>>that heaven exists. The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to
>>>doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand."
>>>
>>>The only two heroes I have met are both Catholic missionaries. Joe Haas,
>>>an Austrian I stayed with in the swamp forests of West Papua, had spent
>>>his life acting as a human shield for the indigenous people of
>>>Indonesia: every few months soldiers threatened to kill him when he
>>>prevented them from murdering his parishioners and grabbing their land.
>>>
>>>Frei Adolfo, the German I met in the savannahs of northeastern Brazil,
>>>thought, when I first knocked on his door, that I was a gunman the
>>>ranchers had sent for him. Yet still he opened it. With the other
>>>liberation theologians in the Catholic church, he offered the only
>>>consistent support to the peasants being attacked by landowners and the
>>>government. If they did not believe in God, these men would never have
>>>taken such risks for other people.
>>>
>>>Remarkably, no one, until now, has attempted systematically to answer
>>>the question with which this column began. But in the current edition of
>>>the Journal of Religion and Society, a researcher called Gregory Paul
>>>tests the hypothesis propounded by evangelists in the Bush
>>>administration, that religion is associated with lower rates of "lethal
>>>violence, suicide, non- monogamous sexual activity and abortion." He
>>>compared data from 18 developed democracies, and discovered that the
>>>Christian fundamentalists couldn't have got it more wrong.
>>>
>>>"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 ... None of
>>>the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high
>>>levels of measurable dysfunction."
>>>
>>>Within the United States "the strongly theistic, anti-evolution South
>>>and Midwest" have "markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth
>>>pregnancy, marital and related problems than the Northeast where ...
>>>secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms."
>>>
>>>Three sets of findings stand out: the associations between religion --
>>>especially absolute belief -- and juvenile mortality, venereal disease
>>>and adolescent abortion. Paul's graphs show far higher rates of death
>>>among the under-5s in Portugal, the U.S and Ireland and put the U.S. --
>>>the most religious country in his survey -- in a league of its own for
>>>gonorrhea and syphilis.
>>>
>>>Strangest of all for those who believe that Christian societies are
>>>"pro-life" is the finding that "increasing adolescent abortion rates
>>>show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a
>>>creator ... Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John
>>>Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data."
>>>
>>>These findings appear to match the studies of teenage pregnancy I've
>>>read. The rich countries in which sexual abstinence campaigns, generally
>>>inspired by religious belief, are strongest have the highest early
>>>pregnancy rates. The U.S. is the only rich nation with teenage pregnancy
>>>levels comparable to those of developing nations: it has a worse record
>>>than India, the Philippines and Rwanda. Because they're poorly educated
>>>about sex and in denial about what they're doing (and so less likely to
>>>use contraceptives), boys who participate in abstinence programmes are
>>>more likely to get their partners pregnant than those who don't.
>>>
>>>Is it fair to blame all this on religion? While the rankings cannot
>>>reflect national poverty -- the U.S. has the world's 4th highest GDP per
>>>head, Ireland the 8th -- the nations which do well in Paul's study also
>>>have higher levels of social spending and distribution than those which
>>>do badly. Is this a cause or an association? In other words, are
>>>religious societies less likely to distribute wealth than secular ones?
>>>
>>>In the US, where governments are still guided by the Puritan notions
>>>that money is a sign that you've been chosen by God and poverty is a
>>>mark of moral weakness, Christian belief seems to be at odds with the
>>>dispersal of wealth. But the U.K. -- one of the most secular societies
>>>in Paul's study -- is also one of the least inclusive, and does rather
>>>worse in his charts than countries with similar levels of religion. The
>>>broad trend, however, looks clear: "the more secular, pro-evolution
>>>democracies have ... come closest to achieving practical "cultures of
>>>life."
>>>
>>>I don't know whether these findings can be extrapolated to other
>>>countries and other issues: the study doesn't look, for example, at
>>>whether religious belief is associated with a nation's preparedness to
>>>go to war (though I think we could hazard a pretty good guess) or
>>>whether religious countries in the poor world are more violent and have
>>>weaker cultures of life than secular ones.
>>>
>>>Nor -- because, with the exception of Japan, the countries in his study
>>>are predominantly Christian or post-Christian -- is it clear whether
>>>there's an association between social dysfunction and religion in
>>>general or simply between social dysfunction and Christianity.
>>>
>>>But if we are to accept the findings of this one -- and so far only --
>>>wide survey of belief and human welfare, the message to those who claim
>>>in any sense to be pro-life is unequivocal. If you want people to behave
>>>as Christians advocate, you should tell them that God does not exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>George Monbiot is the author of 'Poisoned Arrows' and 'No Man's Land'
>>>(Green Books). Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article
>>>originally appeared in the Guardian.
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Peace-discuss mailing list
>>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list