Many theists try to argue that there is an innate connection between religion (especially religious theism) and morality, such that irreligious atheists cannot be trusted to be moral. Just how justified is such an assertion? Well, the empirical data we have suggests that it is completely false.

Phil Zuckerman (via Brain Mortgage) has on the web his chapter from the forthcoming Cambridge Companion to Atheism. In it he discusses the demographic patterns of atheism around the world and concludes:

[C]ountries containing high percentages of non-believers are among the most healthy and wealthy nations on earth (Paul, 2004). Of course, we must always distinguish between those nations where non-belief has been forced upon the society by dictators (“coercive atheism”) from those societies wherein non-belief has emerged on its own without governmental coercion (“organic atheism”). Nations marked by coercive atheism -- such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, and former Soviet states -- are societies marked by all that comes with totalitarianism: poor economic development, intellectual censorship, widespread corruption, ubiquitous depression, etc.. However, nations marked by high levels of organic atheism – such as Sweden, the Netherlands, and France -- are among the healthiest, wealthiest, most educated, and most free societies on earth.

I am in no way arguing that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills such as poverty or illiteracy. If anything, the opposite argument should be made: societal health causes widespread atheism, and societal insecurity causes widespread belief in God, as discussed by Norris and Inglehart (2004) above. ... I am simply seeking to clearly establish that high degrees of non-belief in God in a given society clearly do not result in societal ruin, and high levels of belief in God do not ensure societal well-being. This is an important fact to stress because politically-active theists often equate atheism with crime, immorality, and societal disintegration. From Muslim fundamentalists in Iran to Christian fundamentalists in Indiana, the argument is loudly trumpeted that belief in God is “good for society” – an ultimate panacea -- while rejection of the belief in God is bad for society. The above discussion reveals that this thesis is baldly incorrect.

There are reasons why religion might be associated with, and perhaps even cause, lower social health — and the main one, the reason which may be behind all of those reasons, is the way in which religion can oppose the means by which improved social health is achieved. Equality for women, for example, improves the overall social health of a society — but how often does religion actually advocate this and how often does it oppose women's equality? The same observation can be made about many other things and while it may not be possible to prove a causal relationship, it is difficult to deny that some relationship exists there.

Thus, while atheism may not cause improved social health, traditional and conservative religion may at least be an impediment to improved social health, an impediment which atheism (among other possibilities) may be a means for overcoming.

Read More:

• Atheism 101
• Defining Atheism
• Questions About Atheism
• Atheism Myths
• Books on Atheism
• News About Atheism & Atheists
• Rebuttals to Attacks on Atheism