A recently published study claims that there is a strong correlation between social dysfunction and high rates of religiosity. The more people believe that God is on their side and the side of the nation, the worse off that society is when compared to more secular societies.

The Times reports:

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“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.”

According to the study itself:

If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. 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 developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards.

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.

This is consistent with the fact that higher rates of atheism correspond strongly to a nation being healthier and wealthier:

[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.

The problem for religious believers isn’t merely that secular democracies do better than more religious societies — it’s actually much worse than that. This study doesn’t prove a causal relationship between religion and dysfunction, it just suggests a correlation, but even if we pretend that the correlation doesn’t exist believers are still left with an important problem: America, if it really were “blessed” by God, should be doing much better than it is relative to other nations. Because it is not, then even if there is no negative relationship between religion and social health, there is also apparently no positive relationship. The absence of a negative relationship is no problem for nonbelievers, but the absence of a positive relationship is a problem for many believers.

Gregory Paul, the study’s author, is actually a paleontologist by training rather than a sociologist. Some people regard this as sufficient reason to dismiss the study entirely, but that’s just a poor excuse to justify pretending that there are no serious issues being raised. The fact that he isn’t a sociologist is good reason to have his methodology carefully vetted by people who are experts in the field, not to stick your fingers in your ears and start chanting “I can’t hear you!”

A person who was serious about raising legitimate questions about the study would, for example, ask about differences in the social health of various sub-populations in various nations — and what that might mean for the overall conclusions. What about racial and ethnic homogeneity — does this play any role in social dysfunction? There are questions that can be asked about this study, but ignoring the study and pretending that it doesn’t exist is the response of a child who thinks that by turning their back on something, it will just go away. Even if flawed, the study reveals some interesting facts that cut to the heart of some of the basic assumptions many religious believers hold. Ignoring the study means ignoring these facts about reality.

Read More:

• Religion 101
• Theism 101
• Does God Exist?