Myth:
Atheists tend to be men; they reject religion and god for the same reasons that men tend to be criminals: irreligious atheism is a risky, short-sighted behavior analogous to crimes such as murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Women are more religious than men for the same reasons that women commit fewer crimes than men It's physiological, not cultural or social.
Response:
Many associate atheism with anti-social and even criminal behavior, but such assertions are usually little more than that: bare assertions without substantiating evidence or arguments. The most people offer may be question-begging claims about religion and god being necessary for moral behavior. Here, however, we have a new twist which claims that there is a physiological, biological reason behind people — or at least men — rejecting religion and gods. Unfortunately, it's rife with flaws.
This claim seems to have been created by Rodney Stark, a professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington. Stark was tackling the question of why women tend to be more religious than men turning it around to ask why men are less religious than women. Lower religiosity among men appears to be the norm around the world and Stark argues that when a phenomenon appears in so many cultures over time, the causes must be physiological, not cultural or social.
Stark then somehow concluded that the lower rates of religiosity among men derives from the same sources as men's higher rates of criminal behavior:
"Recent studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills."
Being more shortsighted than women, men take bigger risks because:
"going to prison or going to hell just doesn't matter to these men. ...Not being religious is similar to any other shortsighted, risky and impulsive behavior that some men - primarily young males - engage in, such as assault, robbery, burglary, murder and rape."
There are several problems with Stark's argument. First, by turning the question around, he appears to assume that being a religious theist is a "norm" and that being irreligious or an atheist is what needs to be explained. It's true irreligious atheists are a minority, but religion and theism have to be taught. There is something odd about claiming that there must be a physiological rather than social or cultural reason for not adopting something that must be learned through society and culture.
Second, it's not obvious that the presence of something across many cultures and over time is always physiological rather than cultural or social. That may often be the case, but we can also find social or cultural practices which have been widespread — like for example, male dominance and female subservience. There are biological factors involved (male size and aggression, for example), but clearly men and women have to be socialized to accept such things.
Third, if it is true that men are less likely to be religious for the same reasons that men are more likely to be rapists, murderers, thieves, and generally lawless, then shouldn't we see a high correlation between being irreligious and being lawless? Between being religious and being lawful? If the source of the two really is the same, shouldn't we see multiple forms of "risk taking" behavior in the same people (or the same risk-avoidance behavior in other people)?
America, which is the most religious nation in the industrialized West, not only has higher rates of crime than less religious nations, but also has the highest rates of social dysfunction on every measurable scale. Even within America, areas with the highest rates of religiosity have the highest rates of crime and social dysfunction. Americans with no religious preference, which includes most atheists, are under-represented in the American prison system relative to their numbers in the general population.
Fourth, Rodney Start commits the fallacy of Begging the Question with two of his assumptions: that not being religious is a form of risky behavior and that the risk is clear to anyone engaged in the behavior. As to the first, there is no "risk" to not being "religious" in the general sense, there can only be a risk attached to a particular religion which teaches that you will be punished for not being an adherent of that religion. Not all religions teach this, so if a person rejects this religion what possible risk are they running?
As to the second, the alleged "risk" of not being religious is dubious at best. Religious people may see irreligious atheism as risky, but irreligious people — especially irreligious atheists — don't agree and don't normally regard not being a religious theist really as a form of risky behavior because they sincerely don't believe that there is a real punishment for non-belief. The fact that people belong to all sorts of different religions, some of which don't teach this and others which do, demonstrates that the alleged risk isn't obvious. If it were, they'd all belong to the same religion and follow the same commands to avoid the same risks.
The questionable existence of the "risks" of being irreligious can be contrasted with the undeniable risks associated with criminal behavior. Unlike the existence of gods and hells, the existence of police, courts, and jails is clear. High rates of arrest and conviction are also obvious. Committing a crime, even if it's just speeding, is a form of risk-taking behavior because it is unquestionable that there are police out there, not to mention witnesses, who may lead to arrest and trial. Actual risks may be relatively low in some cases, but they do exist. People who commit crimes know that they are engaged in risky behavior, even if they underestimate those risks.
Thus the parallels between criminal behavior and irreligious atheism, much less lower religiosity, don't seem to be strong enough to justify Stark's thesis. I cannot see how he ever got the idea that they were related in the first place.
