Note: Correlation is not causation - but I'm not surprised at all.

[theweaselking]

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 study concluded that the US was the world's only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional.

Comments

[jsbowden.livejournal.com]

I've been an atheist since I was old enough to think for myself. It looks like the US is becoming more religious if you're watching Fox News, but the numbers don't lie, we are steadily moving towards a more secular society. It's why the Christians are so vocal right now, they see those same numbers and, unfortunately for once, get what it means.

[gothpanda.livejournal.com]

I'm soooo not surprised! But it's nice to see someone has actually written up statistics for something those outside of the mainstream can see so clearly...

[anivair.livejournal.com]

Gosh, could this be because religion causes all manner of unnatural reactions to perfectly natural things, which screws us up as a people so greatly that we don't know how to behave?

young people have sex. but they're embarrased about sex because they've been taught that it's an evil sin (but they're young so they have it anyway). they have unprotected sex because contraception is also a sin and you don't want to double up on sins (and they're too embarrased to buy them anyway) and little suzie catholic is not pregnant. Her options are a) have an abortion and sin more or b) have an unwanted, unplanned baby well before she is ready and give it up for adoption or keep it and have a much higher chance of having a crappy life. COngratulations to Suzie and billy's parents for being closed minded twats.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

What about all the other differences between the countries, such as gun laws and general culture?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Gun laws don't usually cause pregnancy, STDs, and failure of the education system.

(Besides, the gun laws aren't the problem. The gun *culture* is.)

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

I'd say that dismal sexual education, due to religious fundamentalism, is almost certainly the cause of the high teenaged pregnancy and STD rates.
I think the murder rates would require closer analysis and a study of more variables to see if there are any stronger correlations.

[gothpanda.livejournal.com]

*giggle* you said twats

[leighdb.livejournal.com]

Gosh, could this be because religion causes all manner of unnatural reactions to perfectly natural things, which screws us up as a people so greatly that we don't know how to behave?

Puts me in mind of that old favorite, The Pulling Report (http://www.rpg.net/sites/252/quellen/stackpole/pulling_report.html) by Michael Stackpole:

One of the most dangerous aspects of a magical [read: "religious"] world view is that it repopulates our world with demons that can force us to do things we do not want to do. As a result, adults no longer have to accept responsibility for themselves or their unruly children. Whereas the line, “The devil made me do it,” brought laughs twenty years ago, now it is seen as a defense for murder, an excuse for suicide and a shelter from blame for a host of other crimes.

Worst of all, this magical world view brings with it a fanatical self-righteousness that slops over into accusations of diabolical duplicity when it is questioned. Doubting the existence of Satanism and a conspiracy is not just doubting the evidence for the same. It is not just doubting the word of a witness concerning sacrifices of which one can find no trace. Within the magical world view, the mere act of doubting becomes an act of treason against God. To question the existence of a worldwide Satanic conspiracy means the skeptic is either a high ranking member of that conspiracy out to spread disinformation, or a poor, pitiful, ignorant dupe of that conspiracy.

A magical world view enables a person to see relationships between things that do not exist. It invests power in things that cannot be controlled and, therefore, responsibility for actions does not have to be accepted. It creates around a believer a smug cocoon that insulates him from any fragment of reality that might disturb him. Finally, it puts everyone who dares challenge their beliefs in the camp of the Enemy in some cosmic struggle between good and evil.

In reality, a person questioning the existence of the Satanic conspiracy is merely pointing out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. In that case, one can understand why the emperor’s tailors get upset and suggest the person doing the pointing is a tool of the devil. Then the question comes down to one of whether the crowd will believe the evidence they have before them, or if they will buy into the tailors’ fantasies.

[culfinriel.livejournal.com]

Surely, you're not suggesting we subscribe to the concept of personal responsibility?!

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Surely that doesn't require religion (magic, the hypothesized presence of supernatural entities), though? Abdication of personal responsibility can happen quite nicely without the devil making you do it, and while working outside a religious context might mean that you don't have such a facile excuse, I don't think there's any shortage of social contexts where the abdication of responsibility is acceptable without an excuse.

On a related note, the "if you're not with us you're against us, either as dupe or evil minion" mentality certainly doesn't require religion--you can find examples of it in *any* organization that promotes a worldview, from NAMBLA to the ACLU.

Furthermore, while being religious might put hypothesized demons in your worldview, it doesn't follow that they'll be used to avoid responsibility. One might as well say being a liberal is an abdication of personal responsibility because it means you acknowledge social influence on an individual's development, or that being a conservative is an abdication of personal responsibility because you acknowledge the benefits of a stable social structure.

I agree that religion can provide a paradigm to view the world from. I think it's often the paradigm most easily accessible to people in a form that will be recognized by someone not in the paradigm-giving group.[1] I believe that because it's easy to internalize, it'll tend to be more noticeable among people who have little else to base a worldview on--a crude basis in a religion is more noticeable than a crude basis in religion, a working education, and some experience dealing with people outside your immediate social group, if only because it's such a standalone influence. And I believe completely societies with God on their side tend to be worse off, because a society that stops thinking there has stopped thinking at a point before it can influence the world around it. On that, the "Satan did the bad things, what could *I* do to stop him?" analysis is dead-on.

I'm just frustrated because so much of the complaints I see about religion today don't seem to address the fact that it's not the whole problem, and that the problems associated with it aren't exclusive to it.
---
[1] I would not personally consider someone who can barely read and write and has no grasp of basic logic to be educated--while they've obviously received some teaching, it's very low-level, and it likely simply wouldn't occur to me to consider what they had to date to be an education. I'd think of them as uneducated, and I don't think this is a particularly unusual outlook

Similarly, I would not personally consider anyone without a grasp of the whole "free will" thing and the associated implications (atonement, responsibility) to be Christian (or, for that matter, a member of any religion which acknowledges free will)--but this apparently *is* an unusual outlook. Minimal secular teaching? Oh, buddy, you're uneduated. Minimal religious teaching? No-one will say you're unChristian. Especially not anyone with an axe to grind against Christianity.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

>>Similarly, I would not personally consider anyone without a grasp of the whole "free will" thing and the associated implications (atonement, responsibility) to be Christian (or, for that matter, a member of any religion which acknowledges free will)--but this apparently *is* an unusual outlook. Minimal secular teaching? Oh, buddy, you're uneduated. Minimal religious teaching? No-one will say you're unChristian. Especially not anyone with an axe to grind against Christianity.<<

Yay, Calvanists arn't Christians!

Btw, that's the only point in your entire reply that I have some issue with.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

You do know Calvinists don't deny the concept of free will, right?

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... you're right.

Can you give more evidence for this whole not beleiving in free will means that you're not a christian? I will help me feel smug about an ex roomate.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Absolutely none whatsoever--as discussed above, the criteria for various people defining you (or themselves) as Christian is incredibly lax. Mind you, if you can find a branch of Christianity which refutes free will, I'd love to hear about it.

But if you're talking about kruszer, there's little reason to feel smug; the link to her essay is "Why I Don't Believe in Free Will", but the actual content indicates that she understands perfectly well the difference between not having free will and having free will but being incapable of comprehending and accepting God with help.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Damn.

Oh well.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Just read the gibbering. She doesn't actually disbelieve in free will. She just believes that all desire comes from outside - from God or from Satan - and hence you're choosing to act either as God wants you to or as Satan wants you to, never as *you* want you to. You've got a choice (and hence, free will), but the choice is deciding which external entity will control your life.

And yes, she's a phenomenal cosmic with-extra-pecans semiliterate evangelical nutbar.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Except in person she said she doesn't believe in it, that everything is simply created as a part of God's plan, including what "choice" you make.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Free will is not actually incompatible with omniscience. Sure, God *knew* you were going to make that choice - but it was still your choice. The fact that he predicted the outcome doesn't make it any less your decision than if I successfully predict your dinner plans - because, after all, I'm not interfering in your decision by telling it to you in advance.

Alternate theory: It's all part of God's plan because nothing one person can do can derail God's plan, as God's plan is large enough to encompass all possible results of all possible actions you take. Note that this is functionally identical to God doing absolutely nothing.

Either way, when you start theorising about things that *cannot* interract with the world or they'd stop working, you're wasting time thinking about garbage, and it's probably a religion.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

No, she was quite clear that God you take that "choice".

>>Either way, when you start theorising about things that *cannot* interract with the world or they'd stop working, you're wasting time thinking about garbage, and it's probably a religion.<<

Or a roleplaying game settings ;P

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Or a roleplaying game setting

Touche - but if you can't play it, you're still wasting your time thinking about garbage. If you can play it, it's interracting with the world. Just not literally.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I find it amusing. Just like talking about socio-economic development in Star Wars.

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

IAWTC. If we didn't have religion, people would just come up with something else.

Note that I do not find the preceding sentence an acceptable argument for keeping religion around. But it is also false to claim that being religious automatically precludes one from being a rational, intellectual, freethinking being. In fact, that notion is fairly recent. Karen Armstrong, who's a pretty well-known historian of religion, recently commented in New Scientist that the idea that a person cannot be simultaneously scientifically minded and religious is a very new one—and no, I'm not talking about those idiots building that museum to Creationism outside of Cincinatti, or wherever the hell it is.

I work for a religious institution. They hold chapel (non-mandatory) three times a week and every student is required to take two theology courses as part of their distribution. On the other hand, the religion faculty themselves are quick to point out the difference between theology and Bible study, the natural sciences division just hired an evolutionary biologist, and it was made very clear to me during my interview that religious beliefs of any kind were by no means a condition of employment, as long as I didn't disagree with the university's basic mission.

Since its basic mission is to provide a solid liberal arts education while giving students enough practical knowledge to get jobs and enough ethical sense to not go off and work for, say, Halliburton, I can't say that I disagree with it, no.

I also take issue with a few of the assertions in that article. Funnily enough, I don't equate "belief in a Creator" with "religious". Being religious, to me, indicates a much more thorough and well-thought-out structure than just thinking some unknowable entity created the universe. There are also religions which are not Creator-centered.

Note that I'm not taking issue with the study, which is available online for free.

postscript:

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

I've only skimmed said study, but it appears to solely define religiosity as having an absolute belief in God, taking the Bible literally, and so forth.

To be fair, we probably do have more folks like that here than other countries surveyed.

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

Believe it or not, there are magical worldviews which require intellectual rigor and rational thought.

The people who engage in them tend not to be terribly vocal about it, however.