Belief in God is harmful

From God is for Suckers I learn of a new study published in the Journal of Religion & Society (summarized in the Times online), that religious belief can be harmful to a society:

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.

Furthermore:

…rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates

Now, this is interesting, and certainly amusing to those of us who don’t worship the invisible daddy in the sky. But in reality, the study only reports a correlation, and as we critical thinkers know, correlation is not causation. The study specifically states:

… it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions.

So as much as I’d like to, I don’t think I can claim the (hyperbolic) title of my thread is proven by this study. However, it would seem to be evidence against the idea that religion is a good thing, necessary for a moral or good society. I’ll take that.

Comments

[BronzeDog]

WARNING: This post will be rather rambling. I will bludgeon myself (with a rolled up newspaper) later for any gaping holes in my logic.

I think I might wuss out a little and say that there may be some benefits to belief. Of course, to do so would be the logical fallacy of appeal to consequences of belief. Additionally, there are all those negative consequences implied (but, as said in the quote, not proven) by the correlation, plus a few I can think of.

One thing I'm curious about: Who would an atheist serial killer get command delusions from?

Watched an episode of South Park tonight with a lesson that seems relevant: Lie to your kids, even if you think it'll help them, and they won't know what to trust if they find out. Evangelical (and usually ultra-conservative) sorts seem to follow the same logic as the anti-drug "ultra-liberals" from the show: The ends justify the means. That's one lesson I don't want our kids to learn.

Critical thinking really comes in handy for resisting propaganda: A lot of logical fallacies have second jobs as propaganda techniques. As long as you keep it up, you won't be swayed by them. Emphasis on the conditional clause in that statement: No one's perfect.

[Thor]

I think that the "Religion is Bad" hypothesis is not really what this is asserting. It think it is more disproving the hypothesis that "Religion is Inherently Good" (with which we are repeated beat on the head)

[Orac]

This study doesn't even demonstrate a correlation (or even really a lack of correlation), I'm afraid. IMHO, this study is an utter piece of crap. Although it only claims to be falsifying the hypothesis that "religion is inherently good," the author does make claims of correlations between religiosity and all sorts of bad things, like homicide rates and teen abortion and then go on to make the same claimes in interviews. The problem is, the data don't support such claims, as anyone can see by just looking at some of the graphs critically.They're star charts. In fact, the data was so shoddy that the author didn't even bother to do even a rudimentary statistical analysis, always a sign in my book that something's not right.

Also, don't you find it odd that they don't list an academic affiliation for the author in the article? I do. Google Gregory S. Paul, and you'll see what I mean.

This study claims to be "scientific" but in reality is not, for reasons that I went to ad nauseum in the comments section of PZ Myer's blog. I tend to think that it is probably true that religion is not correlated with the good things that fundamentalists claim, but this study sure as hell doesn't show it.

I was trying to resist commenting on this, except in other people's blogs, but I can't resist anymore. I'm going to do a deconstruction of this study next week. I just didn't have time to do it this week, and I have to go on a trip to a training conference this weekend. This study needs a serious skeptical slapdown.

[BronzeDog]

I guess it's a good thing I was keeping my comments fairly generalized. Seems they may have been doing just what that South Park episode criticized, if Orac's right. I'll be sure to read your thing, Orac.

[Mark Paris]

This is not a study. This is essentially an opinion piece. The only difference between it and an op-ed piece in a newspaper is the use of scientific-sounding language and charts. The use of "religiosity" in place of "religiousness" or some other neutral term is a clear indicator. But, taken as an opinion piece, there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, I doubt that a serious, scientific study would contradict the thesis that belief in religion does not correlate with any measurable social benefit.

[Skeptico]

Orac raises some very good points. In addition, you’ll note the list of “religious” countries didn’t include Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, India… I’ll bet that some of those countries would show a correlation in the opposite direction from that of the US, on some of the metrics. I did wonder at first if it was a hoax. It’s certainly a very weak paper that, as I said, doesn’t prove a causative link. I’ll read Orac’s promised take-down with interest.

[Mark Paris]

According to the title, the scope was limited to prosperous democracies. That eliminates any islamic countries, since they are only nominally democratic, at best. Iran held purportedly-democratic elections, but the candidates were vetted by religious authorities. Egypt could hardly be called prosperous. Saudi Arabia and other petrostates are not democracies. I think we can all agree that this is not a scientific study. It is an opinion piece dressed up in pseudo-scientific language. I suppose that since it tries to appear scientific, or at least academic, it's fair to treat it that way to show the scientific or academic weaknesses.

[Edie Nale]

I agree. This is opinion and not science. Some great PHD's of our time contend that there is a logic to creation that defies the theory that the universe happen to fall into place. To consider that there is a Creator is not illogical just as one could look at the intricities of a watch and know that it had to be assembled. If the sun were placed a mile further; we would freeze...a mile closer; we would melt. Left to its' own devices...this universe would self destruct. Humans are unique in that they long for purpose and meaning in life; whereas other animal species do not. The void humans have is proof enough that it is meant to be filled with something greater than mere existance and survival. Perhaps that void is meant to be filled with the One who intricately assemble this universe and humans themselves. Is this the God we were meant to know and be satisfied with. I suspect so.

[BronzeDog]

Some great PHD's of our time contend that there is a logic to creation that defies the theory that the universe happen to fall into place.

Appeal to authority, argument from ignorance, argument from personal incredulity. Did I miss any?

To consider that there is a Creator is not illogical just as one could look at the intricities of a watch and know that it had to be assembled.

Argument from ignorance, argument from personal incredulity, argument from bad analogy.

If the sun were placed a mile further; we would freeze...a mile closer; we would melt.

Evidence, please? Oh, and even if this was true, Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. You're painting the bullseye around some previously existing bullet holes. (It's a million miles on either side, not one. The Earth's orbit varies.)

Left to its' own devices...this universe would self destruct.

It is self-destructing. Look up "entropy"

Humans are unique in that they long for purpose and meaning in life; whereas other animal species do not.

The latter half sound difficult to prove or disprove. The whole thing sounds difficult to define. 42.

The void humans have is proof enough that it is meant to be filled with something greater than mere existance and survival.

Is/ought fallacy? Not sure what to call this nonsensical statement.

Perhaps that void is meant to be filled with the One who intricately assemble this universe and humans themselves. Is this the God we were meant to know and be satisfied with. I suspect so.

Argument from ignorance, questionable premise (see above).