God and social dysfunction

[Jedidiah]

Not so, sean, the definition of social dysfunction is pretty clear. A society is dysfunctional in reverse proportion to the propensity of its people to exhibit any faith in god, especially the true God.

[Soyeong]

I have just been listening to a fascinating talk by Jerry Coyne on ‘Why Evolution is True’ (AAI 2009). At the end of the talk he refers to research by Gregory S. Paul on the correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. In his talk he explains that religious people will reject scientific facts if they conflict with their religious views. Consequently, it is not possible to educate religious people in evolution simply by explaining the science even if the science is unimpeachable.

Everyone tends to reject things contrary to their worldviews. There is no need for people accept Evolution in order to be a healthy society.

G. S. Paul’s research shows a strong correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. Coyne thinks that in societies that look after their citizens, the citizens feel secure and therefore feel less need to look to God to solve their problems.

We owe everything we have to God and when we are successful, it becomes easier to forget God and to try to take credit ourselves. Conversely, when we are on hard times, then it becomes easier to see our need for God, so it is only natural for there to be a correlation.

In my view this points to one of the fundamental problems in Christianity in that it looks for supernatural solutions to natural problems instead of understanding what it means to be like a god – Genesis 3:22 - And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, ….
The solution is in our own hands – love one another.

You say the solution is in our own hands, but then you look to the government to do it for you? That's you're problem right there.

These are not even slightly similar. Supernatural philosophies are evidence free. But the point of the post was to consider the link between God and social dysfunction. The rejection of scientific facts by creationists is perhaps a symptom of an underlying cultural malaise.

If there were no evidence for supernatural philosophies, then there wouldn't be anyone who formed the belief that they were true. You're essentially saying that belief in the supernatural is uncaused because whatever the cause is, it would be evidence for that belief.

[shunyadragon]

Sounds like Coyne has insulated himself from the possibility that his arguments (and possibly his 'facts') aren't as good as he might think: if religious people aren't persuaded, it's because they're socially dysfunctional (not because he's wrong about anything).

I do consider the irrational rejection of science to be at least 'social dysfunction' if not the underlying symptom of a mental illness characterized by inability to relate rationally to reality.

[Tassman]

What constitutes "social dysfunction" seems entirely subjective. One could easily argue that those countries you referenced are in economic disarray, particularly those of the EU, and/or are extremely populace suppressive (i.e. police states).

Quite the reverse! Australia, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway ALL rank highly on the United Nations 'Human Development Index' and subject to strict criteria. The Index measures “… human development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index…”

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi

Generally speaking, (although there are interesting exceptions) the more secular countries fare better than the more religious ones with the highly religious countries of the Central African Republic, Guinea and Burundi bottoming the 'UN Human Development Index'.

[Outis]

Quite the reverse! Australia, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway ALL rank highly on the United Nations 'Human Development Index' and subject to strict criteria. The Index measures “… human development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index…”

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi

Generally speaking, (although there are interesting exceptions) the more secular countries fare better than the more religious ones with the highly religious countries of the Central African Republic, Guinea and Burundi bottoming the 'UN Human Development Index'.

Again, it must be noted: you are looking at a correlation (one with, as you note, interesting exceptions). What is the causation? I'm not asking for a bare assertion of "religion." Show me a causative mechanism that you can back with evidence.

[lilpixieofterror]

Certainly the 'Zuckerman Contemporary Rates and Patterns of Atheism' survey (in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism), in correlation with the United Nations 'Human Development Index' reveals a definite trend (with some interesting anomalies) that the most highly developed nations tend to be the least religious. E.g. Norway tops the list as the most highly developed country and also, at 72% Atheist/Agnostic, is 4th on the list of non-religious nations.

AND, the reverse tends to be the case with the Central African Republic, Guinea and Burundi bottoming the 'UN Human Development Index' being extremely religious with no inhabitants listed as “no religion”

Too bad that Tazzy wazzy is ignoring the economic conditions found with those countries. By an large, a country that is economically successful tends to rank far higher then a country that is not. The latest data too shows Norway at number 1 with the US at number 3. The percentage difference is 1.8%. That's right, Tazzy Wazzy is basing 'better' upon a less then 2% difference and he ignores social and economic factors because he doesn't care about the details. He only cares about trying to make religious people look bad.

[lilpixieofterror]

That’s a ‘no ball’ LPOT. I am referring to research carried out by Gregory Paul on the link between religiosity and social dysfunction on the scale of whole countries. Social dysfunction is measured by a range of indicators broadly assessing the sense of security that the citizenry of a particular country has in respect of homes, income, heath, freedom from crime, social inequality, etc.

In Paul’s essay “The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions” he claims that –
… popular religion is usually a superficial and flexible psychological mechanism for coping with the high levels of stress and anxiety produced by sufficiently dysfunctional social and especially economic environments. Popular nontheism is a similarly casual response to superior conditions.

http://www.gspaulscienceofreligion.c...harticles.html

Just as I suspected there FF, an attack upon strawmen arguments where the fundy atheist only attacks one position, attacks a bunch of assumptions, and makes up things as he goes along because he has an agenda to press and doesn't care about details. Tell me FF, do you agree that you are an atheist because of a bad relationship with your father? After all, a psychologist wrote a book on it, so it must be true, correct?

[lilpixieofterror]

Quite the reverse! Australia, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway ALL rank highly on the United Nations 'Human Development Index' and subject to strict criteria. The Index measures “… human development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index…”

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi

Generally speaking, (although there are interesting exceptions) the more secular countries fare better than the more religious ones with the highly religious countries of the Central African Republic, Guinea and Burundi bottoming the 'UN Human Development Index'.

Psst, and the US ranks highly too and you seem to miss the reality that all of those countries that rank lower tend to have problems with economics, show that more factors seem to work into it then "they are religious, they must be terrible!".

[seanD]

Quite the reverse! Australia, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway ALL rank highly on the United Nations 'Human Development Index' and subject to strict criteria. The Index measures “… human development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index…”

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi

Generally speaking, (although there are interesting exceptions) the more secular countries fare better than the more religious ones with the highly religious countries of the Central African Republic, Guinea and Burundi bottoming the 'UN Human Development Index'.

Being that the US, which you have insisted is a Christian nation in the past, is top of the food chain, a counter argument could easily point out that many of those countries have been subjected to other more power countries as a result of their rich natural resources; some have been subjected to external conquest over many centuries. History indeed shows this. Note, lest you veer this off topic, I myself don't think there's any correlation with religious or nonreligious countries one way or the other (what constitutes a religious government in and of itself is debatable and subjective). I just think the OP's argument is easily refutable.

[Tassman]

Again, it must be noted: you are looking at a correlation (one with, as you note, interesting exceptions). What is the causation? I'm not asking for a bare assertion of "religion." Show me a causative mechanism that you can back with evidence.

The evidence is provided by the statistics. It is an interesting correlation that the nations which rank highest on United Nations 'Human Development Index' also tend to be the more secular ones according to Adherents.com. AND that the nations which rank lowest tend to be the more religious ones. And the same correlation can be found between the religiosity of the 50 US states and their ranking on the 'Human Development Index', with the same negative relationship between well-being and religiosity as in the different countries.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...ng-u-s-states/

Why is this? It is a reasonable assumption that the longer life expectancy, higher educational levels and higher overall incomes etc (which is what the UN Index measures) - is a major factor. Show me an alternative causative mechanism that you can back with evidence.

[Outis]

The evidence is provided by the statistics.

The evidence of correlation, yes. But simply citing "religion" does not establish your argument--if it did, the US would not be so anomalously high.

Show me a mechanic that explains both the trend and the anomalies, or you've got nothing.

Show me an alternative causative mechanism that you can back with evidence.

Not how things work, Mr. Tassman. I note the interesting correlation, I have not made a claim that there is any necessary causation. You've made a positive claim. Back it up.

[MaxVel]

The evidence of correlation, yes. But simply citing "religion" does not establish your argument--if it did, the US would not be so anomalously high.

Show me a mechanic that explains both the trend and the anomalies, or you've got nothing.



Not how things work, Mr. Tassman. I note the interesting correlation, I have not made a claim that there is any necessary causation. You've made a positive claim. Back it up.

Indeed.

Are the countries poor because they are religious, or religious because they're poor?

[MaxVel]

I do consider the irrational rejection of science to be at least 'social dysfunction' if not the underlying symptom of a mental illness characterized by inability to relate rationally to reality.

I agree, if the particular rejection is in fact irrational.

But that is pretty much what is the issue - is it always irrational for someone to reject a particular scientific theory or a current scientific belief? I suggest that it is not necessarily irrational at all - in fact, that science doesn't develop unless people are willing to reject the current paradigm on all sorts of matters.

Coyne seems to want to privilege his pet ideas from serious examination - people who don't accept them are automatically 'irrational'.

[Tassman]

The evidence of correlation, yes. But simply citing "religion" does not establish your argument--if it did, the US would not be so anomalously high.

Show me a mechanic that explains both the trend and the anomalies, or you've got nothing.



Not how things work, Mr. Tassman. I note the interesting correlation, I have not made a claim that there is any necessary causation. You've made a positive claim. Back it up.

Nope, I have not made “a positive claim”. I said it is an interesting correlation that the nations which rank highest on United Nations 'Human Development Index' also tend to be the more secular ones according to Adherents.com. AND that the nations which rank lowest tend to be the more religious ones. I also noted that the same correlation tends to exist within the USA and supported this with a link.

I said it is a reasonable assumption (NOT “a positive claim”) that the longer life expectancy, higher educational levels and higher overall incomes etc (which is what the UN Index measures) - is a major factor. Please provide an alternative explanation, which you can back with actual evidence rather than personal opinion.

As for "anomalies" and "trends", ALL "trends" have anomalies and while they must be noted they are usually not sufficient to counter the trend as such. E.g. Vietnam has a very high rate of atheism but ranks low on the HDI Index, whereas the majority of poor countries tend to be more religious.

[Outis]

Indeed.

Are the countries poor because they are religious, or religious because they're poor?

Or is the correlation simply a coincidence? That's my hypothesis.