What is the relationship between a nation’s religiosity and its “moral health?” Most people would say there is a positive correlation between national religiosity and national moral health (most likely not members of this forum). Americans are among the most religious people in the Western world, and yet we have among the highest rates of homicide, abortion, and teen pregnancies.

All though there have always been anecdotal reports among the non-religious, and small scale studies showing that religion has a negative effect on morality “The Kripke Center” has published the first large scale scientific study on the subject called: “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies.”

Results:

•  Belief in evolution is negatively correlated with belief /worship of a creator and bible literalism.
•  Homicide and violent crime are positively correlated with theistic belief
•  Youth suicide is not correlated with theistic belief
•  Youth mortality is positively correlated with theistic belief.
•  Shortened lifespan is positively correlated with theistic belief
•  Higher STD rates are positively correlated with theistic belief
•  Higher rates of abortion are positively correlated with theistic belief
•  Adolescent pregnancy is positively correlated theistic belief
•  Age of first intercourse and sexual practices are correlated to theistic belief

(The correlation becomes stronger when absolute belief and prayer are considered for all these conclusions.)

Conclusion:

Despite popular conception the stronger the agreement with scientific theory a society has the more moral that society is.

The article: Journal of Religion and Society ... checkout the data at the bottom the correlations become obvious

Mmmhmm…published by scientists no doubt…*scoff*...the vast scientific conspiracy strikes again!

On a less sarcastic note, wonderful find.  I’ve always been meaning to look up this sort of data.

Chocotacoi8 - 07 August 2008 11:00 PM

Mmmhmm…published by scientists no doubt…*scoff*...the vast scientific conspiracy strikes again!

Amusingly the study was funded by a Jesuit university and the Jewish federation. The scientist that did the study are “people of faith.”

That crazy Canadian news story <<< LINK

Category: Religion

OK guys, LisaJ here again. This is going to be a quick one from me because I’m in the middle of hosting a BBQ, and I’m leaving all of the other helpers alone and feeling bad about it! From reading some of the replies to my earlier post I thought I should put up a quick post about the craziest and most horrific news story to hit Canada in quite some time.

I’m sure you’ve all heard of what happened to 22 year old Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus last week in Manitoba. If not, here’s a quick overview. Tim was stabbed repeatedly in the neck and chest and then beheaded by a crazy fellow passenger. Many awful things were reportedly then doen to his body. It’s an awful story, and just leaves me sickened every time I think about it. Well, to make matters worse, this poor young man’s funeral is being held this weekend and a couple of disgusting and despicable groups are threatening to picket his funeral.

First, PETA has attempted to place an ad in a major Canadian newspaper comparing Tim’s tragic beheading to the treatment of slaughtered animals. They are actually trying to use this horrific event to make us feel just as awful about the slaughter of animals. Sorry guys, it just doesn’t equate and it’s disgusting for you to try to use this story for your benefit. Especially on the eve of this poor boy’s funeral.

The second story that was brought to my attention is that a group of American fundamentalists from Westboro Baptist church are intending to picket Tim’s funeral based on the premise that this is god’s response for Canada’s policies that enable abortion, homosexuality, and adultery. What’s even more disgusting is that on their website they refer to Tim as the ‘headless Canadian’. This is just beyond disgusting, and I don’t think I have to say too much myself about how pathetic these individuals are… I know you’ll all paint the right picture. What a terrible world this is when the family and friends of someone who was murdered in such a brutal and public fashion have to worry about assholes like these interrupting their funeral.

I just have to say, I feel terrible for this man’s family and I hope that they can grieve in the piece that they deserve. I find it disgusting when groups such as PETA and these religious wackos have total disregard for what was done to this poor guy and try to use his death to their benefit. They should be very ashamed.

(Note: Original article has links).

I think you posted in the wrong thread.

danlhinz - 08 August 2008 05:09 PM

I think you posted in the wrong thread.

You don’t connect “Morality Negatively Correlated to Religiosity” with protesting at the funeral of a murder victim who is blamed because other people are tolerant of gays?

danlhinz - 07 August 2008 10:34 PM

What is the relationship between a nation’s religiosity and its “moral health?” Most people would say there is a positive correlation between national religiosity and national moral health (most likely not members of this forum). Americans are among the most religious people in the Western world, and yet we have among the highest rates of homicide, abortion, and teen pregnancies.

All though there have always been anecdotal reports among the non-religious, and small scale studies showing that religion has a negative effect on morality “The Kripke Center” has published the first large scale scientific study on the subject called: “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies.”

Results:

•  Belief in evolution is negatively correlated with belief /worship of a creator and bible literalism.
•  Homicide and violent crime are positively correlated with theistic belief
•  Youth suicide is not correlated with theistic belief
•  Youth mortality is positively correlated with theistic belief.
•  Shortened lifespan is positively correlated with theistic belief
•  Higher STD rates are positively correlated with theistic belief
•  Higher rates of abortion are positively correlated with theistic belief
•  Adolescent pregnancy is positively correlated theistic belief
•  Age of first intercourse and sexual practices are correlated to theistic belief

(The correlation becomes stronger when absolute belief and prayer are considered for all these conclusions.)

Conclusion:

Despite popular conception the stronger the agreement with scientific theory a society has the more moral that society is.

The article: Journal of Religion and Society ... checkout the data at the bottom the correlations become obvious

Intersting study. 

I found this paragrph just above the graphs:

“Indicators of societal dysfunction and health as functions of percentage rates of theistic and non-theistic belief and practice in 17 first world developed democracies and one second world democracy. ISSP questions asked: I know God really exists and I have no doubt about it = absolutely believe in God; 2-3 times a month + once a week or more = attend religious services at least several times a month; several times a week - several times a day = pray at least several times a week; the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word = Bible literalists; human beings [have] developed from earlier species of animals = accept human evolution; I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is a way to find out + I don’t believe in God = agnostics and other atheists.”

The questions above seem to be “boolean” in nature.  One is either a Bible Literalist or one is an agnostic / atheist.  So there is no middle ground for non-literal theists such as myself?  Thus I wonder if the results / conclusions of the study are valid if the only Christian is a Biblical Literalist.  Perhaps I am missing something…..

I thought it interesting to equate agnostics with “other atheists”.  I thought there was a distinct difference between the two but I could be wrong.  Can anyone clarify if an agnostic is a type of atheist?

Every curious,

OldChurchGuy

A Voice of Sanity - 08 August 2008 05:21 PM

danlhinz - 08 August 2008 05:09 PM

I think you posted in the wrong thread.

You don’t connect “Morality Negatively Correlated to Religiosity” with protesting at the funeral of a murder victim who is blamed because other people are tolerant of gays?

Sorry, I was tired when I wrote this made it hard to articulate my thoughts. That is a horrible incident, and a good example of “toxic religion.” What I meant but didn’t say is that the incident was only one case of religion making people do bad things. It cant be considered evidence that religion is correlated to immorality because it is an isolated incident, though it is a good example of religion being immoral.

OldChurchGuy - 09 August 2008 09:23 AM

Intersting study. 

I found this paragrph just above the graphs:

“Indicators of societal dysfunction and health as functions of percentage rates of theistic and non-theistic belief and practice in 17 first world developed democracies and one second world democracy. ISSP questions asked: I know God really exists and I have no doubt about it = absolutely believe in God; 2-3 times a month + once a week or more = attend religious services at least several times a month; several times a week - several times a day = pray at least several times a week; the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word = Bible literalists; human beings [have] developed from earlier species of animals = accept human evolution; I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is a way to find out + I don’t believe in God = agnostics and other atheists.”

The questions above seem to be “boolean” in nature.  One is either a Bible Literalist or one is an agnostic / atheist.  So there is no middle ground for non-literal theists such as myself?  Thus I wonder if the results / conclusions of the study are valid if the only Christian is a Biblical Literalist.  Perhaps I am missing something…..

I think they only focused on Christians but you could answer that you are not a bible literalist but do go to church alot. They were correlating people who believe in evolution vs. people don’t in relations to morality. Obviously you could say i believe in evolution but go to church a lot, they didn’t make those mutually exclusive categories.

OldChurchGuy - 09 August 2008 09:23 AM

I thought it interesting to equate agnostics with “other atheists”.  I thought there was a distinct difference between the two but I could be wrong.  Can anyone clarify if an agnostic is a type of atheist?

An agnostic is someone who claims no knowledge of gods existence. Agnostic may still either believe in god or be an atheist but accept that their belief has no truth value because the actual existence of god or gods is unknown or unknowable.

Atheist may be agnostic about gods existence and choose not to believe for that reason thus they are agnostic atheists. Other atheist may claim to know that god doesn’t exists, but that is a logical fallacy because you cannot affirm a negative. So most atheist are “teapot agnostics,” where they must remain agnostic about a teapot orbiting Jupiter as well because you cant prove their isn’t a teapot orbiting Jupiter in the same way you can prove there is no god.

Agnostic theists obviously could also believe in god and go to church but accept that they cant be sure god really exist but choose to believe god does.

Clumping agnostics and atheists together when doing demographics makes sense because their worldview is usually more like an atheist then a theist, but it would be more accurate to make them their own distinct group.

danlhinz - 08 August 2008 05:09 PM

I think you posted in the wrong thread.

A Voice of Sanity - 08 August 2008 05:21 PM

You don’t connect “Morality Negatively Correlated to Religiosity” with protesting at the funeral of a murder victim who is blamed because other people are tolerant of gays?

danlhinz - 09 August 2008 03:28 PM

Sorry, I was tired when I wrote this made it hard to articulate my thoughts. That is a horrible incident, and a good example of “toxic religion.” What I meant but didn’t say is that the incident was only one case of religion making people do bad things. It cant be considered evidence that religion is correlated to immorality because it is an isolated incident, though it is a good example of religion being immoral.

Good people almost always do good things.
Bad people almost always do bad things.
Sometimes bad people do good things.
But to make good people do bad things you need to add religion.

Quoting aVoS:

Good people almost always do good things.
Bad people almost always do bad things.
Sometimes bad people do good things.
But to make good people do bad things you need to add religion.

Or testosterone

Occam

(referring to a great many politicians and including males in general.)

Occam - 09 August 2008 06:36 PM

Or testosterone

Occam

And beer!

Occam - 09 August 2008 06:36 PM

Quoting aVoS:

...But to make good people do bad things you need to add religion.

Or testosterone

Occam

(referring to a great many politicians and including males in general.)

Watch out, Occam! Or they might also call you a fatalist. (You know this forum belongs to the Humanists. . )

danlhinz - 09 August 2008 03:48 PM

OldChurchGuy - 09 August 2008 09:23 AM

Intersting study. 

I found this paragrph just above the graphs:

“Indicators of societal dysfunction and health as functions of percentage rates of theistic and non-theistic belief and practice in 17 first world developed democracies and one second world democracy. ISSP questions asked: I know God really exists and I have no doubt about it = absolutely believe in God; 2-3 times a month + once a week or more = attend religious services at least several times a month; several times a week - several times a day = pray at least several times a week; the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word = Bible literalists; human beings [have] developed from earlier species of animals = accept human evolution; I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is a way to find out + I don’t believe in God = agnostics and other atheists.”

The questions above seem to be “boolean” in nature.  One is either a Bible Literalist or one is an agnostic / atheist.  So there is no middle ground for non-literal theists such as myself?  Thus I wonder if the results / conclusions of the study are valid if the only Christian is a Biblical Literalist.  Perhaps I am missing something…..

I think they only focused on Christians but you could answer that you are not a bible literalist but do go to church alot. They were correlating people who believe in evolution vs. people don’t in relations to morality. Obviously you could say i believe in evolution but go to church a lot, they didn’t make those mutually exclusive categories.

OldChurchGuy - 09 August 2008 09:23 AM

I thought it interesting to equate agnostics with “other atheists”.  I thought there was a distinct difference between the two but I could be wrong.  Can anyone clarify if an agnostic is a type of atheist?

An agnostic is someone who claims no knowledge of gods existence. Agnostic may still either believe in god or be an atheist but accept that their belief has no truth value because the actual existence of god or gods is unknown or unknowable.

Atheist may be agnostic about gods existence and choose not to believe for that reason thus they are agnostic atheists. Other atheist may claim to know that god doesn’t exists, but that is a logical fallacy because you cannot affirm a negative. So most atheist are “teapot agnostics,” where they must remain agnostic about a teapot orbiting Jupiter as well because you cant prove their isn’t a teapot orbiting Jupiter in the same way you can prove there is no god.

Agnostic theists obviously could also believe in god and go to church but accept that they cant be sure god really exist but choose to believe god does.

Clumping agnostics and atheists together when doing demographics makes sense because their worldview is usually more like an atheist then a theist, but it would be more accurate to make them their own distinct group.

Thanks for the clarification and information.

OldChurchGuy

Quoting George:

Watch out, Occam! Or they might also call you a fatalist. (You know this forum belongs to the Humanists.   

Nah, just a traitor to my own gender. 

Occam