Recently, a study was brought to my attention. This study was an examination of correlations between religiosity (belief in God, church attendance etc) and quantifiable metrics of social health (rates of homicide, suicide, teenage pregnancies, abortion, STDs etc). The paper to which I refer is published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a refereed journal published through the Kripke Center at a Jesuit Catholic school, and is written very objectively, appearing to be free of any ‘secular’ agenda that the uninitiated might be tempted to suggest.
At the end of the manuscript, a number of figures are shown, plotting metrics of religiosity against those of social health. Some of these are largely in line with what one might expect, but some show trends that might come as a significant shock. I’d like to draw your attention to (in my opinion) some of the more startling correlations, in the hope of understanding the meaning behind them.
Figure 1 shows correlations between acceptance of human evolution and various metrics of religiosity. In a certain manner, acceptance of human evolution is a metric for popular scientific literacy. A reasonable anti-correlation is seen between acceptance of evolution and all positive measures of religiosity (for example, as belief in God rises, the acceptance of evolution falls). This probably comes as no surprise.
Figure 2, which plots homicide rates against the metrics of religiosity, shows no statistically significant correlation. That is, the murder rate is completely unaffected by beliefs of a society. Likewise, Figure 3 shows no correlation between religiosity and suicide rates in young adults, and Figure 5 indicates no correlation with life expectancy.
However, Figure 4 is staggering. It shows a tremendously significant positive correlation between the mortality rates of the under-5-year-old population and religiosity: The higher the belief in God, the higher the infant mortality rate. And significantly so; a doubling of belief in God brings a 50% increase in mortality rates. Furthermore, the correlation is tightest around belief in God; more so than the attendance of religious services. For example, by comparing the plot against absolute belief and the plot against service attendance, the data for Ireland and Italy (which are outliers in the latter, but lie in close correlation in the former) indicate that the correlation really is with belief in God, rather than with church
attendance. (Note that these are two countries with strong cultural ties to the church (Roman Catholic), such that it is not uncommon for those who have tenuous personal belief to attend church services regularly).
Surprisingly, Figure 8 shows an unarguably strong positive correlation between teenage abortions and the metrics of religiosity, and Figure 9 shows positive correlation with pregnancies.
So, what are the data telling us? The inarguable fact is, in societies where a belief in God is more prevalent, there is more social dysfunction, often in the very realms to which the prevalent ‘religious’ teaching is most contrary. For example, it is interesting that in a society which is more vocally against all abortion, the abortion rates in teenage pregnancies (i.e. those which have the largest proportion of abortion for social reasons, rather than medical ‘necessity’) are highest. Further, there is no instance in any metric of a positive correlation be
tween religiosity and social health; either the metrics show increased religiosity coincides with more social problems, or there is no correlation whatsoever.
Why is this? We know from personal experience that genuine belief in God ought not induce such trends. We also know that, as C.S. Lewis maintained, the moral law is ingrained innately within us – that it is all-pervasive, present irrespective of theological stance. This is indicated by the data on homicide – people are no more or less likely to murder based on their beliefs.
It seems like the social problems for which there are the strongest correlations are biased towards those of youth: teenage pregnancies and abortions, particularly. It may be that, in those societies where there is the m
ost ‘religious’ pressure to conform to the ‘rules,’ there is a greater likelihood of the youth ‘careering off the rails.’ One can certainly see similar trends with attitudes to alcohol: those who were raised in cultures in which alcohol was an everyday substance throughout their childhood (wine with dinner etc) have a lower tendency toward binge-drinking in their teenage/early-adult years.
Alternatively, perhaps the correlation is actually in the opposite direction. One could argue that, in those societies where there are more social problems generally (for whatever reason) people are more troubled, and more likely to look to God. We all know, for example, how times of tribulation (for ourselves or out loved-ones) can invigorate our prayer life.
At the end of the manuscript, a number of figures are shown, plotting metrics of religiosity against those of social health. Some of these are largely in line with what one might expect, but some show trends that might come as a significant shock. I’d like to draw your attention to (in my opinion) some of the more startling correlations, in the hope of understanding the meaning behind them.Figure 1 shows correlations between acceptance of human evolution and various metrics of religiosity. In a certain manner, acceptance of human evolution is a metric for popular scientific literacy. A reasonable anti-correlation is seen between acceptance of evolution and all positive measures of religiosity (for example, as belief in God rises, the acceptance of evolution falls). This probably comes as no surprise.
Figure 2, which plots homicide rates against the metrics of religiosity, shows no statistically significant correlation. That is, the murder rate is completely unaffected by beliefs of a society. Likewise, Figure 3 shows no correlation between religiosity and suicide rates in young adults, and Figure 5 indicates no correlation with life expectancy.
However, Figure 4 is staggering. It shows a tremendously significant positive correlation between the mortality rates of the under-5-year-old population and religiosity: The higher the belief in God, the higher the infant mortality rate. And significantly so; a doubling of belief in God brings a 50% increase in mortality rates. Furthermore, the correlation is tightest around belief in God; more so than the attendance of religious services. For example, by comparing the plot against absolute belief and the plot against service attendance, the data for Ireland and Italy (which are outliers in the latter, but lie in close correlation in the former) indicate that the correlation really is with belief in God, rather than with church
attendance. (Note that these are two countries with strong cultural ties to the church (Roman Catholic), such that it is not uncommon for those who have tenuous personal belief to attend church services regularly).Surprisingly, Figure 8 shows an unarguably strong positive correlation between teenage abortions and the metrics of religiosity, and Figure 9 shows positive correlation with pregnancies.
So, what are the data telling us? The inarguable fact is, in societies where a belief in God is more prevalent, there is more social dysfunction, often in the very realms to which the prevalent ‘religious’ teaching is most contrary. For example, it is interesting that in a society which is more vocally against all abortion, the abortion rates in teenage pregnancies (i.e. those which have the largest proportion of abortion for social reasons, rather than medical ‘necessity’) are highest. Further, there is no instance in any metric of a positive correlation be
tween religiosity and social health; either the metrics show increased religiosity coincides with more social problems, or there is no correlation whatsoever.Why is this? We know from personal experience that genuine belief in God ought not induce such trends. We also know that, as C.S. Lewis maintained, the moral law is ingrained innately within us – that it is all-pervasive, present irrespective of theological stance. This is indicated by the data on homicide – people are no more or less likely to murder based on their beliefs.
It seems like the social problems for which there are the strongest correlations are biased towards those of youth: teenage pregnancies and abortions, particularly. It may be that, in those societies where there is the m
ost ‘religious’ pressure to conform to the ‘rules,’ there is a greater likelihood of the youth ‘careering off the rails.’ One can certainly see similar trends with attitudes to alcohol: those who were raised in cultures in which alcohol was an everyday substance throughout their childhood (wine with dinner etc) have a lower tendency toward binge-drinking in their teenage/early-adult years.Alternatively, perhaps the correlation is actually in the opposite direction. One could argue that, in those societies where there are more social problems generally (for whatever reason) people are more troubled, and more likely to look to God. We all know, for example, how times of tribulation (for ourselves or out loved-ones) can invigorate our prayer life.
So, the data show that these trends exist, but I don't yet have a convincing understanding of what cause lies behind them.
Thoughts, friends?
9 comments:
I have to say that, having read the article and studied the figures, it is Figure 4 that still throws me. Anecdotally, I can understand the correlations (well, anti-correlations) of certain "social stigmas" with belief in God, especially for teenagers. There is nothing, however, that I can imagine that could produce any kind of correlation between belief in God and infant mortality. I know that a belief in God may hinder an acceptance of evolution, but surely it wouldn't hinder an acceptance of modern medicine?
A comment from Coach:
I have been looking at the report on and off, for most of the day. I believe the information to be of some value, however I am not sure that the information was gathered in a way which other outside factures did not have an effect on the results. Also it seems to me that when ever people are asked questions directly about a belief, they tend to answer the way people want them to answer.
Maybe, just maybe we are kidding ourselves when we just assume that God, and religious attendance has any correlation with GOOD at all. That could be the saddest part of all. Dosen't the Mafia have an enormous connection with the Roman church. The Mexican underground bases their criminal laws on the Dogmas of the church. Pierre Burton wrote in his essay "The Comfortable Pew"...; that the Anglican Church makes one million dollars a week on single stock options, and pays these brokers more money then is given to any of the affiliated charities. I point these things out not to bring down the good of our churches but rather to present the idea that the church and its people are often on the wrong path, thus there is no connection between right and wrong and God.
It could be that these stats are right on and we just don't want to believe it. I do agree with you that something is off, and that we should not read it as the complete puzzle but rather a piece to it.
Coach
Interesting points. I'm sure you're right about the data potentially being skewed compared with reality, but the question is
whether there is any relative skewing between the different countries, or just an overall skewing. If not, then the correlation is still real - it just might not be representative in an absolute sense. I can imagine that, for example (and as you suggested) there is a bias in answering such questions which is could be somewhat dependent on the cultural climate of a country. For example, generally in the US you're viewed with suspicion if you say you don't believe in God (imagine if a presidential candidate stated an atheistic stance). In England, on the other hand, you're likely to be viewed with suspicion (or, at least, with curiosity) if you do (typically, there is a general lack of trust of a politician who brought his/her personal beliefs into the public eye). However, I think the most this is likely to do is to amplify trends which are already there, rather than produce false correlations.
You make good points about the effect of certain religious institutions. As with all human institutions, there's a real risk of it becoming, to a greater or lesser extent, corrupted. However, it's interesting that in some cases (for the data here) the correlation is stronger with 'belief' than it is with 'religious service attendance', indicating that the effect is not rooted in the religious institution, but rather people's personal stance.
Ultimately, I don't think 'goodness' (that is, good actions) is stems from 'belief' (for we genuinely see great goodness in fairly secular countries/places). However, one's definition of 'belief' might make all the difference here.
I have looked over these charts and the report several times and the still don't make sense to me at all.
I've been contemplating the Evil Doctor's last comment, and I think, although it's possible the "badness" of the society may lead to a renewed belief in God or a renewed fervor for religious activities (prayer, church attendance, etc), that perhaps there is, at a certain point, a "cutoff" to such a response. After a God-fearing society (like the US was upon its founding) goes long enough with "poor" social conditions (civil war, slavery, guerrilla law, gangs, drug use, etc), one can imagine that the citizens would begin to lose hope. Having turned to God to spare them from such horrible social conditions and finding, again and again, no resolution, a society may turn away from religion, realizing it is not, in reality, a practical panacea. Though this can't explain the opposite effect, this would lead to a (time-dependent) negative correlation between social health and religiosity, as seen in some of the figures. Thoughts?
Another words, it is best to an aethis?
Not so, necessarily... like I said, the converse (inverse?) may not be true: people turning away from religion due to repeated social hardships may explain a correlation between religion and poor social health, but it wouldn't immediately explain the correlation between atheism/agnosticism and good social health. I still think that's more probably related to "belief" or "trust" in medical science, though to what extent, I'm not certain.
I think the socioeconomic factors may come into play here. On figure 4 – is the ‘belief in God’ before or after the infant mortality. If a person has a child under five years old die, isn’t it likely they would turn to religion for comfort? Maybe the shared hardship of dealing with the loss of a child correlates with a shared belief in God to make sense of it all.
Heather - I think you are correct in principle, in that we can't assume the direction of the correlation. Naively, it certainly sounds far more plausible that poor socioeconomic factors lead to stronger beleif than belief induces a poorly functioning society. However, in this specific instance, I don't think the correlation is significant. The maximum infant mortality rate is just under 1%. No matter how strong the correlation in that 1% of the population, it is not going to noticeably affect the overall trends.
Post a Comment