MandM header image 2

Contra Mundum: Secularism and Public Life

June 1st, 2010 by Matt

Legal scholar Stephen Carter stated,

One good way to end a conversation – or start an argument – is to tell a group of well educated professionals that you hold a political position (preferably a controversial one such as being against abortion or pornography) because it is required by your understanding of God’s will. In the unlikely event that anyone hangs around to talk with you about it, chances are that you will be challenged on the ground that you are intent on imposing your religious beliefs on other people. And in contemporary political and legal culture, nothing is worse.

Carter puts his finger on an important perspective which is pervasive in contemporary liberal societies. This is the view that citizens of liberal democracies may justly support the implementation of a law only if they reasonably believe themselves to have a plausible secular justification for that law. Further, they must be willing to appeal to secular justifications alone in political discussion. The upshot of this perspective is that it is perceived to be unjust to support or advocate for laws for theological or religious reasons.

I will refer to this position as secularism, the commitment to the position that the public square should be secular. The secularisation of political culture is, of course, an implication of accepting this position.  Richard Rorty described it as,

The happy, Jeffersonian compromise that the Enlightenment reached with the religious. This compromise consists in privatizing religion — keeping it out of … “the public square,” making it seem bad taste to bring religion into discussions of public policy.

My experience as a New Zealand citizen is that secularism is widely held and taken for granted in our culture by media, politicians and popular culture. I also think, perhaps predictably, that secularism of this sort is questionable.

Let me begin by pointing out that several writers have observed that prima facie there is something unfair or discriminatory about secularism. Contemporary critics of secularism, Christopher Eberle and Terence Cuneo, note that it entails “There is an important asymmetry between religious and secular reasons in the following respect: some secular reasons can themselves justify state coercion but no religious reason can.”

Another critic, Philip Quinn, observes that secularists impose “burdens on religious people” that they nowhere suggest “imposing on nonreligious people.” Secularists do “not propose that nonreligious people must be sufficiently motivated by adequate religious reason for their advocacy or support of restrictive laws or policies. The lack of symmetry is striking.”

This raises an obvious question, why the asymmetry? On the face of it secularism appears to privilege secular ideologies and doctrines in public debate whilst relegating religious or theological perspectives to the private sphere.  What is the basis for this? Two reasons are typically offered and neither is terribly compelling.

The first is that it is dangerous to allow theological or religious concerns into public debate. Defenders of secularism raise the specter of the wars of religion that tore Europe apart during the 17th century or they mention episodes such as the Inquisition and Crusades, which are said to be consequences of allowing religious reasons to influence public and political life. It is argued that the only way to keep social peace and prevent the kind of violence that Europe witnessed is to ensure religious reasons do not influence public life and that all political discussions take place on secular terms.

This argument assumes that appeal to religious reasons is the cause of religious wars and appeals to secular reasons protect us against such wars. Writing in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Eberle and Cuneo note that the religious wars of the 17th century were caused not by the appeal to religious reasons per se but rather by the violation of religious freedom. Moreover, they note that even in the 17th century, religious persecution was typically justified on secular grounds. They go on to observe that religious freedom is not necessarily safeguarded by secularising public debate. They note that many “secularists have a long history of hostility to the right to religious freedom and, presumably, that hostility isn’t at all grounded in religious considerations” In addition, they note correctly that some of the most important defences of religious persecution and defences of religious tolerance, such as those proposed by John Locke and Pierre Bayle, appealed to explicitly theological grounds.

Yale philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff makes a similar point, he notes that much of “the slaughter, torture, and generalised brutality of our century has mainly been conducted in the name of one or another secular cause–nationalism of many sorts, communism, fascism, patriotisms of various kinds, economic hegemony.” He also stated that “many of the social movements in the modern world that have moved societies in the direction of liberal democracy have been deeply and explicitly religious in their orientation.” Wolterstorff cites examples such as the abolitionist, civil rights and various other resistance movements as examples.

The assumption that secular reasoning is always tolerant and religious reasoning is always intolerant does not survive scrutiny. Particular types of religious reasons in particular political contexts can lead to wars and abuse, whereas appealing to other types of religious reasons in other contexts can be beneficent. The same is equally true of secular reasons. Certain types of secular reasons can be dangerous in particular contexts and other types of secular reasons are not. To single religious reasons out as being ‘too dangerous to be aired in public’ and insisting on a default to secular reasons seems ad hoc and unjustified.

The fear of religious wars is not the only argument typically offered for the secular public square. The main reason offered for secularism is that religious reasons are not accessible to all people. Auckland Law Professor Paul Rishworth observes, “some have contended that the nature of religious belief is such that, while it may be integral to individual autonomy and development, it has no proper role in public policy debates and that these ought to be conducted exclusively in secular terms that are equally accessible to all.” [Emphasis added]

Something like this is also evident in defences of secularism. Leading secular Philosopher Michael Tooley states, “For it is surely true that it is inappropriate, at least in a pluralistic society, to appeal to specific theological beliefs of a non moral sort… in support of legislation that will be binding upon everyone.” Robert Audi, one of the leading defenders of secularism, states “as advocates for laws and public policies, then, and especially for those that are coercive, virtuous citizens will seek grounds of a kind that any rational adult citizen can endorse as sufficient for the purpose.” [Emphasis added]  In essence, because not everyone in society accepts the existence of God or some theological perspective on life then it is unjust to base laws governing their conduct on theological or religious grounds.

This argument is deeply flawed. If taken consistently it would require not just the exclusion of religious reasons but the exclusion of any reasons that were controversial and not accepted by all people. The problem is that many secular justifications and ideologies are also controversial in the same way. Quinn makes the point,

If the fact that religious reasons cannot be shared by all in a religiously pluralistic society suffices to warrant any exclusion of religious reasons for advocating or supporting restrictive laws or policies, then much else ought in fairness also to be excluded on the same grounds.

He goes on to note,

Indeed, it would seem that the appeal to any comprehensive ethical theory, including all known secular ethical theories, should be disallowed on the grounds that every such theory can be reasonably rejected by some citizens of a pluralistic democracy. And if justification of restrictive laws or policies can be conducted only in terms of moral considerations no citizen of a pluralistic democracy can reasonably reject, then in a pluralistic democracy such as ours very few restrictive laws or policies can be morally justified, a conclusion that would, I suspect, be welcomed only by anarchists. [Emphasis added]

I agree with Quinn. There is special pleading going on whereby theological beliefs are rejected on certain grounds, while secular ones are not, even though the same grounds and reasons, consistently applied, should lead to the rejection of secular beliefs.

On examining secularism and the main arguments for it, it certainly is not evident that a just or fair society will have a secularised public square. To insist this is the case prima facie seems to favour secular views of the world for no adequate reason. Contrary to what some maintain, secular reasons, like religious reasons, can be used to justify atrocities and human rights abuses. Further, like religious reasons, secular reasons are frequently controversial and not shared by all intelligent people. Of course, secularists might consider religious views of the world to be false but then, of course, religious people consider secular views of the world to be false and given the diversity of secular moral theories on offer they cannot all be true (some are at odds with each other) so why single out religious views? The question remains as to why morality requires that public discussions privilege secular perspectives by requiring that all such discussions are engaged in on secular terms.  I suspect we will be waiting a long time for an answer.

[In this article I acknowledge being influenced by my wife Madeleine Flannagan’s supervised research paper “Religious Restraint and Public Policy” which she wrote under the supervision of Professor Rishworth, the Dean of the University of Auckland’s School of Law.]

I write a monthly column for Investigate Magazine entitled Contra Mundum. This blog post was published in the June 10 issue and is reproduced here with permission. Contra Mundum is Latin for ‘against the world;’ the phrase is usually attributed to Athanasius who was exiled for defending Christian orthodoxy.

Letters to the editor should be sent to: editorial@investigatemagazine.DELETE.com

RELATED POSTS:
Contra Mundum: Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness
Contra Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament

Contra Mundum: Secular Smoke Screens and Plato’s Euthyphro

Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others?
Contra Mundum: God, Proof and Faith
Contra Mundum: “Bigoted Fundamentalist” as Orwellian Double-Speak
Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth
Contra Mundum: Confessions of an Anti-Choice Fanatic
Contra Mundum: The Judgmental Jesus

Tags:   · · · · · · · · · · · 63 Comments

63 responses so far ↓

  • Good column Matt.

    Madeleine, can I suggest the comment box goes below the comments, especially as that is where the most recent comments are, and that is where the preview is. Finding the end of the page is much easier than finding the end of the post/ beginning of the comments.

  • Happy to oblige Bethyada just tell me how!

  • I don’t know. I have just had a look at my wordpress blog. Looking at my css (I use inove) they have the comments code followed by the submitbox (which will be the comment box I am currently typing in). It has it below the comment code, but I am not certain how you would adjust your code. You are not using offsite commenting now?

  • […] do secularists think their view should be privileged in debates? This is a good article from Matt at […]

  • Excellent points. I like to point out that the “secular only” argument fails because:

    1. That pesky 1st Amendment thingy, which explicitly protects, not restricts, our rights to have our religious views inform our political views.

    2. The inevitable illogical conclusion that we should vote the opposite of our religious views. I think my religion forbids me to ask the government to put atheists in jail and take their stuff. Must I vote the opposite of that?

    3. Have you ever noticed how the secularists don’t complain about the theological Left and their support for unrestricted abortion, open borders, legal recognition of same-sex unions, etc.? They generally just oppose religious views that they disagree with, which demonstrates that their tactics are more about bullying than principles.

  • You’re arguing here against the poor implementation of secularism rather than secularism itself.

  • Paul C, not sure I agree, after all the version I criticise is the version which is usually defended in the literature. I got my definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia for example, and the citations are all from leading philosophers who defend or presuppose the position. Moreover, many of the critical points I make are drawn from the literature on the issue. So its not clear to me that any straw man charge can really fit.

    Of course I did not address the more nuanced versions of Gaus or Rawls ( Madeleine and I have elsewhere on this blog) but in a short article that can hardly be expected.

  • Dear Matt,
    I do agree that, “There is special pleading going on whereby theological beliefs are rejected on certain grounds, while secular ones are not, even though the same grounds and reasons, consistently applied, should lead to the rejection of secular beliefs”.
    Hey your blog seems good. I just loved reading this. Thanks for sharing!! Looking forward to see more from you!!!

  • Since in my comment I didn’t claim that you were misrepresenting anybody’s views, I wasn’t making a straw man argument. However if you were using the Stanford Encyclopedia, you will be aware that the version you criticize is not the only version which is defended in the literature. The article you cite says that “we should distinguish two types of secularism” – the standard view and pluralistic secularism – and says that “even critics of the standard view who affirm liberal democracy on religious grounds… grant that liberal democracy is secular in Stout’s second, pluralistic sense.”

  • – A PRAYER FROM JESUS –

    This prayer is from Jesus that we may here from Him, that He may meet our needs. It only consist of three simple steps.

    1) We need to read one scripture. This will focus us in the word that brings everlasting life.

    2) Since this prayer is from Jesus we need to direct our prayer to Him personally. Too often Christian focus they’re prayer’s to G_D the father. Scripture proclaims that Jesus should be the focus of our prayer.

    3) The simplest part of this Prayer is to ask Jesus one question. Please, all that is required for this question is to make it simple. Let Jesus Himself finish the question when He gives you that understanding through prayer.

    The PRAYER

    The scripture that is the focus of this prayer is “ACTS 2:38”. It’s not necessary to do any study into this scripture. Jesus Himself will bestow the understanding that will resonate in your heart.

    The most important part of this prayer is that we need to direct our prayer directly to Jesus. If you normally would say Father in your prayer, change your focus from the Father to Christ Jesus by lifting Jesus name up every time you would normally use Father in your prayer.

    Maybe the hardest part of this prayer is the question that we need to ask Jesus. For man as we are, always try to understand the question and may add many additional quires. The simplest question is all that is required.

    Simply ask Jesus ‘WHY’

  • “This is the view that citizens of liberal democracies may justly support the implementation of a law only if they reasonably believe themselves to have a plausible secular justification for that law.”

    Maybe that’s right, but I would be put off by someone offering as justification for his belief that it is his interpretation of God’s will. And I’m a theist. You’ve got to say more than that. You’d need to say why abortion is a bad thing in a way that won’t require having faith that God has some reason or other for prohibiting it. That is, I htink it is fair to require more of theists than a skeptical theist response that, God will’s X, therefore there is some good reason or other, perhaps beyond our ken, why we should X. I understand entirely why non-theists would find that a distasteful way to argue.

  • Reasonable people have followed advice and consultations
    from deemed professionals who know better than the average person

    Therefore, its reasonable to form policy based on God’s commands because of the Divine Command theory of Ethics, which assumes God’s nature as inherently good, orderly. has perfect knowledge. Using this as a baseline justification, the theist can ground their arguments this way

    this also provides a control measure againsts deviancies that might inevitably arise from interpreting God’s will. Using the Bible as an objective source of knowledge to check against Bizarre and irrational interpretations of God’s will caused by people’s finitude

    Also its unfair to say that there is a more burden of proof on the theistic side to explain their rationale, when as the post noted that there are different and often contradictory sources of secular reasoning as their are theistic reasons.

    Abortion, for example would be supported by a utilitarian, depending on the situation, more babies could result in more mouths to feed, hastening food shortages and overpopulation, a Kantian would be against it, because its the moral duty of a woman to bear children to support the population. So far the overall aim of both positions is to preserve life, but ultimately there is no authority within the realm of secular reasoning to justify this position, Life-destroying, and freedom-restrictive policies can also be made possible within the secular framework, anything goes! Since there was never a singular source of authority that can distinguish which positions are good or bad. That’s what happens when people become the source for morality.

  • Mike, abortion is wrong for one simple reason.

    God prohibits the taking of human life except in circumstances related to justice or war. Neither of these are involved in abortion.

    Why does He prohibit it?

    Because of being “created in God’s image” (that is possessing the quality of being representative of God’s authority on Earth) a human life is of inestimable value. That is why there is no ransom for murder in the first testament.

    Is the unborn a human being?

    We have no evidence that it is not, and evidence, such as the genetic, that it is. Therefore it is a human life and entitled to the same protection as any other human being.

    Are there circumstances where abortion might be an option?

    There may be some circumstance where there is no good option, and the taking of one life will save the life of another. The only example I can think of is where the choice literally is between the life of the mother and the life of the child. Any lesser circumstance does not provide justification for abortion.

    Atheistic ethicists start with one of the accepted philosophical schools, generally utilitarianism. Abortion is justified in terms of maximising happiness, the “oh, her life will be destroyed if she has the baby” argument, or the usefulness of the aborted, the “we can conduct research on the human remains and perhaps fix x, y, z conditions.”

    Firstly, whoever decided that happiness was important? From an atheistic perspective happiness is just an accident of brain chemistry. It has no more intrinsic value than indigestion; actually indigestion may be more valuable because it tells you that there was something wrong with what you ate. Making “happiness” a criteria of the worth of an action is akin to deciding to buy a car based on whether you like the colour.

    Secondly, having a child does not destroy a woman’s life. At least I don’t think I ruined my mother’s life, and I doubt you ruined your mother’s. At worst it reduces, or delays, a range of options that she may have otherwise had. On the other hand I’ve talked to women who have felt fulfilled and very happy as a result of having a child (not that I’m saying happiness is of any intrinsic value). Some of them want to try it again.

    Claiming that abortion can add to medical advancement is faced with problems too. Firstly, and most viscerally, it’s ghoulish. Should we regard it as an advance to be able to chop up unconscious people in the hope of learning something new? Secondly, there are no advances in areas such as stem cell research done on foetal tissue, that cannot be done with equal or greater facility working with adult stem cells that incur none of the moral objections.

  • Mike, abortion is wrong for one simple reason. God prohibits the taking of human life except in circumstances related to justice or war. Neither of these are involved in abortion.

    This is doesn’t solve the problem, it represents the problem. There has to be some reason why God issues the prohibitions he does; presumably he’s not arbitrarily issuing prohibitions. Those reasons will appeal to theist and atheist alike insofar as either is rational. ‘Being created in God’s image’ tells me nothing about why aborition is disvaluable. There is no logical relation (or certainly none that you specify) between that and the value of a newly concieved being. Atheists agree that normal adult human beings are valuable things, and maybe you can make the case that such beings have properties analogous to God’s. But certainly no newly coneived being has such properties. What’s left out here is the honest toil required in finding and articulating those reasons.

  • Mike, regarding your comments.

    1.You note that unless God’s commands are arbitrary there has to be a reason for them. That is correct, but it does not follow from this that the reason God has for issuing the command is what makes ( in the sense of constitutes) the action wrong. I have addressed this point here: http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/07/walter-sinnott-armstrong-on-god-morality-and-arbitrariness

    2.You state that God’s reasons “in so far as they are rational” will appeal to theist and atheist alike. I fail to see why this follows, its possible that God is aware of facts or information which neither atheist or theist is aware of, its also possible that there are facts which the atheist, because of his atheism or because of an associated skeptical perspective is does not accept. I see no reason for saying that only reasons accepted by both atheists and theists are rational.

    3.You seem to think that appealing to God’s commands somehow short cuts “honest toil” of working out answers to moral questions. I fail to see why, the meta-ethical question of what constitutes moral properties such as wrongness differs from the applied ethics question of whether a specific action has these properties. Even if a person accepts ( as I do) that wrongness is constituted by the property of being contrary to God’s commands, it does not follow one still does not have to carefully examine the facts and arguments for and against the claim that a particular action such as say abortion or capital punishment has the property of being right or wrong.

    4.As to the image of God issue, actually carefully worked out positions in response to the kinds of questions you ask have been made by Christian Thinkers. Nicholas Wolterstorff for example in his latest book Justice Rights and Wrongs, goes to great detail arguing for an account of human dignity grounded in the image of God and criticizing secular attempts to ground human dignity. Are you going to maintain that this carefully argued book lacks “honest toil” because it mentions God?

  • Anyone Moderating or Administrating Comment acceptance/deletion, if they can ask Matt or Madeleine, if they know Gregory S Paul’s Study of the supposed link between religiousity and social dysfunction.

    I’d like to know whether MandM are aware of such studies being done and they’re response to it, if there are any such available

  • Alvin, I have heard of that study but have not looked at it in great detail. of the top of my head however I would say a couple of things. paul argues that “theistic countries” have higher homicide rates than non theistic ones. In fact thats false, the countries with the lowest rates are Saudi Arabia and Quatar hardly secular nations Indonesia is also one of the lowest and amoungst eurpoean countries Ireland has one of the lowest homicide rates. see http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

    Second, the question should be asked as to not wether a country with a high number of theists has a high homicide rate but rather who in those countries are commiting those crimes. In the US for example there are often claims ( such as the Bush v Gore incident) that disenfancising criminals favours conservative candidates over liberal ones. Which suggests that a disproportionate number of criminals oppose the religious right.

  • Alvin you could also note all the studies to the contrary for example.

    “”a huge, and growing literature that finds religion to be a reliable source of better mental and even physical health … regardless of the age, sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, or time period of the population being studied.”Rodney Stark and Roger Fink, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2000): 31-2.

    “extensive studies have found the presence of religious beliefs and attitudes to be the best predictors of life satisfaction and a sense of well-being.”Quoted in Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Bernard Spilka, Bruce Hunsberger, and Richard Gorsuch, The Psychology of Religion (NY: Guilford Press, 1996, 2nd ed.): 384.

    Plus the numerous studies cited by Jeff Jordan in http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeffrey_jordan/belief.html

  • Matt – you shouldn’t dismiss that paper so quickly. Have a look at it. and you will see your comments don’t really address the data presented.

  • OK perhaps my comment was too vague to deserve a response – perhaps I should explain.

    Matt you are pulling out examples, perhaps anecdotal ones, to support your own preconceived position. That methodology just can’t stand up against the scientific investigation carried out by Paul.

    His paper is Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies. Download it and have a look.

    Paul used surveys from 38 countries. Probably the most thorough exploration yet of this sort of issue.

    He concluded that:

    “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.” It also correlated with rejection of evolutionary science.

    As he said the “hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population.”

    So his study should put that hypothesis to rest.

    Of cause, correlation does not always mean causation. So while the evidence is against your claim it should not (yet) be used to “prove” the alternative.

    Actually, the case for homicide is the weakest – the correlation is relatively low ( suggesting possible other causes involved as well) and the US stands out is a huge outlier – high numbers of homicides and high religiosity. But mortality, abortions, teen pregnancies and rejection of evolutionary science are strongly correlated.

    I think Paul’s study easily trumps your wishful quoting of anecdotal evidence and wishful assumptions. It shows that the common Christian attempts to claim us infidels are prone to being dysfunctional is just not consistent with the best evidence.

    In no way am I claiming the religiosity is the cause of dysfunction. But the evidence is that it is correlated. I suspect there is a more basic cause here than religiosity. That the later is a accompanying effect rather than a cause.

    Having got that conclusion from the data it is now up to social scientists to investigate further

  • Ken

    I did not cite anecdotal evidence; I actually referred Alvin to several peer reviewed studies.

    You state Paul has shown a correlation between religiosity and criminality. But he doesn’t what he shows is that some societies with high church attendance also have high rates of crime. It does not follow from this from “religiosity” and “crime” is correlated. For that to follow one would have to show that the same people in a given society do both.

    If for example 70% of people in a society are religious, 30% are not and 90% of the non religious 30% commit a huge number of crimes, then the society will have a high crime rate, it will also have a highly religious population, but it will not follow that religiousity is correlated with crime.

    It shows that the common Christian attempts to claim us infidels are prone to being dysfunctional is just not consistent with the best evidence.

    Well if Christian’s did commonly argue this that might be a valid point. But, I have yet to find a Christian theologian or philosopher who has argued this. I can rattle of a number of atheists who caricature Christian apologists for saying this. But that’s not the same thing. Usually this is due to a failure to distinguish the claim “God moral duties exist without God” from the claim “can you live morally without believing in God” a distinction Christian thinkers repeatedly make ad nauesum and gets repeatedly ignored.

    I note you ignore the numerous social science studies I mentioned and instead state “Having got that conclusion from the data it is now up to social scientists to investigate further” which of course suggests they haven’t.

  • Matt… as one of the few people around with degrees in both statistics and theology (i suspect)… It is my sad duty to say that you are really reaching with your:

    “If for example 70% of people in a society are religious, 30% are not and 90% of the non religious 30% commit a huge number of crimes, then the society will have a high crime rate, it will also have a highly religious population, but it will not follow that religiousity is correlated with crime.”

    It is REALLY stretching…. I mean technically speaking you may e right – but without any evidence to support your wild ad hoc story – the natural conclusion is the one Ken has drawn. Your futile attempt to ignore the data at all costs is saddening. If the data seems to show that crime and Christianity are heavily correlated we need to ask why, not come up with wild stories worthy of the tobacco industry snake-oil spin-doctors to discount reality.

  • Matt, clearly you don’t understand what correlation means statistically.

    No one is drawing a causal conclusion from this – nor should they. But the data does show a positive correlation between measures of religiosity and several indicators of social dysfunction.

  • Ken

    “So his study should put that hypothesis to rest.”

    I seem to disagree with your conclusions rather often, perhaps it is due to a different read of the same source data.

    For instance you say “Paul used surveys from 38 countries.” Paul himself seems to think he used the data for only 18 countries, in his words “almost all (17) of the developed democracies; Portugal is also plotted as an example of a second world European democracy.”

    Further you state “Of cause, correlation does not always mean causation.”

    To be fair correlation never means causation. Correlation is correlation and causation is causation. The only thing that correlation should cause is further investigation, it never means causation.

    You state that correlation does not “always” mean causation, yet then you say this:
    “Actually, the case for homicide is the weakest – the correlation is relatively low (suggesting possible other causes involved as well)“

    Really; do you believe your own assertions about correlation or don’t you? Are we now supposed to read that strong correlation between two variables implies that one is the independent and the other the dependant variable in a causal relationship? And supposedly weak correlation shows that one variable is causal in multi cause scenario?

    In an follow up post you state “No one is drawing a causal conclusion from this – nor should they.” But you previously stated “the correlation is relatively low (suggesting possible other causes involved as well)”

    Please explain in the context of no one is drawing causal conclusions what “other causes involved AS WELL” means.

  • cj_nza – the original survey comprised 38 countries. The data was selected from this and different numbers of countries were involved for each parameter. Irrespective of the numbers 38, 17, 18 I think this probably represents the biggest such survey.

    I don’t know what your problem is with my use of the term correlation. Of course correlation does not prove causation. But it certainly does not prove no causation. And a correlation can be an indication of a cause or direct mechanism. It is just not a proof.

    With this data, for example, I think it is probably reasonable to find that religiosity is a fairly direct cause of some indicators of dysfunction (eg. rejection of evolutionary science) and not others (eg. homicides). In the later case one may hypothesis that both religion and dysfunctions like homicide are caused by an underlying factor not measured. Such as lack of security. (That could also explain why the US is such an outlier).

    That is just speculation on my part (although I think the later point possibly has a lot of supporting evidence from other studies).

    One thing is very clear though. This data in no way supports the common argument I get from Christians (no Matt, not necessarily all theologians, I am talking about lay Christians) that their religion somehow gives them a moral advantage. Or that us infidels are more likely to commit crimes.

    An argument that has been expressed in comments on this blog.

  • Anon,

    Sorry but calling something ” a stretch” pulling rank, or using rhetoric like snake oil and spin doctors does not address my point. Similarly, simply repeating Ken’s conclusion and saying its natural and the data shows it ( which is simply repeating and asserting the contested claim) does not address it either.

    The point I made is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The fact ( if it is a fact which I am not convinced of) that its true that countries with a high number of religious people also contain large numbers of criminals does not entail that religious people are more likely to be criminals. That’s a fallacious inference, for it to follow one needs to demonstrate that its the religious people in the country who commit the crimes.

    Until one can demonstrate this is or is not the case, one cannot draw the conclusion Ken wants from the data.I was not offering a hypothesis or story as to who commits crimes simply pointing out the fallacious leap in the inference.

  • “The data was selected from this and different numbers of countries were involved for each parameter.”

    I think you are making stuff up as you go.

    Regarding the use of correlation, I simply pointed out that your statements are contradictory. You stated “No one is drawing a causal conclusion from this – nor should they.”

    Yet you yourself obviously drew causal conclusion from this in order to assert “the correlation is relatively low ( suggesting possible other causes involved as well)”

    I simply requested you to be clear; are we to draw causal conclusion from it; as you do, or not; as you say?

  • Jeez – you guys are touchy. However the reality us that this survey showed a positive correlation between measures of religiosity and social dysfunction. Surely you are not going to contest that?

    Who has drawn any conclusions from this about the religious? Certainly not me. I pointed out that correlation is not proof. That requires further investigation. However, I think you have to face the fact that these corellations just do not support claims that the non-religious are likely to be less moral or commit more crimes than the religious. Clearly. So Matt, have a read of what I said and tell me what unwarranted conclusion I have drawn as you claim. All I have done really is get you to actually face up to the evidence instead of dismissing it as you originally did. Shame on me!

  • Ken, your unwarranted conclusion is this “his survey showed a positive correlation between measures of religiosity and social dysfunction”.

    It doesn’t, what it shows is that in societies with a large group of people who are “religious” there is also a group of people who commit a large number of crimes. This does not by itself mean that religious belief is correlated with social dysfunction. The surveys do not tell you wether the group that is religious and the group that commits crime are the same group or a different group, or a overlapping group with disproportionate number of people who are religious or non religious. Until we know that we do not know wether religious belief is correlated with dysfunction in this survey.

    I also noted several surveys which give the opposite conclusion. I note that while insisting that I address the one you cite and not dismiss it, you simply ignore the numerous ones I cited.

  • Matt, I suggest you consult someone with a little understanding of statistics.

    The correlations I mentioned are just a fact. Look at the paper. To deny that fact is just a declaration of lack of knowledge on your part. And the correlations are between several indicators of religiosity and social dysfunction. I think the only criminal indicator was homicide. Others used were mortality, teen pregnancies, abortions and rejection of evolutionary science. These are not usually classed as crimes.

    Why try to deny the data? You can’t change reality. And data like this which conflicts with your previous ideas should be seen as an opportunity to learn.

  • Matt, it might help if you appreciate that statistical correlations are between populations – not individuals. They may suggest a proability for an individual but that don’t say that seperate individuals necessarily have the features indicated by the statistical correlation.

    However a high correlation would suggest a low probability that the two measures applied separately to different groups in the population. Especially if care is taken to select properly random samples for interviews or survey. And that would be basic to any proper study.

  • Matt – I am not pulling rank – I am just telling you you are wrong! It would be like you telling an ignoramus who said that Paul wrote in the 3rd century that they were wrong… the snake-oil rhetoric was just to wind you up.

    I am not going to go into the theory proving why you are wrong. Go do a couple of stats papers before you try to make such claims again – that’s all.

  • Thanks for the reply Matt, I didn’t know you were paying attention to the stuff I’m posting..

    Anyway, Greg’s study has been criticized and debunked by the blogs at Verum Serum as well as the guys at the Gallup poll organization

    see: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=120

    Apparently, Greg’s credentials runs into paleontology and teaching rather than as a social scientist. but to be fair, there were some criticisms about Rodney stark’s baylor US religiousity study coming from this guy.

  • btw Matt Thanks for the links to the alt studies, you guys are awesome, keep up the good work!

    Also, another question: which worldview do you think would last longer in a stressed environment (e.g. war, dysfunctional government, famine etc.) christian Agape or immanental humanism? and which one would be more inclusive and humanitarian towards the have-nots?

    Thanks again,

  • Ken, I was talking about sub-populations within a population, not individuals. Particular the whether the study shows that believers are more likely to be dysfunctional as opposed to whether the country believers come from is likely to have more dysfunction, that is not the same thing.

    But my understanding is that the survey referred to did not take a random sample, it compared countries. There are significant differences between the US and Scandinavian countries other than religiosity.

  • Mike, you seem unable to understand the difference between ontological value, and functional value.

    Human beings have ontological value due to their creation in God’s image. It really doesn’t matter what they’re functionally capable of. Since the unborn are human by definition then they possess that same value and are entitled to the same protection a born human being receives.

    Since every functionally based system of valuing human life leads to excluding those who don’t possess the qualities you’re looking for, maleness, intelligence, ability in some area etc, you end up with a group deserving of human rights, and a group lacking such. What events from the twentieth century would warn us against allowing such divisions to be made? Your “honest toil” strikes me more as sophism.

  • Matt – your reference to sub-populations is irrelevant. The study, or at least the analysis, wasn’t set up to to look at difference between sub-populations – only across countries. It was looking at the statistical relationship between measured factors in the whole population of each country.

    Random samples were obviously taken within each country (normal procedure anyway). Yes, of course “There are significant differences between the US and Scandinavian countries other than religiosity” – who the hell denies that! But that doesn’t stop investigation of statistical relationship between the measured factors. All that is quite normal even if you can’t appreciate the way statistical analyses work.

    The fact remains that in this study there were positive statistical correlations between measures of religiosity and measures of social dysfunction. You are silly to deny that. It’s just a fact.

    This means that attempts to portray the non-religious as somehow more likely to be more dysfunctional than the religious is just not supported. Sure, I realise you will deny that religious people do that (which conflicts with my experience) and I also realise that the Pope will continue to do so.

    Interesting though is your reaction. Why get so defensive about the study? Facts are fact and we should learn from them – not try to deny them. Although I realise that theology actually starts with conclusions and then trims the facts to fit the dogma – and you seem to be wanting to do that. Science works the opposite way.

    However. Take heart. No one is claiming this study proves a causal relationship between the different measures. It doesn’t prove that religious people are murderers!

    On the other hand – the results are not at all surprising, to me anyway. Surely most thinking people don’t go along with the Pope on his silly ideas. And the other correlations seem obvious. Except for the homicide one – which, as I have said, probably results from an underlying factor such as social insecurity promoting both religiosity and crime. Rather like the positive correlation found between the number of priests and the number of prostitutes in London!

    I certainly can see that religiosity promotes non-acceptance of evolutionary science. Can’t you?

    It would also promote false morality and lack of proper sex education leading to teenage pregnancies and abortions.

    Now, these are my speculations (although I think there are studies which certainly support them). I don’t in any way claim the study in question proves my speculations.

    But they certainly don’t support the divisive dogma presented by Pope Benny and other religious apologists.

  • Matt – given the data you have from that study, what are your calculation s to the probability that your model best fits the data versus the probability that ken’s model fits the data? Give some indication of how you calculated your probabilities.

  • Anonymous, my point is we don’t know from the fact that some countries with higher religiousity have higher crime rates, that religiousity is correlated with crime. If the crimes in the society are commited by the same group that is religious it would be, if they are commited by a different group they would not be. Both are possibilites and merely pointing out that country A has both a higher crime rate and a higher number of religious people, does not provide evidence either way.

  • Ken, again you appear to contradict yourself you write.

    Matt – your reference to sub-populations is irrelevant. The study, or at least the analysis, wasn’t set up to to look at difference between sub-populations – only across countries. It was looking at the statistical relationship between measured factors in the whole population of each country.

    Here you say whats relevant is “whole” populations not sub population. You however go on to state.

    This means that attempts to portray the non-religious as somehow more likely to be more dysfunctional than the religious is just not supported.

    Here you suggest the study refutes the claim that a particular sub population of a country (the non-religious) are dysfunctional.

    Which is it?

  • Anonymous, for what is worth Jason posted the NZ census figures on this site a while back he noted.

    Strangely enough the group identified as having no religious belief, whilst only about a third of the 2006 census, made up 48% of the prison intake in 2007. Meanwhile Christians, who were almost 50% of the census, made up 23% of the prison intake. That makes those non-religious people about 3 times as likely as Christians to end up in prison.

    You’d have to ask Jason for his source, but if he is correct it appears that at least in NZ its not the case that criminality is correlated with religion.

  • Matt, it does now seem you are promoting Pope Benny’s silly idea that the non-religious are dysfunctional or more likely to be criminal.

    Your quoting Jason’s stats is rather desperate when you have Paul’s study in front of you. Jason got his stats from the corrections department. They are unpublished, we have no idea of how the data was collected and they were only meant for  internal use. There is no indication of review for correct methodology or calculations. We don’t even know what questions were asked of inmates or how!

    Published US stats show the complete opposite. The fact that these are published suggests they are more reliable.

    I guess you are demonstrating your theological approach – starting with your conclusion and searching for evidence – any evidence will do!

    You keep demonstrating an ignorance of stats by denying the correlation which stares at you out of the page. Given that correlation how can you insist that the non-religious are more likely to be dysfunctional? That correlation was negative in almost all cases. If your claim was correct then correlations of measures of dysfunction with measures of religiosity would not have been positive.

    You might not like Paul’s findings. Welcome to the real world. Evidence based research is like that. You just make yourself look foolish by denying the obvious correlations and attempting to introduce confusions by talking about sub-populations.

    Really, your approach discredits your cause – that would be better served by considering possible reasons for the correlations rather than denying them.  I have suggested some which you chose to ignore.

    As I said the data does not have to be interpreted as meaning that religious people are homicidal – not at all. And no one is making that interpretation. But at least the data is there and it just doesn’t support the conclusion you and Benny want to draw.

  • Matt – you say “we don’t know from the fact that some countries with higher religiousity have higher crime rates, that religiousity is correlated with crime.”

    You don’t know what correlation means. If the trend shows that countries with higher measures of religiosity also have higher measures of dysfunction statistically that means there is a positive correlation. That’s what correlation means. These words do have precise meanings.

    I think your problem is that you are scared that the correlation means there is a causal relationship. It doesn’t. There may be one but it is not proven by the correlation alone. I have suggested reasons why we have that results without necessarily “blaming” religion.

  • Calculations Matt! Please – go study some statistics so you can understand these studies!

  • Both are possibilites …

    Yess Matt – but what is the probability of the two cases? Please show me what calculations you have done to even consider the bizarre statement you made above. Otherwise… shhhh!

  • Matt,

    The paper in discussion shows on national level, correlation between a number of indicators for social dysfunction and religiosity within prosperous democracies.

    You continue to attempt to turn it into some type of link between “criminal” and “religious”. (It is not about criminal activity, as Ken has pointed out.)

    I am not sure where the whole idea of “superior Christians” is coming from. I always though it is people who realise they are in trouble who are most likely to seek help. (I’ll admit this conclusion is anecdotal and not based on scientific study.) From that I was always under the impression that Christians are the most likely to get the “most improved” reward.

    So while we could argue about the theory of statistics the important question is; how useful is this study in doing anything. As far as I can see, the most significant thing this study has achieved is that it made the phrase “correlation is not causation” a bit better known.

    For me, as far as our understanding of the world goes, this study is a rather underwhelming; so what? (Note to Ken, I do not reject the findings, I just don’t find it terribly useful.)

  • It’s underwhelming to me too, cj_nza. No surprises there.

    But then again I have never believed (as do Pope Benny and apparently Matt) that the non-religious are more likely to be dysfunctional than the religious.

    Life is far more complicated – no matter what mental gymnastics Matt tries to avoid the facts..

  • Ken, you write “You might not like Paul’s findings. Welcome to the real world. Evidence based research is like that. You just make yourself look foolish by denying the obvious correlations and attempting to introduce confusions by talking about sub-populations.”

    As I noted in my first response, there are numerous peer reviewed studies which suggest the opposite of what you claim. Seeing you ignored them here are some of the summaries I refered to.

    “a huge, and growing literature that finds religion to be a reliable source of better mental and even physical health … regardless of the age, sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, or time period of the population being studied.” Rodney Stark and Roger Fink, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2000): 31-2.

    “extensive studies have found the presence of religious beliefs and attitudes to be the best predictors of life satisfaction and a sense of well-being.” Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Bernard Spilka, Bruce Hunsberger, and Richard Gorsuch, The Psychology of Religion (NY: Guilford Press, 1996, 2nd ed.): 384.

    David Lykken, Happiness (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1999): 18-9. documents a study from the University of Minnesota of 3,300 parents of twins found a small but statistically significant correlation (.07) between religious commitment and happiness.

    Koenig, McCullough, and Larson, Handbook of Religion and Health, 117, 215-5. state that an analysis of 100 studies, which examined the association of religious belief and life satisfaction, found that 80% of the studies reported at least one significant positive correlation between the variables.

    M.E. Cullough, W.T. Hoyt, D. Larsen, H.G. Koenig, and C. E. Thoresen, “Religious Involvement and Mortality: A Meta-analytic Review.” Health Psychology 19 (2000): 211-22 conducted a meta-analysis of 29 independent studies conducted in 2000, involving data from 125,000 subjects the analysis found that “religious involvement had a significant and substantial association with increased survival.” the analysis found frequent religious attendance (once a week or more) is associated with a 25-33% reduction in the rate of dying during follow-up periods ranging from 5 to 28 years. The increased survival rate associated with religious involvement was found to hold independent of possible confounders like age, sex, race, education and health status.

    Similar correlations were found in the study Jeffrey S. Levin, “How Religion Influences Morbidity and Health” Social Science and Medicine 43/5 (1996): 850. Similarly, Alvin noted that the Gallup organisation has made critical comments on Paul’s study.

    So Ken, seeing your evidence based, can you tell me why I should accept Paul’s findings, reject all the studies I mention above and reject Gallup’s assesment. Or am I supposed to just ignore the fact that there appears no consensus ( and from what I can tell Paul’s position is the minority one) because you call it solid, work, ignore my comments and pscyoanalysis my motives.

  • Anon, like I said I don’t think we have sufficent evidence one way or the other without further information.

    Btw to show an inference does not follow you don’t need to show that a position is probable. You only need to show that its possible that the conclusion is false and the premises are true. Study some logic.

  • “Anon, like I said I don’t think we have sufficent evidence one way or the other without further information.”

    Yes. We do. Go study some probability and statistics before you make claims like this. I don’t say this to be rude, but you really have stepped outside your comfort zone here.

    “Btw to show an inference does not follow you don’t need to show that a position is probable. You only need to show that its possible that the conclusion is false and the premises are true. Study some logic.”

    You may get away with this in philosophical discussions – but in science this is not the way things are done. Why? Because in statistics you ONLY ever get probabilistic answers, so if they took your approach no conclusions would EVER be drawn. There is no way to disprove your claim – but there are ways to show your claim is very unlikely. You need to get out of this binary way of thinking. Logic is fine for simple questions, but here you need some more advanced tools.

    Now earlier you wrote this:

    “If for example 70% of people in a society are religious, 30% are not and 90% of the non religious 30% commit a huge number of crimes, then the society will have a high crime rate, it will also have a highly religious population, but it will not follow that religiousity is correlated with crime. ”

    Now. I ask you again. What calculations have you done to calculate the probability of this scenario occurring? Yes – it is POSSIBLE. We have established this – but what is the chance of this being the situation, as opposed to the null-hypothesis. Go and do some calculations and see what the conclusion is. Have fun.

  • Max, perhaps you can tell me then why we should accept Paul’s study and not the numerous other ones I referred to.

    Also do you agree with Gallup’s assessment?

  • I don’t say you should. I was just saying that your wild claim was not good reasoning. I have no particular axe to grind.

  • Ok Max, fair enough.
    I think you are reading to much into my comments. I was asked what I though of the study. I said that I had not examined the study in detail but “off the top of my head”

    the question should be asked as to not wether a country with a high number of theists has a high homicide rate but rather who in those countries are commiting those crimes.

    Given I was aware of these other studies, I was simply raising a question. The example I gave was to illustrate my point to Ken ( he did not seem to understand it).

    While I have not examined it, and am not a mathmatican like yourself. I suspect things are not as simple as some suggest. The issue of crime for example, in the US majority of crimes are commited in urban areas and by African Americans. I suspect that things like US history of slavery and segregation, plays a significant role in its differences with europe for example. Athiesm on the other hand tends to be a position adopted by educated university grads with high paying jobs in the sciences and so on. I don’t pretend to no the answers but am simply skeptical of simplistic answers, Especially ones that are contradicted by numerous other studies. I noted the media did not jump on these other studies, and I am always skeptical of media promoted science.

  • I was being rather myopic. I was picking on a small point, not your overall claim.

  • Matt – this discussion started because I pointed out that you dismissed Paul’s paper too quickly. Without looking at it. Your arguments (eg referring to criminality rather than dysfunction) indicate that you still didn’t familiarize yourself with the findings or data. And then you got silly and tried to invent “explanations” and outright denial of a clear correlation. One that stares you in the face.

    OK – now you have quote mined to find some other conclusions from seperate studies. I am quite happy to look at them if you provide links (not sufficiently interested to visit libraries, etc.) I can’t comment on them without looking at them (although I am very suspicious of someone basing a conclusion on a correlation of 0.07!!). I am not going to dismiss them out of hand like you have Paul’s. I have too much respect for scientific investigations to do that.

    I am sufficiently up with the subject and with statistical analysis to recognize that there may well be no conflict between either of your quoted studies and Paul’s. They are after all quoting different measures (apparently), and there is the obvious question of different results in different countries, etc. (There is a classic comparison of Scandinavian countries and US exhibiting quite opposite results in this area). I don’t see why you think your quotes “contradicts” Paul’s, at all. (And let’s face it, neither do you as you still talk about homicide rather than dysfunction).

    Paul gave data for things like teen age pregnancies, rejection of evolutionary science, abortion rates, etc. Your quotes refer to “better mental and even physical health “, “life satisfaction and a sense of well-being”, “happiness”, “life satisfaction”, etc.

    So what is it about Paul’s findings (actually the data wasn’t his) that you refuse to accept. All that I can see is that you reject his conclusion that the data shows that non-belief in a creator god does not make one prone to social dysfunction. (even though at one stage you pretended not to think that).

    Well, on the basis of that data I can’t see how you can reject that

    Now – you claim that the “Gallup orgnaisation” made critical comments on Paul’s work. Can you quote and reference that?

    I am aware that George Gallup of the religious organization George H. Gallup International Institute has written a critique – but that is not the polling organization. It is not ideologically neutral. It has an axe to grind. I don’t see his comments as any more valid that yours.

    I suspect you a flailing around, looking for quotes and reasons, but why not honestly just look at the data. It won’t hurt.

    Max is right, Matt. You are outside your comfort zone. Any “argument” you use against Paul’s study will also be valid against the stats in the studies you quote. You can’t pick and choose when to use stats, you know.

    Now – I don;t reject your studies out of hand. I am sufficiently interested to read them. Just provide me with links.

    .

  • @ everyone, if anyone is still looking.
    CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION
    and yes you do get probablistic answers but the most that can be inferred from these is the need to do further research. Even a high probability does not imply cause and effect.
    Many years ago while doing stats papers at varsity our prof gave two examples to make sure we understood this.
    1- apparently in times past there have been very high corellations between the numbers of nesting storks and the birthrate in the UK in a given year!!
    Do we read into this that Storks actually do deliver babies? NO its just a coincidence albeit an unusual and intriguing one.
    2-a minor study among NZ dairy farmers found a very high corellation between the state of farm gates and some aspects of cow health and milk production. Did this mean that poorly maintained farm gates somehow affected milk production? No again. Further study found a third factor that corellated highly to both farm gates and animal health/production ie incompetant farmers lacking the skill or discipline to manage their farms well.

    So what did this teach us about stats all those years ago? Statistics can appear to show almost anything when incorrectly applied and CORELLATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION even when it appears to be a good predictor of outcome.

  • Quote of the week…

    We should not be post modern. What be believe matters. What we do matters. It is not relative. So Matt is right when he says certain… secular movements and certain.. religious movements are murderous….

  • Lost in the Secularized Public Square?…

    I read through an essay titled Contra Mundum: Secularism and Public Life, which delves into the propriety of religious justifications, versus secular justifications, informing decisions regarding public law….

  • […] in the Old Testament? Contra Mundum: Fairies, Leprechauns, Golden Tea Cups & Spaghetti Monsters Contra Mundum: Secularism and Public Life Contra Mundum: Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness Contra Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament […]

  • […] an earlier column, “Secularism and Public life”, Matthew criticised this position. He pointed out that a growing number of scholars working in […]

  • […] in the Old Testament? Contra Mundum: Fairies, Leprechauns, Golden Tea Cups & Spaghetti Monsters Contra Mundum: Secularism and Public Life Contra Mundum: Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness Contra Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament  […]

  • […] in the Old Testament? Contra Mundum: Fairies, Leprechauns, Golden Tea Cups & Spaghetti Monsters Contra Mundum: Secularism and Public Life Contra Mundum: Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness Contra Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament  […]