Christine the Lioness (3122)
Christopher the Pyro (1985)
ProphetJoe the Irreverent (1234)
Trouble the Pirate (600)
Keith the Director (573)
Mara the Peacemaker (532)
eric the Lil' Devil (351)
AJ the Zen Master (305)
Ben the Kingpin (213)
Haas the Addict (187)
Christine 2 the Mercenary (131) Lei the Mercenary (124) Katie the Mercenary (115)
Ben2 the Soldier (56)
George the Virgin scribbled
Suppose we remove religion from society, what will we have in its place then? Science? ahahaha. Makes no sense. Religion is a fundamental part of society, it doesn’t make bad or good to society, it is just a necessary constituent part of it.
About your data, it doesn’t show any correlation at all with the effect of religion. The variables are totally descorrelate under this analysis. Ok, piracy has increased over the last years, and the average temperature of the earth is increasing too. Eureka! Pirates are the responsible for global warming! ahaha, I think this one is yet more compelling 
Best.
Christopher the Pyro mentioned
I left the link in there so you can see the full graphs that clearly show correlations, to save everybody the hassle of looking at tables with 18 data points. I’m not condoning removing religion from society, just raising the possibility that society is a worst place the more religious it is.
Christine the Lioness scribbled
Not that I support Christopher’s theory here that religion is bad, but George, to day that religion is a fundamental part of society, but it doesn’t make a bad or good society makes absolutely no sense. Something that is fundamental, by definition, would have an effect if removed, so it must influence society. Do you think the crusades made for a “good” society? How about the Spanish Inquisition? How about the Salem Witch Trials? The Holocaust? All founded in religion. Now the adjectives “good” and “bad” may be a bit simplistic, but we could easily define them in terms of descriptions for a society, and we’d for the most part all agree on what constitutes a “bad” society (persecution of its people, no economic growth, high rates of mortality, homelessness, crime, starvation, limited personal liberties, etc.) and a “good” one as well.
George, instead of actually looking at the possibility that could be a correlation between religion and society, and the actual effects of religion on various developed countries, you’re just assuming that whatever correlations exist must be fallacies by comparing it to an obvious fallacy. Come on, George… put a little more thought into it than that. Peace.
Ben2 the Soldier up'n wrote this
Well the most anti-religious countries in history were communist countries. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. In the 20th century alone cause 120 million deaths. Without religion, then what’s the point of trying to do better when you know you won’t be rewarded or punished? Just a question.
Christopher the Pyro uttered
I’m not sure that I believe that we as humans need religion to tell us what is good and right in the world. I know when I see someone who is down and out that if I can help them out that is right. As for the reward, while humans are inherantly selfish and most good deeds do come this idea that we will be rewarded in the afterlife I do think that if you remove that element from society it is replaced with the self-reward that a person feels when they do something that is good.
As for the 120th deaths caused by the secular societies, this is true, however Vietnam was a proxy war for the United States and we have had our hands in the deaths of countless millions across the world as has the European powers ( invasion of North America, Crusades, Colonialism.. so generally killing people in the name of a cause and killing people in the name of a religion tend to be somewhat similar.
Ben2 the Soldier hunt n' pecked this
What this a government paid study or a private one? If it’s by the government then I would dismiss it out of hand as those usually have a political agenda to promote.
Ben2 the Soldier mentioned
We didn’t go to war in Vietnam over religion. Neither was the two World Wars, Korea, Civil War, or Revolutionary war.
Ben2 the Soldier got all philosophical
Gregory S Paul is the man who did this study. I found some interesting things on Mr Paul.
http://www.neilchilson.com/?p=100
Found this on Secular Humanism.org
Gregory S. Paul
A respected expert on Dinosaur anatomy, paleontology, and geology, Gregory Paul is an excellent candidate to counter young-earth creationists. His book, Beyond Humanity, discusses the impact of intelligent cybertechnology on religion, further equipping him to speak on the role of religion in society. Because of his scientific background, Paul is also able to speak on broad debate issues, such as evolution v. creationism and the like. Paul has written two articles for Free Inquiry: “The Secular Revolutionof the West” (Summer 2002) and “The Great Scandal: Christianity in the Rise of the Nazis” (Oct-Nov 2003, Dec 03-Jan 04).
http://magicstatistics.blogspot.com/2005/11/that-gregory-s-paul-study-again.html
Debunking Gregory S. Paul
Posted by John and Scott at 7:24 pm on November 5th, 2005
In a recent article in The Journal of Religion and Society, Gregory S. Paul posits a proposition:
Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly.
Translation: Religion is bad for your health.
More specifically, Mr. Paul indicates that democratic societies predominantly holding to a belief in God (read: the United States) are socially unhealthy, but democratic societies that are secular and embrace evolution (read: the majority of Western European countries) are on their way to utopia.
So who is Gregory S. Paul and what are his qualifications to opine on the salubrious quality of agnosticism? We spent a considerable amount of time attempting to discover where Mr. (Dr.?) Paul received his training in sociology and/or statistical analysis, etc. Here?s what we found:
.
.
.
.
The above blank space is not a formatting error of some kind. It is the best we could come up with to signify nada, zero, zip, bupkis, nihilo,?nothing. Yes, that?s right. We found nothing. As near as we can tell, Mr. Paul has no advanced degrees in statistical analysis, demography, sociology, or any other ?ology.? In fact, it appears as though he holds no advanced degrees of any kind. He is, in fact, an artist and ?freelance paleontologist? who has published two books in the area of dinosaur studies that ?re-imagine? how they may have lived and operated on this planet. And to be fair, Mr. Paul seems to be respected for this work.
He also contributed to a book co-written with Earl Cox titled Beyond Humanity: Cyberevolution and Future Minds. This volume appears to be one in a long line of books purporting to look into the future of humanity and its inevitable co-evolution with technology. Amazon has many reviews of this work, at least one of which is pertinent to the present discussion:
Paul and Cox are more on target in their discussion of the perverse backwardness of traditional religious worldviews in response to current and foreseeable progress. Christians should realize that something is wrong with their story when virgins can now routinely give birth via modern reproductive medicine, and soon without even genetic contributions from men.
This theme is echoed in the current journal article ? an antagonism towards religious faith and a skepticism of things supernatural. Mr. Paul has been banging this drum since 1996 and has simply found a new outlet with this study.
Looking further, we found Gregory S. Paul listed as a featured speaker for The Council for Secular Humanism, an organization cultivating ?rational inquiry, ethical values, and human development through the advancement of secular humanism.? Mr. Paul is recommended as a speaker who:
is an excellent candidate to counter young-earth creationists. His book, ?Beyond Humanity,??further equips him to speak on the role of religion in society. Because of his scientific background, Paul is also able to speak on broad debate issues, such as evolution v. creationism and the like.
So again, Mr. Paul seems to have an agenda that has been around long before this ?study? appeared in The Journal of Religion and Society. Indeed, his list of publications reads like a satire of a student atheist one might find on The Wittenberg Door. He has a two-parter in Free Inquiry magazine titled, ?The Great Scandal: Christianity in the Rise of the Nazis.? The article is about what one would expect based on the title, but we?ll leave that for another day.
What about the study itself? Does it hold water? Admittedly, we here at Verum Serum are not statisticians (neither, it appears, is Mr. Paul). For educated criticism of Mr. Paul?s statistical work we refer you to Scott Gilbreath, who runs the Magic Statistics blog. Scott is a statistician by trade and has done a masterful job of critiquing Mr. Paul?s work. His conclusion:
In my professional judgment, the statistical and scientific validity of Mr. Paul?s study?can not be accepted.
But wait! There?s more! Here?s the conclusion of the George H. Gallup International Institute (Gallup has been known to work with numbers on occasion) as stated in a letter from George Gallup to the London Times where Mr. Paul?s study was highlighted by a gullible reporter.
Gregory Paul?s conclusion is based on a flawed analysis according to my research associate, D Michael Lindsay, an expert in the department of sociology at Princeton University. After carefully examining Paul?s international study, Mr. Lindsay maintains that it does not pass scholarly muster.
In short, Gregory S. Paul is qualified to draw dinosaurs. He is NOT qualified to draw conclusions about the effects of religion on society. However, given that Mr. Paul is not an expert and that his study is not scholarly, our own non-scholarly response would seem appropriate and sufficient to the task of dismantling it.
The first thing that bothered us was Mr. Paul?s peculiar selectivity. If the intent is to compare societies where faith is common to societies where faith is not, why were some countries included and others excluded. Scott at Magic Statistics noticed the same thing:
The plan of the study is to gather and compare data for countries he refers to variously as ?prosperous developed democracies? and ?developing democracies??India would seem to fit in with ?developing democracies?. Why was it excluded? Not ?prosperous? enough? Don?t know: Mr. Paul doesn?t say. Why were Russia, Poland, Czech Republic, and the rest of the new eastern European democracies excluded?
We believe we can answer this question, at least in part. Based on Interpol data for the Russian Federation (year 2000), the murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants was 21.87, or approximately 3 times the rate in the U.S. Since we all know the Russian Federation (i.e. the USSR) was officially atheist for 75 years, this would seem to significantly undercut Mr. Paul?s thesis that religion is bad for your health.
There is a broader issue regarding the selection of murder as the chief criteria for his study. Mr. Paul justifies this choice as a practical one. In his words,
Homicide is the best indicator of societal violence because of the extremity of the act and its unique contribution to levels of societal fear, plus the relatively reliable nature of the data.
But as we looked into homicide statistics, we discovered that it is a frequently remarked upon fact that the murder rate in the US is unusually high compared to other categories of crime. FBI statistics demonstrate that the unusually high murder rate is almost entirely the result of gang and drug-related homicides in major cities, as the chart below illustrates.
murder by city size
This is not to excuse the fact that the murder rate in the US is higher than in many European countries (though as noted far lower than in the former USSR). This fact is commonly used by gun control advocates to make a case for stricter, more European, gun laws. However, at some point one needs to ask how inner city drug shootings relate to religious faith in any real world sense. We understand that ?establishing causation? is not Mr. Paul?s goal, but a little common sense can?t hurt. Are drug lords and roving gangs of thugs spending a great deal of time in church? Or does the very nature of drug and gang-related crime, from which these murder statistics arise, seem rather to provide a case study in the Darwinian principle of ?survival of the fittest??
In any case, we suspect Mr. Paul chose to highlight murder because it is an outlying statistic that would therefore tend to prove his thesis. But as Mr. Paul?s own study demonstrates (with regard to suicide), there are numerous other indicators of societal health in which the United States appears to be comparable to European nations.
To further demonstrate the point, we?ve put together the following charts from Interpol data:
Interpol Theft Data
Interpol Assault Data
Notice that the US ranks lower than many far more secular countries like Sweden and the Netherlands.
In addition we found another recent publication called The International Crime Victim?s Survey which provides a similar view of relative international crime rates. We reproduce just a couple of the many graphs included in this study below:
burglary graph
contact crime
overall
So it appears to us that Mr. Paul has selected data, both in terms of countries considered and specific crimes looked at, in such a way as to paint the picture that was already on his mind. As demonstrated above, a broader look at available data presents a far more nuanced picture.
But as we alluded to previously, we needn?t speculate about whether Mr. Paul?s data followed or preceded his conclusions. As it happens, Mr. Paul presented the same conclusions ? sans statistical sleight of hand ? in a June 2002 article in Free Inquiry magazine titled ?The Secular Revolution of the West: It?s Passed America by?so far?:
Americans believe ardently in part because they have been warned?sometimes subtly, often stridently?by their theological and political leaders that society must adhere to faith-based values or suffer dire social and moral consequences. This claim is demonstrably false. The highly religious United States suffers from markedly higher rates of homicide, in carceration [sic], juvenile and adult mortality, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion, and other social dys-functions [sic] than developed democracies where creator belief is much lower. [Note our update below for more on this]
Sound familiar? This sentiment is echoed in his book ?Beyond Humanity,? as well as in his previously mentioned piece ?The Great Scandal: Christianity in the Rise of the Nazis.? In the same piece quoted above, Mr. Paul makes plain what the problem is as well as what he believes is the solution:
Basically, we face an education problem: better informing Americans about the proven advantages of rationally based moral and social values may be necessary to speed up modernizing America into a normal, secularized developed democracy.
In the mind of Gregory S. Paul, nothing good can come out of Christianity and religious faith. He has believed this for many years and has done his best to make his ideas available for public consumption. In this regard, bloggers who contacted The Journal of Religion and Society where Mr. Paul?s opus was published learned that the original draft made even greater claims for the data and had to be toned down.
We can?t fault him for his desire to share his ideas, that is after all the reason we blog and the essence of the blogoshpere, but we think it?s important to point when something is a conclusion based on scientific principles and methodologies and when it is part of a campaign (he would dislike the term crusade). Mr. Paul is a gifted illustrator but he is not a sociologist. His study is not a dispassionate product of science but an ugly exercise in anti-theist propaganda.
Update 12/16: Mr. Paul?s 2002 statement about the social results of theism, quoted in full above, cite as their source an earlier Free Inquiry piece by George Bishop, a professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati. At the time we wrote this post, we did not have a copy of Mr. Bishop?s piece. However, having recently aquired a copy, we can now add that Mr. Bishop?s piece has absolutely nothing to do with the social health of nations vis a vis theism. Mr. Bishop?s piece is about international rates of atheism and does not even use the words murder, suicide or abortion, much less assert that they vary based on rates of belief. Mr. Paul?s 2002 claims were a bald assertion backed up by a fraudulent citation.
Christopher the Pyro hunt n' pecked this
I don’t believe it was paid for by anybody, I think it was a thesis..
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Your right we don’t go to war over religion, but being religious certainly hasn’t stopped us from going to war. My point with Vietnam, even the most horrible dictators have killed only a fraction of the populace our bombing has…. and we are a religious society and religious doesn’t keep us from slaughtering the masses. ( I am however NOT making a judgement on whether it is good or bad fr us to kill the masses, because it is a matter of necessity not morals ).
Christine the Lioness commented
Here’s more about the source (it’s on the website where this was published):
The Journal of Religion & Society has been established to promote the cross-disciplinary study of religion and its diverse social dimensions through the publication of research articles, essays and opinions, review articles, and book reviews.
The Journal of Religion & Society is a refereed academic journal dedicated to the publication of scholarly research in religion and its diverse social dimensions. All submissions to the journal will be subject to blind peer review.
It also lists members of the review board.
Ben2 the Soldier said this
According the sources I provided above it seems Mr Paul had his conclusion written before the study even began. I’m not shocked by this. I have little respect for professors and most colleges.
Christine the Lioness commented
So Ben2… you dismiss the study if it’s funded by the government even if it’s through an independent research firm, you dismiss it if it’s done by a professor (since academia is the last place you’d want to trust with research, right?). Are you just skeptical of everyone, or is there a source that in your eyes, could actually be objective? (I don’t know what you meant by the sources you provided above… maybe I missed them).
Christopher the Pyro stated
Not sure what your trying to say Ben, the data is there.. it’s pretty easy to draw your own conclusions based on that data. Does this research prove anything.. not really… it does however show that murder rates and other negative things are higher in religious societies. At this time I’m not sure that is a big deal.. religion is not going anywhere… and I find it interesting your not actually debating the points but disregarding a fairly well documented and unbiased study.. at least as far as the research went. A research does however need to actually write a theory on what they researched..
Ben2 the Soldier got all philosophical
I?m saying he made up his data to fit his own anti-religious point of view. He actually studies dinosaurs. If you read my long earlier post you can tell what I?m talking about.
Christine, most government studies are shocking politically motivated in nature. I consider professors to be people who couldn?t make it in the real world so they put themselves into academia. I dismiss the study based on the research on the man who did it. Again on one of my earlier post.
Had to do some editing. Sorry.
Christine the Lioness commented
I’m still taking issue, Ben2, with the fact that you dismiss the research based on the man who did it… but that conclusion itself is based on an assumption that professors are “people who couldn’t make it in the real world so they put themselves into academia” which is something you cannot prove, and even if you could– would we think less of people who prefer to research and teach (ie–work in academia) rather than work for a corporate or government entity? Are men and women who leave their careers in corporations to raise their kids unable to cut it in the corporate world and that’s why they left? Of course not. People make decisions for lots of different reasons, so to pretend that you are dealing with facts– when really you are basing this on your own unfounded generalization, doesn’t help your argument on any level.
Christopher the Pyro said this
Ben,
Thanks for posting an essay, it was stuck in moderation. ( And to think I kept my post short for once ).
1st, Pointing out that this person is not an expert or is an expert does not make his data any more true or untrue. The data was gathered by a variety of sources, hundreds even and your taking offense to the interperatation of that data, is there unlimited ways to slice a loaf of bread, Yes.. does that make his interperation incorrect.. no.
Let me point out some major flaws in your “long” comment:
1. It is irrelivent if Mr. Paul atheist, agnostic, or Christian, that despite what you might think DOES NOT change the data in itself.
2. You point out he is not qualified.. also irrelevant, everybody starts out not qualified but it doesn’t make early work any less correct. Many people with insight and intelligence lack degree’s..
3. While the post points out issues with the countries chosen.. (mostly that is the beginning of the flaw) your basically changing the sample information and calling the study false.. that in itself is incorrect. Mr. Paul qualifies his information based on “these countries” right up front… 18 of them.. and I don’t think most people would argue that there isn’t a big difference between the 18 countries listed and India and Russia.. but the Statistics guru guy seems to think they correlate closely.. I for one.. do not… so because someone is not happy with the countries being studied does not make the study false.. it plainly states that the reason those countries were choose was 1. Because they are relatively similar and 2. Because the data gathered there is accurate which could not be said for the Eastern Block and India…. so that is also explained away in the study.
4. Once again instead of arguing based on the data presented.. the argument against him wants to change the criteria by bringing in assult and theft, ect, ect.
5. Pointing out his affiliation does not make his data wrong, it just means that some of these organizations he is speaking at find his subject matter is inline with their thinking, that in itself does not make his study wrong..
I do however admit it would be easy to manipulate this amount of data to serve either point of view… my greater intention was does religion hinder our society from solving it’s problems? I think it certainly might contribute to that.
Ben2 the Soldier commented
Wow Christine, talk about taking things out of context. How you make those comparisons are beyond me. Here an example I know a guy Bob who took a business class in college. One day he asked the Professor what kind of business does he run? His answer: He never ran one. So in other words he was just teaching on theory. In reality he does know a damn thing about business. How can you learn how to be successful from a broke man? Men and women who leave the business world either for retirement or to take care of the kids do so because they can. They have the resources to do that. To make that comparison is absurd.
Christopher, if the data has been fixed to fit a certain point of view then you can’t anything in the study seriously. Unless you wish it to be true. If this was a known liberal doing a study on how evil and bigoted conservatives are, don’t you think you may question the results or vice versa?
Christopher the Pyro said this
Ben2,
It’s not that I don’t questions the data or the conclusions the researcher has drawn that is valid. However I do think even if we just take what information that has been exhibited.. 18 countries, 8 measures of measurements that is enough and fair sampling. Does it include every country.. no, does it include every measure of dysfunctional.. no.. is it a perfect study buy a perfect researcher.. no that is also unlikely.. However I think it is possible to draw some reasonable conclusions from the data. I want to repeat, having an agenda, or not studying every possible data point doesn’t make a conclusion incorrect.
Christine the Lioness quibbed this
Ben… I apologize for taking things “out of context,” but honestly… if your friend had that experience, then how can you possibly assume all professors are people who couldn’t succeed in their chosen field so they decided to teach? If you can make that generalization based on the experience one friend had with one professor, then I think you are making a false generalization. Not every professor, nor even the majority, have no real world practical experience in the subjects they’re teaching– at least not in reputable universities. What surprises me is that based on one example, you have lumped an entire group of people together and made a judgment about them. That generalization is… I’ll use your word… “absurd.” Now, you can try to divert attention away from that ridiculous statement you made by suggesting I took your words out of context… and granted, maybe people deciding to leave their jobs to raise kids was a poor example to illustrate my point, but the point remains, your generalization is ridiculous and unfounded.
Christine the Lioness spake, and sayeth
And by the way, Ben2… you only have to submit the comment once. It takes a moment for your comment to post.
Ben2 the Soldier quibbed this
Sorry about the double posts guys. I was trying to edit myself. You need a edit button on here.
First Christine, maybe I did make a broad generalization about professors not having much “real world” experience but you will find out that a lot do not. I was just using one example.
Second Christopher, I have a hard time believing anybody with an agenda or at least a good chance at one. Now if many studies came to the same conclusion as Mr Paul then I will pay attention. That’s just me. We can agree to disagree if you want.
Christopher the Pyro asserted
Ben,
Who doesn’t have an agenda? Does someone who has some ideas before a study somehow taint the data because he felt that way before the study? I mean no matter what there is an agenda, even if that agenda is to find the truth of the matter.
Ben2 the Soldier chimed in with
That’s why I said that if many studies came to the same conclusion then I’ll start giving it credence.
Kevin the Soldier said this
I have to agree with Ben2 here. The guy has an obvious agenda. When a defense attorney is examining a witness there is a reason they try to point out why the witness on the stand may have a bias or agenda against the defendant–typically because people who are motivated to realize a certain outcome will warp reality until that outcome is realized.
Your study may prove, if accurate, that crime is attracted to religion, or the other way around, that religion is attracted to crime. However, it does not make the correlation that religion is the reason for that crime. In fact, the study sort of contradicts itself in the fact that it talks about the highest crime rates vs. the highest abortion rates because a high abortion rate is negatively correlated with a lower crime rate; in other words, the more abortions there are, the less crime there is. This study has been proven not only by scientific evidence but the fact that when abortion was banned decades ago in the United States we realized the effects of that in the form of astronomical crime in the 90’s. Abortion was legalized again years later and crime has been on the decline, back to its normal levels since then.
Christopher the Pyro remarked
Kevin,
Where does the highest abortion rate correlate with low crime rates? I have never seen that statistic and we are also ONLY comparing 18 developed nations, based on the fact that we only have 18 nations were we can measure these statistics accurately. So if your going to take a country like China that aborts 50% of their that data doesn’t work (the data is unrelaible and it’s not part of the original parameters of the study).
If you want to make statements like the ones your making, back them up.. I’m sorry but what your saying doesn’t make sense nor are you supporting it with any studies of your own.
Basically clouding the issue doesn’t disprove the issue.. I have yet to see one supported fact that makes anything in this study incorrect. Kevin, honestly it just looks like your making things up, abortion was ALWAYS illigal until 1973, since then it has been legal.. and abortions have gone up… now before 1973 we certainly didn’t have accurate numbers how how many abortions there were…. (mostly because it was illigal..).. BESIDES that is 100% irrelevant to this data since we are not testing legal and illegal we are testing if religious societies have higher abortion rates and they do… and they also have higher murder rates.
QUIT CLOUDING the issue, and read what is being said.. I can only debate my original statement, that religious developed nations are more dysfunctional, all these other “studies” and “statements” are just outside the scope of the issue at hand.
pee-wee the Virgin got all philosophical
i dont get it very much…………but i gess so…………….
^_^ >_
svige the Virgin spake, and sayeth
thats wack.
someone else the Virgin thought this
Wow Ben2, could your bias be any more obvious or blind?
Your generalizations about professors and dismissal of their worth based on ‘real world experience’ kinda says it all. If we are gonna judge the worth of the study based on its author, shouldn’t we judge the worth of the comment based on the person making it? So doesn’t that kinda indirectly mean your saying that you yourself are irrelevant?
As for George’s comment about religion being a fundamental and necessary part of society. Please give some evidence. I come from a family that functions without religion in a community that functions without religion. This small society seems not to have imploded without religion.
Oh, and please don’t give me that whole science as a religion thing, thats an overused comparison that just doesn’t work.
Christopher the Pyro hunt n' pecked this
Heathen
svige the Virgin uttered
Of course, Someone else, a Society can function without religion. Gangsterism (from a gangster point of view) is functioning without religion. but,Can it function well? that is for the greater good of all who live in it!
Christopher the Pyro pontificated
Svige,
Your also speaking from a religious persons opinion.
Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.
