S*********g
发帖数: 24893 | 1 http://www.prisoners.com/relcrime.html
宗教对犯罪率的影响
更加信仰基督的地方有更多的社会弊病和犯罪。这是格雷戈里。保罗在学术杂志《宗教
与社会》上发表的初步结论，这个杂志是内布拉斯加州一所教会学校的学报。
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
研究表明，基督教统治的美国南部和中西部地区，社会弊端和犯罪更严重，谋杀，性病
，死亡率更高。这项研究还表明，美国的犯罪率和基督徒比例，比其他发达世界国家都
高得多。
无法回避的现实是，基督教的教条更合适一个病态的社会。宗教狂热分子和极端主义比
毒品危害更大。
理性的人认识到基督教神话的荒谬可怜，而基督徒，尤其是福音派，或原教旨主义者，
不过是一些伪君子，用宗教作为武器来贬低他人。
格雷戈里。保罗的研究首次量化了基督教教义产生的社会效果。不只是基督教，一切狂
热的邪教都可能会有类似的邪恶效果。
当然，天主教会花了几百年压迫陷入贫困和苦难的老百姓。穆斯林有同样的呼吁
：暴力，复仇，排斥和压迫。
理智的人会奇怪宗教神话的诞生。
在美国，宗教=残酷。
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular
Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
A First Look
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
Introduction
[1] Two centuries ago there was relatively little dispute over the existence
of God, or the societally beneficial effect of popular belief in a creator.
In the twentieth century extensive secularization occurred in western
nations, the United States being the only significant exception (Bishop;
Bruce; Gill et al.; Sommerville). If religion has receded in some western
nations, what is the impact of this unprecedented transformation upon their
populations? Theists often assert that popular belief in a creator is
instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations
necessary for a healthy, cohesive society. Many also contend that widespread
acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to these
goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet to be
published. That radically differing worldviews can have measurable impact
upon societal conditions is plausible according to a number of mainstream
researchers (Bainbridge; Barro; Barro and McCleary; Beeghley; Groeneman and
Tobin; Huntington; Inglehart and Baker; Putman; Stark and Bainbridge).
Agreement with 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 (Benson et al.;
Hummer et al.; Idler and Kasl; Stark and Bainbridge). A partial exception is
given by Barro and McCleary, who correlated economic growth with rates of
belief in the afterlife and church attendance in numerous nations (while
Kasman and Reid [2004] commented that Europe does not appear to be suffering
unduly from its secularization). It is surprising that a more systematic
examination of the question has not been previously executed since the
factors required to do so are in place. The twentieth century acted, for the
first time in human history, as a vast Darwinian global societal experiment
in which a wide variety of dramatically differing social-religious-
political-economic systems competed with one another, with varying degrees
of success. A quantitative cross-national analysis is feasible because a
large body of survey and census data on rates of religiosity, secularization
, and societal indicators has become available in the prosperous developed
democracies including the United States.
[2] This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has been
almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary intent is to
present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some conclusions that can
be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is not an attempt to present a
definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity,
secularism and societal health. It is hoped that these original correlations
and results will spark future research and debate on the issue.
The Belief that Religiosity is Socially Beneficial
[3] As he helped initiate the American experiment Benjamin Franklin stated
that “religion will be a powerful regulator of our actions, give us peace
and tranquility within our minds, and render us benevolent, useful and
beneficial to others” (Isaacson: 87-88). When the theory of biological
evolution removed the need for a supernatural creator concerns immediately
arose over the societal implications of widespread abandonment of faith (
Desmond and Moore; Numbers). In 1880 the religious moralist Dostoyevsky
penned the famous warning that “if God does not exist, then everything is
permissible.” Even so, in Europe the issue has not been a driving focus of
public and political dispute, especially since the world wars.
[4] Although its proponents often claim that anti-evolution creationism<1>
is scientific, it has abjectly failed in the practical realms of mainstream
science and hi-tech industry (Ayala et al.; Crews; Cziko; Dawkins, 1996,
1997; Dennett; Gould; Koza et al.; L. Lane; Miller; Paul and Cox; Shanks;
Wise; Young and Edis). The continuing popularity of creationism in America
indicates that it is in reality a theistic social-political movement partly
driven by concerns over the societal consequences of disbelief in a creator
(Forrest and Gross; Numbers). The person most responsible for politicizing
the issue in America, evangelical Christian W. J. Bryan,<2> expressed
relatively little interest in evolution until the horrors of WW I inspired
him to blame the scientific revolution that invented chemical warfare and
other modern ills for “preaching that man has a brute ancestry and
eliminating the miraculous and the supernatural from the Bible” (Numbers:
178).
[5] In the United States many conservative theists consider evolutionary
science a leading contributor to social dysfunction because it is amoral or
worse, and because it inspires disbelief in a moral creator (Colson and
Pearcey; Eve and Harrold; Johnson; Numbers; Pearcey; Schroeder). The
original full title for the creationist Discovery Institute was the
Discovery Institute for the Renewal of Science and Culture (a title still
applied to a division), and the institute’s mission challenges “
materialism on specifically scientific grounds” with the intent of
reversing “some of materialism’s destructive cultural consequences.” The
strategy for achieving these goals is the “wedge” strategy to insert
intelligent design creationism into mainstream academe and subsequently
destroy Darwinian science (Johnson; Forrest and Gross note this effort is
far behind schedule). The Discovery Institute and the less conservative,
even more lavishly funded pro-theistic Templeton Foundation fund research
into the existence and positive societal influence of a creator (Harris et
al.; Holden). In 2000 the Discovery Institute held a neocreationist seminar
for members of Congress (Applegate). Politically and socially powerful
conservatives have deliberately worked to elevate popular concerns over a
field of scientific and industrial research to such a level that it
qualifies as a major societal fear factor. The current House majority leader
T. DeLay contends that high crime rates and tragedies like the Columbine
assault will continue as long schools teach children “that they are nothing
but glorified apes who have evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup
of mud” (DeLay and Dawson). Today’s leaders of the world’s largest
Christian denomination, the Catholic Church, share a dim view of the social
impact of evolution. In his inauguration speech, Benedict XVI lauded the
benefits of belief in a creator and contended, “we are not some casual and
meaningless product of evolution.” A leading church cleric and theologian (
Schonborn) proclaimed that “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and
design” refutes the mindless creation of Darwinian natural selection (also
Dean, Dean and Goodstein).
[6] Agreement with the hypothesis that popular religiosity is societally
advantageous is not limited to those opposed to evolutionary science, or to
conservatives. The basic thesis can be held by anyone who believes in a
benign creator regardless of the proposed mode of creation, or the believer
’s social-political worldview. In broad terms the hypothesis that popular
religiosity is socially beneficial holds that high rates of belief in a
creator, as well as worship, prayer and other aspects of religious practice,
correlate with lowering rates of lethal violence, suicide, non-monogamous
sexual activity, and abortion, as well as improved physical health. Such
faith-based, virtuous “cultures of life” are supposedly attainable if
people believe that God created them for a special purpose, and follow the
strict moral dictates imposed by religion. At one end of the spectrum are
those who consider creator belief helpful but not necessarily critical to
individuals and societies. At the other end the most ardent advocates
consider persons and people inherently unruly and ungovernable unless they
are strictly obedient to the creator (as per Barna; Colson and Pearcey;
Johnson; Pearcey; Schroeder). Barro labels societal advantages that are
associated with religiosity “spiritual capital,” an extension of Putman’s
concept of “social capital.” The corresponding view that western secular
materialism leads to “cultures of death” is the official opinion of the
Papacy, which claims, “the proabortion culture is especially strong
precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejected” (John
Paul II). In the United States popular support for the cultural and moral
superiority of theism is so extensive that popular disbelief in God ranks as
another major societal fear factor.
[7] The media (Stepp) gave favorable coverage to a report that children are
hardwired towards, and benefit from, accepting the existence of a divine
creator on an epidemiological and neuro-scientific basis (Benson et al.).
Also covered widely was a Federal report that the economic growth of nations
positively responds to high rates of belief in hell and heaven.<3> Faith-
based charities and education are promoted by the Bush administration<4> and
religious allies and lobbies as effective means of addressing various
social problems (Aronson; Goodstein). The conservative Family Research
Council proclaims, “believing that God is the author of life, liberty and
the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a
just, free and stable society.” Towards the liberal end of the political
spectrum presidential candidate Al Gore supported teaching both creationism
and evolution, his running mate Joe Leiberman asserted that belief in a
creator is instrumental to “secure the moral future of our nation, and
raise the quality of life for all our people,” and presidential candidate
John Kerry emphasized his religious values in the latter part of his
campaign.
[8] With surveys showing a strong majority from conservative to liberal
believing that religion is beneficial for society and for individuals, many
Americans agree that their church-going nation is an exceptional, God
blessed, “shining city on the hill” that stands as an impressive example
for an increasingly skeptical world. But in the other developed democracies
religiosity continues to decline precipitously and avowed atheists often win
high office, even as clergies warn about adverse societal consequences if a
revival of creator belief does not occur (Reid, 2001).
Procedures and Primary Data Sources
[9] Levels of religious and nonreligious belief and practice, and indicators
of societal health and dysfunction, have been most extensively and reliably
surveyed in the prosperous developed democracies (Figures 1-9). Similar
data is often lacking for second and third world nations, or is less
reliable. The cultural and economic similarity of the developed democracies
minimizes the variability of factors outside those being examined. The
approximately 800 million mostly middle class adults and children act as a
massive epidemiological experiment that allows hypotheses that faith in a
creator or disbelief in evolution improves or degrades societal conditions
to be tested on an international scale. The extent of this data makes it
potentially superior to results based on much smaller sample sizes. Data is
from the 1990s, most from the middle and latter half of the decade, or the
early 2000s.
[10] Data sources for rates of religious belief and practice as well as
acceptance of evolution are the 1993 Environment I (Bishop) and 1998
Religion II polls conducted by the International Social Survey Program (ISSP
), a cross-national collaboration on social science surveys using standard
methodologies that currently involves 38 nations. The last survey
interviewed approximately 23,000 people in almost all (17) of the developed
democracies; Portugal is also plotted as an example of a second world
European democracy. Results for western and eastern Germany are combined
following the regions’ populations. England is generally Great Britain
excluding Northern Ireland; Holland is all of the Netherlands. The results
largely agree with national surveys on the same subjects; for example, both
ISSP and Gallup indicate that absolute plus less certain believers in a
higher power are about 90% of the U.S. population. The plots include Bible
literalism and frequency of prayer and service attendance, as well as
absolute belief in a creator, in order to examine religiosity in terms of
ardency, conservatism, and activities. Self-reported rates of religious
attendance and practice may be significantly higher than actual rates (
Marler and Hadaway), but the data is useful for relative comparisons,
especially when it parallels results on religious belief. The high rates of
church attendance reported for the Swiss appear anomalous compared to their
modest levels of belief and prayer.
[11] Data on aspects of societal health and dysfunction are from a variety
of well-documented sources including the UN Development Programme (2000).
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 (Beeghley; Neapoletan). Youth
suicide (WHO) was examined in order to avoid cultural issues related to age
and terminal illness. Data on STDs, teen pregnancy and birth (Panchaud et al
.; Singh and Darroch) were accepted only if the compilers concluded that
they were not seriously underreported, except for the U.S. where under
reporting does not exaggerate disparities with the other developed
democracies because they would only close the gaps. Teen pregnancy was
examined in a young age class in which marriage is infrequent. Abortion data
(Panchaud et al.) was accepted only from those nations in which it is as
approximately legal and available as in the U.S. In order to minimize age
related factors, rates of dysfunction were plotted within youth cohorts when
possible.
[12] Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability
of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of
societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this
initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and
social conditions. Nor were multivariate analyses used because they risk
manipulating the data to produce errant or desired results,<5> and because
the fairly consistent characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes
the need to correct for external multiple factors (see further discussion
below). Therefore correlations of raw data are used for this initial
examination.
Results
[13] Among the developed democracies absolute belief in God, attendance of
religious services and Bible literalism vary over a dozenfold, atheists and
agnostics five fold, prayer rates fourfold, and acceptance of evolution
almost twofold. Japan, Scandinavia, and France are the most secular nations
in the west, the United States is the only prosperous first world nation to
retain rates of religiosity otherwise limited to the second and third worlds
(Bishop; PEW). Prosperous democracies where religiosity is low (which
excludes the U.S.) are referred to below as secular developed democracies.
[14] Correlations between popular acceptance of human evolution and belief
in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative (Figure 1).
The least religious nation, Japan, exhibits the highest agreement with the
scientific theory, the lowest level of acceptance is found in the most
religious developed democracy, the U.S.
[15] A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in
Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all
secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide
rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low rates in the
more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly
fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in
other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares). Despite a significant
decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only
prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong
outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal
also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm
. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since
the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety
Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. Other
prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of
nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; Farrington and Langan;
Neapoletan), and are often lower in this regard. The United States exhibits
typical rates of youth suicide (WHO), which show little if any correlation
with theistic factors in the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive
correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is
remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4)
. Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5),
especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception.
Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris et al. and
Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and
prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-
national basis.<6>
[16] Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in
all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of
adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in
the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies
(Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less
dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and
adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the
microbe’s resistance increases (Figure 7). The two main curable STDs have
been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing
adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief
and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-
theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S
. (Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John
Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early
adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (
Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher
in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad
correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth
are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions.
Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number of sexual
partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a
consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled, including
the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual practices in France and the U.S.
observed little difference except that the French tend - contrary to common
impression - to be somewhat more conservative (Gagnon et al.).
Discussion
[17] The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between absolute
belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the lack of a
significant religious revival in any developed democracy where evolution is
popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies can combine high rates of
both religiosity and agreement with evolutionary science. Such an
amalgamation may not be practical. By removing the need for a creator
evolutionary science made belief optional. When deciding between
supernatural and natural causes is a matter of opinion large numbers are
likely to opt for the latter. Western nations are likely to return to the
levels of popular religiosity common prior to the 1900s only in the
improbable event that naturalistic evolution is scientifically overturned in
favor of some form of creationist natural theology that scientifically
verifies the existence of a creator. Conversely, evolution will probably not
enjoy strong majority support in the U.S. until religiosity declines
markedly.
[18] In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality,
STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous
democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S.,
is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States
is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies,
sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the
U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is
falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide
is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant
relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is
known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution
with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and
acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of
dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least
dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies
is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the
highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from
less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed
democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes
outstandingly so.
[19] If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal
health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion
that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures
would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations
of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain
societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that
only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time
in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that
feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related
dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed
democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful
in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict
the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens
ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless
citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.
Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link
between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly
large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.
Conclusion
[20] The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing
because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major
western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme,
2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP
and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other
developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is
therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth
into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this
failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which
cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between
social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped
that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more
extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons,
whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so
inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal
distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies.
Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having
little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence
that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus
acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of
societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-
west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy,
marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions,
secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral
and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research
community to address controversial issues and provide the information that
the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.
Figures (return)
Indicators of societal dysfunction and health as functions of percentage
rates of theistic and non-theistic belief and practice in 17 first world
developed democracies and one second world democracy. ISSP questions asked:
I know God really exists and I have no doubt about it = absolutely believe
in God; 2-3 times a month + once a week or more = attend religious services
at least several times a month; several times a week - several times a day =
pray at least several times a week; the Bible is the actual word of God and
it is to be taken literally, word for word = Bible literalists; human
beings [have] developed from earlier species of animals = accept human
evolution; I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there
is a way to find out + I don’t believe in God = agnostics and other
atheists.
Legend
A = Australia
C = Canada
D = Denmark
E = Great Britain
F = France
G = Germany
H = Holland
I = Ireland
J = Japan
L = Switzerland
N = Norway
P = Portugal
R = Austria
S = Spain
T = Italy
U = United States
W = Sweden
Z = New Zealand |
