• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

An inverse correlation between religion and morality? (1 Viewer)

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Ok this is an opinion piece from the herald concerning a recnetly released study which seems to disprove the assumed correlation between being a moral society and being a religious society.

Emily Maguire said:
A STRENGTHENING of religious faith is often raised as the answer to society's ills. Peter Costello has said, for example, "that a recovery of faith would go a long way" to solving many of our society's problems. The Prime Minister, too, has publicly argued for the societal benefits of religiosity, claiming that "the Christian religion is the greatest force for good in this nation". Labor's Lindsay Tanner, a self-described agnostic, seems to agree, stating that "without some kind of sustained spiritual input" our society will "degenerate into a bleak utilitarian shell that debases us all".

Many ordinary Australians share the belief that religious faith is an indicator of morality, and it is accepted wisdom that high rates of religious practice correlate with lower rates of crime, promiscuity and abortion.

However, a study published in the Journal of Religion and Society, an American academic journal, set out to test this hypothesis and found there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and public health and social stability. The study, "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies", compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy using data from the International Social Survey Program, Gallup and other research bodies.

"In general," writes the author, Gregory Paul, "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."

A striking example of this is the US, which has the highest degrees of religious faith and the highest rates of homicide, abortion, STD infection and teenage pregnancy. The least religious countries - Japan, France and Scandinavia - have the lowest rates of violent crime, juvenile mortality and abortion.

Paul makes it clear his "intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data not to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health". So while the study doesn't show that religion causes or exacerbates societal problems, it does raise important questions about the relationship between religious belief and societal wellbeing.

Consider the finding that countries with higher religious belief have higher rates of teen pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted disease. Other recent US studies show that teenagers who received abstinence-only education, which is more common in countries with high religiosity, are less likely to use condoms or other contraceptives than teens receiving comprehensive sex education.

Is it possible that, like teenagers who deny they will have sex and are thus unprepared when the time comes, nations whose citizens or leaders have faith that a higher being will ensure prosperity, security and wellbeing fail to effectively prepare for the possibility that bad things will happen?

Maybe those who believe in a God who takes care of His own are less motivated to take practical steps to help the less fortunate in society. Is it, as the late American essayist Walter Lippmann supposed, that "as long as all evils are believed somehow to fit into a divine, if mysterious, plan, the effort to eradicate them must seem on the whole futile, and even impious".

This is all speculation; exactly why prosperous, highly religious societies are so dysfunctional is not known. Fortunately, Paul's report ends by calling for researchers to "consider the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism".

Those who claim religion is a way out of our social troubles should heed the one firm conclusion of this report: that societies which have largely discarded religion are not hotbeds of sin and iniquity, but are often highly functional, safe and prosperous. Consequently, relying on religion to fix social problems is irrational.

No one is suggesting that religious faith is harmful, and, anecdotally, it seems it may even be beneficial on a personal level. But when it comes to working for a better society the religious need to stop sermonising, get up off their knees, unclasp those praying hands and work for measurable change in the here and now.
My only concern is the markers of 'moral decay used', as Maguire comments the reason for high abortion, pregancy and STD in religious countries is the favouring of abstinence in sex ed.

However no link between this and moral decay is established. There is the tacit link made by the religious right that abortion, STD, teenage pregnancy = moral decay. So possibly by their standards there is an inverse correlation. However were we to take this one step further we are also 'morally decayed' (by their standards) but better at covering it up (bad pun).

So the study comprehensively demonstrates the abject failure of abstinence as a sexual health strategy. And confirms what many of us knew anecdotally however I believe the claim of moral decay is an obvious publicity ploy. Whilst this is an obvious attack on the religious right I believe it has over-extended itself by the claim of general moral decay as opposed to specifically the abysmal failure of abstinence.
 

lara_austin

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
18
Location
Melbourne
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
i fail to see how bad morals equates to sex? Besides, morals are such a relitive thing. Furthermore, preaching religion (another bad pun) is not the answer, religion is historically the root cause of almost every war/civil unrising or bloodshed.
 

supercharged

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
789
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
lara_austin said:
i fail to see how bad morals equates to sex? Besides, morals are such a relitive thing. Furthermore, preaching religion (another bad pun) is not the answer, religion is historically the root cause of almost every war/civil unrising or bloodshed.
Depends on the religion, religion is like culture, some are more peaceful some are more aggressive. Eg. I can't think of anyone using conversion to buddism as an excuse to war.
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
There were also Bhuddist warrior sects.....

I disagree that religion causes wars. It is a lovely trite thing to say but it reveals a naivety to the world of international relations. Religion may seem to cause wars because often it is used a pre-text, however it is rarely the underlying reason.

As a bad example there are two villages both for arguments sake christian. One has good lands one does not. The one with good lands converts to protestant-ism. The other one declares that the protestant village is one of infidels a militia is formed and they raize it. On the surface religion seems the motivating factor but underneath is a desire for the protestant villages lands.

I think you can see how this simple example can be twisted and chnaged to explain most wars. Those it can't explain through unit-level (individuals at the bottom) jealousy, it can explain through great-men jealousy/power-plays/strategic concerns.
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
How about the thirty years war?

But yes you get the point far more base motives that religion motivate men to kill each other.
 

gerhard

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
850
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
The problem with the report is the lack of religious countries. Pretty much the United States is the only 'religious' first world society; every other first world country has comparitively similar religious rates. There is no order to any of the data, its simply the United States has lots of religion and lots of crime/abortion, and the rest of the world has little religion and little crime/abortion.


United States also eats more hotdogs than anywhere else in the world and have the highest homocide rate. They should probably ban hotdogs from america to cut down the crime rate.


I dont think the author is purposely trying to mislead, he just shouldnt really infer anything from his data
 

heybraham

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
288
Location
google earth
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Anti-Mathmite said:
The only war that has really had religion as the major premise was the Crusades.
everyone on this thread is looking at the little picture, only bits and pieces of this concept of 'religion'. essentially religion is nothing more than an ideology which exists because of its relationship with humanity. humans are religious beings, we all tend to work for something, an ideology, an accomplishment that will satisfy our existence. once we determine what that idea is, we will obviously chase the goal and during this journey, we will determine what is 'good' and 'bad', what will aid our quest or what will hinder.

ideas, aims such as beauty, love, hate, pride, materialism, sex, power, justice etc.
when these values are solidified in texts and organisations it is formally declared as a 'religion'. and as there'll always be humans who will find [new] values that appeal to them, religion will always exist. religion is not a good or bad thing, its just there, it's in our nature.

well this is my interpretation. and i hope u consider it because whenever u do criticise religions, you are merely asserting your own 'religion'.
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Well most religions are based around a supreme being of some sort, and that is what we are referring to, not mere spirituality.

But I disagree with you anyway; human values are not a 'religion'. They are just values. Ideologies are not necessarily religious or spiritual concepts. They are social paradigms competing for dominance. It is not a condition that they are founded on religious ideals. They often compete on principles of reason, whereas most religions tend to be based on the supernatural or unexplainable.

To say that "whenever one criticises religion, one is asserting one's own religion", is erroneous. People criticise religions for being illogical. They do so by using reason. Reason is not a religion.
 

shinigamideathg

New Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
7
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Religion is a very difficult topic to disscuss, in my opinion.

Whether it is benificial to society or detremental is a difficult question to be asked. So we should just all compromise by saying that maybe some ideals and values procured by religion and its effect on people could be seen as a good thing; a belief to do good onto others...

However if its coering these ideas onto the general public to produce an effect like 'hate,' then we can assume that is a bad thing; such as an inclination to condem homosexuals.

....heh... I'm probably completely off topic.

But I'll just add my two cents in



:)
 

lara_austin

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
18
Location
Melbourne
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
addymac said:
There were also Bhuddist warrior sects.....

I disagree that religion causes wars. It is a lovely trite thing to say but it reveals a naivety to the world of international relations. Religion may seem to cause wars because often it is used a pre-text, however it is rarely the underlying reason.
QUOTE]

naivety? i highly doubt it. Its a conclusion drawn from a knowledge of history AND international relations although a personal bias towards atheism may make some of us overly cynical, religion can (and has flamed wars).

Take a passage from the Lords prayer for example.

your kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven

and people wonder how the KKK used this to justify their actions, and how the older version was used by the 4th crusades to justify their actions.... hmmm
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Forgive me for the high and mighty tone, but I study both International Relations and History at University, and did Ancient, Modern and Extension History for the HSC.

I stand by my statement that religion does not cause war, but may serve as a pre-text and that to think otherwise is dangerously naive. You have failed to present any evidence to disuade me or persuade any other readers, what you have given us is a passage from the bible and a vague statement that it has been used as a justification.

How about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, that would seem much more pertinent to me.

Lets think for a moment, did the Romans forge an empire on religion, did Alexander, did Ghengis Kahn, how about the Moors, Athens? The answers a resounding no.

Religion may serve as a pretext, eg the pushing of the Moors from the Iberian peninsula.
Ethnicity may be a reason - and religion confusefd with it by the casual observer.

As animals we rarely go to war for ideals as lofty as religion and all to frequently do for base reasons of profit, power, jealousy, fear, rivalry and hate.
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
This is far too close to a philosophy essay that I wrote once.
 

heybraham

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
288
Location
google earth
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
MoonlightSonata said:
But I disagree with you anyway; human values are not a 'religion'. They are just values. Ideologies are not necessarily religious or spiritual concepts. They are social paradigms competing for dominance. It is not a condition that they are founded on religious ideals. They often compete on principles of reason, whereas most religions tend to be based on the supernatural or unexplainable.

To say that "whenever one criticises religion, one is asserting one's own religion", is erroneous. People criticise religions for being illogical. They do so by using reason. Reason is not a religion.
no i'm trying to say that religion is...the 'evolved' form of human ideologies. ideologies are accepted in thought, religions are often organised, written, 'concrete' with a tangible presence in society. the difference between religions and philosophy is that religion often BECOMES reason (obviously due to belief in a higher power), and philosophy stems from reason (human reason). i mean, where do u draw the line between religion and reason, does it just relate like one of those theories of relativity like E = mc^2?
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Yes, Religion becomes reason for people because they begin to believe in its 'logic' - other principles of critical thought are thrown out the window.
 

heybraham

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
288
Location
google earth
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
but what exactly is critical thought. is it based solely on the rules you see before you? what if there are certain rules that are hidden. being simply the dominant creatures that control some random planet called earth, excusing the unforeseeable future, we must accept the fact our means of critical thought lie within our individually alloted space and time which is limited obviously, due to our lifespans.

so what if a religion did, somehow, conform to human logic. and also provide some sort of supernatural ideology? is that too...unreasonable?
 
Last edited:

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
heybraham said:
no i'm trying to say that religion is...the 'evolved' form of human ideologies. ideologies are accepted in thought, religions are often organised, written, 'concrete' with a tangible presence in society. the difference between religions and philosophy is that religion often BECOMES reason (obviously due to belief in a higher power), and philosophy stems from reason (human reason). i mean, where do u draw the line between religion and reason, does it just relate like one of those theories of relativity like E = mc^2?
Well as I said, there is a clear difference between religion and reason. Religions are usually founded on the idea of a supreme being. They are usually based on faith. Faith = belief without proof = belief without reason.

I would not say that religions are the evolved form of human ideologies. I would not use that word because evolve is not only vague but it connotes survival and higher importance. Since religion is declining in importance and survival, I do not think religion today is "the evolved form of human ideologies". I would say that it may have crystalised certain values over time into a solid structure of belief -- but this is evident even without religion. Morals do not stem from religion really. Religion, as I see it, is a way of justifying morals that already were held (and continue) to exist. There are many ideologies and values of human thought that are unrelated to, even in conflict with, religion.

But not to get lost in this discussion, the bottom line of what I am saying stems from my rejection of what you said here:
whenever u do criticise religions, you are merely asserting your own 'religion'.
As I say, I reject that proposition because when I criticise religion I am not asserting my own religion, I am asserting principles of reason, the core of which are, as far as humanity knows, universal and objective. They are not a personal, spiritual and subjective paradigm. They are the only tools by which all humans may attempt to validly critically assess ideas and arguments.
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
heybraham said:
but what exactly is critical thought. is it based solely on the rules you see before you?
As far as we know, yes. The application of reason has advanced human beings throughout the ages in all sorts of endeavours. Look around at all the complex technologies that abound. Look at the mathematical formulas that have been applied to figure out the exact mechanics and functions of machinery. These are applications of reason, at a fundamental level. And it has proven successful. Reason does work. There are rough edges as to the exact application, but based upon all human experience there is a core of reason that is universal and objective. Again, an irony to point out is that no-one has come up with an argument for irrationality.
heybraham said:
what if there are certain rules that are hidden. being simply the dominant creatures that control some random planet called earth, excusing the unforeseeable future, we must accept the fact our means of critical thought lie within our individually alloted space and time which is limited obviously, due to our lifespans.
That is highly far-fetched. While we cannot rule that out for certain, all the evidence does not support that scenario. So it would make sense to reject that idea.
heybraham said:
so what if a religion did, somehow, conform to human logic. and also provide some sort of supernatural ideology? is that too...unreasonable?
I am not entirely sure what you mean by "conform to human logic". If you mean that a religion founded each of its beliefs upon reason, then that of course would be "reasonable". As for the "supernatural ideology", I am not sure what you refer to, but again it comes down to whether each belief asserted by the religion can be justified by reason. Supernatural beings, though some believers certainly do use reason to justify them, for the most part are not justified by most theists. Most simply have "faith", and are content to believe in a supernatural being without proof (and reason).
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top