Is Religion Bad for America? Study Says "Maybe"

[aric]

Journal of Religion and Society

Now, I only read through this once, so I haven't completely absorbed the meaning of the study. However, I find it rather interesting.

From what I have read of the article, I don't think they necessarily make a direct connection between religiosity and an unhealthy society. However, I think they do disprove the idea that secularism is bad for society.

What do y'all think?

I'll look over the article again and try and get a clearer picture of what the studywas supposed to show.

- Aric

[Barry]

That depends on what type of religion it is.

[Stouthorn]

Haha. I kind of like that the results are mixed, because - interestingly enough - it shows a lack of bias.

Wonder what you're suggesting there, Dwaggie.

[aric]

stouthorn said:

Wonder what you're suggesting there, Dwaggie.

Maybe he's saying that the study isn't referring to his particular version of religion. Unless, of course, he's saying that there are forms of religion out there other than his own that's the way to go. Considering Dwaggie, I'd say the first option was the intent.

In any case, the post shows he didn't actually read the article since, IMNSHO, it was his brand of religion that the study addressed.

If anything, I think the study was asking the wrong question. I don't think it's so much religion in general but rather a specific kind of religiosity that adversely effects society. For instance, people who believe in God and yet are pragmatic wouldn't really have trouble with sex ed or same sex marriage and such from a religious point of view, I would think. That is to say, they couldn't base opposition to those issues, if any, on religious presuppositions. However, those who tend to practice religion dogmatically, doctrinally, or otherwise in fashions that are relatively rigid and inflexible in the face of modernity and change would be the ones most resistant to adaptive measures that might help society function better and a little more justly.

To repeat an issue I brought up a couple of times with Azonthus and Kiva in another thread, I think this is about methodology. It's about a priori essentialism versus more pragmatic, perhaps even scientific, ways of thinking.

- Aric

[Barry]

Maybe he's saying that the study isn't referring to his particular version of religion. Unless, of course, he's saying that there are forms of religion out there other than his own that's the way to go. Considering Dwaggie, I'd say the first option was the intent.

In any case, the post shows he didn't actually read the article since, IMNSHO, it was his brand of religion that the study addressee

Yes, I meant the second option Aric.
And yes, I did read the article but It was way beyond my understanding. I read everything you put up, because some of what you put up is interesting info that I can't get from the TV.

[Stouthorn]

Aric: obviously the danger of anything is extremes, but it's also understood that extremists come with every ideology, so I'm not sure the study is off in what it's asking.

[aric]

stouthorn said:

Aric: obviously the danger of anything is extremes, but it's also understood that extremists come with every ideology, so I'm not sure the study is off in what it's asking.

But did the study address non-religious extremism? I could look over it again, but I don't remember seeing much of that, if any, the first time around. The title itself refers to "popular religiosity," not to extremism.

Again, I don't think the study is off either, but I was wondering whether we can focus the question on something other than "popular religiosity" and more towards what you described. The issue of methodology can just as easily apply to socio-political ideas as religious ones.

- Aric

[Stouthorn]

Well remember that the study says "maybe." So the study is actually saying there are good things and bad things about popular religiosity, not just examining the detriments of extremism.

[RedFeather]

I don't feel that it's the type of religion. Perhaps the type of CHURCH, or the INDIVIDUALS within a religious group of any type.

I don't think that it's a bad thing to be religious or to have your beliefs, but if you simply use them as an excuse to be hypocritical or to think that they are better than other people, things like that, then yes, it is bad.

If it's to enhance spiritual growth or to give one hope, then I have no problem with it. So long as no one forces their beliefs on me, I will not be bothered by any religion.

[Quickstride]

Oh, this study. This has been seemingly all over the place, mostly because the media and others can't differentiate between "correlation" and "causality," naturally creating a huge ruckus. In any case, here's an interesting critique of the statistics in the paper:

magicstatistics.com/2005/09/27/from-our-bulging-how-not-to-do-statistics-file/

Currently, I'm actually taking a course that involved the reading of More Damned Lies and Statistics, along with my own critical analyses of research papers (although I can't use this one) and while that hardly makes me an expert I have to agree that if nothing else the definitions are far too vague to get much out of this study.

[aric]

quickstride said:

Oh, this study. This has been seemingly all over the place, mostly because the media and others can't differentiate between "correlation" and "causality," naturally creating a huge ruckus. In any case, here's an interesting critique of the statistics in the paper:

magicstatistics.com/2005/09/27/from-our-bulging-how-not-to-do-statistics-file/

Currently, I'm actually taking a course that involved the reading of More Damned Lies and Statistics, along with my own critical analyses of research papers (although I can't use this one) and while that hardly makes me an expert I have to agree that if nothing else the definitions are far too vague to get much out of this study.

Yeah, I was kinda wondering why the study hand-waved Italy as an example. IIRC, it's a rather heavily Catholic country... Maybe it's one of the insignificant exceptions to Western secularization.

In any case, the report of the study seemed to outright state that it was in response to a socio-political assumption that the presence of religion in a society was what made that society function properly, or, alternatively, that secularism is bad. At least, that's what I got as the gist of the point of that study.

Of course, I'm sure there are people out there who go "LOLZ, religion is T3h sUx0rz!" when they read the study poorly or when they read bad reporting of that study. But as Stouthorn stated, I don't think the study is too far off from its intent.

- Aric

[Quickstride]

Well, I'm going to give Paul the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't consciously trying to manipulate the statistics, but the more I look at the missing countries and the lack of detail, the more doubtful I become that this study is very useful. The fact that we have to guess that this study's purpose is to examine whether religion is necessary for a society is pretty bad- the background information was also way too muddy. Statistics are so sensitive; one simple choice can alter them drastically (especially in a study this small), and the inclusion of the other countries or a tightening of the definitions could have weakened the correlation (or strengthened it, or even have eliminated it; the point is that we don't know.) It needs to be redone with that in mind before I'd use these numbers for anything.