Dyer on the Corelation Between Religion and Crime

[jamesq]

From the always-readable Gwynne Dyer:

Religion does not make people behave better. It makes them behave worse.

We’re not talking about suicide bombers and other religious extremists here. We’re talking about ordinary people committing ordinary acts of violence, everyday thefts, and run-of-the-mill sex crimes. The more religious a particular society or region is, the more of that sort of stuff happens.

When this hit the blog-o-sphere a few weeks ago, some of my fellow Atheists really liked to show off this statistic, but they missed the real problem. Dyer doesn't:

There’s a chicken-and-egg question here, because what Paul’s research actually shows is that people are more religious in societies where socio-economic conditions are poor. There is more crime and anti-social behaviour in such societies, but are people behaving badly because they are religious, or just because they are poor, ill-educated and desperate?

The real statistical correlation is between religiosity, poverty and ignorance. Hundreds of millions of religious people are neither poor nor ignorant, but the bottom of the pecking order is where religion has its strongest grip in any society. Raise that bottom level, as countries with good social welfare systems do, and religious belief will gradually decline.

(Emphasis mine) You can get the whole article here.

This fits into my theory that if you want to fix the world's problems, your best bang-for-your-buck is to make sure that every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth gets a decent education. I doubt it will eliminate religion (I think our brains are hard-wired for a bunch of things that combine into a religious urge), but you'll certainly get more moderate believers; ones who are more likely to be tolerant of others' (non) beliefs. I suspect it will have a positive influence on civil rights, over-population and a slew of other hard-core base problems.

Comments

[evilscientist.livejournal.com]

This fits into my theory that if you want to fix the world's problems, your best bang-for-your-buck is to make sure that every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth gets a decent education.

But if we do that, who'd be left to vote Conservative.... badum dum....

[snooness2]

The only problem is that more education means more questions for the people in power. More skeptics that want to judge the hard facts for themselves and more opinions - which makes governance of those folks more time consuming and mentally harder/more complex.

I agree that everyone should be educated and the wealth levels of all should be raised but the problem is that the folks at the top don't want to give up their status as worthy (worthy to rule, worthy to have a better car then their neighbour, worthy to hold a better title)... so go figure.

Restricting education (either due to class or money) is a form of societal control... and there is not the will from the top to give up that control (and ergo make things better for all).

[jamesq]

snooness meet evilscientist; evilscientist meet snooness. What's that? You already know each other? Oh well.

That's certainly a part of the problem. I'm sure there are some oligarchs out there who do think things through this way. I'm rich and powerful, and my staying rich and powerful depends on me being a right bastard to the people below me. I just think that this sort of deliberation is rare.

Instead, I suspect that they simply come into it with the foregone conclusion that the people below them are a priori inferior and therefore don't deserve an effort towards improvement. The end result is the same.

Finally, don't discount the sort of thinking that the American far-right would have: Socialism decreases the religious impulse? We must abolish Obamacare - it will turn people away from Jebbus! I've yet to see it states so baldly, but if knowledge of the connection between poverty and religiosity becomes commonplace we'll see some backwards attempts to exploit it. If you think that blind obedience to religion is a good thing, than you might conclude that disabling the social safety net is also a good thing precisely because it will make more poor desperate people. Sort of the Mother Theresa (who despite having a sizable war chest due to donations, didn't supply something as basic as pain-killers - because suffering brought people closer to god) effect applied to an entire class of people.

At any rate, I can believe that my solution would work even while admitting that the attempt would be unlikely.

... you'd think we we both socialist commies or... waaait a min....

[snooness2]

:)

I actually think the rich and powerful just don't typically think of the poor at all, and when they do they are so removed from the reality of the situation that they can't determine what is important. I also agree with the idea that often there is a blame the vicitim for their poverty approach...

ie: "They have no money they must not be trying to keep a stable job", "They clearly can't figure out the correct priorities for their lives", and my favorite "They didn't work hard enough." - all of these reasonings can have a grain of truth to them when applied to individuals; but when looking to fix a problem for a community none of these reasonings hold water. (And consiquently I get pissed off when I hear politicians justify welfare cuts by putting the money into employment initiatives...)

yes yes I know - Snooness meet evilscientist... :)

I think your solution would be wonderous. Now if we could only convince our economic and political leaders that this needs to happen - or there will be revolution or at least riots in the streets; because if people have nothing left to loose they will do what ever it takes to gain equity - even if it means the equity of everyone being equally poor and unsafe.

I think I shall now take my revolutionary talk and shelve it, stock my pantry full of non-perishables, by some more property further away from population centers, stick my head in the collective sand - and hopefully to re-emerge once the revolution has passed.... maybe I aught to by a shotgun and hide it in the back 40.... hmmm... gun registry.... hmmm... compound hunting bow it is then.
:)