Gregory Paul: Is religion hurting America?

Autodidact paleontologist and self professed critic of religion Gregory Paul is back in the news again.   His 2005 paper correlating secularity and societal health was criticized severely in some circles, primarily for statistical reasons.  In an effort to shore up his data and refine his conclusions, Paul has published a new set of conclusions from existing data.

In the opening, Paul describes the debate over societal health and religiosity as consisting of two competing hypotheses:  The “moral creator hypothesis” involves the belief that belief in a higher power — specifically a creator who tells us how to behave properly — is an integral part of a successful society, even as far as economics.  The secular-democratic socioeconomic hypothesis predicts that higher levels of popular nonreligiosity and acceptance of evolutionary science in democratic countries are actually associated with superior national conditions.

Paul then highlights the very real set of problems faced by anyone interested in this subject.  To begin with, there’s precious little previous research.  For as much influence as religion has, it’s honestly shocking how little scholarly research has been done into the actual effects it has on individuals and societies.  Add to that the fact that many journals will simply not accept studies or articles on the subject.  (After Paul’s 2005 paper, the Journal of Religion and Society has not accepted further input on the topic.)

There is certainly a hostile attitude in both the mainstream and academia towards anyone who dares suggest that religion is quantifiably bad in some way or another.  Curiously, I’m reminded of the furor that erupted when a small group of historical scholars had the unmitigated audacity to suggest that maybe Jesus was just a literary figure, and never actually existed.

Such hostility is not unique in academia.  E.O. Wilson was literally physically assaulted in the 1970s while presenting his radical idea that humans are animals, and may be studied and predicted.  (Granted, the assault consisted of having a bucket of ice water thrown on him, but it’s still physical assault.)   There is still considerable resistance to many of the implications of humans’ evolutionary origins.

As an aside, I realize that there have been heated scientific debates that didn’t involve religion.  (General relativity was shouted down pretty hard until it was conclusively proven.)  However, I can’t help but notice that only when religion is involved do we see active study being vigorously discouraged.

It’s also true that jumping on the wrong side of the theory bandwagon can be bad for your career.   The debate over gamma ray bursts sent several scientists to the proverbial doghouse when they suggested that they were coming from outside our galaxy.  (Of course, they were later proven correct, and hailed as visionaries.)

Still, I can’t help but think that there’s something different about religious issues.  From a non-Christian point of view, why should anyone pop a blood vessel over Jesus being a literary figure, not a historical one?  Why should it scare us so much to think that maybe religion is bad for people and society?  Yet these two questions, more than any other in recent years, draw out vitriol from nearly all sides.  How dare we question these things!!

Intuitively, it seems that maybe all the resistance is symptomatic of a deeply rooted fear that maybe it’s true.  The critics of anti-theists keep saying that we’re just over-reacting, and that religion can’t be causally linked to societal or personal ills.  The religious paint us as demons trying to destroy the moral and economic fabric of life as we know it.  So…  if they’re right, why isn’t anybody proving it?  It seems like the religious and the anti-anti-theists are very interested in poo-pooing and naysaying any statistical link that pops up, but nobody’s interested in just setting the matter to rest by doing comprehensive, multi-cultural, empirical research on the matter.

If religion is good for society, so long as it’s not misused, why isn’t the Templeton Foundation trotting out peer reviewed material by the truckload?  Religion is probably the second biggest industry in the universe, behind sex.  Vindicating it scientifically would shut us anti-theists up.  After all, we’re the ones who keep harping about evidence, and the flexibility of belief inherent in the rational materialist worldview.

Yet, such research is discouraged, shouted down, and nitpicked.  I think we’re afraid of the truth.

It remains to be seen how Paul’s new effort will be received.  I don’t intend to comment on the quality of his data or statistical analysis.  However, I think it’s worth noting that his conclusion doesn’t sound as “anti-religious” as we might imagine, given his openly antagonistic opinions of American religious culture.  In a nutshell, he suggests that prosperity and societal health tend to reduce religiosity.  Religious faith is not, as has been suggested, a deeply ingrained human desire for meaning.  Instead, it’s a coping mechanism for when things really suck.  The more we improve the human condition, the less we need religion.

That hardly seems like something that ought to make us afraid.  If it’s true, then it gives us an interesting new set of goggles for viewing American culture.   It also gives us a new launching point for more research.  Does religious belief perpetuate or exacerbate bad conditions, or does it just alleviate stress when conditions are bad?  Is religious belief a crane that helps lift a society out of dysfunction, such that it no longer needs religion, or does belief create complacency and resistance to positive change?

These are questions we can answer.  For anyone who cares about the human condition, these are questions we must answer.  Whether this new paper is borne out as credible and valid or not, I commend Mr. Paul for sticking to his guns and at least trying to answer the big questions about religion and society.  At the very least, it should frighten us that only a rogue autodidact is even trying.