KEY POINTS:
Back when I was on the other side of the religious divide, I came across a study linking religion and society's ills. I fell on it with some enthusiasm, eager as I then was for any anti-religion ammunition. But the 2005 study by American social scientist Gregory Paul,
published in the Journal of Religion and Society, was so clearly spurious, even to my biased eyes, that I never used it.
Paul's suggestion that the less religious a country was, the lower its rates of homicide, suicide, childhood mortality rates, abortion and teen pregnancy - ergo religion is bad for society - was undeniably attractive, and overseas media certainly thought so.
But as a damning critique by George H. Gallup Jr, of the Gallup research company, pointed out, it was biased research based on a flawed analysis, and didn't "pass scholarly muster". Gallup said Paul had ignored the weight of empirical evidence, "from parenting and fatherhood, to mental and physical health," which suggested religious commitment had notably positive effects on the individual and society at large.
Sure, wrote Gallup, "a great deal of evil in the world has been perpetrated in the name of religion by fanatics and persons with distorted agendas".
But the data was clear. Spiritual commitment "serves both as a brake on anti-social activities and a powerful impetus to pro-social, even sacrificial, behaviour and attitudes. And the deeper the spiritual commitment, the more pronounced the effects. Indeed, a mountain of survey data from the Gallup and other survey organisations shows that when educational background and other variables are held constant, persons who are 'highly spiritually committed' are far less likely to engage in antisocial behaviour than those less committed. They have lower rates of crime, excessive alcohol use, and drug addiction than other groups."
The deeply committed are also more hopeful about the future, experience greater joy in life, contribute more time to helping people, are less likely to be racist, and more giving and forgiving than others.
"They have bucked the trend of many in society toward narcissism and hedonism. Teens with deep spiritual commitment are far less likely to get into trouble and more likely than their counterparts to be happy, be goal-oriented, be hopeful about the future, see a reason for their existence, succeed better academically, and serve others."
This is not the picture of religion's malign influence on individuals and society that New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have painted but then, says Jonathan Haidt, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, and self-described secular liberal, they're not exactly unbiased.
Despite their claims of rational, scientific detachment, they are as emotionally driven and dogmatic as the fundamentalists they despise. Haidt writes: "The New Atheists conduct biased reviews of the literature and conclude there is no good evidence of any benefits except the health benefits of religion."
Actually, despite some initial reluctance by scholars to take spirituality and religion seriously, there is now a growing body of evidence on the impact of religion. For example, some studies are showing faith can make a difference in lowering the rate of offending and drug use, and in motivating offenders to turn from a life of crime. Three independent New Zealand research projects show half of those who leave gangs do because they become Christian.
Arthur C. Brooks demonstrated in his 2006 book Who Really Cares? that religious believers in the US are far more giving than secular liberals, donating considerably more money, giving more blood and volunteering more of their time. They're more generous to all charities, including non-religious ones, and are some 57 per cent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person.
When it comes to volunteering, there's no contest. Without the churches "dealing with many of our social ills," says George Gallup, "the tax burden would be crushing".
Last month, the Anglican Church in Britain released a commissioned report called Moral, But No Compass, which showed if a monetary value was put on the charitable work done by its congregations and clergy - some 50,000 volunteers providing a multitude of services "without judgment or conditions attached" - it would run into hundreds of millions of pounds. Yet the Government's secular agenda and a climate of liberal suspicion are undermining that work.
In an essay comparing the moral worlds of secular liberals and the religious, Jonathan Haidt writes: "Atheists may have many other virtues, but on one of the least controversial and most objective measures of moral behaviour - giving time, money, and blood to help strangers in need - religious people appear to be morally superior to secular folk."
Haidt isn't advocating religious conversion, but he does think it might be sensible for those engaged in scientific study to look more closely at the way religious people live and ask what they're doing right.
* a href="mailto:tapu.misa@gmail.com">Tapu.Misa@gmail.com
