Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
By Jonathan Kane

It seems to be something of a pattern that after a paleontologist or evolutionary biologist has become well-enough respected for research in their area of specialty, they often begin to branch out into the topics of psychology, philosophy, and religion.  The most famous recent example of this is Richard Dawkins’ attack on religion in his book The God Delusion, but also well-known are Kenneth Miller’s attempt to reconcile evolution and Christianity in Finding Darwin’s God, and Stephen Jay Gould’s attack on the field of psychometrics in The Mismeasure of Man.  Although all three of these scientists are experts in paleontology or evolutionary biology, Dawkins is not a philosopher, Miller is not a theologian, and Gould is not a psychologist.  So as you might expect, the results when they write about these topics can vary a lot.

Of the three books mentioned in the last paragraph, The Mismeasure of Man is in my opinion the worst.  Despite its popularity, nearly all of its reviews in the academic literature have been negative, accusing the book of both misrepresenting the source material and assuming that psychometricians still rely on ideas and techniques which had been abandoned decades ago.  Finding Darwin’s God, on the other hand, has been well-received by almost everyone other than creationists—and perhaps more importantly, has proven to be one of the most valuable books for persuading Christians to accept evolution.  As for The God Delusion, our other administrator (EWilloughby) has read it but I haven’t, so I’m having to rely on her own opinion of the book here:  according to her, its attack on religion is primarily based on the negative consequences there have been from Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), while not answering the question of whether this also applies to non-Abrahamic religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism or Deism.  It seems that Dawkins’ book isn’t as full of misrepresentations and fallacies as Gould’s is, but that it also isn’t as good as Miller’s.

Whatever you think of the three scientists’ forays into the humanities, they’ve now been joined by a fourth:  Gregory S. Paul.  This name will be familiar to anyone who follows dinosaur paleontology and paleoart, but for those who don’t, Greg Paul is the author of the well-respected books Predatory Dinosaurs of the World and Dinosaurs of the Air.  Paul has illustrated both of these books himself, and his precise reconstructions of dinosaur skeletons and musculature are often a useful resource for other paleoartists, Emily and myself included.  Equally significant, although a little less well-known, is what I mentioned in our monthly topic a year ago—Greg Paul is one of only a few scientists who were able to correctly predict and illustrate the appearance of feathered dinosaurs before their skin was discovered.

As with Dawkins, Gregory Paul’s new research is on the topic of religion, and more specifically opposition to religion.  Unlike Dawins, however, Paul is publishing his conclusions in a peer-reviewed journal, which is an argument for the idea that he is still performing legitimate science despite the change of fields, rather than merely capitalizing on the reputation he acquired for his research in other areas.  Similarly encouraging, at Greg Paul’s website for his research on this topic, is his stated disapproval of the unscientific methods that other authors on both sides of this issue have used (although he’s not naming names): “Most discussions in the popular and advocacy literature and punditry on both sides is conversational, anecdotal, casual and consequently of little utility. The level of error is so high that the public debate is more misleading than informative.”

Greg Paul’s current paper about this topic, which was published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology, can be downloaded here.  Recent press articles about his research are here and here.  For those who don’t feel like reading any of the linked articles, his research concerns the question of what sorts of societies are and aren’t religious.  Religious people often claim that the morality of any society depends on religion, and that if a society becomes less religious, it will inevitably become less moral also.  As far as I know, nobody before Greg Paul had attempted to empirically test this idea, so his goal has been to statistically examine whether or not it is correct.

In this paper, Greg Paul has ranked 17 first-world countries both by degree of religiosity, and by a commonly-used measure of societal health called the “successful societies scale”, which measures the rate of things such as infant mortality, incarceration, corruption, and teenage pregnancy.  If it were correct that religion is a requirement for any society to be moral, one would expect that the countries which rank highest on the successful societies scale would also be the most religious.  What Paul has found is that the opposite is true:  it is the countries which rank lowest on the successful societies scale which have the greatest degree of religious observance, and those which rank highest are the least religious.  This correlation exists regardless of whether the analysis is performed including the United States, which is the most religious of any of the countries studied, and also ranks lowest on the successful societies scale.

Paul’s conclusion from this is that rather than being a necessary part of any healthy society, religion is a “crutch” (to use The Guardian’s term) that people tend to rely on when they live in a society which isn’t meeting all of their needs.  And if a society begins to meet more of its citizens’ needs, it must inevitably become less religious in the process.  On the basis of the inverse correlation between societal health and religiosity, Paul views religion and prosperity as mutually exclusive and opposed to one another.

For the nearly two years that this group has existed, Emily and I have thus far tried to avoid the question of whether religion as a whole is beneficial or detrimental, because both of us feel that either way the effects of religion in general don’t matter nearly as much as the harm done by creationism.  Opposition to creationism is an area where both atheists and Christian theistic evolutionists can find common ground, and I’ve been reluctant to do anything that would risk alienating either of these two groups.  Now that one of the favorite paleoartists of this group’s members is studying this topic, however, it seems like it would be negligent of us to avoid writing anything about it.  So with this in mind, this month’s question is: Do you agree or disagree with Gregory Paul about this topic, and why?  Whatever your opinion, please try to be polite to those who hold viewpoints different from your own.

Greg Paul’s central assertion, that religion is something people most frequently turn to for support in response to difficult conditions, is something that I completely agree with—at least when it comes to Christianity, which is the predominant religion in 16 of the 17 countries included in Paul’s study.  (The only non-Christian country studied was Japan.)  Part of the reason I agree with this is because for the first nearly 300 years of its existence, Christianity was almost exclusively a religion of paupers, political refugees, and other social outcasts.  According to Matthew 19:24, Jesus himself even commented on this fact, remarking that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it was for a rich man to become a Christian.  Christianity eventually became an “establishment” religion when the Roman emperor Constantine I converted to it in 312 AD, but this did not change the fact that Christianity was originally designed to appeal to society’s less fortunate members.

Even without using a detailed statistical analysis such as the one performed by Greg Paul, it is not difficult to see the special appeal of religion to those who are in destitute circumstances.  It seems obvious that these are the people who would be most attracted to the idea that their lives are governed by a higher power who will work all things for good, and that if they live moral lives they will be rewarded for doing so in the next life, even if their current lives fail to reward them.  Perhaps the best demonstration of this is the twelve-step program which is the centerpiece of the counseling offered by Alcoholics Anonymous, as well as similar organizations such as Narcotics Anonymous.  While their counseling method is not specific to Christianity, the degree to which it involves religion speaks for itself.  The twelve steps can be found at the AA website here, but I’ll also quote them:
1: We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2: Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3: Made a decision to turn our will and lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4: Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5: Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6: Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7: Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8: Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9: Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10: Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted to it.
11: Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12: Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

This is a pretty good example of Greg Paul’s point about religion’s appeal to people in difficult circumstances, since obviously only an alcoholic (or any other type of addict) would have something to gain from a program like this.  However, this also demonstrates the point where I disagree with Paul, which is his assertion that religion is directly opposed to improvements in living circumstances.  People who participate in this twelve-step program don’t become religious for the purpose of feeling better about themselves while continuing to drink; they become religious in order to help them recover.

It is accurate to say that religion is a “crutch” for people following this program, but probably in more ways than Paul intended.  A crutch is usually not only something that a person relies on because they’re injured; more often than not, it is also something they use in the hope that it will assist them in improving their condition.  Perhaps also like a crutch, religion will eventually be discarded by many of these people after they have recovered from alcoholism and no longer feel that they need it, but it was still a necessary step in their recovery.  I am a little curious what people such as Dawkins and Paul, who view religion as inherently harmful, think of Alcoholics Anonymous:  do they oppose this group as well, because they consider religion to be even more harmful than alcoholism is?

The real question is not whether religion can be helpful to people who turn to it because of difficult circumstances in their lives, because I think organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous demonstrate pretty clearly that it can.  The real question is whether religion can have the same effect on entire societies, since what’s helpful for an individual in a society is not always what’s best for the society as a whole.  What’s more, religion is capable of affecting society in such a multitude of ways that its ability or inability to benefit a society is probably impossible to measure statistically.  In order to answer the question of whether Greg Paul is correct about religion being directly opposed to improvement in societal health, the most informative analysis that can be made is a case study of whether religion helped or hindered modern history’s largest single advance in human rights.  

I am referring, of course, the end of communism in Eastern Europe which began 20 years ago this year.  As it turns out, there is a fairly clear answer to the question in this case.  According to most sources which discuss this, including the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, ending the Cold War would not have been possible without the religious leadership of Pope John Paul II.  There are too many articles which discuss this for me to link to them all, but several of them are cited by the portion of Wikipedia’s article about him which covers this.

What makes Pope John Paul II’s role in the fall of communism particularly interesting in this regard is that the benefit his religious leadership provided for the people of Eastern Europe is quite similar to the way religion benefits people in Alcoholics Anonymous.  In both cases, the benefit of religion has been to provide people with a sense of courage and solidarity, which can be used either to break an addiction or to demand a democratic government.  While it is possible that these effects could be obtained via something other than religion, the most important consideration for any such group of people must be their own well-being.  If religion is able to help them obtain this benefit, then it is beneficial to them by the only standard that matters.

Dawkins and Paul would most likely be quick to point out that religion does not always encourage this type of benefit to a society, and they would be correct in doing so.  Religion has not encouraged the institution of democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan—quite the opposite, in fact—to say nothing of terrorist attacks such as 9/11.  However, not all religions seem to be equally at risk for causing this type of problem.  According to, there are approximately one-and-a-half times as many Christians in the world as there are Muslims, so if both religions were equally prone to encouraging violence, there should also be one-and-a-half times as many deaths per year caused by Christian terrorism and suicide bombing as there are deaths caused by the same from Islam.  However, this isn’t the case: while it’s inaccurate to say that Christian-motivated violence does not exist in modern times, it is less common than Islamic violence rather than more.  In addition, while historic cases of major Christian violence such as the crusades have typically been ordered by a single government or other authority, this is not true of modern examples of Islamic violence such as Al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks, insurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq, Palestinian suicide bombing, and the international rioting that resulted from cartoons in Jyllands-Posten and Newsweek’s report of a Koran being desecrated.  The only cause that all of the latter incidents have had in common was their type of religious motivation.

One might expect the religions which carry the greatest risks to also be those that bring the greatest benefits, so that the good is always balanced against the bad.  But that does not appear to be the case, as can be seen from the portion of Wikipedia’s article on the efficacy of prayer which describes the psychological and health benefits of religion.  Studies are inconclusive as to whether the health benefits extend beyond a placebo effect, but what stands out about all of these studies is that the psychological benefits appear to be identical regardless of the religion in question.  This is consistent with AA’s explanation of their twelve-step program, which depends on following God “however we understood him”—which could be as Jesus, Allah, Krishna, or (presumably) Odin or Zeus.  It seems that while all religions are able to confer almost exactly the same benefits, some religions provide these benefits at a much greater cost than do others.

There is only one conclusion which I think can drawn from this, regardless of how politically incorrect it may be for me to say it:  some religions are more valuable than others.  Some are able to bring their psychological and health benefits, including benefits to society, at very little cost (as in Eastern Europe); while others carry such great risks that the costs frequently outweigh any benefit that can be obtained (as in Afghanistan and Iraq).  While I consider it valuable that Greg Paul is studying the societal effects of religion in a scientific manner, I believe he’s on the wrong track by assuming that when societies turn to religion because of poor living conditions, this will inevitably interfere with their ability to improve.  Having demonstrated the correlation between religiosity and lower standards of living, the most useful thing Paul could research at this point would be which types of religion are the most useful for helping people in these circumstances to improve their lives, and which types of religion cause more harm than good.
Add a Comment:
Sinande Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2009
Re: Dawkins, I haven't read The God Delusion, but I do hope it's better than Viruses of the Mind, which I have. Based on VoM, I think Dawkins's argument is based on his personal dislike of religion more than anything else :(

Re: Greg Paul. <grumble>Is being tl;dr a condition of acceptance in social science papers? Argh.</grumble>

(Oh, yes, that was a disclaimer. I read the abstract, skimmed the methods and looked at table 1, and that was my reading of the paper, so grain of salt, yadda yadda ;))

In any case, the gist of my reaction was correlation != causation.

You say you disagree with Paul's "assertion that religion is directly opposed to improvements in living circumstances."

I think that's precisely the point. Based on a bunch of correlations, increased secularisation could just as easily be the effect of improvement as the cause. If Paul addresses this in the majority of the paper that I didn't read, I'd love to hear about it.
keesey Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2009
Even if Islam is more prone to terrorism and suicide bombing, it doesn't follow that it's more prone to bad behavior. (And ask any Irish person about Christian terrorism.) Christianity is skewed toward other types of bad behavior and better at covering its tracks. (Ask half of all American altar boys.)

One of the tricky matters is distinguishing between the effects specifically of a religion from the effects of the culture at large. Take the Iraq War, for example, where the U.S. (primarily Christian) attacked Iraq (primarily Muslim) without warrant. The ostensible reason was fear of "weapons of mass destruction". But the claim that Iraq had WMDs was baseless. (The U.S., on the other hand, has had them for decades.) Why were people so eager to hop on the war bandwagon? Was it religious hatred, reignited by the fresh memory of 9/11? Was it simple racism? Or just politics? Hard to sort out.
Agahnim Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2009
Well, the war against Iraq was another example of (mostly) Christian violence that had been ordered by a single authority (the U.S. government in this case.) As I said in the original post, I don’t think situations like this are as accurate a measure of the degree to which any religion can cause violence, because they’re often the result of something that was ordered by just one person or a group of people who are in positions of power, with everyone else following behind them blindly. I think it’s safe to assume that most of the people who have fought in the Iraq war have been motivated just by their government’s orders, rather than by their religion itself.

In any case, I don’t really have an opinion about whether Christianity is overall “better” than Islam; my point was just about Islam being more prone to causing violence, as a demonstration of how religions can differ in their costs. I think the major distinction in terms of overall value is probably between sects/denominations within each religion. For example, I was raised as an evangelical protestant, which is a denomination that placed a lot of importance on both what people believed and how they lived, while ostracizing anyone who didn’t conform to these standards. I think this negative tendency is probably enough to outweigh any benefits that can be gained from the denomination. (It certainly was in my case.) On the other hand, certain other Christian denominations such as Quakerism are (in my experience) primarily founded on the concept of community, while placing less of an emphasis on controlling the lives or beliefs of their members. This is an example of a denomination that I think can provide the psychological benefits of religion while avoiding most of its costs.

Thanks for finally commenting here, by the way. What do you think about my general opinion regarding Greg Paul’s conclusions, which is that religion in general is not always opposed to improvement in living conditions?
kingtut98 Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2009  Hobbyist General Artist
I thought The God Delusion was kind of a fun read, but it seemed much like an extended, proof-read YouTube comment.

I think the Christian/Islamic violence point is a poor one. It's very short-sighted to assume that religion is the only factor contributing to religious violence. I don't have any figures to support this, but I strongly suspect that acts of violence motivated by either Islam or Christianity occur more frequently in areas affected by war or political problems than in areas with a good quality of life. Using global populations of Christians and Muslims fails to take this into account.
Agahnim Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2009
If Islamic violence is mostly the result of political instability in Islamic countries, how do you explain it occurrence in countries where this isn’t the case? Even though Al-Qaeda is “based” in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a lot of its attacks have been performed in Western countries by local cells operating there, which presumably aren’t subjected to the same political strife that exists in the middle east. The international rioting in response to the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten also wasn’t limited to traditionally Islamic countries; it also occurred among Islamic immigrants in Europe.
Sinande Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2009
"If Islamic violence is mostly the result of political instability in Islamic countries, how do you explain it occurrence in countries where this isn’t the case?"

To what extent do Islamic immigrants identify with their country of origin? I don't think it's a good assumption that they don't, and even if they burned their bridges, there could be a lot of hidden hurts at work. Luckily, I've never experienced negative discrimination or prejudice in my three years in the UK, but I'm European and few people seem to know where Hungary is, let alone have an opinion of it. Is the same true for black or Arabic immigrants? Right, political instability may not explain the cases you mention, but you can't simply jump to the conclusion that it was Islam either.

I guess "it looks much more complicated than that" is all I'm saying...
kingtut98 Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2009  Hobbyist General Artist
I'd argue that the attacks in Western countries were motivated by political situations elsewhere. But my point was more related to the use of statistics. Using global populations of Christians and Muslims doesn't take into account their uneven distribution across the globe. You could use similar statistics to claim that being Christian makes one less vulnerable to drought.

The riots related to those cartoons are a much better example, since there's a clear religious motivation. However, I notice you say "Islamic immigrants" specifically. I suspect that some of the source of the outrage over the cartoons could be considered more cultural than religious (an issue that keesey also seems to have spotted).

After all, it would be easy to claim that both religions are exceedingly violent given their brutal punishments for seemingly minor offences. A quick read through Leviticus should give plenty of examples. I'm sure there's no shortage in the Koran, either. It seems like the best way of deciding how violent a religion is without getting culture involved would be to look at its teaching directly (in this case through the holy books). Of course, that would still have its problems- a lot of Christians probably consider Christmas trees to be a part of Christianity, but the tradition doesn't turn up in the Bible at all.
Agahnim Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2009
I don’t think just looking at the religious texts is an accurate way of judging this, because there’s more to any religion than what its religious text teaches. Leviticus is a fairly good example of how this is the case, because almost all modern Christians (even fundamentalist types) consider the laws in that book to be specific to ancient Israel, so that they don’t need to be strictly followed anymore. This interpretation isn’t just based on wishful thinking, either; there are some parts of the New Testament which definitely suggest that this is intended to be the case.

Even if the holy texts of two religions condone violence to the same degree, if one religion tends to take this text more literally than the other does, that religion is going to tend to be more violent as a result. That’s why I think the only way this can be judged is by looking at each religion’s behavior.
kingtut98 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
I don't think only using the texts would be all that accurate either (which is what I was getting at with the Christmas tree thing), but the behaviour of people following those religions will often be influenced by culture, too. It's always going to be difficult to work out where the religion ends and the culture begins.

For the Leviticus example, since the "he who is without sin may cast the first stone" bits are actually recorded in the Bible too, it's not really a matter of Christianity being less violent in practice than as instructed in the Bible.

You'd surely have to wonder why one religion would take violent instructions in its text more literally than the other. If the answer isn't in the text itself, then it could be due to the culture the religion developed or is practised in.

If two identical religious texts were followed in two different cultures, would you expect to see identical behaviour?
Agahnim Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2010
If the same religious text were followed in two different cultures, I would expect different behavior to result because each culture would interpret the text differently. But I would consider the differing interpretations to be a religious difference, not just a cultural one.

I think part of the reason for our disagreement here is because I’m defining “religion” to include more than you are. When the leaders of a certain religion teach that certain parts of their religion’s holy text are meant to be taken non-literally (such as the Roman Catholic Church’s position that evolution is true, and that the first few chapters of Genesis are non-literal) you seem to consider that a cultural factor, while I consider it another aspect of the religion. I don’t think it makes sense to define religion in a way that excludes things like this, because they’re the main cause of differences between sects or denominations. Almost all Christian denominations believe the Bible; the main reason for the differences between their beliefs is how they interpret it.

Do you agree that when two denominations/sects interpret the same religious text differently, that should be considered a religious difference?
kingtut98 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
That's a fair point. However, I was trying to point out that relying solely on the religious texts is the only way of eliminating any cultural causes for religiously motivated behaviour (going back to my point that comparing the entire population of Christians to the entire population of Muslims doesn't take into account non-religious factors). I'm not saying that everything within a religious text is religion and that everything outside is culture. I'm saying that everything within a religious text is religion and that things outside of the religious text can be religious or cultural (or a combination of the two).

In answer to your question, I think that it depends on whether the difference in interpretation is the cause or result of that division. As an example, imagine that there is a religious text that can be interpreted as forbidding people to eat coconuts. If the differing interpretations result in one sect that believes it is acceptable to eat coconuts, and one sect that does not, then I think difference is religious.

However, if coconuts are vital as food for some of the followers, then they might eat them out of necessity and take the "it's fine to eat coconuts" interpretation out of convenience. This would separate them from a sect that does not believe eating coconuts to be acceptable. In this case, I think there is at least an element of culture involved, as the culture has influenced the interpretation.
EWilloughby Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2010  Professional General Artist
When you take into account the fact that the New Testament of the Bible repeals a lot of the seemingly ridiculous rules from the Old Testament, indicating that they applied exclusively to ancient Israel, I think it's pretty clear that the Koran is considerably more violence-oriented than the Bible.

Here's a website that presents a lot of quotes from the Koran that indicate that violence is tolerated and encouraged in the Muslim people. [link] I haven't read the whole Koran, though, so I can't say whether there's something later on that goes against these quotes, as there is in the Bible. Usually when Muslims are arguing against the Koran encouraging violence, they're not citing other parts of the Koran that indicate otherwise, they're focusing on differing translations (like the meaning of a particular word).
Add a Comment:

:icondomain-of-darwin: More from Domain-of-Darwin

More from DeviantArt


Submitted on
December 29, 2009