Christianity is obviously conservative, but why? (By conservative, I mean “believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society,” as defined by Merriam-Webster.)

On one hand, it’s obvious why a religion would be conservative. Religions preserve a particular social order. They’re like many other institutions or movements that want constancy in a particular area of society like the Freemasons or other fraternal organizations, the National Wildlife Federation or other nature conservation organizations, a constitution, proponents of a traditional language or culture, labor unions, and so on.

A religion like Christianity has a particular need to be conservative and reject new ideas since they already have the perfect plan given by a perfect source.

On the other hand, Christianity in many ways welcomes change. Many Christians feel free to declare other church leaders or traditions to be heretical. Christianity is the opposite of conservative when you consider its 45,000 denominations, which are expected to grow to 70,000 by 2050. But then every new denomination becomes a stake in the ground, a conservative position that must be defended, a hill to die on.

The fact is that social improvement comes from change. Slavery in the U.S. was allowed, and now it’s not. Polygamy was allowed, and now it’s not. Voting and other civil rights were not given to women and certain classes of people, and now they are. Western society is satisfied that these issues are now resolved for the better.

Where does social change come from?

I’ll grant that Christianity can’t embrace every crazy new social fad. But Christianity isn’t an ordinary institution. It’s supposed to be the one that comes from God. It should be perfect. So it should know what the correct moral response is. It should be leading the parade and giving us the bitter but necessary medicine to make society a better place on a dozen important issues.

But it doesn’t work that way. Why does the church make no moral commands that we moderns find shockingly advanced? The shocking thing is when their heel-dragging response is too backwards, making the Bible look no more divinely sourced than any another ancient book.

Imagine our descendants in a future society. They will probably have adopted additional social changes. For example, they might be horrified at the thought of our raising animals to kill and eat. Whatever these changes are, can you imagine Christianity driving the change? It never has in the past. Give me one example where Christianity led a reluctant society through a social change that is now almost universally accepted.

Take the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia. The court was way ahead of public opinion and ruled unanimously to strike down all laws against mixed-race marriage, even though at the time, 72 percent of the public disapproved of such marriages. Where is the equivalent leadership from Christianity?

I’m sure the institution of slavery will spring to mind for some readers (William Wilberforce and all that), but Old Testament slavery was the same as American slavery, and the Bible gives more support for the slave owner than the abolitionist. If any other counterexamples come to mind, I’ll also want to see that (1) Jesus unambiguously advocated for this position and (2) the early church advocated for this position. Rejection of slavery or polygamy? Prohibition? Civil rights for minorities, immigrants, and women? Education rather than work for children? Laws against mixed-race marriages? Why did society have to inform the church the correct path on these issues?

Rev. Martin Luther King complained about this problem in 1963 in his “Letter From Birmingham Jail.”

So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice.

Christian response

I’ve heard several Christian responses.

1. Christians and Christian movements have been the drivers of change on many of these issues!

Christians and Christian movements have been on both sides of these issues, giving no clear Christian position. We don’t see clear guidance from Jesus, and these are modern concerns, not ones that the Christian church understood since its earliest days.

Take one specific example, the U.S. Equal Pay Act of 1963 that abolished pay differences based on sex. Even if there were radical Christians advocating for it primarily for biblical reasons, that’s not what we’re looking for. There was no unified voice pushing for this from Christians and their churches, raising the issue when the majority of society didn’t even know there was a problem. That’s what you’d need if you were to argue that Christianity did indeed have the one correct moral viewpoint.

The major social changes we’ve touched on—abolition, civil rights, and so on—happened more than a thousand years after the early church. The push for change often came from Christians, but these Christians weren’t simply pointing out truths that were plainly in the Bible all along. Christians advocating for change on these issues were not acting as students of the Bible; rather, they were products of the Enlightenment and modernity.

2. Perhaps Old Testament morality and modern morality are both right. God might simply be waiting for us to mature so that we can accept more demanding moral standards.

This argument is just an attempt to explain away the immorality we find in the Old Testament (here, here, here).

Yet again, I’m looking for evidence of the church on the cutting edge of social change. For example, imagine that the Baptist Church declared slavery immoral long before all Americans were ready for it, and then all other denominations quickly supported that position. (History records that the Quaker church was a vocal opponent to slavery in the late 1600s, but it was a voice in the wilderness. The Baptist church split over the issue of slavery, and the Southern Baptist Church apologized for its origin as the pro-slavery Baptists only in 1995.)

Same-sex marriage will be an interesting example to watch. Opponents of SSM say that their church’s rejection is justified, just like supporters of the Catholic Church will say that its stand against contraception is justified. But this isn’t social change, it’s just social conservativism.

I predict that in a couple of decades, SSM will be accepted and uncontroversial. Churches will point to the bold few Christian martyrs who supported it in the early days, trying to recast history to show their church as a pioneer. But we return to the question, why did the church not lead the charge? Why is the church conservative on social issues, not progressive?

Christianity tells us that it has the one correct worldview. This argument fails because Christianity is a fragmented battlefield with no unanimity on any social issue and because Christianity has never dragged a reluctant society into a new understanding on a social issue that is later accepted as correct. If it were the one correct religion, as Christianity claims to be, it would be leading the charge on every social issue.

See also: Is America the Greatest Country in the World? A Rant.

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 4/20/16.)

Image from zzclef (CC BY 2.0)

.

You might have seen a popular clip from the television series The Newsroom (2012 – 2014) where Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) is the anchor and managing editor of a news show. In the clip, McAvoy is part of a panel in front of a live audience.

McAvoy takes nothing seriously at first, but things get real at 1:36 in the video. Then at 2:30, in response to a softball question, “Why is America the greatest country in the world?” he says,

There’s absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we’re the greatest country in the world. We’re 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, number 4 in labor force, and number 4 in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next 26 countries combined, 25 of whom are allies.

McAvoy dismisses the pleasing answer and instead follows the evidence.

Inspired by this stream-of-consciousness speech, here’s the unhinged rant I’d like to hear from one of the politicians in the presidential race. There must be one who’s fed up with the status quo. To someone in a crowded political field who wants to go out with a bang, let me give you the first draft of your goodbye speech. If you can’t change the society by getting elected, maybe you can change it by giving it a kick in the ass.

☙

“When I consider those stats, I see government as a big part of the problem. There’s no backbone, no willingness to make the tough call and take the heat. Politicians fiddle while Rome burns. Take climate change—yes, reducing our carbon footprint is difficult, but aren’t we adults here? Can’t politicians do what’s right? Do their job? Make the tough decisions?

“The scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is plain enough, but there are political benefits to ignoring responsibility and leaving the mess for someone else. But put aside any controversy. Suppose climate change were real, humans were largely responsible, and all the evidence pointed there. Would political and business leaders then be ready to take the tough steps necessary to improve society? Of course not! Defiance on this issue would look just like it does today. ‘Lack of evidence’ is a smokescreen. Our leaders have become Bartelby—they’d ‘prefer not to.’

“There are 40 members of the House Science and Technology Committee. How many reject the scientific consensus on climate change, evolution, or the Big Bang? What I find incredible is that when political leaders reject science, they often aren’t shy about it. They publicly and proudly reject the consensus in a scientific field they don’t understand.

“Imagine what their political forebears in the wake of Sputnik would have said. Science delivered—indeed, it took us to the moon twelve years later. We followed science then, but we can pick and choose now? Let me suggest that competitive pressure from other countries, eager to capitalize on those poor educational stats, creates every bit of a Sputnik moment right now. We don’t have the luxury of appeasing science-averse special interests.

“Remember what JFK said about putting a man on the moon: ‘We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills.’ What is our Apollo program? Are there no more big projects to tackle? Do we no longer have the stomach for that kind of national challenge?

“After 9/11, an outraged America turned to President Bush, and we would’ve followed him anywhere. For example, he could’ve said that this attack highlighted our energy dependence on the Middle East, so we needed an Apollo Project for energy independence—practical solar power, safer nuclear power, maybe even fusion power. And while we’re at it, recreate the world’s energy industry with America in the middle of it again. But no, we had a trillion dollars lying around, so we spent it on a war. Opportunity missed.

“Conservatives hate big government, unless it’s an intrusive government that tells you who you can’t marry and what religious slogans to have in public buildings. They hate government spending, unless it’s on things they like, like the military or anything in their district.

“My conservative friends, I’ve got to comment on your priorities. You seriously put opposition to same-sex marriage near the top of your list? You’re standing in the way of marriage, two people who love each other. I can’t imagine a worse target to put in your crosshairs from a PR standpoint. What’s next—grandma and apple pie? Hate fags in private if you must, but you really need to think about how this looks to the rest of society.

“And just so I piss off everyone, let me note traditionally liberal nuttery like a mindless rejection of nuclear power and GMOs, fear of vaccines, and coddling of college students. You remember college, the place where you’re supposed to be challenged? Students at many colleges are encouraged to be thin skinned and easily offended. Being uncomfortable and off-balance sometimes is part of the learning process.

“Limiting offensive speech can be another liberal tendency. So a religious group is feeling put upon by frank criticism—tough. Ditto anyone who is offended by a religious sermon. I energetically support free speech for pastors saying that fags are evil and atheists deserve hell, because I use the same free speech right to argue how idiotic their positions are.

“Today we find ourselves in another interminable presidential campaign cycle. It’s a tedious and expensive chess game where candidates try to avoid saying anything interesting that might come back to bite them. Last time, this process cost over $2 billion. I’m sure any of us could’ve found smarter ways to spend 95 percent of that.

“Many candidates are eager to show America how pious they are. Some will brag about how they pray before major decisions or choose the Bible over science when they conflict. What’s the problem with America’s politicians? Last time I checked, there was just one openly nontheistic member of Congress. In science, religious belief decreases with competence, but we’re to believe that all but one of the 535 members of Congress are theists? Congratulations, Christianity—you’ve subverted Article 6 of the Constitution and imposed a de facto religious test for public office.

“To see how Congress likes to spend its time, there was a 2002 Ninth Circuit ruling declaring ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. In protest, the House assembled on the steps of the Capitol to publicly say the Pledge and loudly accentuate the ‘under God’ bit. Take that, First Amendment! Another example: we had a motto that fit America beautifully, E Pluribus Unum, but Congress replaced that with the one-size-fits-all ‘In God We Trust.’ I’ll bet that made God’s day.

“Congress always seems to be able to fit Christianity into its agenda. On the list of goodies religion has been given, the one that annoys me the most is closed financial records. The American public makes a contract with nonprofit organizations—we give them nonprofit status, and they open their books to prove that they spent the money wisely. That’s true for every charity in America except churches, and about $100 billion annually goes into religion’s black box. Want to find out if CARE or the Red Cross spend their donations wisely? You can find their IRS 990 form online in about 30 seconds, but don’t try the same thing with a church.

“You might say that churches fund soup kitchens and other good works. Sure, but how much is this? Maybe ten percent of their income? Or is two percent closer to the mark? Call churches ‘charities’ if you want, but these are charities with 90 percent overhead or more. Compare that to 10 percent for a well-run charity. Christians, don’t you see how bad this makes you look? You’re okay with God knowing what your churches do with their money, but you’re embarrassed to show the rest of us who are picking up the slack for your tax-free status. Christians should be shouting loudest to remove this perk.

“And let’s compare churches’ $10 billion a year of good works to what happens when society helps people. Federal programs for food, medical care, disability, and retirement spend about 1.5 trillion dollars annually. Government support for public schools and college is another half-trillion dollars. As a society, we do much good, and churches’ contribution is small change.

“Christianity in America has become more of a problem than a solution, though it wasn’t always so. Christians will point with justified pride to schools and hospitals built by churches or religious orders. The Social Gospel movement from a century ago pushed for corrections of many social ills—poverty and wealth inequality, alcoholism, poor schools, child labor, racism, poor living conditions, and more. Christians point to Rev. Martin Luther King’s work on civil rights and William Wilberforce’s Christianity-inspired work on ending slavery. But today, we hear about the Prosperity Gospel, not the Social Gospel.

“Can you imagine—Christians at the forefront of social improvement? They’re sometimes on the generous side of social issues today, but the headlines go to the conservative heel draggers.

“To see Christianity’s impact on society, consider some statistics: 46 percent of Americans believe in some form of the Genesis creation story, 22 percent think that the world will end in their lifetime, 77 percent believe in angels, and 57 percent of Republicans want Christianity as the national religion.

“This is the twenty-first century, my friends. When you open your mental drawbridge to allow in Christian wishful thinking, consider what other crazy stuff comes in as well. It also distorts our priorities, and the time spent wringing our hands over same-sex marriage or fighting to keep a Christian monument on public property is time we’re not spending on actual problems—international competitiveness, infrastructure like roads and bridges, campaign finance reform, improved education and health care, and so on.

“Christian morality is Bronze Age morality, which serves us poorly today. Christians scour the Bible for passages to support what they already believe. They might keep the verses against homosexuality, say, but reject those supporting racism, slavery, rape, and genocide. Christians celebrate faith, just about the least reliable route to the truth. And they’ll pray, thinking they’ve achieved some good, rather than actually doing something about a problem.

“We can agree to disagree—you have the right to believe in the supernatural, but know that in this country, the Constitution calls the shots, not God. Elected officials answer to the law, the Constitution, and their constituents. If you want to answer to a supernatural power that’s higher still, don’t run for public office. The Constitution defines a secular public square, and we’re stuck with it. Creationism and prayer stay out of public schools, and ‘In God We Trust’ stays out of the city council chambers. Though many Christians are determined not to see this, keeping religion out of government helps them as well as atheists.

“America the greatest country? There was a study comparing 17 Western countries, America included, on 25 social metrics—suicide, lifespan, divorce, teen births, alcohol consumption, life satisfaction, and so on. We were dead last for more than half of those 25. But who cares when we were number one in God belief, prayer, belief in heaven and hell, and rejection of evolution!

“Remember this next time some conservative politician or pundit tells you that society is going downhill because of lack of God belief or no school prayer. No, God belief is inversely correlated with social health.

“Another way society is broken is in income disparity. I love capitalism, but c’mon—there’s a limit. To get a condensed introduction to this, look up ‘Gini coefficient.’ It’s a single value that captures an economy’s income inequality. It was constant for decades, but it shows that U.S. income inequality has become steadily worse over the last thirty years.

“Another look at income disparity is the pay of top company’s CEOs. Americans think CEOs make 30 times more than the average worker. In fact, it’s ten times higher than that, which is a far higher disparity than that in any other country.

“Conservative politicians have gotten Christians protecting the status quo. Machiavelli would be proud, but is this really the society that Jesus would be pleased to see? Would Jesus be standing in the way of expanded health care? Would he be pro guns and pro death penalty? Would he be more concerned about first-term abortions, or would he be more concerned about the ten million children under five who die in the Third World every year? Perhaps you’ve forgotten the Jesus we’re talking about—he’s the one who said, ‘What you have done to the least of these brothers and sisters of mine you have done to me.’

“Christians, politicians are leading you around by the nose. They assure you that the sky is falling so you’ll rally around, but they have no incentive to solve problems. Solved problems mean no reason for voters to support them. Think for yourself.

“Look, I don’t have the solutions. As with Cassandra, no one would much care if I did. But let me suggest some of the problems: religion that doesn’t know its place and politicians who don’t know their jobs.

“Does someone have to sacrifice their political career by doing their job? Making the tough call? Big deal—in decades past, Americans sacrificed their lives. Do the right thing. Make a decision you can look back on with pride. Maybe America will surprise you and actually pay attention. A politician doing the right thing, and damn the consequences? That would be newsworthy.”

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 10/21/15.)

Image from Beverly, public domain

Social conventions change. Think of examples where we look back on Western society past and shake our heads at how morally wrong they were. Slavery. Chopping off hands for stealing. Debtor’s prison. Workhouses. Slow public executions. Voting rights given to landowners only.

But does it end there?

A group of freethinking friends saw the James Randi biopic “Honest Liar,” and we were chatting afterwards. One person raised this question about how morality has changed and continues to do so. Let’s not imagine that we’ve got it all figured out. Though we’d like to think otherwise, our descendants will look back on our society and find their own examples of moral error.

So here’s the question (feel free to participate in the comments): What social attitude changes will happen this century such that future Americans will look back on us with bemusement or horror?

Prediction 1: sex!

Let me get you started with examples from our conversation. Paul had raised the question, and he predicted the widespread acceptance of both polyamory (having multiple romantic or sexual partners at a time) and polygamy (marriage with more than two partners) and that today’s views will seem prudish and backwards.

Yes, he’s saying that the conservatives’ prediction is right: from mixed-race marriage comes same-sex marriage, and that opens the floodgates to even more redefinition. (What they forget is that this isn’t new, since marriage has always been in flux.)

It’s interesting to imagine this evolution. In the past, we had one man and one woman, same race, the bride is treated like property and comes with a dowry, and with few restrictions on the bride. We’ve gotten past the racial restriction and are moving past the gender restriction, and Paul imagined loosening up the number restriction.

But note that this isn’t a Sexual Revolution free-for-all. There are new rules, and now the bride must be old enough, must consent, and must not be a close relative. Divorce is now allowed, marital rape is forbidden, both parties are legally equal, and so on.

Prediction 2: climate change

Scot anticipated that both policy makers and ordinary voters will universally accept human-caused climate change. People will be shocked and outraged that we had the evidence for climate change but fiddled while Rome burned. He illustrated it by imagining members of our future society shocked that someone would drive a 3000-pound car for fifteen minutes, spewing out carbon dioxide all the way, just to deliver a pizza.

Prediction 3: animal rights

My proposal was that synthetic meat will be widely available, and future society will look back on us with horror that we raised animals solely to be killed, butchered, and eaten. Today, we are outraged at the idea of clubbing baby seals for fur and at bays red with blood from Japanese dolphin kills, and our future selves will have the same revulsion at our killing cows for cheeseburgers.

Given the enormous environmental impact of livestock, they will also wonder why the financial argument wasn’t enough of a driver even if the moral one wasn’t.

Your turn

Which practice or attitude, customary today, will our descendants look back on with surprise or shock? Maybe they will be outraged that we had capital punishment or that euthanasia was illegal. Maybe they will shake their heads thinking back on when abortion was legal. Maybe they will laugh at our prudishness about sex on television but be disgusted at our appetite for violence. Maybe they will marvel that we let every bonehead vote for no better reason than that they were a citizen, with complete disregard to understanding of the issues and mental capability.

It doesn’t have to be a positive prediction—you might hate it but see it as inevitable anyway.

What do you think?

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 3/26/15.)

Image from Marlon Cureg, CC license

.

In part 1, we looked at the popular Christian notion that biblical slavery was a benign form of servitude, quite unlike American slavery. In fact, it turns out that they were almost identical.

Now, let’s look at a companion article from the Cold Case Christianity blog, “Why Would God Have Permitted Any Form of Servitude or Slavery?” Christian Jim Wallace tries to salvage God’s reputation despite his support of slavery.

What’s the big deal?

Let me again start with a positive observation. There’s a popular but flabby apologetic that Wallace didn’t appeal to. This argument says that the difficulties in our lives here on earth will count for nothing in the grand scheme of things. In other words, finite difficulties on earth ÷ an infinite afterlife in heaven = nothing to complain about. Paul said, “Our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.”

So you lived in barbaric conditions as a slave—big deal. A trillion years from now as you’re helping yourself to hors d’oeuvres at heaven’s all-you-can-eat buffet, that life will be an insignificant memory.

As our own appetizer, let’s dismantle this argument. Compare it with an analogous situation: you and I are arguing, and I get so frustrated that I punch you in the face. After a moment to collect myself, I realize that I’ve made a big mistake, so I offer you a million dollars in compensation. You accept and promise not to press criminal charges.

Yes, you’ve received overly generous compensation, but of course the injury was still morally wrong. Compensation acknowledges the injury; it doesn’t erase its existence.

The same is true for the fate God gives you. Trying to dilute the Problem of Evil (why would an all-good God permit the evil that we see all around us?) with the infinite time of heaven doesn’t get God out of his moral jam. He’s still responsible for the problem.

Spiritual sandpaper

Wallace begins his defense of God by arguing that hardship can improve us, using the analogy of sandpaper shaping wood. This doesn’t explain why some of us get growth-encouraging hardships while others get devastating hardships such as abusive relationships or devastating disease or injury. Hardship can improve, but it can also tear down.

And, of course, this simply presupposes God and selects the facts to support that conclusion rather than following the facts where they lead.

Slavery, according to Wallace, is spiritual sandpaper.

We mustn’t confuse God’s use of an institution to accomplish something good, with God’s approval of an institution as something inherently good. Even though slavery is not part of God’s heavenly plan . . . He does use human evil here on earth to accomplish his goals for all of us.

So God used slavery without approving of it? Let’s test that with another institution. The book of Proverbs admonishes merchants to use fair weights and measures—four separate times, in fact. For example, “The Lord detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him” (Prov. 20:23). Does this mean that God used the wicked institution of commerce without approving it? There’s no evidence to imagine this. A smart guy like God who spoke the very universe into existence, who drowned the world for its wickedness, and who demanded the death penalty for breaking his commandments wouldn’t feel shy about making his feelings known about human institutions. His regulation of commerce makes clear that he approves of it when correctly done, and his many rules about slavery—nicely documented in Wallace’s previous post—make clear that he approves of that, too.

The slavery question is no better dealt with in the New Testament.

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves. (1 Timothy 6:1–2)

I’m sure Wallace disapproves of slavery, and so do I, but there’s no justification for reading our own morality into the Bible. Let it speak for itself.

Societal vs. individual focus

Wallace tries another gambit. He argues that God’s focus is at the individual level, not the societal level. Sure, slavery was bad, but so what? Society’s problems aren’t on God’s radar.

God can (and has) used what is clearly evil at a societal level to accomplish something beneficial at an individual level.

But what’s “clearly evil”? We moderns agree that slavery is evil, but you’re reading your own morality into the Bible imagine that condemnation there.

Overturning slavery in the time of Jesus?

Wallace quotes Paul’s letter to Philemon, asking him to treat his returning slave with kindness. Wallace concludes,

The Bible does reflect God’s desire to seek the end of slavery, but it does so one heart at a time.

Huh? Of course it doesn’t! If God desired the end of slavery, he could just end slavery. Failing that, he could make clear in the Old Testament that he disapproves and that we should stop it. Failing that, his earthly representation as Jesus could make clear that he disapproves. Failing that, one of the epistle writers could make clear that he disapproves so the Bible could say at least something against slavery.

Fail. Don’t say that God doesn’t like slavery when there is no evidence for this. Don’t imagine your own morality coming from God, playing God like a sock puppet.

Wallace anticipates this:

The Roman Empire had 60 million slaves living amongst its citizenry. To call for an end of slavery in this culture and context would have resulted in mass murder and civil war.

God is magic, remember? If God wanted a different world—one with a healthy Roman economy not dependent on slavery, say—he could make it. To imagine God constrained by mankind’s social institutions is to imagine a puny God.

The shackles that hold God back

Wallace also asks us to “remember the cultural context of the ancient world.” But can God be constrained by the social conditions of the moment? God didn’t feel bound by the status quo when he introduced the Ten Commandments, with the death penalty backing most of them. Whether it was convenient or not for stick collection on the Sabbath to suddenly become a capital crime (Numbers 15:32–6) didn’t bother God.

It would be . . . unfair to judge God based on what we think God should do about slavery.

What do we do then? What do we make of this conflict between the obvious wrongness of slavery and the obvious support of slavery in the Bible? Should we just presuppose God and then figure that he has his own good reasons for acting in a way that, in any other situation, you’d call “immoral”? Or should we drop any special pleading and evaluate the Bible as we would any other claimed moral source? I’m certain Wallace wouldn’t take this approach to avoid critique of any other holy book.

The problem for Wallace is that if you evaluate the Bible, you’ll find no baby. It’s just bath water.

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 8/27/14.)

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Studies have compared believers and atheists on lots of issues—compassion, mental health, happiness, intelligence, quality of marriages, and even antidepressant consumption. I have little interest in the game where the Christian and atheist each present studies to show how their group is superior in this or that social category. My interest lies more in which worldview is more accurate.

Nevertheless, we often hear that Christianity leads to a better society—or, perhaps more often, that the loss of Christianity leads to a worse society. In this scenario, God is furious about our acceptance of homosexuals or abortion or whatever, so he allows the 9/11 attack or Hurricane Katrina or the latest school shootings.

But this is a claim that we can test.

Researcher Gregory Paul used public records of social metrics such as suicide, lifespan, divorce, alcohol consumption, and life satisfaction to compare 17 Western countries (the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, and 12 European countries). He concluded:

Of the 25 socioeconomic and environmental indicators, the most theistic and procreationist western nation, the U.S., scores the worst in 14 and by a very large margin in 8, very poorly in 2, average in 4, well or very well in 4, and the best in 1. . . .

Because the U.S. performs so poorly in so many respects, its cumulative score on the [Successful Societies Scale is lowest,] placing it as an outlier so dysfunctional relative to the other advanced democracies that some researchers have described it as “sick.” (p. 416)

The metrics in which the U.S. ranks worst out of the 17 countries are homicides, incarceration, under-5 mortality, gonorrhea, syphilis, abortions, teen births, marriage duration, income inequality, poverty, and hours worked.

But it’s #1 in God belief, prayer, belief in heaven and hell, and in rejection of evolution! That’s not much consolation to the Christian, however, because this study destroys the notion that religious belief is correlated with societal health.

What causes what?

Why do we find this correlation of secularism with social health? And in what direction should a society move to improve social health?

Conditions in America are decent in spite of the strong influence of Christianity, not because of it. From a related article by Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman, here are the secrets to making a secular society:

It is to be expected that in 2nd and 3rd world nations where wealth is concentrated among an elite few and the masses are impoverished that the great majority cling to the reassurance of faith.

Nor is it all that surprising that faith has imploded in most of the west. Every single 1st world nation that is irreligious shares a set of distinctive attributes. These include handgun control, anti-corporal punishment and anti-bullying policies, rehabilitative rather than punitive incarceration, intensive sex education that emphasizes condom use, reduced socio-economic disparity via tax and welfare systems combined with comprehensive health care, increased leisure time that can be dedicated to family needs and stress reduction, and so forth.

As a result the great majority enjoy long, safe, comfortable, middle class lives that they can be confident will not be lost due to factors beyond their control. It is hard to lose one’s middle class status in Europe, Canada and so forth, and modern medicine is always accessible regardless of income. Nor do these egalitarian cultures emphasize the attainment of immense wealth and luxury, so most folks are reasonably satisfied with what they have got. Such circumstances dramatically reduces peoples’ need to believe in supernatural forces that protect them from life’s calamities, help them get what they don’t have, or at least make up for them with the ultimate Club Med of heaven.

The U.S. is the anomaly among its peers. Why does its large, educated, comfortable middle class cling to belief in a supernatural creator? Paul and Zuckerman say that it’s because they are insecure: salaries and jobs are under pressure from companies eager to cut costs, health insurance is uncertain, social pressure to keep up with the Jones increases debt, and so on. A single extended illness can bankrupt a family.

They also reject the popular hypothesis that America’s separation of church and state has encouraged a vibrant mix of Christian denominations that have had to fight for market share, making a stronger Christianity. They cite Australia and New Zealand who both have a strong separation of church and state but far less religiosity.

What use is faith?

They conclude that a healthy society eliminates the need for faith.

Every time a nation becomes truly advanced in terms of democratic, egalitarian education and prosperity it loses the faith. It’s guaranteed. That is why perceptive theists are justifiably scared. In practical terms their only . . . hope is for nations to continue to suffer from socio-economic disparity, poverty and maleducation. That strategy is, of course, neither credible nor desirable. And that is why the secular community should be more encouraged. . . .

The religious industry simply lacks a reliable stratagem for defeating disbelief in the 21st century.

So perhaps many of us have it backwards. This is not a contest between religion and secularism that will determine the quality of society. Rather, the quality of society will determine whether religion or secularism will thrive. In a dysfunctional society, religion helps pick up the pieces, but in a society where life is secure, religion is unnecessary and withers away.

Do you want a religious society or a healthy one? You can’t have both.

Incredibly, I’m sure many American Christian leaders would happily choose a religious society over a healthy one.

Celebrate life: live better, help often, wonder more.
— Motto of the Sunday Assembly

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 1/6/14.)

Image credit: Peter Mooney, flickr, CC

Lifelong fans of the Mariners baseball team would be Red Sox fans if they’d grown up in Boston instead of Seattle. Tarheels fans would be Trojans fans if they had gone to USC instead of UNC. People who eat Frosted Flakes for breakfast would likely prefer fermented soybeans (natto) if they grew up in Japan instead of the U.S.
And believers who think that the truth of Christianity is obvious might think that about Islam if they grew up in Morocco or Afghanistan instead of Mississippi or Alabama.
Begging the pardon of sports fans, there is no objective measure that makes their home team the only valid one, with all others being poor imitations of the real thing. The same is true for religion.
Think of the similarities between religion and sports. Sports fans have rituals. They pray for their team. They proselytize for it. They feel an us-vs.-them rivalry with opposing fans, which builds their own community. They make pilgrimages to out-of-town games. Their passion for their team often begins in childhood. They wear clothes or headgear that identify them as fans of their team.
Why do people pick the religions that they pick? In fact, most don’t pick. They’re in effect assigned a religion by the randomness of their birth. They take on the religion of their parents or their community, like any other cultural trait such as customary food, dress, or etiquette.
Let’s not take this too far, however. Not everyone born in Mississippi is a Christian—atheist theologian Robert M. Price is an example. Not everyone raised as a Christian remains one—I’m an example. Adults can switch religions, though the numbers are tiny. Less than one percent of believers switched in from another religion. What best explains that people tend to take on the religion of their environment?
The atheist view is that all religions are manmade, but they’re sticky elements of culture. People tend to adopt these elements, but you’ll always have some outliers. In a culture where men wear neckties, a few will prefer bow ties. In Seattle where everyone supports the Seahawks football team, a few will be fans of the Cowboys. In a culture where one of the first questions after being introduced to someone new is, “And where do you go to church?” a few will be atheists.
The atheist says that religion is adopted because it’s a dominant cultural trait, not because it’s true.
The Christian view is much tougher to justify. Christians don’t want to discard this correlation because it helps explain why the other guy clings to his religion. Is the fact that there are a billion Muslims strong evidence that Islam is correct? Nope—their belief is just a cultural trait. With over a dozen countries having 98 percent or greater Muslim populations, being Muslim is just what you do when you grow up in a monoculture.
Christians say that Islam, Shinto, Buddhism, Hinduism, and most other religions are cultural traits that are false. But they need to explain why Christianity is actually true even though it looks just like all those false cultural traits.
Seeing religion as nothing more profound or objectively accurate than a cultural trait is the best explanation of the evidence.

Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed.
Everyone thinks he is so well supplied with it 
that even those who are the hardest to satisfy in every other respect 
never desire more of it than they already have.
— René Descartes

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 2/27/13.)
Image credit: Keith Parry, flickr, CC