I still stand by my point – it seems like there is no net benefit from religion, or at least not one strong enough to actually show, regarding the indicators of social welfare measured by the study (which aren’t in any way equivalent to the ‘crime rate’). This isn’t evidence of religion being damaging to society, but it does very clearly show that its beneficial effects, should they exist, are insignificant (or else, declining levels of religiosity would have to be correlated with a decline in social welfare, whereas just the opposite is found).
In regard to ITR Champion’s point, actually, that almost all of those countries have a strong Christian heritage only supports the study’s conclusion, since basically all of them are better of in most ways now that they are somewhat secularized – look at the continually rising life expectancy, for example.
Of course religion is bad for society. There are embedded memes from 2000 years ago in most of them that prevent or seriously slow the improvement of the quality of human life. (Examples: Catholics and birth control, Muslims and practically everything having to do with women.) Once you as a society dump them, it’s like shedding a couple of anvils.
I cited univerisities and hospitals as mere examples of the indirect influence of religion. Churches and ministries continue to establish schools, hospitals, soup kitchens, and the like, so you can’t just complain that they were all in the past.
The study in question fails to take any such considerations into account. It looks at a narrow aspect of society – the crime rate – and yet certain people are hasty to generalize based on this factor alone.
You might want to look at the title of this thread, which says “Religion demonstrably bad for America/society?” My point is that this question can NOT be answered using the study in question.
The text in question SUPPORTS my claim. It was not affiliated with any particular denomination, but it promoted Puritan philosophy. Bible teaching and praxis were at the center of Puritanism.
“But it never actually mentions Bible teaching!” one might object. That’s only a problem if you expect this brief excerpt from their website to spell out every single detail, especially since they have no vested interest in selling people on their religious roots.
For the sake of argument though, let’s pretend that Christianity has nothing to do with the origins of Harvard University. The point remains that people here have been quick to conclude that religion has had no net benefit to society, based on the narrow scope of the study mentioned in the OP. Heck, if the title of this thread is any indication, some even want to insinuate that religion has been detrimental overall. As I said, even if the study in question DID establish causation, it would fall far, far short of determining the overall effects of religion in general.
As an aside, it’s interesting to see how people will make sweeping generalizations about “religion,” acting as though all religious groups were fundamentally the same. There’s no attempt at drawing distinctions or recognizing nuances, no matter how severe the differences between the various religions may be. People get their underwear in an uproar at the mere perception that all atheists are being lumped together, but it’s apparently perfectly fine to make sweeping generalizations about “religion.”
Surely less than in the past though. In a society where church attendance and belief in god have massively fallen, I would expect that donations to religious organisations to have similarly fallen.
Actually, it looks at things like infant mortality, suicide rate and life expectancy – things that we might expect more hospital, school and even soup kitchen funding to help.
The title of the thread is an open question, and the OP is as careful as the rest of us have been not to draw any conclusion, other than that this survey appears to have found a corrolation.
My point was that you were constructing a straw man by paraphrasing others as saying “…Seems like religion might be damaging overall to society…”.
(Since I made my objection however, someone has joined this thread to argue a such a position).