[Paleopsych] Journal of Religion and Society: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Sun Oct 2 19:31:35 UTC 2005
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular
Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Journal of Religion and Society
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
[Creighton is a Roman Catholic Jesuit university, founded in Omaha in 1878.
First, an summary from the Times of London, to which Laird alerted me.]
NATIONS WITH GOD ON THEIR SIDE DO WORSE
RUTH GLEDHILL, TIMES, UK - Religious belief can cause damage to a
society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual
promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.
According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only
unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to
social problems. The study counters the view of believers that
religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of
a healthy society.
It compares the social performance of relatively secular countries,
such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator
rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in
the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it
inspires atheism and amorality.
Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that
religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to
lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and
abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been
described as its "spiritual capital". But the study claims that the
devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.
The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US
academic journal, reports: "Many Americans agree that their
churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the
hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the
prosperous democracies. The United States is almost always the most
dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so."
Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used
data from the International Social Survey Program, Gallup and other
research bodies to reach his conclusions. . .
The study concluded that the US was the world's only prosperous
democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least
devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates
of gonorrhea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than
in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from "
uniquely high" adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and
adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested. . .
He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared
with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian
countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing
murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and
abortion, he added.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html
-------------------
ISSN: 1522-5658
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular
Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
A First Look
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
Introduction
[1] Two centuries ago there was relatively little dispute over the
existence of God, or the societally beneficial effect of popular
belief in a creator. In the twentieth century extensive secularization
occurred in western nations, the United States being the only
significant exception (Bishop; Bruce; Gill et al.; Sommerville). If
religion has receded in some western nations, what is the impact of
this unprecedented transformation upon their populations? Theists
often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards
providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a
healthy, cohesive society. Many also contend that widespread
acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to
these goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet
to be published. That radically differing worldviews can have
measurable impact upon societal conditions is plausible according to a
number of mainstream researchers (Bainbridge; Barro; Barro and
McCleary; Beeghley; Groeneman and Tobin; Huntington; Inglehart and
Baker; Putman; Stark and Bainbridge). Agreement with the hypothesis
that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based
on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and
quality restricted to one population (Benson et al.; Hummer et al.;
Idler and Kasl; Stark and Bainbridge). A partial exception is given by
Barro and McCleary, who correlated economic growth with rates of
belief in the afterlife and church attendance in numerous nations
(while Kasman and Reid [2004] commented that Europe does not appear to
be suffering unduly from its secularization). It is surprising that a
more systematic examination of the question has not been previously
executed since the factors required to do so are in place. The
twentieth century acted, for the first time in human history, as a
vast Darwinian global societal experiment in which a wide variety of
dramatically differing social-religious-political-economic systems
competed with one another, with varying degrees of success. A
quantitative cross-national analysis is feasible because a large body
of survey and census data on rates of religiosity, secularization, and
societal indicators has become available in the prosperous developed
democracies including the United States.
[2] This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has
been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary
intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some
conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is
not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause
versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It
is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark
future research and debate on the issue.
The Belief that Religiosity is Socially Beneficial
[3] As he helped initiate the American experiment Benjamin Franklin
stated that "religion will be a powerful regulator of our actions,
give us peace and tranquility within our minds, and render us
benevolent, useful and beneficial to others" (Isaacson: 87-88). When
the theory of biological evolution removed the need for a supernatural
creator concerns immediately arose over the societal implications of
widespread abandonment of faith (Desmond and Moore; Numbers). In 1880
the religious moralist Dostoyevsky penned the famous warning that "if
God does not exist, then everything is permissible." Even so, in
Europe the issue has not been a driving focus of public and political
dispute, especially since the world wars.
[4] Although its proponents often claim that anti-evolution
creationism[1]<1> is scientific, it has abjectly failed in the
practical realms of mainstream science and hi-tech industry (Ayala et
al.; Crews; Cziko; Dawkins, 1996, 1997; Dennett; Gould; Koza et al.;
L. Lane; Miller; Paul and Cox; Shanks; Wise; Young and Edis). The
continuing popularity of creationism in America indicates that it is
in reality a theistic social-political movement partly driven by
concerns over the societal consequences of disbelief in a creator
(Forrest and Gross; Numbers). The person most responsible for
politicizing the issue in America, evangelical Christian W. J.
Bryan,[2]<2> expressed relatively little interest in evolution until
the horrors of WW I inspired him to blame the scientific revolution
that invented chemical warfare and other modern ills for "preaching
that man has a brute ancestry and eliminating the miraculous and the
supernatural from the Bible" (Numbers: 178).
[5] In the United States many conservative theists consider
evolutionary science a leading contributor to social dysfunction
because it is amoral or worse, and because it inspires disbelief in a
moral creator (Colson and Pearcey; Eve and Harrold; Johnson; Numbers;
Pearcey; Schroeder). The original full title for the creationist
Discovery Institute was the Discovery Institute for the Renewal of
Science and Culture (a title still applied to a division), and the
institute's mission challenges "materialism on specifically scientific
grounds" with the intent of reversing "some of materialism's
destructive cultural consequences." The strategy for achieving these
goals is the "wedge" strategy to insert intelligent design creationism
into mainstream academe and subsequently destroy Darwinian science
(Johnson; Forrest and Gross note this effort is far behind schedule).
The Discovery Institute and the less conservative, even more lavishly
funded pro-theistic Templeton Foundation fund research into the
existence and positive societal influence of a creator (Harris et al.;
Holden). In 2000 the Discovery Institute held a neocreationist seminar
for members of Congress (Applegate). Politically and socially powerful
conservatives have deliberately worked to elevate popular concerns
over a field of scientific and industrial research to such a level
that it qualifies as a major societal fear factor. The current House
majority leader T. Daley contends that high crime rates and tragedies
like the Columbine assault will continue as long schools teach
children "that they are nothing but glorified apes who have
evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup of mud" (DeLay and
Dawson). Today's leaders of the world's largest Christian
denomination, the Catholic Church, share a dim view of the social
impact of evolution. In his inauguration speech, Benedict XVI lauded
the benefits of belief in a creator and contended, "we are not some
casual and meaningless product of evolution." A leading church cleric
and theologian (Schonborn) proclaimed that "the overwhelming evidence
for purpose and design" refutes the mindless creation of Darwinian
natural selection (also Dean, Dean and Goodstein).
[6] Agreement with the hypothesis that popular religiosity is
societally advantageous is not limited to those opposed to
evolutionary science, or to conservatives. The basic thesis can be
held by anyone who believes in a benign creator regardless of the
proposed mode of creation, or the believer's social-political
worldview. In broad terms the hypothesis that popular religiosity is
socially beneficial holds that high rates of belief in a creator, as
well as worship, prayer and other aspects of religious practice,
correlate with lowering rates of lethal violence, suicide,
non-monogamous sexual activity, and abortion, as well as improved
physical health. Such faith-based, virtuous "cultures of life" are
supposedly attainable if people believe that God created them for a
special purpose, and follow the strict moral dictates imposed by
religion. At one end of the spectrum are those who consider creator
belief helpful but not necessarily critical to individuals and
societies. At the other end the most ardent advocates consider persons
and people inherently unruly and ungovernable unless they are strictly
obedient to the creator (as per Barna; Colson and Pearcey; Johnson;
Pearcey; Schroeder). Barro labels societal advantages that are
associated with religiosity "spiritual capital," an extension of
Putman's concept of "social capital." The corresponding view that
western secular materialism leads to "cultures of death" is the
official opinion of the Papacy, which claims, "the proabortion culture
is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on
contraception is rejected" (John Paul II). In the United States
popular support for the cultural and moral superiority of theism is so
extensive that popular disbelief in God ranks as another major
societal fear factor.
[7] The media (Stepp) gave favorable coverage to a report that
children are hardwired towards, and benefit from, accepting the
existence of a divine creator on an epidemiological and
neuro-scientific basis (Benson et al.). Also covered widely was a
Federal report that the economic growth of nations positively responds
to high rates of belief in hell and heaven.[3]<3> Faith-based
charities and education are promoted by the Bush administration[4]<4>
and religious allies and lobbies as effective means of addressing
various social problems (Aronson; Goodstein). The conservative Family
Research Council proclaims, "believing that God is the author of life,
liberty and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as
the basis for a just, free and stable society." Towards the liberal
end of the political spectrum presidential candidate Al Gore supported
teaching both creationism and evolution, his running mate Joe
Leiberman asserted that belief in a creator is instrumental to "secure
the moral future of our nation, and raise the quality of life for all
our people," and presidential candidate John Kerry emphasized his
religious values in the latter part of his campaign.
[8] With surveys showing a strong majority from conservative to
liberal believing that religion is beneficial for society and for
individuals, many Americans agree that their church-going nation is an
exceptional, God blessed, "shining city on the hill" that stands as an
impressive example for an increasingly skeptical world. But in the
other developing democracies religiosity continues to decline
precipitously and avowed atheists often win high office, even as
clergies warn about adverse societal consequences if a revival of
creator belief does not occur (Reid, 2001).
Procedures and Primary Data Sources
[9] Levels of religious and nonreligious belief and practice, and
indicators of societal health and dysfunction, have been most
extensively and reliably surveyed in the prosperous developed
democracies ([5]Figures 1-9). Similar data is often lacking for second
and third world nations, or is less reliable. The cultural and
economic similarity of the developing democracies minimizes the
variability of factors outside those being examined. The approximately
800 million mostly middle class adults and children act as a massive
epidemiological experiment that allows hypotheses that faith in a
creator or disbelief in evolution improves or degrades societal
conditions to be tested on an international scale. The extent of this
data makes it potentially superior to results based on much smaller
sample sizes. Data is from the 1990s, most from the middle and latter
half of the decade, or the early 2000s.
[10] Data sources for rates of religious belief and practice as well
as acceptance of evolution are the 1993 Environment I (Bishop) and
1998 Religion II polls conducted by the International Social Survey
Program (ISSP), a cross-national collaboration on social science
surveys using standard methodologies that currently involves 38
nations. The last survey interviewed approximately 23,000 people in
almost all (17) of the developing democracies; Portugal is also
plotted as an example of a second world European democracy. Results
for western and eastern Germany are combined following the regions'
populations. England is generally Great Britain excluding Northern
Ireland; Holland is all of the Netherlands. The results largely agree
with national surveys on the same subjects; for example, both ISSP and
Gallup indicate that absolute plus less certain believers in a higher
power are about 90% of the U.S. population. The plots include Bible
literalism and frequency of prayer and service attendance, as well as
absolute belief in a creator, in order to examine religiosity in terms
of ardency, conservatism, and activities. Self-reported rates of
religious attendance and practice may be significantly higher than
actual rates (Marler and Hadaway), but the data is useful for relative
comparisons, especially when it parallels results on religious belief.
The high rates of church attendance reported for the Swiss appear
anomalous compared to their modest levels of belief and prayer.
[11] Data on aspects of societal health and dysfunction are from a
variety of well-documented sources including the UN Development
Programme (2000). Homicide is the best indicator of societal violence
because of the extremity of the act and its unique contribution to
levels of societal fear, plus the relatively reliable nature of the
data (Beeghley; Neapoletan). Youth suicide (WHO) was examined in order
to avoid cultural issues related to age and terminal illness. Data on
STDs, teen pregnancy and birth (Panchaud et al.; Singh and Darroch)
were accepted only if the compilers concluded that they were not
seriously underreported, except for the U.S. where under reporting
does not exaggerate disparities with the other developing democracies
because they would only close the gaps. Teen pregnancy was examined in
a young age class in which marriage is infrequent. Abortion data
(Panchaud et al.) was accepted only from those nations in which it is
as approximately legal and available as in the U.S. In order to
minimize age related factors, rates of dysfunction were plotted within
youth cohorts when possible.
[12] Regression analyses were not executed because of the high
variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors
for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the
purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal
link between religion and social conditions. Nor were multivariate
analyses used because they risk manipulating the data to produce
errant or desired results,[6]<5> and because the fairly consistent
characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes the need to
correct for external multiple factors (see further discussion below).
Therefore correlations of raw data are used for this initial
examination.
Results
[13] Among the developing democracies absolute belief in God,
attendance of religious services and Bible literalism vary over a
dozenfold, atheists and agnostics five fold, prayer rates fourfold,
and acceptance of evolution almost twofold. Japan, Scandinavia, and
France are the most secular nations in the west, the United States is
the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity
otherwise limited to the second and third worlds (Bishop; PEW).
Prosperous democracies where religiosity is low (which excludes the
U.S.) are referred to below as secular developing democracies.
[14] Correlations between popular acceptance of human evolution and
belief in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative
([7]Figure 1). The least religious nation, Japan, exhibits the highest
agreement with the scientific theory, the lowest level of acceptance
is found in the most religious developing democracy, the U.S.
[15] A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in
Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all
secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen
homicide rates drop to historical lows ([8]Figure 2). The especially
low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise
due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not
consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and
Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the
1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that
retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard
(Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates
of homicides well above the secular developing democracy norm. Mass
student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since
the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School
Safety Center) than all the secular developing democracies combined.
Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in
rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley;
Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this
regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide
(WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in
the prosperous democracies ([9]Figure 3). The positive correlation
between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable,
especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer ([10]Figure 4).
Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise ([11]Figure
5), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only
exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by
Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious
affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower
juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.[12]<6>
[16] Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been
curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et
al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three
hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution
secular developing democracies ([13]Figure 6). At all ages levels are
higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also
suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection
rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe's resistance
increases ([14]Figure 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly
eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent
abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and
worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing
non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high
in the U.S. ([15]Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate
abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the
quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped
in the developing democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but
rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline
has been more modest ([16]Figure 9). Broad correlations between
decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with
Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions. Darroch et
al. found that age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners and
similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a
consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled,
including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual practices in France
and the U.S. observed little difference except that the French tend -
contrary to common impression - to be somewhat more conservative
(Gagnon et al.).
Discussion
[17] The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between
absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the
lack of a significant religious revival in any developing democracy
where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies
can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with
evolutionary science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical. By
removing the need for a creator evolutionary science made belief
optional. When deciding between supernatural and natural causes is a
matter of opinion large numbers are likely to opt for the latter.
Western nations are likely to return to the levels of popular
religiosity common prior to the 1900s only in the improbable event
that naturalistic evolution is scientifically overturned in favor of
some form of creationist natural theology that scientifically verifies
the existence of a creator. Conversely, evolution will probably not
enjoy strong majority support in the U.S. until religiosity declines
markedly.
[18] In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the
prosperous democracies ([17]Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous
democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin
predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional
of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost
always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a "shining city on the
hill" to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic
measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the
general trend because there is not a significant relationship between
it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have
combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high
rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of
human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and
the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None
of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing
high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly
religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from
less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developing
democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded,
sometimes outstandingly so.
[19] If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal
health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the
opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to
national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means
utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to
govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data
examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular,
pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come
closest to achieving practical "cultures of life" that feature low
rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related
dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developing
democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most
successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution
democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good
conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.
The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal
disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions
requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal
conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a
doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.
Conclusion
[20] The United States' deep social problems are all the more
disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth
among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN
Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much
higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third
to two or more, than in any other developing democracy (UN Development
Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient
western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and
physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent,
and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus
effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social
conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped
that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will
inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions
include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the
exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a
much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less
wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve
superior societal health while having little in the way of the
religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the
U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of
evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal
dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west
having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy,
marital and related problems than the northeast where societal
conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach
European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the
responsibility of the research community to address controversial
issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies
need to chart their future courses.
Figures ([18]return)
Indicators of societal dysfunction and health as functions of
percentage rates of theistic and non-theistic belief and practice in
17 first world developed democracies and one second world democracy.
ISSP questions asked: I know God really exists and I have no doubt
about it = absolutely believe in God; 2-3 times a month + once a week
or more = attend religious services at least several times a month;
several times a week - several times a day = pray at least several
times a week; the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be
taken literally, word for word = Bible literalists; human beings
[have] developed from earlier species of animals = accept human
evolution; I don't know whether there is a God and I don't believe
there is a way to find out + I don't believe in God = agnostics and
other atheists.
[19]Figure 1
[20]Figure 2
[21]Figure 3
[22]Figure 4
[23]Figure 5
[24]Figure 6
[25]Figure 7
[26]Figure 8
[27]Figure 9
Legend
A = Australia
C = Canada
D = Denmark
E = Great Britain
F = France
G = Germany
H = Holland
I = Ireland
J = Japan
L = Switzerland
N = Norway
P = Portugal
R = Austria
S = Spain
T = Italy
U = United States
W = Sweden
Z = New Zealand
Bibliography
Abma, Joyce, Gladys Martinez, William Mosher and Brittany Dawson
2004 "Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive
Use, and Childbearing, 2002, National Center for Health Statistics."
Vital Health Statistics 23 (24).
Applegate, David
2000 "Anti-evolutionists Open a New Front." Reports of the National
Center for Science Education 20[1-2]: 6-7.
Aral, Sevgi and King Holmes.
1996 "Social and Behavioral Determinants of the Epidemiology of STDs:
Industrialized and Developing Countries." Pp. 39-76 in Sexually
Transmitted Diseases. Third Edition. Edited by K. Holmes et al. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Aronson, Raney
2004 "The Jesus Factor." Frontline, PBS.
Ayala, Francisco et al.
1999 Science and Creationism. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Bainbridge, William
2004 "Religion and Science." Futures 36: 1009-23.
Barcley, Gordon and Cynthia Tavares
2003 International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2001.
[28]http://www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf.
Barna
2003 "A Biblical Worldview has a Radical Effect on a Person's Life."
Barna Research Online. http://www.barna.org.
Barro, Robert
2004 "Spirit of Capitalism: Religion and Economic Development."
Harvard International Review 25 (4).
Barro, Robert and Rachel McCleary
2003 "Religion and Economic Growth Across Countries." American
Sociological Review 68: 760-81.
Beeghley, Leonard
2003 Homicide: A Sociological Explanation. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Benson, Peter et al.
2004 "Hardwired to Connect: The New Scientific Case for Authoritative
Communities." [29]http://www.americanvalues.org/html/hardwired.html.
Bishop, George
1999 "What Americans Really Believe, and Why Faith Isn't as Universal
as They Think." Free Inquiry 19(3): 38-42.
Bruce, Steve
2001 "Christianity in Britain, R. I. P." Sociology of Religion 61:
191-203.
Cha, Kwang, Daniel Wirth and Rogerio Lobo
2001 "Does Prayer Influence the Success of in Vitro Fertilization
Transfer? Report of a Masked, Randomized Trial." Journal of
Reproductive Medicine 46: 781-87.
Colson, Charles and Nancy Pearcey
2001 Developing a Christian Worldview of Science and Evolution.
Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.
Crews Frederick
2001 "Saving Us from Darwin. The New York Review of Books 10/4: 24-27
& 10/18: 51-55.
Cziko, Gary
1995 Without Miracles: Universal Selection Theory and the Second
Darwinian Revolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Darroch, Jacqueline et al.
2001 "Differences in Teenage Pregnancy Rates Among Five Developed
Countries: The Roles of Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use. Family
Planning Perspectives 33: 244-50.
Dawkins, Richard
1996 The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton.
1997 "Obscurantism to the Rescue." Quarterly Review of Biology 72:
397-99.
Dean, Cornelia
2005 "Scientists Ask Pope For Clarification On Evolution Stance." The
New York Times 6/13: A18.
Dean, Cornelia and Laurie Goodstein
2005 "Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution: Evolution
Yes, Darwin No." The New York Times 6/9: A1, A11.
DeLay, Thomas and Addison Dawson
1999 Congressional Record 6/16, H4366.
Dennett, Daniel
1995 Darwin's Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Desmond, Adrian and James Moore
1991 Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist. New York: W. W.
Norton.
Doyle, Rodger
2000 "The Roots of Homicide." Scientific American 283 (3): 22.
2002 "Quality of Life." Scientific American 286 (4): 32.
Eve, Raymond and Francis Harrold
1991 The Creationist Movement in Modern America. Boston: Twayne.
Family Research Council
2005 "About FRC". [30]http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC.
Farrington, David and Patrick Langan
1998 Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.
Flamm, Bruce
2004 "The Columbia University `Miracle' Study: Flawed and Fraud."
Skeptical Inquirer 28 (5): 25-31.
2005 "The Bizarre Columbia University `Miracle' Saga Continues."
Skeptical Inquirer 29 (2): 52-53.
Forrest, Barbara and Paul Gross.
2004 Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frank, Thomas
2004 What's the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of
America. New York: Metropolitan.
Gagnon, John, Alain Giami, Staurt Michaels and Patrick de Colomby.
2001 "A Comparative Study of the Couple in the Social Organization of
Sexuality in France and the United States." Journal of Sex Research
38: 24-34.
Gill, R, C. Hadaway and P. Marler
1998 "Is Religious Belief Declining in Britain? Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 37: 507-16.
Goodstein, Laurie
2004 "Personal and Political, Bush's Faith Blurs Lines." The New York
Times 10/26: A19.
Gould, Stephen
1999 Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New
York: Ballantine.
Gove, Philip (ed.)
1976 Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, MA: C.
& C. Merriam Co.
Groeneman, Sid and Gary Tobin
2004 "The Decline of Religious Identity in the United States."
Institute for Jewish & Community Research.
http://www.Jewishresearch.org/PDFs/religion.pdf.
Harris, William et al.
1999 "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote,
Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary
Unit." Archives of Internal Medicine 159: 2273-78.
Holden, Constance
1999 "Subjecting Belief to the Scientific Method." Science 284:
1257-58.
Hummer, Robert, Richard Rogers, Charles Nam and Christopher Ellison.
1999 "Religious Involvement and U. S. and Adult Mortality." Demography
36: 273-85.
Huntington, Samuel
1996 The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Idler, Ellen and Stanislav Kasl
1992 "Religion, Disability, and the Timing of Death." American Journal
of Sociology 97: 1052-79.
Inglehart, Ronald and Wayne Baker
2000 "Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of
Traditional Values." American Sociological Review 65: 19-51.
Isaacson, Walter
2003 Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. New York, Simon & Schuster.
John Paul II
1995 Evangelium Vitae.
Johnson, Phillip
2000 The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism.
Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity.
Kasman, Laura
2004 "False Advertising for Faith." The Separationist 9/04: 3.
Kliesen, Kevin and Frank Schmid
2004 "Fear of Hell Might Fire Up the Economy." The Regional Economist.
[31]http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2004/c/pages/fear_of_hel
l.html.
Koenig, Harold and David Larson
1998 "Use of Hospital Services, Religious Attendance and Religious
Affiliation." Southern Medical Journal 91: 925-32.
Koza, John, Martin Keane and Matthew Streeter
2003 "Evolving inventions." Scientific American 288 (2): 52-59.
Krucoff, Mitchell
2005 "Music, Imagery, Touch and Prayer as Adjuncts to Interventional
Cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualization of Neotic Trainings
(Mantra) II Randomized Study." The Lancet 366: 211-17.
Lane, Les
2001 "Alternatives to Evolution - Are They Scientific?"
[32]http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/references.html.
Lane, Roger
1997 Murder in America: A History. Columbus: Ohio State University
Press.
Marler, Penny and C. Hadaway
1999 "Testing the Attendance Gap in a Conservative Church." Sociology
of Religion 60: 175-86.
Miller, Kenneth
1999 Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground
Between God and Evolution. New York: HarperCollins.
National School Safety Center
2005 [33]http://www.nssc1.org/index2.htm.
Neapoletan, Jerome
1997 Cross-National Crime. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Numbers, Ronald
1992 The Creationists. New York: A. A. Knopf.
Panchaud, Christine, Susheela Singh, Dina Darroch and Jacqueline
Darroch
2000 "Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Adolescents in Developed
Countries." Family Planning Perspectives 32: 24-32.
Paul, Gregory and Earl Cox
1996 Beyond Humanity. Rockland, MA: Charles River Media.
Pearcey, Nancy
2004 Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity.
Wheaton, IL: Crossways.
PEW
2002 Global Attitudes Project.
Putman, Robert
2000 Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Reid, T. R.
2001 "Hollow Halls in Europe's Churches." Washington Post 5/6: A1,
A22.
2004 The United States of Europe. New York: Penguin.
Rosenfeld, Richard
2004 "The Case of the Unsolved Crime Decline." Scientific American 290
(2): 82-89.
Schonborn, Christoph
2005 "Finding Design in Nature." New York Times 7/7: A27.
Schroeder, Gerald
1997 The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical
Wisdom. NewYork: Broadway.
Scott, Eugenie
1999 "The Creation/Evolution Continuum." Reports of the National
Center for Science Education 19 (4): 16, 17, 21.
Shanks, Niall
2004 God, the Devil and Darwin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Singh, Sushella and Jacqueline Darroch
2000 "Adolescent Pregnancy and Childbearing: Levels and Trends in
Developed Countries." Family Planning Perspectives 32: 14-23.
Sommerville, C.
2002 "Stark's Age of Faith Argument and the Secularization of Things:
A Commentary." Sociology of Religion 63: 361-72.
Stark, Rodney and William Bainbridge
1996 Religion, Deviance and Social Control. New York: Routledge.
Stepp, Laura
2004 "An Inspired Strategy." Washington Post 3/21: D1, D6.
UN Development Programme
2000 Human Development Report 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2004 Human Development Report 2004. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WHO
2001 "Suicide Prevention."
[34]http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/
country_reports/en/index.html.
Wise, Donald
1998 "Creationism's Geologic Time Scale." American Scientist
86:160-73.
Young, Matt and Taner Edis (eds.)
2004 Why Intelligent Design Fails. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
References
5. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures
28. http://www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf
29. http://www.americanvalues.org/html/hardwired.html
30. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC
31. http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2004/c/pages/fear_of_hell.html
32. http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/references.html
33. http://www.nssc1.org/index2.htm
34.
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/country_reports/en/index.html
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list