Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tk · 01-03-2003, 08:01 PM

According to a study by a Prof. Rodney Stark, "Recent studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills."

While I still maintain that it is possible to be irreligious yet at the same time law-abiding, if what the article says is true, this'll have to be an exception rather than a rule.

What does everyone think? Do you agree with the findings? Or are there any possible weaknesses in the study?

Godbert · 01-03-2003, 08:10 PM

90% of males in the US are theists so male lawlessness is not due to the few atheist males. Especially if you consider that 99.9 of males in prison are theists.

Added: Oh, you are from Singapore. I guess the statistics are a lot different there, because of the different religious spectrum and also because lawlessness does include spitting your gum on the lawn.
In any case it just doesn't make sense to make the conclusion that atheism and lawlessness are correlated even if they have a common cause.

Gar · 01-03-2003, 08:22 PM

"irreligiousness" is an odd term. I'm pretty sure that he means undevoutness in theists, rather than the tendency to not believe in religion.

This seemed pretty obvious, but the title is a bit misleading. I get really frustrated when "they" try to blame atheists for crime and such.

seebs · 01-03-2003, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tk
According to a study by a Prof. Rodney Stark, "Recent studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills."

While I still maintain that it is possible to be irreligious yet at the same time law-abiding, if what the article says is true, this'll have to be an exception rather than a rule.

What does everyone think? Do you agree with the findings? Or are there any possible weaknesses in the study?

Why must these be the only options? It seems quite possible that some of these things have the same roots; brain chemistry is weird. On the other hand, I doubt the first study on *anything* is much good.

I am also not sure; does he mean atheism, or irreligious behavior in people who *do* profess a faith? The latter fits a lot better.

Triple Six · 01-04-2003, 02:05 AM

This man is a "professor of sociology and comparative religion" to quote the article. Not exactly great scientific qualifications and he may be just a little bit biased.

How does impulsive behaviour make one "irreligious"? I'd suggest the opposite is true, if you think about and consider religion carefully you come across the inconsistencies and factual errors and end up not believing. If you want a quick fix or easy way out then you short circuit the brain and swallow the dogma impulsively.

Corey Hammer · 01-04-2003, 07:45 AM

The study is seriously flawed on its face. Does anyone have the cite for it? I'd like to see if he deals with the counterargument of risk-taking behavior by theists (e.g, missionaries in regions of violence).

ps418 · 01-04-2003, 10:10 AM

Corey,

Here is the link and abstract to the paper in the American Journal of Sociology:

Quote:

It has long been assumed in sociology that gender differences in religiousness are a product of differential socialization. Yet, there is little empirical support for this assumption. To address this gap in the literature, this study draws on an extensive investigation of the relationship between differential socialization and differential religiousness. Using the American General Social Surveys and the World Values Survey, this article analyzes the relationship between traditional gender attitudes and gender differences in religious beliefs and behavior. Surprisingly, these data show no relationship between the two. Therefore, a new set of hypotheses based on an alternative model involving risk preference is proposed. Results strongly support this new approach. Women are more religious than men to the extent that being irreligious constitutes risk-taking behavior. This model is able to predict differential religiousness in a wide variety of religious and cultural settings. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Gender and Religiousness: Can Socialization Explanations Be Saved? Am. Jour. Soc. 106, p. 1399.

Patrick

ps418 · 01-04-2003, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godbert
90% of males in the US are theists so male lawlessness is not due to the few atheist males. Especially if you consider that 99.9 of males in prison are theists.

Yep. And conversely, atheists as a group are strongly *under-represented* in federal prison (0.21%) relative to their representation in the general population (8-16%). source There appears to be a strong inverse correlation between criminality and atheism (for whatever reason).

Patrick

copernicus · 01-04-2003, 11:24 AM

Consider the quote at the end of the article on Stark's work:

"We looked for an obvious simple explanation, but nothing worked except physiology," said Stark. "People studying crime also have looked at socialization and they can't find a reason that explains the gender difference except a physiological one. Not being religious is similar to any other shortsighted, risky and impulsive behavior that some men � primarily young males � engage in, such as assault, robbery, burglary, murder and rape."

It seems that Stark simply assumed that irreligiousness was a form of risk-taking. Earlier in the article, he pointed out that irreligious people were more willing to risk going to "hell". Given that risk-taking was rooted in male biochemistry (according to the studies he had read), he was able to imagine that irreligiousness was rooted in the same biochemistry.

This reasoning is a form of what Dawkins has called the "Argument from Incredulity". If one can't imagine any other explanation of a phenomenon (i.e. irreligiousness), then it must be the case that the explanation one can imagine is true. IDists use this kind of logic all the time, and it should not be surprising that Stark finds it compelling. Of course, if you don't think that you risk going to hell by being irreligious, then his whole argument falls apart. For it to work, you actually have to believe that there is a hell--which doesn't sound irreligious at all, to me.

One could just as easily explain the phenomenon this way. Women seek secure, stable relationships in which to raise their offspring. Religions tend to impose moral restrictions on marriage--e.g. bans on promiscuity and adultery. Men do not have to go through pregnancy and can even avoid claiming paternity. So they risk less by promiscuous behavior. Therefore, women tend to identify more with religious principles than men do.

CALDONIA · 01-04-2003, 12:56 PM

Human behavior is subject to so many variables that to me it is useless to narrow effects down to a few causes. I suspect that in this study data was sought to support a supposition, namely, that irreligiousness is a bad thing.

01-03-2003, 08:01 PM	#1
tk Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 158	Irreligiousness and crime both rooted in impulsivity? According to a study by a Prof. Rodney Stark, "Recent studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills." While I still maintain that it is possible to be irreligious yet at the same time law-abiding, if what the article says is true, this'll have to be an exception rather than a rule. What does everyone think? Do you agree with the findings? Or are there any possible weaknesses in the study?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2003, 08:10 PM	#2
Godbert Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: southern california Posts: 779	90% of males in the US are theists so male lawlessness is not due to the few atheist males. Especially if you consider that 99.9 of males in prison are theists. Added: Oh, you are from Singapore. I guess the statistics are a lot different there, because of the different religious spectrum and also because lawlessness does include spitting your gum on the lawn. In any case it just doesn't make sense to make the conclusion that atheism and lawlessness are correlated even if they have a common cause.

01-03-2003, 08:22 PM	#3
Gar Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Boston, Mass Posts: 347	"irreligiousness" is an odd term. I'm pretty sure that he means undevoutness in theists, rather than the tendency to not believe in religion. This seemed pretty obvious, but the title is a bit misleading. I get really frustrated when "they" try to blame atheists for crime and such.

01-04-2003, 02:05 AM	#5
Triple Six Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: formerly Lae, Papua New Guinea Posts: 1,867	This man is a "professor of sociology and comparative religion" to quote the article. Not exactly great scientific qualifications and he may be just a little bit biased. How does impulsive behaviour make one "irreligious"? I'd suggest the opposite is true, if you think about and consider religion carefully you come across the inconsistencies and factual errors and end up not believing. If you want a quick fix or easy way out then you short circuit the brain and swallow the dogma impulsively.

01-04-2003, 07:45 AM	#6
Corey Hammer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 368	The study is seriously flawed on its face. Does anyone have the cite for it? I'd like to see if he deals with the counterargument of risk-taking behavior by theists (e.g, missionaries in regions of violence).

01-04-2003, 11:24 AM	#9
copernicus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 1,531	Consider the quote at the end of the article on Stark's work: "We looked for an obvious simple explanation, but nothing worked except physiology," said Stark. "People studying crime also have looked at socialization and they can't find a reason that explains the gender difference except a physiological one. Not being religious is similar to any other shortsighted, risky and impulsive behavior that some men � primarily young males � engage in, such as assault, robbery, burglary, murder and rape." It seems that Stark simply assumed that irreligiousness was a form of risk-taking. Earlier in the article, he pointed out that irreligious people were more willing to risk going to "hell". Given that risk-taking was rooted in male biochemistry (according to the studies he had read), he was able to imagine that irreligiousness was rooted in the same biochemistry. This reasoning is a form of what Dawkins has called the "Argument from Incredulity". If one can't imagine any other explanation of a phenomenon (i.e. irreligiousness), then it must be the case that the explanation one can imagine is true. IDists use this kind of logic all the time, and it should not be surprising that Stark finds it compelling. Of course, if you don't think that you risk going to hell by being irreligious, then his whole argument falls apart. For it to work, you actually have to believe that there is a hell--which doesn't sound irreligious at all, to me. One could just as easily explain the phenomenon this way. Women seek secure, stable relationships in which to raise their offspring. Religions tend to impose moral restrictions on marriage--e.g. bans on promiscuity and adultery. Men do not have to go through pregnancy and can even avoid claiming paternity. So they risk less by promiscuous behavior. Therefore, women tend to identify more with religious principles than men do.

01-04-2003, 12:56 PM	#10
CALDONIA Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sunnyvale,CA Posts: 371	Human behavior is subject to so many variables that to me it is useless to narrow effects down to a few causes. I suspect that in this study data was sought to support a supposition, namely, that irreligiousness is a bad thing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.