Atheism "may be form of risk-taking just as criminal behavior is"

[muriel_volestrangler]

:banghead:

Via Pharyngula. This guy taught at the University of Washington when he wrote this (I presume it has a decent reputation, or had, until he came out with this crap), though Wikipedia says he's since moved to Baylor University.

Stark said lower rates of male religiousness is a form of risk-taking behavior just as criminality is, and men are far more likely to commit crimes than women.
...
"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."

The upshot is that some men are shortsighted and don't think ahead, and so "going to prison or going to hell just doesn't matter to these men," Stark said.
...
"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."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-12/uow-wam121802.php

As if claiming atheists are just doing it to seek trills isn't stupid and insulting enough, he then picks serious crime against the person as the comparison, rather than something actually "shortsighted, risky and impulsive" like, say, smoking. What a wanker. Somehow I feel the "Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion" may not be worth the paper it's printed on.

[cosmik debris]

1. He is on the faculty of Baylor U.

Which is a significant step DOWN from U. of Washington--unless you want to learn mythology.

[pauliedangerously]

2. That was a very interesting snippet

There's no way around the thought of its absurdity if you don't believe in God, but the whole "risk-taking behavior" description makes sense to someone who believes in God and it's DELICIOUS fodder for atheist ridicule.

Where the dumb ass gets it wrong is that he lumps people who make a thought-out decision to not believe in God with the criminal slime at the bottom of the food chain. Ha! "Journal for Scientific Study" is just a tad oxymoronic, n'est-ce pas?

Happy Atheist Sunday to all!!

[and-justice-for-all]

3. If this is so, why is the prison population 99.9% religious? nt

[moggie]

4. Hey, Stark!

Why do you impulsively reject Odin? Is it because you get off on risking his wrath?

This hypothesis explains why those thrill-seekers, professional sportsmen and women, so often deny the influence of God when interviewed. :sarcasm:

[enki23]

5. maybe there's something to that, actually.

i don't know if they have anything other than wild speculation behind the hypothesis, but there's at least one interpretation that leaves it sounding somewhat rational. it very much *is* a risky sort of behavior within the context of our society to be openly atheist. not as risky as many (or most) other times and places, perhaps, but risky all the same. once, you might have risked your life. now, the risk is mostly that you will lose social status, friends, decent employment, etc.

and then there is the idea that someone teetering on the edge of admitting their own unbelief but not yet being sure of it. if they still feel some sort of real uncertainty about the idea of a punishing deity, they would be engaging in what would be for them a kind of risk-taking behavior. those are the people for whom pascal's wager might still feel real. the question probably shouldn't be whether there is an actual risk, but whether it would seem to be a risk to the person involved.

[immoderate]

7. And then there's the train of thought that values taking risks.

There was another thread about the idiotic Michael Medved rant that says that America is great because the risk takers came here (except for the Africans who were brought here in chains.) So which is it?:shrug:

--IMM

[Jim__]

6. Does anyone know what the percentages are?

The article says: In all 57 countries, a higher percentage of women than men said they were religious.

Are these large percentages? Do they correlate with percentages of young male criminals, as in: "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."

Is the excess percentage of male atheists concentrated in the same age groups as young criminals?

The article does not tell us a whole lot.

[enlightenment]

8. Just did a little run-up on this fella

and I think that the short article may be taking him out of context. It's not that he didn't say what they say he said - but if you read the whole article, this aspect takes on far less importance. If we want to get our knickers in a twist, I'd say that the article he cites while discussing this aspect is more the culprit than he. I don't agree with the man - trust me - but I hate to see anyone taken out of context (and I despise people who post little articles like the one on EurekaAlert without offering citation).

The information comes from an article he wrote on gender and religious differences.
Physiology and Faith: Addressing the “Universal” Gender Difference in Religious Commitment
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion; Sep2002, Vol. 41 Issue 3, p495-507, 13p, 2 charts

Here is the abstract:
"That men are less religious than women is a generalization that holds around the world and across the centuries. However, there has been virtually no study of this phenomenon because it has seemed so obvious that it is the result of differential sex role socialization. Unfortunately, actual attempts to isolate socialization effects on gender differences in religiousness have failed, as have far more frequent and careful efforts to explain gender differences in crime. There is a growing body of plausible evidence in support of physiological bases for gender differences in crime. Making the assumption that, like crime, irreligiousness is an aspect of a general syndrome of shortsighted, risky behaviors leads to the conclusion that male irreligiousness may also have a physiological basis. If nothing else, this article may prompt creative efforts to salvage the socialization explanation. "
Copyright of Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.

Some selected passages (to avoid breaking the rules):

There is only one other gender difference similar to the one involving religion: males are far more likely than females to commit crimes. But unlike religion, this effect has attracted a great deal of scholarly attention. Here, too, differential socialization has been the favored explanation, and here, too, the facts have proven uncooperative. For one thing, the gender effects tend to be limited to impulsive, violent, physical, and dangerous actions having short-term gratifications: murder, assault, robbery, rape, and burglary. Sex differences are small or nonexistent on planned, "sit-down" offenses such as forgery, embezzlement, and credit card fraud. Moreover, remarkable data on homicides in France from early in the 19th century reveal that of persons charged with murder, only 1 of 10 was a woman, but when poisoning was the method, women made up nearly half the accused (Guerry 1833). What these data clearly show is that it is not socialization taking the form of conscience that prevents women from breaking the law, since it is the kind of crime, not generalized conformity, that produces the effect. A second factor to consider vis-à-vis socialization is that the rates of "male crimes" tend to decline rapidly with age and therefore gender differences attenuate as well. For example, in the United States, homicide and robbery rates are highest among males aged 16 to 19, decline by about 50 percent for males aged 25 to 29, and men over 40 very seldom commit such offenses (Gove 1985; Stark 2000). All explanations, regardless of whether they involve socialization, must deal with the fact that most of the impulsive, physical, and risky crimes are committed by young males who also engage in many other risky behaviors, legal or not. They get drunk, smoke, use drugs, don't wear their seat belts, speed, drive without a license, urinate in public places, skip school, often don't show up for work, gamble compulsively, cheat on their wives and girlfriends, and engage in unprotected sex with strangers (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990).

It was against this background that Miller and Hoffmann (1995:64) drew their truly important conclusion that gender effects on religion and on crime are different facets of the same phenomenon. That is, to the list of risky behaviors engaged in by males, Miller and Hoffmann added irreligiousness: "one can conceive of ... the rejection of religious beliefs as risk-taking behavior." Miller and Hoffmann's logic is in accord with a classic argument in theology known as "Pascal's Wager" (Durkin and Greeley 1991). Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), a French priest and philosopher, wrote that anyone with good sense would believe in God because this is a no-loss proposition. He noted that God either exists or does not exist and people have the choice of either believing in God or not. This results in four combinations. Assuming that God exists, then upon death those who believe will gain all the rewards promised to the faithful and escape the costs imposed on the unfaithful. In contrast, nonbelievers will miss out on the rewards and receive the punishments. Now assume there is no God. When they die, believers will simply be dead. But so will those who didn't believe. Therefore, Pascal reasoned, the smart move is to believe, for one has everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. However, Pascal overlooked something. Faith is not free. Believers must give up some gratifications here and now because various worldly delights are defined as sins. Consequently, if one is willing to take the risk of betting that God does not exist, one can enjoy many immediate gratifications prohibited by religion, and in that sense come out ahead of the believer.

Because many sins also are crimes, the interests of criminology and the social scientific study of religion converge on the same set of behaviors that overwhelmingly are committed by males. People who are willing to risk the secular costs of seeking immediate gratifications also are prone to risk the religious costs of misbehavior. Whatever it is that makes some men risk takers also makes them irreligious. It seems appropriate to mention that only two groups have had significant success in resocializing serious criminals, both of them religious: the Prison Fellowship founded by Charles Colson and the various groups of Black Muslims (Stark and Bainbridge 1997). When they analyzed appropriate data, Miller and Hoffmann found that within each gender, those scoring high on risk aversion were more religious. Moreover, when they compared men and women with a similar orientation toward risk, their religious behavior and beliefs were also similar. Further support has been lent to this finding by research showing that members of a sample of 1,148 newly ordained clergy in the Church of England scored well below the national average for English men on a scale of risk taking (Francis et al. 2001). It also is consistent with findings that men tend to accept higher risks than do women when making financial investments (Glass and Kilpatrick 1998; Powell and Ansic 1997).

For all the brilliance of their insight, however, Miller and Hoffmann merely expanded the fundamental question to include irreligiousness among the acts of crime and irresponsibility. The quesion remains: Why are some men short-sighted risk takers? Miller and Hoffmann suggested that the answer is to be found in differential socialization. I am willing to agree that socialization probably accounts for some of the gender difference, but that's not saying much. To attribute something to differential socialization is merely to sloganize unless one is able to identify the specific elements of socialization. And that is precisely what generations of sociologists and criminologists have been unable to do. Indeed, during the 1970s, feminist authors such as Freda Adler (1975) predicted that changes taking place in female socialization would soon eliminate the gender differences in crime. A generation later the gender differences are as large as ever. In similar fashion, any number of studies have attempted to account for gender differences in delinquency by controlling for attachments to parents and variations in parental supervision, without significant success (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Meanwhile, however, some progress was being made on the gender and criminality front from an entirely different direction.
*****************************************

He then goes on to talk about gender socialization, twin-studies, steroid abuse and other factors that may predispose males to crime.

Basically, this is a more complex article than the quotes suggest. Just saying. The problem that I see with Stark's conclusion is the basic 1+1=3 issue. It is not necessarily true that if religion makes one MORE risk-averse that lack of religion will make one LESS risk-averse. But he's a sociologist. They like their statistics too much to dabble in reason!

OH - here's the citation to the article Stark cites:
Risk and Religion: An Explanation of Gender Differences in Religiosity.
By: Miller, Alan S., Hoffmann, John P., Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 00218294, Mar95, Vol. 34, Issue 1

ETA: italics to the article title

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. But belief in gods in other countries varies enormously

Can they pretend that Germans, say, both men and women, are far more prone to 'risky' behaviour than American men? Of course not. But they've ignored all the data from other countries, and just pretended it's all the same as the American data.

The entire thing is working from the assumption that they need to find something 'wrong' with irreligiousness, and then looking for a match. There are plenty of other things they could have chosen. What is 'risky', for instance, about not believing in astrology? But about twice as many American women believe in astrology as men (figures from, heh, one of Stark's own papers - http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf ). Maybe there's an element of having been brought up to believe what someone tells you without questioning it? For instance, here's a UK 2007 survey:

[enlightenment]

11. I don't disagree, muriel!

It's specious reasoning. As an historian, I tend to take a rather jaundiced view of sociologists, anyway, so I never expect much from their research!

Interesting chart, though I suspect the numbers are much closer in reality. There is a certain hesitation among men to admit to believing in things, even when they do. As far as I can tell, even an anonymous survey can trigger the gut instinct to "be a man" and not admit to anything.

[Evoman]

9. Maybe he is right.....which is why christians are lame, boring and no fun.

:hide: - from lurking christianos.

[frebrd]

12. The only risk involved in being an Atheist....

is religionists' predatory, hysterical prejudice. I simply don't understand why they feel so threatened by those who aren't afflicted with their superstitions. I guess they "hate us for our freedom".

:)

[progdonkey]

13. Prison actually exists.

"The upshot is that some men are shortsighted and don't think ahead, and so 'going to prison or going to hell just doesn't matter to these men,' Stark said."

What this dipshit doesn't seem to realize is that prison actually exists. There is no question that, if you're caught, you will go to prison for robbery, burglary, etc. (Unless you're a Republican, but I digress.)

Gravity exists, so there's no doubt that if your bungee cord snaps, you will be a mass of flesh on the bottom of a canyon. Engaging in these activities certainly involves assuming a large amount of risk.

There is no evidence that Hell (or Heaven) exists. Doing/saying something that carries with it the punishment of eternity in a place that doesn't exist is hardly "risky." How can something be risky when there's no shred of evidence that the supposed punishment even exists? I don't fear going to Hell just as I don't fear that a Unicorn is going to appear in my living room and challenge me to a game of poker!

Even if Hell exists, what if it's completely different from what everyone on the planet believes, and everyone's going to Hell for being wrong? Lot of good that praying did!

[NoodleBoy]

14. Does he seriously not know about raging hormones, aggressive environments, or

the impulsive need many men feel to care for their families (whether they have a family or not) that society pushes on them?

That's just so damned stupid it's hard to believe. One thing crime has been linked to, and he hasn't mentioned it at all, is the status of the economy in an area-- and poor economies may disproportionately psychologically effect men, many of whom are brought up believing they need to be the breadwinner of the house, and to not do so would not be manly.

Anyway, about differences in religiosity, I saw a study once of the changing political views of women over the past century. As more and more educational opportunities were opened up to women, women's voting trends began a slow leftward lurch, and the trend is continuing as fewer men and more women seek out higher educational opportunities. Women used to make up the backbone of conservative electoral blocs in democracies, but it's now obviously shifted. I suspect a similar shift in religiosity is not far behind.