It is often said that religion causes terrorism. Until recently the facts said otherwise. But now it appears to be true, in five countries at any rate.
The changing face of terrorism
Several years ago I reviewed the evidence for the connection between religion and terrorism, and found that religion was generally only a supporting player. The main causes of terrorism were politics, inequality, injustice, and ethnic/national grievances.
However there has been a slow increase in terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and a marked increase since 2011.
Five key countries
In the last few years, terrorism by Wahhabi Islamic groups (Taliban, ISIL, al-Qu’aida and Boko Haram) in 5 countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria) has increased dramatically, now causing 80% of all world deaths by terrorism.
This information is contained in a 2014 Global Terrorism Index (GTI) report by the The Institute for Economics and Peace. The report points out that other factors are still the most important causes of terrorism elsewhere.
Exaggeration and criticism
I’ve also come across some websites that have a different view to the GTI.
- The Guardian newspaper references the report (though it gives the wrong link) but draws slightly stronger or more definite conclusions than the Institute does, perhaps because it has simplified the complex issues involved.
- This page by Global Research suggests that the GTI is incomplete and perhaps biased because it does not include the fighting between Israel and the Palestinian state.
Nevertheless …..
The conclusion is fairly clear. Religion has not been a major factor in terrorism over the past century, but has become a major factor in five countries, and globally, as a result of several Wahhabi Islamic groups. It is inaccurate and unfair to categorise all religions together in this.
Further reading
I’ve summarised a number of reports on religion and terrorism at Does religion cause terrorism?
Error in belief eventually leads to error in action. If you have a false view of reality you will eventually make decisions which are not good for the general wellbeing.
I’d think that those other variables still very significant for foreign fighters, who do seem to have arrived at their ideology by a sense of grievance (often including a real experience of racism, economic inequality and religious discrimination). Honestly if you (royal you) consider the uninformed debauched views on Islam that are common in wider European society as well, I’d feel rather marginalised on at least some level if I were a Muslim.
Hi Gordon. You and I agree on this one, though I probably wouldn’t express it with as much certainty as you have.
But that being the case, the evidence that religious people have better health and less antisocial and harmful behaviours is telling.
Hi IN, yes, I think people wanting to claim single causes is understandable but not accurate. In both positive (e.g. the reference I gave to Gordon, above) and negative outcomes (as here) there would be multiple correlations and causes. We can isolate out partial causes and partial correlations but they don’t tell the whole story.
In the case of Muslims, there is surely some reaction on each side – I can well understand and sympathise with Muslims who feel alienated and unwelcome in some sections of western societies (and aggrieved about western mistreatment of their homelands), but I can also understand westerners feeling concerned about their presence in western countries. But the answer for both groups isn’t standing at a distance and feeling alienated, but mixing socially and building friendships.
What Gordon said makes perfect sense; not sure why you would be less certain Eric? Because you would be right to say imho that religion never causes terrorism… directly. It’s bad ideas, wrong beliefs, irrational thoughts that do; when combined with a desperate socioeconomic context most of the time.
This does not support in any way the notion that religious ideas are right because they correlate with the things you mention (linked to). It’s actually in spite of religion that progress is made by religious people… it’s the reality of the positive outcome that makes them do good things.
Yeah, it makes sense, which I agreed, but I don’t think it is quite as definite as he expressed. But if he is right that “If you have a false view of reality you will eventually make decisions which are not good for the general wellbeing.”, then it follows that if you have good wellbeing you haven’t got a false view of reality.
F > ~W
W
Therefore ~F (Modus Tollens)
Since christians have better than average wellbeing (established by science), then it follows that, if his statement is correct, then christians don’t have a false view of reality.
(Short, to the point comment)
For your reasoning to work, it would need to be
“ALL F” > ~W
and
“ALL ~F” > W
but this is clearly not the case: someone can have an accurate view of reality and still end up in bad shape; someone can have an inaccurate view of reality and still end up in good shape.
Note that Gordon’s wording had correctly implied just that:
-Error in belief eventually leads to error in action.
(Not ‘ALL error in belief ALWAYS lead to error in action’.)
-If you have a false view of reality you will eventually make decisions which are not good for the general wellbeing.
(Not ‘If you have a false view of reality you will ONLY make decisions which are not good…)
What you can conclude is this: If [x] have a better wellbeing in general, it most likely means that they make decisions which are, more often than not, based on an accurate view of reality.
(long version; not really as useful, but to provide context on what I actually think is true)
If [x] have a better wellbeing in general, it most likely means that they make decisions which are, more often than not, based on an accurate view of reality. I don’t think there are studies that could literally support that, but I would totally be willing to argue all day as to why I think this makes sense. Being accurate leads one to better understand of what’s going on in reality, better at making predictions, better at anticipating the obvious and assessing the risks of the not-so-obvious, better at reacting quickly based on prior knowledge, better at processing new information, which will fit existing knowledge, or not, and so on… I would say it’s a strong tendency, but not an absolute one.
Therefore, if [x] above represents Christians as a whole, it does not mean that any of the specific Christian doctrines are correct… it only indicates that Christians are, on average, more accurate in their assessment of what’s true or not, thus better at making decisions and thus get benefits out of it: a better overall wellbeing.
But I would go even further than that and argue that Christians have more accurate views when they ‘don’t’ follow their religion. For instance, it’s scientifically accurate to claim that sex education is better than abstinence-only education at reducing unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The more dogmatic, conservative or ‘pure’ approach from a Christian’s perspective would be to do anything you can to prevent teens, or any unmarried adult, to not have sex. The individuals who follow that rule are certainly going to get the wanted results. However, as a whole, it does not work. Therefore, the counter-religious views of talking about sex, teaching people, and letting them make their decision as to how/when they have sex actually works better. And in the western world, that is precisely that lots (most?) Christians choose. So these Christians are actually better off because they go directly against what the religion used to teach only a few decades ago…
That was just 1 example; there are so many! Education would be stalled if we stick with a literal interpretation of the Bible, LGBT would have a desperately low level of wellbeing if conservative Christians had their way, slavery/racism/violence can be argued for using the Bible. Basically, lots of arguments can be made using that same religion which happens to correlate with higher wellbeing. So what does it mean? That people who actually look for the truth, in reality, the real truth, are better off than people who stick to dogmas and false beliefs. Christianity is not helping; it’s Christians who are smart enough to improve each others’ wellbeing in spite of what their religious ancestors would have wanted them to do. And to be even more clear: it does not in any way mean that Christianity is false. It only means that the wellbeing of its member has absolutely nothing to do with it being false or not.
Also, as an Atheist, it seems to me that there is yet another flaw in your view when you say
“Since christians have better than average wellbeing (established by science)”
because that is much easier to correlate with the socio-economic context rather than Christianity. In other words: of course Christians have better than average wellbeing if you compare them to other countries, because they happen to live in the richer countries. They did some good choices in the past that led them to prosperity; great, I love them for that as I profit from it. But it does not mean that the Christian part of their beliefs was right… And now that the world keeps learning and changing, it seems that it’s the religious part of the world that are lagging. It might be more of a consequence than a cause (desperation can increase religious fervor) but it certainly does not help to be in a religious country today. There is nothing better about it.
That is not all, because even if we look at the blog posts you link to, where you listed lots of examples of studies supposedly supporting your point, it seems that the main advantage of being a Christian/Spirituality has absolutely nothing to do with the religion itself, but all to do with the actions of the believers and the outlook on life. Someone with a good circles of friends/family (or a church-goer) will do better, someone with optimism, happy thoughts, positive outlook on life (sometimes by religious faith) will do better, someone who meditates, reflect, tries to connect with themselves (or prays religiously) will do better, someone with a sense of meaning, purpose, of awe (someone who believes in a personal God/higher power) will do better. Absolutely none of them have to be religious, and absolutely none of them would in any way increase the likelihood that a god exists.
Finally, a few more links from my side…
No simple correlation; jump to page 376:
https://books.google.com/books?id=m99aqwLFrGoC&pg=PA375&lpg=PA375&dq=wellbeing+correlation+religiosity&source=bl&ots=y_OumbpuX-&sig=fkEA-9SNMn-XyQQIsvDri2UsWwg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD0Q6AEwA2oVChMI_5X68uGhxwIVSyqICh24_AHA#v=onepage&q=wellbeing%20correlation%20religiosity&f=false
Recent study; same in all 3 links I believe:
http://thehumanist.com/news/international/religiosity-and-the-wellbeing-of-nations
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2015-14529-001/
http://www.businessinsider.com/atheism-isnt-bad-for-your-well-being-2015-4
Slightly older studies being cited:
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/religious-belief-and-societal-health/
US Centric:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/the-correlation-between-religiosity-and-well-being-among-u-s-states/
I think you over-explain. “Ducks are birds” implies “all ducks are birds”. Likewise “Error in belief eventually leads to error in action” implies “All error in belief eventually leads to error in action”. If we wanted to say what you say, then we should qualify and say “Some ducks are birds” and “Some error in belief eventually leads to error in action”. I can accept that Gordon may have expressed himself inaccurately, but only he knows if that is so.
Eric, not explaining correctly is why I ended up disagreeing with you on big life questions before… so it’s quite interesting that you would think I ‘over’ explain something. For instance, being very clear as to what the Big Bang is, what we know about it, how it relates to the Universe and existence itself, are very important topics that require lots of explanations, yet you have not explained your position very well after I suggested we both do it. So… do you get my point?
And what happened to the longer comment which actually explained why I think the topic of religiosity vs well-being is very interesting and, imho, misrepresented on your blog?
Hi Hugo
“If [x] have a better wellbeing in general, it most likely means that they make decisions which are, more often than not, based on an accurate view of reality.”
I think your argument is with Gordon, not me. He was the one who made the original statement.
“That was just 1 example; there are so many! Education would be stalled if we stick with a literal interpretation of the Bible, LGBT would have a desperately low level of wellbeing if conservative Christians had their way, slavery/racism/violence can be argued for using the Bible.”
How one judges those matters would depend on one’s criteria, and I don’t suppose you and I would agree on those! Besides, I am not a “conservative christian”, and I would guess that world wide they are in a minority.
“Christians have better than average wellbeing if you compare them to other countries, because they happen to live in the richer countries.”
Trouble is, Hugo, your statement isn’t supported by the data. More christians live in non-western countries these days, and studies suggest that wealth correlates with disbelief (and suicide).
“it seems that the main advantage of being a Christian/Spirituality has absolutely nothing to do with the religion itself, but all to do with the actions of the believers and the outlook on life”
Again not true. Belief, participation and social interaction all play a part.
Thanks for the links, I will include them where appropriate in my lists. But based on a cursory glance:
1. The results have always been variable, and it often depends on what type of religious belief is tested. Dogmatism (in the title of one of the studies), legalistic religion and belief in a punitive God often score badly on wellbeing, whereas other types of religious belief score well. Overall, the positive side generally wins out, but not always. The important thing is to look at the overall results, not just the ones that support one’s viewpoint. I always include all studies I can find in my lists.
2. Greg Paul’s work is a waste of time. He comes from a polemic viewpoint, he is not a professional in This field and he uses totally misleading methods, which reputable researchers wouldn’t use. Here is my assessment.
Hi Hugo, my “over explain” comment was simply referring to the fact that you were explaining what someone else (Gordon) had said, and you were not logically correct anyway.
The longer comment is there now.
Hello,
Let’s just take that last comment:
you were explaining what someone else (Gordon) had said, and you were not logically correct anyway.
Actually, I explained why your logic was wrong…
For your reasoning to work, it would need to be
“ALL F” > ~W
and
“ALL ~F” > W
but this is clearly not the case: someone can have an accurate view of reality and still end up in bad shape; someone can have an inaccurate view of reality and still end up in good shape.
Now, forget what Gordon said. I was making the same claim he made because I agree with it and clarified how I would make it. Are you saying none of that matter because it is ‘not’ your belief that the following (see below) was correct; it merely depended on Gordon’s statement? But you also posted links are further arguments trying to support it… so you make claims but don’t really care about they are correct or not? Probably not, you must care of course, but it’s confusing…
F > ~W
W
Therefore ~F (Modus Tollens)
Since christians have better than average wellbeing (established by science), then it follows that, if his statement is correct, then christians don’t have a false view of reality.
i.e. you think that was correct or not? If not, is it simply because it relied on what Gordon said to be true so all of that was just a big ‘if’?
I think these are different things, with types of violent radicalisation among some young Muslims being an immoral and excessive reaction against real and perceived slights (as all sorts of problematic stuff is part and parcel of their ideology), while the Westerners’ reactions are mostly manifestations of fear of the unknown, because a consistent finding of research is that Western people with little exposure to Islam tend to be more fearful (islamophobic parties tend to be strong in areas with no significant Muslim presence). Unfortunately for the solution (positive interaction as you mention), geographical segregation is often part of the phenomenon.
Hi Hugo, I already explained the logic of general statements (“Ducks are birds” means the same as”All ducks are birds”). And I said right at the beginning that I agreed with Gordon’s statement but I would make it with less certainty.
Yes, I think you’re right. But all I can do as a christian is to try to avoid seeing people as enemies, loving them even if I do see them that way, and avoiding reacting out of fear.
Hi,
Less certainty only makes your statement ‘more wrong’… why make it at all? That’s what I am wondering.
Thanks
Ah Hugo, you don’t give up, do you? A statement that is 90% certain is “more wrong” than a statement that is 100% certain, but still worth saying.
Eric, we are just talking 🙂 No need to point out that “I don’t give up”… That’s an unnecessary comment on my character. It reminds me of something I read recently, about how some people try to avoid discussion by politely inserting non-sequitur; it sounded something like this:
“If you don’t want to bother with someone’s argument or evidence, or if you don’t have any answer, the simplest way out is to make a personal allegation against your opponent. I don’t recommend crass insults, for they can get you banned, and they can make you look a little intolerant, which of course you are not – it is always your opponent who is intolerant.”
And for what it’s worth… when you say: “I already explained the logic of general statements (“Ducks are birds” means the same as”All ducks are birds”).” This precisely what I am talking about; it does not relate to your claim I am disagreeing with, which is that the evidence that religious people have better health and less antisocial and harmful behaviors is telling. Why? Because it’s not ‘all’ wrong beliefs that lead to harmful behaviors, or worse well-being. Therefore, the following 2 statements are logically compatible:
1) People who hold Christians-specific beliefs have better health and less antisocial and harmful behaviors
2) Christians-specific beliefs are true
I am not attempting to prove that #2 is wrong here; it’s way too vague. The point is only that it does not follow that because #1 is true, then #2 must be true, nor does it even make #2 more likely to be true, which is what your claim implies.
Therefore, unlike what you said, my position is that the evidence that religious people have better health and less antisocial and harmful behaviors is meaningless, when it comes to evaluating the truth value of their specific religious beliefs. Since the title of your blog is “Is There a God?”, I think the statement is directly in line with that main purpose and that’s the only thing I was trying to explain.
And with that, I will take a little break and wait for a new topic to come up, and will let you conclude that it still ‘seems’ to you that Christians having a better well-being is at least indicative of Christians being right on the God question, that it is consistent with God existing, or perhaps suggests that it is a good reason to believe that God exists; or whatever your own words are, but I will be happily surprised if it means something other than that! 😉
Cheers
I’m sorry Hugo, I don’t wish to comment on your character. I was just getting frustrated at a conversation where you seemed to be trying to score points more than have a constructive discussion. I’m sorry if that seems insulting, but I’m trying to let you know how I feel. I have a lot to do, and I try to be polite to everyone, but some discussions seem to have little point beyond being an exercise. So if in future I don’t respond to some comments you will understand why.
@unkleE
“If you have a false view of reality you will eventually make decisions which are not good for the general wellbeing.”, then it follows that if you have good wellbeing you haven’t got a false view of reality.
Your logic is faulty. You may experience wellbeing while ensuring others do not.
Hi Gordon, did you notice my comment said “religious people have better health and less antisocial and harmful behaviours”, so that provides the logic you missed. Thanks.
@unkleE
No, nothing you have said refutes my original statement:
General wellbeing means good for society in general not good for you personally.
Hi Gordon,
I agreed with your original statement then, and I still do (though as I have said, I wouldn’t say it so definitely). It wasn’t your original statement I was questioning or responding to, it was your statement “Your logic is faulty. You may experience wellbeing while ensuring others do not.”
1. If you have a false view of reality you will eventually make decisions which are not good for the general wellbeing.
2. Religious people have better wellbeing and prosociality.
3. Prosociality and personal wellbeing contribute to general wellbeing.
4. Therefore religious people on average don’t have a false view of reality.
If your original statement is true, the argument is true.
@unkleE
Your assumption about religion making an overall improvement to reality because it improves the wellbeing of the religious is not merited. The strong correlation between dysfunction and religion either shows that religion causes increased dysfunction or that religion thrives in dysfunctional societies. If the latter is the case the statistics show that even high levels of religiosity fail to have an improving effect on dysfunction. See the references in Hugo’s excellent post.
Hi Gordon, are you willing to discuss this? I hope so. May I start with asking you two questions please?
1. I have researched as many papers as I can find on this topic and found that by a large majority they support the view I have put, and that the papers you refer to are in the minority. This conclusion is also supported by many other reviewers.
Can you explain why you prefer to use the minority view to say the majority conclusion “is not merited”?
2. One of the authors of those papers, Gregory Paul, is not qualified in this area, has used unscientific methods that don’t use all the available data and don’t control for all the other possible factors which explain the correlations, and has therefore been criticised by experts in the field.
Did you read these references before you supported them? Do you support his methods?
Thanks.
@Gordon
Thanks for the comment!
@Eric
Regarding all these studies, it seems to always run in circles… I would be curious to see you address, perhaps in a new post, these 2 statements from above (slightly changed) :
1) If we look at the blog posts you link to, where you scientific studies, it seems that the main advantage of being a Christian/Spirituality has absolutely nothing to do with the religion itself, but all to do with the actions of the believers and the outlook on life. Someone with a good circles of friends/family (or a church-goer) will do better, someone with optimism, happy thoughts, positive outlook on life (sometimes by religious faith) will do better, someone who meditates, reflect, tries to connect with themselves (or prays religiously) will do better, someone with a sense of meaning, purpose, of awe (someone who believes in a personal God/higher power) will do better. Absolutely none of them have to be religious, and absolutely none of them would, in any way, increase the likelihood that a god exists.
2) Therefore, the evidence that religious people have better health and less antisocial and harmful behaviors is meaningless when it comes to evaluating the truth value of their specific religious beliefs. Since the title of your blog is “Is There a God?”, why do you disagree with the above statements and choose to link such studies to that main question?
p.s. Or even better… what about the Big Bang question from another thread? Similar principle…
Hi Hugo,
I will be posting again on this topic, because new evidence from scientific studies is coming in all the time. In answer to your questions:
1. It isn’t true (as far as I can see) that ” the main advantage of being a Christian/Spirituality has absolutely nothing to do with the religion itself, but all to do with the actions of the believers and the outlook on life”. There are many different factors at work.
(i) The social and positive thinking aspects are part of the picture.
(ii) But more religious factors are important too. For example, Andrew Newberg reports that atheists and christians have different wiring in their brains because what we think can change the physical structure of our brains.
(iii) In addition, there are some activities that help wellbeing that non-believers could do, but in fact don’t do as much as believers do.
(iv) The type of God belief (e.g. loving God vs punitive God) also has an impact on wellbeing.
(v) And there are some aspects where religious belief works against wellbeing.
So it is complex. But overall, all the studies add up to a small but clear wellbeing advantage for religious belief and practice, especially intrinsic belief in a loving God.
2. Two aspects here.
(i) Not everything on this blog necessarily relates to evidence for the existence of God. I have included pages on arguments against God’s existence based on the problem of evil, and I have in mind pages on Islam, deism and atheism in the Belief/God section, I’ve just been too lazy to finish them off. And I sometimes discuss matters like religion statistics which have little to do with evidence for God. Sometimes I just post what interests me.
(ii) But, if God belief were harmful to wellbeing, you can bet atheists would use it as an argument against God. (In fact some do use it, based on hearsay and erroneous information.) That being the case, it is at least worth presenting evidence that these arguments are wrong and that God belief may not be as silly or detrimental as they say.
Hello,
1) Right, it’s the combination of all these complex factors that yield certain results; and most of these factors have nothing to do with any specific God belief or religion. Plus, they always have either a perfectly identical secular equivalent, or at least a very similar equivalent. Hence, the God-specific aspects of a worldview have nothing to do, on their own, with wellbeing. The fact that you concede that there is, in your opinion, only a “small” advantage for religious belief and practice actually support that conclusion. Each subsequent letter-bullet point does the same
(i) Positive thinking can be secular, or not, of course. So this supports my conclusion.
(ii) There is no reason to think that a religious person would have a certain brain pattern that does not have a secular equivalent, and vice versa.
(iii) ‘How often’ is completely irrelevant. You seem to think that my point is about atheists-vs-christians. It’s not. It’s about what influences one’s wellbeing or not, and how every single religious cause has a non-religious equivalent.
(iv) Yes, the type of belief has an impact, but again, and if the type of God can have an impact, this again supports my point: it’s the TYPE that matters, not whether it’s God-related or not.
(v) Of course, both religious and non-religious beliefs can work against wellbeing, again supporting the idea that it’s not so much about God belief but about that type of beliefs, outlook of life, and consequent actions.
2) (i) Of course, not everything here is about God, but I am trying to see how this does tie in with the question ‘Is there a God?’. If you agree that it has nothing to do with it, then that’s all I am asking 🙂
(ii) The truth of the God claim has nothing to do with the impact on wellbeing, so Atheists and Theists who try to argue otherwise are equally guilty of a reasoning error. But false beliefs can certainly lead to wrong actions as was stated before…
Thanks
Hi Hugo, you keep turning what I say into something different. I suggest you do some research and see for yourself. Try Science on religion and Andrew Newberg, and try Google.
“Try Google”… Seriously? You are so good at being passive aggressive, but I am not sure you even do it on purpose, lol
Oh, and just a quick response to the articles you linked to:
1) https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_and_rebecca_newberger_goldstein_the_long_reach_of_reason?language=en
2) Google ‘Sam Harris’. I told you many times before… it’s relevant here particularly as he has strong spiritual beliefs. But not religious.
(delayed p.s.) sorry, got distracted, and actually forgot to include the main thing I wanted to say after following the links… It’s quite funny to me that you say that I “keep turning what I say into something different” because I literally copy/paste many of your words in my responses.
Therefore, I think the reason why it ‘looks’ different to you is because you don’t like the conclusions I am reaching; you don’t like the implications of your own words, when I explain them. Of course, you we’ll simply disagree that our opinions are different, and that is precisely ‘why’ you see what I write, about your words, as ‘different’ from what you directly say. You could not possibly see it as exactly what you said, because then it would be ‘yes, we agree on this’. But we don’t agree. Quite often, we don’t even agree on what we agree or disagree on. So when you reply nothing, do not quote my words in your response, and do not address what I say, it’s your choice, no problem, but it’s completely wrong to pretend that it’s because I also don’t address what you said, especially when I explicitly quote yours.
For instance, you hold the belief that God exists, a very strong core belief that, if I understand correctly, has never ever changed during your whole life. Then, you go on an attempt to analyze the question ‘Is there a God?’, and other related topics. The problem I see is that you don’t really address the question; you only go about finding things that fit with it, and conclude that, even though it’s not absolute proof, at least it’s consistent. i.e. you don’t find anything that contradicts your God belief, so it remains rational to believe. To be more precise, and focus on this current thread, the following quotes support these very points I just made:
“These results can perhaps be explained in purely natural terms, but they may lend support to those who believe that this is what one would expect if God exists and cares for us.”,
“None of this “proves” God exists, and I haven’t seen any researchers would claim that. But it is consistent with belief in God.”
And
“It is well established that some religious practices have great benefits. It isn’t clear how big a part belief also plays in these positive results. […]Patrick Glynn summarises some of this information and suggests that it is a good reason to believe that God exists.”
…and the other obvious example, in my opinion, is the Big Bang. Perhaps you’ll be interested in discussing again eventually but you seem to be getting frustrated so I don’t know. We’ll see.
Cheers