I recently heard the idea that only religion can give life purpose and teach us right from wrong. Religion is said to induce moral behavior by making people accountable to a supreme being.
This implies that secular people lack purpose or hope, and must be prone to despair. These commentators never quote any secular people or cite any evidence for their views, however.
We would expect to see that religious people show more sexual restraint than seculars, and have more hope for the future. We would also expect to see that religious families divorce less. The opposite seems to be the case.
According to sociologist Mark Regnerus, religion is a good indicator of attitudes toward sex, but a poor one of sexual behavior. This gap is especially wide among Evangelical Christians.
According to Regnerus, 74 percent of Evangelical teens say they believe in abstaining from sex before marriage, while only half of mainline Protestant teens say the same. Evangelical teens are also more sexually active than mainline Protestant, Mormon and Jewish teens.
White Evangelical teens on average become sexually active at age 16 and are significantly less likely to use birth-control. Two family-law scholars, Naomi Cahn and June Carbone, point out that in 2004 the states with the highest teen-pregnancy rates all voted Republican, while the lowest voted Democrat.
The states with the highest divorce rates all voted Republican, while those with the lowest voted Democrat. The same pattern held in regards to median age of marriage.
Cahn and Carbone conclude, “The paradigmatic red-state [Republican] couple enters marriage not long after the woman becomes sexually active, has two children by her mid-twenties, and reaches the critical period of marriage at the high-point … for risk-taking and experimentation.”
“The paradigmatic blue-state [Democrat] couple is more likely to experiment with multiple partners, postpone marriage until after they reach emotional and financial maturity, and have their children … as their lives are stabilizing.” The result is more stable families.
If so many Evangelicals give birth while young and unmarried, and if so many later divorce, how conservative can they really be?
Carbone and Cahn argue that the red-state model is failing on its own terms, producing high rates of teen pregnancy, divorce and sexually-transmitted disease. You can object that not all Republicans are religious, but religious conservatives remain dominant in the Republican coalition.
Conservative religious values seem to be downright bad for families and marriages, besides being hypocritical. What about the connection between religion and hope?
Regnerus, Carbone and Cahn all see a distinct “middle-class morality” evolving among those not socially-conservative. In Regnerus’ survey, teenagers who live by this ethos are tolerant of premarital sex, but are cautious about engaging in it.
Regnerus writes, “They perceive a bright future for themselves, one with college … a career, and a family … Sexual intercourse is not worth the risks.”
This needs emphasis: The secular kids are the ones abstaining for the sake of their futures. Not only do religious people behave in ways that are indistinguishable from secular people, but they frequently behave worse.
The notion that a belief in god facilitates self-restraint and successful marriages seems to have little empirical support. The association between secular liberalism and those things, however, seems quite high.
Christopher Herrin is a graduate Religious Studies major and a columnist for the Daily Forty-Niner.
To conclude that because someone states they believe in God should quantitatively facilitate a higher moral standard, and if not, therefore no God exists, is not a very solid argument. If someone says that they are an artist, but they do not have any art to speak; you would not say art does not exist, and condemn the artists whom have created beautiful art before because of others hypocritical actions. Why do you do that with God? People have stated irresponsibly that they are religious, but they do not follow the religious principles. So whats to speak of them being religious, and unfortunately being the forefront to which you base your argument? The reason you can not judge the people whom are truly religious is because the Bible teaches humility. There is no reason for these people to present themselves to you. They don’t need to speak because actions speak louder than words. And just because you don’t know any personally, you can not conclude that they do not exist. You are not looking for them to exist.
In every religion, the greatest commandment is to love the Lord with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. If you look at the true philosophical meaning of love, there is no room for personal desire. Love is selfless sacrificial giving with out expecting anything in return. So as one goes off and has sex, drinks, does drugs, etc… Where is love of God there? However, its obvious where the personal desire is. I do not feel its neccesary to condemn God for people’s frivolous activities. This is not what the bible teaches, or any religious book for that matter. And more importantly, none of God’s activities or teachings are meant to be perverted by our gross material senses. The Bible is not the Twilight series, it has deep underlying meanings that can take lifetimes to understand thoroughly. Not to speak of the other even more potent religious books, such as, the sastras of the Vedas.
I have no doubt that when you find someone who is truly a lover of God your perspective will completely be enlightened. However, you have to be open to the possibility. No notion facilitates required action. It’s entirely possible to speak of something without acting on it. We live in an age of misconceptions, shortcuts, hypocrisy, and mostly talk. Knowing this, why do you blame God for this pitfall, and not the people with free will whom are abusing his wonderful teachings to fulfill their personal desires? And something else to ponder, what is love with out free will?
With all respect,
Deuce Bowles
C’mon Herrin, you have to stop with these fallacies.
Attack religion. Attack the idea that religion isn’t the only way for morality and hope. It is pointless to attack the practice of religion since hypocrites of anything can say one thing and practice another. However, to attack the idea through logical arguments is completely acceptable.
The thinking goes like this: only a god has the authority to impose a set of moral laws on a human being. Liberals, on the other hand, believe you don’t need to be a deity to have such an authority. Those are the basic assumptions that make or break either sides’ argument. Address that rather than the fact that there are hypocrites in the world.