debate-points, religionSourced studies can come in handy in a debate. Are there any solid numbers, and what are they?
(Warning: I don't think this is what you want, because correlation is not causation, but it's related and may come in handy in a debate)
Gregory Paul. The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions (PDF, 665 KB) // Evolutionary Psychology. 2009. V. 7(3). P. 398–441
From Wikipedia:
The 2009 follow-up paper "The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions" finds "high religiosity is not universal to human populations, and it is actually inversely related to a wide range of socio-economic indicators representing the health of modern democracies." Paul holds that:
once a nation's population becomes prosperous and secure, for example through economic security and universal health care, much of the population loses interest in seeking the aid and protection of supernatural entities. This effect appears to be so consistent that it may prevent nations from being highly religious while enjoying good internal socioeconomic conditions.
There has also been a follow-up study concerning the causes of the correlation: R. Georges Delamontagne. High religiosity and societal dysfunction in the United States during the first decade of the twenty-first century (PDF, 432 KB) // Evolutionary Psychology. 2010. V. 8(4). P. 617–657
Also, the renowned sociologist Pitirim Sorokin (who, ironically, was religious) has carried out a study that shows that there is a correlation between the percentage of the influence of empiricism among all the systems of truth—and therefore, an inverse correlation between representativeness of Abrahamic religious thought—and the number of scientific discoveries. He took the data from two independent researchers. The methodology is presented in his book Social and Cultural Dynamics (amzn), which is partially available on Google Books. Here are a summarising table (p.244 of the book) and a diagram based on the table. The horizontal axis signifies centuries (the negative numbers are the centuries before the Common Era). The blue graph is logarithmic (1 = 10 discoveries, 2 = 100 discoveries, etc); the purple graph is linear (1 = the percentage of the influence of empiricism is 10%, 2 = 20%, etc). The Dark Ages are clearly visible in the diagram (5th—10th centuries CE).
This may be what you’re looking for. A careful study that compares various social ills against religiosity in prosperous Western societies. Lots of charts and numbers and stuff.
I tried to find you a nice “typical” quote, but it’s a long-ish paper. Essentially, the US has incredibly high stats for STDs, teen pregnancy, abortion, homocide, divorce and a few other “socially bad” factors, and the study links these -some by correlation, other by causation- to religion.
EDIT: I see Vitaly went to the same study.
The author is pretty careful not to imply causation where there is none, but I think it becomes pretty obvious that STDs, teen pregnancy and abortion (to name the first that come to mind) are a result of religiously motivated policies discouraging effective sex education and contraceptive use. The slightly above average divorce rate (higher in the “red” states, BTW) is linked to higher rates of marriage, often at a younger age. Again, a link to religious “no sex before marriage” policy suggests itself. Blame me, though, if this seems incautious to you.
There was also a study done that showed a positive correlation between atheism and high IQ scores: Religiosity and intelligence. Just like the previous answers pointed out 'correlation is not causation,' the researcher that conducted this study, Helmuth Nyborg also pointed this out: "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical."
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Correlations between popular acceptance of human evolution and belief in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative (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 developed democracy, the U.S.
...and so on...
Correlation is not causation. Their are well known correlation, like IQ and atheism, but yo my knowledge, they generally have a common third cause and are no causal link between them.
People with high IQ generally came from environment that favor debate between different idea. So people from those environment are more exposed to the idea behind atheism.
I think using those correlation in a debate show a lack of understanding in science. There is no real evidence.
I don’t think you should focus the debate on the side effects. It is possible that the side effects of atheism are better that the one of religion even if God exist (that would surprising). It is possible that the side effects of religion are better that the one of atheism even if God does not exist (I find that more plausible that the opposite).
The debate should be focus of the evidence on each side, not on the side effect.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.