"I think that most Christians are better people than most atheists. But you're an exception."
Hearing this from one of my high school teachers didn't bother me too much at the time. As a non-religious student growing up in a predominantly-Christian border South town, I was more or less used to it. This comment, made in a non-classroom setting, was par for the course. But the more I've thought about it over the years, the more it bugs me - not even for the patronizing tone so much as for the idea that religion and morality are, in some way or another, linked. In my experience that has simply not been true. I've met decent Christians, decent atheists, and less decent examples of both as well. I have developed a deep suspicion of anyone claiming that their religion, or lack thereof, makes them morally superior to anyone else.
This morning, I checked Daily Kos and saw a top-of-the-Rec-List diary entitled "If You Want Well-Adjusted Children, Bring Them Up Without Religion". The diarist indicated scientific support for their position - scientific evidence showing that for kids to grow up morally well-adjusted it was better for them to be raised in a non-religious environment. Given the divisive and controversial nature of this hypothesis - which is identical to what my teacher told me, though coming from the opposite side of the fence - I figured the scientific evidence must be rock solid.
It isn't. In fact, it doesn't even exist. The argument is based on an elementary logical fallacy: correlation and causation. And on a sensitive issue such as this, we should do better.
The diarist based their conclusions on data presented in an LA Times op-ed from January 15th. The arguments in the op-ed were in turn based on a series of studies. Pulling quotes from the op-ed, one study (Vern Bengtson, USC, 2013) showed:
High levels of family solidarity and emotional closeness between parents and nonreligious youth, and strong ethical standards and moral values that had been clearly articulated as they were imparted to the next generation. “Many nonreligious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious' parents in our study."
Other studies were used to show that secular children and teenagers, on average, grow up to be more tolerant, less "vengeful", less racist, and to have a whole host of positive attributes. The final two data points in the article are:
One telling fact from the criminology field: Atheists were almost absent from our prison population as of the late 1990s, comprising less than half of 1% of those behind bars, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics. This echoes what the criminology field has documented for more than a century — the unaffiliated and the nonreligious engage in far fewer crimes.
Another meaningful related fact: Democratic countries with the lowest levels of religious faith and participation today — such as Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Belgium and New Zealand — have among the lowest violent crime rates in the world and enjoy remarkably high levels of societal well-being.
Great. It seems that there is at least some correlation between non-religiosity and a bunch of really good outcomes. So that proves the diarist's point, right?
No! Although we have a correlation, there is no causal link shown by any of these studies. There's no evidence that those good outcomes are due to non-religiosity. And there's a compelling alternative hypothesis: non-religiosity is often correlated with higher levels of income and of education. What if the good outcomes are due to the better socioeconomic status of the non-religious rather than to their non-religiosity?
To really test this, you'd have to control for, at the very least, socioeconomic status. I see no indication that this has been done. Indeed, the abstract of the key study, by Bengtson et al, does not make any causal claim at all! Moreover, the other statistics quoted in the article - e.g. a smaller percentage of atheists in prison, well-functioning highly-secular societies (which also happen to be fairly well-off societies with strong social safety nets), and anecdotal evidence that secular families can be well-adjusted - aren't useful for making any causal inferences either.
In sum, there is zero evidence to support the diarist's hyperbolic title. At the same time, people are wrong on the Internet. It happens, and this is a natural type of mistake to make. So why am I bothering to write this?
I find it offensive when religious people, such as my high school teacher, make claims about the superiority of their religion - that their religion gives them extra moral authority. So why try to mimic that by claiming non-religious people are somehow superior to religious people? Why try to claim, as the diarist does, that getting rid of religion could solve all our problems?
It sounds like a multitude of problems -- from crime, to war-mongering, to racism, to low voting rates, to lack of willingness to deal with climate change, all might have the same simple fix....
To me, these statements are both wrong and counterproductive. All I want, and I think all most of us non-theists want, is for us to be treated as equals in the eyes of our fellow citizens and in the eyes of the law. We can fight for this equality - we can condemn offensive religiously-motivated remarks and behavior, we can push back against religious infringements on our liberty, we can stand up for the separation of church and state - without engaging in the same sort of behavior we decry.