Debate about Religion

Book Parties and Festivals - FreedomFest 2010: Debate on Religion with Dinesh D'Souza, Steven Landsburg, Stephen Moore, Charles Murray, Michael Shermer et al. - Book TV

Libertarianism is probably one of the most religiously diverse political movements in the U.S. At a recent gathering, they staged a mock trial of religion. In the end religion was found not guilty, which I thought was the appropriate verdict given the evidence presented. The prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. In order to be found guilty, they would need to convince the jury that religion was guilty of causing human suffering beyond all reasonable doubt. In my opinion the defense failed to prove that atheism was similarly guilty, but that was not their job.

Steven Landsburg, acting as the prosecutor, rightly pointed out that for most of the two thousand years in which Christianity has been around the material living conditions have remained virtually unchanged. It is only the "twin engines" of science and capitalism acting in the recent past that have improved our lot. Unfortunately he presented little or no evidence to show that religion actually impeded the progress of either. Each side was allowed two witnesses. He brought out Michael Shermer to point out that individual unbelievers had roughly the same rates of crime and divorce as others and that societies with less belief tended to have less social pathology than more religious ones. His other witness was only able to offer his personal experience from going to several different countries. He then launched into a diatribe against religion.

I think that if they wanted to make a better case they could have pointed out that scientists are disproportionately likely to be atheists, and that the more successful scientists are even more so. They could then argue that a likely reason for this is the relationship between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Scientists are expected to look for natural explanations for phenomena instead of supernatural ones. "God did it" is not considered an acceptable scientific hypothesis. There is no way of testing it. It might be the case that the belief that only natural explanations exist will tend to make you more successful at finding them. It might also be the case that a field that expects people to come up with such explanations is more attractive to those who believe that only those types of explanations are valid.

Regardless of what causes scientists to be disproportionately atheistic, widespread theism in society will have the impact of undermining public support for science so long as this is the case. This will cause science to progress slower than it otherwise. Our society has more than enough people willing to become scientists. The problem is that science is not funded nearly enough. In order for our society to reach its full potential, science needs to have widespread public support.

It would be appropriate to point out to a libertarian leaning audience that religion encourages the voluntary redistribution of income. The prosecutor could have brought out an economist from the Austrian school to tell what kind of macro-economic effect this would be likely to have. In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises points out that redistribution of income is counter-productive in the long term. It takes money from investors, and hence investment, and gives it to those who are more likely to consume. This reduces capital forming investment and will have the long term effect of making capital scarce compared to labor. This will drive wages down. Libertarians commonly use this argument against involuntary redistribution by the government, but it applies equally well to voluntary redistribution. Thus religion, which encourages giving to charities of this type, will prevent a society from enjoying the full benefits of capitalism.

The defense brought out Charles Murray, who pointed out that the huge improvement in living standards took place only in the West, which was under the influence of post-renaissance Christianity. The prosecutor then asked whether Shakespeare really improved the lives of the starving peasantry. Charles Murray responded that all great works eventually improved the lives of everyone. He might also have pointed out that the West enjoyed several geographical advantages, as pointed out by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel. The West was one of only a handful of societies on the Eurasian landmass. This is rather weak evidence. We are working with a rather small sample size. Also, if Christianity is so good at causing economic prosperity then why is it that it took over a thousand years? Why is it that non-Western forms of Christianity didn't give rise to this huge increase in human wellbeing?

The next witness for the defense presented a series of graphs which showed a negative correlation between church attendance and various social ills in the U.S. The prosecutor successfully demolished his case by asking whether he had used any of the commonly used techniques in the social sciences for disentangling correlation and causation. The witness was unable to give a satisfactory response.

I think that arguments about human rights abuses made by both sides on this issue miss the mark. Is it fair to blame people who are religious or not religious for atrocities committed by people with a similar stance on this subject? I would say that it would not be fair, unless they advocate or support similar atrocities today. Besides this the greatest impact that religion has is in how it effects people's everyday lives. Lack of scientific knowledge has killed far more people than any deliberate killings by religious fanatics. This is why I believe that the best arguments against religion are the ones that I presented above. The best argument in religion's favor is that it encourages stable marriage and family life.