…and this is a 
We are such bad boys
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: May 16, 2008 9:32 AM, by PZ Myers
I wish I hadn't missed this when it come out a few years ago. A professor of sociology and comparative religion asked why women were more religious than men, and he ruled out socialization and cultural differences somehow, to come to a surprising conclusion.
"We looked for an obvious simple explanation, but nothing worked except physiology," said Stark. "People studying crime also have looked at socialization and they can't find a reason that explains the gender difference except a physiological one. Not being religious is similar to any other shortsighted, risky and impulsive behavior that some men - primarily young males - engage in, such as assault, robbery, burglary, murder and rape."
Did this guy just compare atheism to murder and rape?
So not believing in Jesus is just like sticking a knife in someone?
Don't cross me, man. I'm dangerous.
Comments
That is about the most retarded argument I've read since... the last time I read anything written on Uncommon Descent.
Posted by: Ric | May 16, 2008 9:36 AM
So not believing in Jesus is just like sticking a knife in someone?
Unlikely, but believing in Jesus is partaking in the ritual sacrifice of a god-man and loving it. :)
Posted by: Brian English | May 16, 2008 9:38 AM
You know, I had half a desire to defend that comment - basically arguing that when you give up religion, you put your "soul" on the line in the same way that you put your life on the line when you risk getting caught for a more secular crime.
But then I re-read it a couple times and... that's just... no. That's dumb. I can't believe someone would fail so hard at an analogy. *sigh*
Posted by: Zifnab | May 16, 2008 9:39 AM
My dad can beat up your dad.
Posted by: Mike Fox | May 16, 2008 9:39 AM
What exactly is shortsighted, risky and impulsive about simple rationality?
Posted by: BT Murtagh | May 16, 2008 9:41 AM
Rodney Stark wins... at failing.
Posted by: zer0 | May 16, 2008 9:42 AM
PZ - you missed a gem in that article!
"Stark said lower rates of male religiousness is a form of risk-taking behavior just as criminality is, and men are far more likely to commit crimes than women."
My thoughts? Prove it. What is being risked?
Posted by: Jason | May 16, 2008 9:44 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | May 16, 2008 9:45 AM
A grown-up professor of sociology wrote that? Wow! Maybe I should have believed that college kid who claimed that his Fresno State philosophy professor taught him that there is no morality without religion:
Yes, we nonbelievers are free to do whatever we want! Ha, ha, ha! Beware!
The truth about atheists
Posted by: Zeno | May 16, 2008 9:47 AM
Well, giving the guy a (n undeserved) break. Maybe being an atheist IS risky in some segments of society...
Posted by: djlactin | May 16, 2008 9:47 AM
That makes no sense. Becoming an atheist is about shedding pre-programing that you weren't born with over a period of time as you work through the deprogramming process. I know for some, like myself, it was brutally fast from yes to no, but there was still a lead up process where I was struggling with reconciling the back-ground information.
Maybe he's just full of shit and is projecting his own desires on the process. Or, maybe, it's like the Kinsey Reports on sex thing. Men claim more partners than they really have. Women claim fewer. For decades everyone believes until one-day somebody realizes that in very-closely balanced population, the genders need to be almost the same in partner count and everyone has a laugh about it.
As was seen in the Kinsey case, the entire study was ruined by self-reporting bias where men slightly puffed up their partners and women drastically reduced theirs. However, unlike the sex thing, there's no participatory population to check the result so the very real biased self-reporting (of which women in our society are demonstrated the bigger liars then men against "negatives" and for "positives") could remain unfounded.
I think the difference could far more easily be explained by gender reporting bias than some non-causal, counter-intuitive reason than impulse control. Unless, of course, you might have an axe to grind and would like to grind it in the backs of atheists.
Posted by: Moses | May 16, 2008 9:50 AM
hmmmm....2000 years of an oppressive patriarchal religion, I just don't see any reasons why more women might submit to it... Now where's my berka?
Posted by: MissAgentGirl | May 16, 2008 9:51 AM
Isn't this just another way of phrasing Pascal's wager?
Posted by: Sigmund | May 16, 2008 9:51 AM
I don't know what's worse, that Stark's argument is itself so astoundingly wrong on every level or that a journal that calls itself "The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion" would print something that is so logically and methodologically flawed.
Posted by: Stwriley | May 16, 2008 9:51 AM
Obviously if someone truly doesn't believe god exists, they wouldn't perceive any risk from being an atheist. This jackass is saying that there are no real atheists. We all believe in god, we're just being defiant.
Posted by: Taz | May 16, 2008 9:51 AM
I prefer to flip that around and say that maybe women are more stable, social people who are afraid of upsetting social norms. After all, men don't hold as many social grudges but I know my lady friends can be quite vicious about each other sometimes (not always). My mom in particular is all about the status quo. She'd probably mentally break down and give me a blank stare if I told her I was atheist.
Posted by: matt | May 16, 2008 9:52 AM
Wikipedia:
One of Stark's hallmarks is writing with respect about the religions he studies.
[...]
Rodney Stark: [...] Atheism is an active faith; it says, "I believe there is no God." But I don't know what I believe. I was brought up a Lutheran in Jamestown, North Dakota. I have trouble with faith. I'm not proud of this. I don't think it makes me an intellectual. I would believe if I could, and I may be able to before it's over. I would welcome that."
Poor guy. Maybe if he prayed a little harder...
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 16, 2008 9:52 AM
Splice this with Medved's piece from the other day and we can see that atheism is actually in American DNA...
Posted by: Bartholomew | May 16, 2008 9:55 AM
Yet another study proving I'm actually male. This happens all the time.
Posted by: Susan | May 16, 2008 9:55 AM
I once read an article claiming that most people who are raised religious become less so in their teens and twenties, but then become more religious after having children. It also claimed that that effect is stronger in women. I don't seem to have it bookmarked, but maybe someone here has seen it.
Posted by: qbsmd | May 16, 2008 9:56 AM
mmm...
I read the whole newspaper report hoping it would be better, but it isn't. Obviously they haven't considered the evidence too closely, because if what they are saying is true then criminal men would also be less likely to be religious. But my understanding of the evidence is that the opposite is the case. My guess is that women are more convinced that their feelings are correct (their intuition?), and so are more easily lead into religion. Men are just naturally more sceptical. This could still be physiological, but just not the same particular physiological component.
I wonder if you test the same sort of thing with other primates (to avoid the conditioning assumptions). Are male primates less likely to fall for magical explainations of observed events and seek natural explainations? There could even be an evolutionary explaination with males being more expendable and so more willing to expend effort and take risks trying to find the real explaination for novel phenomena.
Posted by: reason | May 16, 2008 9:58 AM
I wonder what his conclusions would have been if he haden't been religious himself. It would maybe have been an interesting study then.
Posted by: Petter I | May 16, 2008 9:58 AM
What is the percentage of atheists in prison in the US? Less than 1% isn't it?
One might also ask what percentage of Christians have selective hearing when the Ten Commandments or "love thy neighbor as thyself" are being preached to them.
Just another "opposite day" in Jesusland I presume.
Posted by: Richard | May 16, 2008 9:59 AM
I can't believe this came out of the UW! An obvious test of this nonsensical hypothesis is to see whether religiosity correlates with criminal behavior. Oh wait, someone already did this - religiosity positively correlates with criminal behavior, if you look at our prison population. Maybe atheists are just better at getting away with it. Let's look at what else this idiotic journal publishes.
Posted by: Monika K | May 16, 2008 10:02 AM
This is worse than a book called "The Atheist Syndrome." The book's author tries to make the case that atheists are all psychologically impaired because of bad relationships with their dads; which in turn leads to paranoia, loss of appetite, and bed-wetting.
Posted by: JimboB | May 16, 2008 10:03 AM
So why do women tend to be more religious than dudes? If (as I've heard PZ say many times), atheism is an exercise in rationality, and women tend not to be atheist (empirical fact), does that mean women are less rational than dudes?
That's not a conclusion that will lead to popularity.
And if (as I've heard from many other sources) religion is inherently patriarchal and oppressive to women, why do women tend to be more religious than the dudes who could benefit from the oppression?
What's the explanation, from the "atheism is so obviously right you'd have to be stupid to disagree with us" camp?
Posted by: ungtss | May 16, 2008 10:03 AM
Susan...
It doesn't say that. It says you deserve more respect than us males do, having the courage to reject magical thinking is harder for you.
Posted by: reason | May 16, 2008 10:03 AM
I assume it's a bad quote. In the social context, men are more willing to take social risks for greater (social) gain in the end - positive example would be enterpreneurship, negative criminal behaviour as in the quote. In this sense, men are happier to resign from their religion, as they are willing to risk the social stability in order to gain freedom of thought.
Posted by: Toni | May 16, 2008 10:04 AM
I don't find the link to risk-taking as surprising. After all, if you're born religious, even starting down the path to question your religion is seen as risky behavior. We see now that we've made the trip, that the risk wasn't really there, but you have to think about it from the theist's POV. Most are not comfortable with questioning their faith because of the risk it entails to their soul.
What I did find offensive was this statement:
"Recent studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills."
Atheists are atheists because we can't inhibit our impulses?!? WTF?
Posted by: Curt Cameron | May 16, 2008 10:05 AM
@Rodney #13:
That was my first thought too. It's considered risky because... what, there's an infinitesimal chance that one of those religions might be true, and we're taking the risk of going to one of the millions of proposed hells (with corresponding millions of contradicting conditions for entrance)?
Man, I am such a risk-taker. I walked outside today even though there was a chance that a while and a flowerpot would materialize out of thin air this morning and fall on my head. No female would ever do anything that risky.
Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 10:05 AM
Susan, I had the same exact thought.
I hate it when assholes generalize from a group to an individual.
Posted by: Katharine | May 16, 2008 10:06 AM
Well, it looks like the sociologists have figured us out. I'm not inclined to rape and murder (had a long night) but I could be up for some pillaging later in the day, say around 4 pm. Anyone want to come along?
Posted by: Bruce | May 16, 2008 10:07 AM
Maybe women are more religious because we've been emotionally, mentally, and physically beat down by these belief systems.
Some of us don't even know we have an option much less the self esteem to choose.
I see God as the ultimate abusive boyfriend.
"You know I don't mean to hurt you baby. I'm just trying to let you know that what your doing is a sin. Don't worry your pretty little face about it, it's not for you to understand. You just leave that to me and do as I say."
Asshole.
Is it only dangerous to be an nonbeliever towards Christianity? If were just hedging our bets we may as well get serious about it.
Posted by: Serena | May 16, 2008 10:07 AM
It is a fact that going from belief, or at least practice, to declaring yourself an atheist is dangerous. You may not think that atheists worry about their soul, but it is a hard thing for some people not to wonder about. Regardless, when everyone you love is worried about your afterlife and crying over it, that hurts. It strains relationships.
Being an atheist was the one thing that made me a rebellious teenager and it made me a bad person in many people's eyes. Then when I got my first job, a supervisor asked me which church I go to. His eyes got so wide when I said that I was an atheist. These little bits of social pressure add up and girls (especially in religious families) are not raised to be independent, so it takes a lot of guts to develop that on one's own.
Posted by: Jenny K. Dean | May 16, 2008 10:08 AM
Psychological gender differences are ridiculously overrated...so many "scientific" studies come out every year, evaluating differences in men and women and conclude that obviously there must be a difference in our biology. When in reality, socialization has a HUGE role that is often ignored.
My theory is that its because many principles of religion (unconditional love, forgiveness) support many women's socially constructed role of "caretaker". Of course, that role was probably socially constructed in the first place because of physiological differences. I see this because I see the women who most embrace the "caretaker" role tend to be the most religious - of course, this is just personal observation.
Posted by: Chris Nowak | May 16, 2008 10:08 AM
Flawed reasoning. Your "empirical fact" is no more fact than you being Mickey Mouse.
Posted by: K | May 16, 2008 10:09 AM
Damnit. "Whale." "Whale." Not "while." I can type, damnit, I swear.
Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 10:09 AM
I'm pretty sure that if the Christians hadn't done away with all the female gods with temple prostitutes, you'd see more men worshiping at the town temple than you do today.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | May 16, 2008 10:12 AM
My guess is that since women are socialized to please others WAY more than men, they're far more likely to espouse society-pleasing religious beliefs, as the backlash for not doing so is likely to be harsher than for men.
But then, maybe we're just all irrational ninnies. (eyeroll)
Posted by: Ugly In Pink | May 16, 2008 10:13 AM
Historically, more men go to college than women. This leads to new ideas and a less sheltered life. I imagine that since it is more even now, we'll see the men/women atheism stats level out.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 16, 2008 10:15 AM
A perhaps better approach is to note that there is more variance within men than within women. Human (and mammalian, and vertebrate) male reproductive success has higher variance than female RS due to differential potential related to lower baseline physiological and time investment in reproduction. Some males are polygynists or serial monogamists with many children while others fail to reproduce altogether. This promotes not only high risk / high payoff strategies for males in general, but also finding alternative reproductive (mating and paternal) strategies. Some species have distinct morphs; human males form continua. One example of higher variance in human males is intelligence. Another is height.
Faith affiliation can be thought of as part of a reproductive strategy. So it might be expected for there to be both more male atheists and more male fanatic cultists.
Of course, there might be flawed assumptions in this model.
Posted by: Colugo | May 16, 2008 10:16 AM
If we take the members of the National Academy of Science as representative of top scientists, non-theists are about 100 times as likely to become top scientists as theists. Nontheists do almost an order of magnitude more than their share of top science, and theists do more than an order of magnitude less than their share.
(About 10 percent of the population is nontheistic, but 93 percent of the NAS is. Wow.)
Atheist's poor impulse control seems to make them about 100 times more likely to go to college, go into science, get through grad school, land a job as a working scientist, establish a research program, and excel at discovering scientific knowledge.
Maybe poor impulse control isn't such a bad thing.
Posted by: Paul W. | May 16, 2008 10:17 AM
Here's a better possible explanation.
Women in typical patriarchal society feel less secure in breaking 'rules' because they have at least anecdotal evidence that their punishment is harsher and their rights are more easily taken away.
Atheism resembles crime in that it involves breaking 'rules'. However the difference is that the rules atheists break are irrational and stupid.
I think that research on rule-following and punishment in primate societies is a very interesting topic of research right now, and it might shed some light on why people continue to believe in and enforce some really stupid rules.
Posted by: joe | May 16, 2008 10:17 AM
Obviously he has never sen any of the studies that show a disproportionate amount of people in prison are Christian. Seems like 70-80% Christian versus .2-.3% Atheist. Now who's the criminal, a-hole!
Posted by: kirk | May 16, 2008 10:17 AM
There is another possible reason of course. Women are more closely socially bonded than men, and so if shared beliefs are part of that bonding (women are always so insistant about "listening" - meaning something more than hearing) then that could be the cause. I would like to see some attempt to test various hypotheses here. The one he chose seems to founder as soon as you look at the evidence.
Posted by: reason | May 16, 2008 10:17 AM
Obviously he has never seen any of the studies that show a disproportionate amount of people in prison are Christian. It seems like it was 70-80% Christian versus .2-.3% Atheist. Now who's the criminal, a-hole!
Posted by: kirk | May 16, 2008 10:18 AM
I always thought that women statistically performed more crimes than men, but men were more likely to "go big", and thus get caught more often. Does anyone know about this?
Posted by: Jeremy | May 16, 2008 10:18 AM
Ungtss wrote, "why do women tend to be more religious than the dudes...?"
First you have to prove that assertion. Which means defining what it means to be religious.
Being religous means far more than believing in the sky-daddy. In fact, I suspect that plenty of people partake of the social aspects of religion without ever even considering the idea that the sky-daddy is nonsense. They still call themselves religious.
Posted by: Flex | May 16, 2008 10:19 AM
Being a woman, I can understand where the view that women are more religious than men comes from - but I don't understand how a man can come to that conclusion.
Child birth really has such an extreme/profound effect on how you view everything in life - I don't know if it has the same effect on men.
Maybe some of you dads can let us know.
I guess the maternal instinct is being confused with "God".
Posted by: S. Scott | May 16, 2008 10:20 AM
The article isn't just talking about atheists, it's talking about people who are "less religious". That covers people who do believe, but don't do anything about it. For those people I think the argument could work. Compare statistics about men being less likely to go to the doctor because problems with their health apparently don't bother them as much.
Posted by: Selcaby | May 16, 2008 10:21 AM
women are always so insistant about "listening" - meaning something more than hearing
Are you referring to actual women, or sitcom characters?
Posted by: Ugly In Pink | May 16, 2008 10:21 AM
I'd say it has more to do with the role of women in society and the role of the church in society. Women were traditionally made to be the gatekeepers of the family, responsible for the upbringing and societal integration of the young'uns. At the same time, the church was put up as the best way to make a society coherent and righteous. Put those together, and women are forced to be the religious ones by default. If society makes them in charge of the moral worth of children, and society declares that the church is the seat of morality, then women are the ones forcing everyone to go to church every week.
Posted by: Carlie | May 16, 2008 10:23 AM
Well it seems pretty clear that Stark has trouble thinking.
Here is then opening to an essay he wrote claiming there is not valid theory explaining the origins of species:
"I write as neither a creationist nor a Darwinist, but as one who knows what is probably the most disreputable scientific secret of the past century: There is no plausible scientific theory of the origin of species! Darwin himself was not sure he had produced one, and for many decades every competent evolutionary biologist has known that he did not. Although the experts have kept quiet when true believers have sworn in court and before legislative bodies that Darwin's theory is proven beyond any possible doubt, that's not what reputable biologists, including committed Darwinians, have been saying to one another."
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/050210darwin.html
I can only hope he understands sociology better than the understands science. Somehow though I doubt it. His head is obviously just something he used to put his hat on.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 16, 2008 10:23 AM
The only reason I can come up with is that we women are maybe more overly careful. Or scarridy cats. Ouuuh hell, dunt wanna go there. I dunno. But I'm godless and I'm not sticking a knife into anyone.
...Unless this is GTA. Is this GTA? Can I steal your car and roll you over with it? Please?
Posted by: Michelle | May 16, 2008 10:24 AM
I sent the author of the study an e-mail (his address being at the bottom of the page) to show him the error of his ways.
Clearly the man should have looked at previous studies that suggested women are more likely to believe in things like astrology and ghosts than men are. No offense to the free-thinking women who read this blog of course!
Posted by: The Good Doctor | May 16, 2008 10:25 AM
Women (or anyone) who attend church don't necessarily believe. I find it easy to believe that women are more likely to participate in the social aspects of churchgoing.
Posted by: Hematite | May 16, 2008 10:25 AM
Obviously he has never seen any of the studies that show a disproportionate amount of people in prison are Christian. Seems like 70-80% Christian versus .2-.3% Atheist
Well, obviously that just proves that atheists are more competent criminals. You'll never catch us, copper!
In answer to the original post - I think he's right. In a highly religious state like the US, atheism is indeed a risky choice, and I'm quite prepared to believe that women are more risk-averse than men. I bet there were more male than female anti-Party dissidents in the USSR, for exactly the same reason.
Posted by: ajay | May 16, 2008 10:26 AM
People--men and women--go in for religion when they think they don't have other options; it tends to attract the powerless. That's why people are likely to pray when they're really screwed, and why missionaries target the miserable and poor, and why some people think that "there are no atheists in foxholes." (It's also why it takes a certain degree of courage to admit that there's no God out there who has your back.)
So who's got more power in this culture, men or women?
Posted by: Molly, NYC | May 16, 2008 10:27 AM
No offense to the free-thinking women who read this blog of course!
As long as you don't immediately jump to the conclusion that there's a biological reason for it, none taken!
Posted by: Ugly In Pink | May 16, 2008 10:27 AM
This trend could have a lot of other factors that aren't being considered.
For example, in many of the most dominant religions, women are trained to be subservient, to respect imposed authority (from invisible monsters as well as their families), and in general treated (at best) like walking incubators. Islam is by far one of the worst offenders in this category, but several strains of Christianity display similar levels of misogyny.
Posted by: Seraphiel | May 16, 2008 10:28 AM
To be fair - leaving your church could be fairly described as a risky behaviour. I think Stark's analysis is nonsensical when it comes to belief itself, but may be on the money when it comes to outward expression of that belief. If this is the case we should see closeted atheists skew female.
Posted by: chancelikely | May 16, 2008 10:28 AM
I'm not sure if this has already been posted but here goes:
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/050210darwin.html
Posted by: Tushar | May 16, 2008 10:28 AM
He phrased this rather badly. Before reading his article, I'm going to give him some slight benefit of the doubt.
Atheism IS a social risk. It's breaking a social rule. And males break social rules more frequently than females (breaking social rules can be a good thing as well as bad -- it tends to irritate elementary school teachers, but can produce breakthroughs).
It's possible, I suppose, that he inadvertently phrased it negatively. If so, he is guilty of being stupid rather than reprehensible.
Posted by: CrypticLife | May 16, 2008 10:31 AM
Ah! I've just noticed that Matt Penfold had already pasted that link.
Apologies!
Posted by: Tushar | May 16, 2008 10:32 AM
Meh. The guy's a sociologist. Any discipline requiring distinct courses in scientific method is a bit on the shady side anyway.
Posted by: dinkum | May 16, 2008 10:32 AM
Here's a simple poll on church attendence: shows a 12% gap in weekly church attendance between men and women.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/church_poll020301.html
Of course it's not a perfect measure of religiosity, but it's a start.
Explanations I've heard include: "Women are beaten into submission through threat of punishment," "Women are more into the social aspect of religion due to their increased preference for socializing ..." "women are hesitant to break social norms ..." and my favorite, "It's no more true than that you're mickey mouse." (truly a brilliant act of reasoning there).
All of these explanations key in on stereotyped weaknesses of women. Too weak to think for themselves. Social rather than rational. Afraid of violating social norms.
I'm hearing a lot of sexism against women in here. I find that disturbing.
I have an alternate hypothesis: Maybe organized religions are actually tuned to the needs of women today, moreso than they are tuned to the needs of men. This doesn't speak to intelligent, rationality, strength of conviction, or independence from social pressure. It also explains why women express a genuine DESIRE to go to church. It also explains why men shy away from it.
Any takers? Or are we going to stick with "women are beaten down, social, peer-conscious and less than fully rational?"
Posted by: ungtss | May 16, 2008 10:35 AM
And he has an AOL email address. Therefore, anything he says doesn't matter anyway.
Posted by: Mike Saelim | May 16, 2008 10:36 AM
Not believing in fairy tales is risk-taking? How about the risk that many believers take of wasting their entire lives and the lives of others on the basis of faith?
Posted by: Alfonso Armenta | May 16, 2008 10:36 AM
ungtss, at #39 I wrote:
Your response?
Posted by: Dennis N | May 16, 2008 10:37 AM
I'm hearing a lot of sexism against women in here.
The "in here" in this sentence presumably means "inside ungtss' head"...
Posted by: ajay | May 16, 2008 10:39 AM
"Recent studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills."
Yeah, not going to church, not giving my money away to pious frauds with bouffant hairdos, and never believing in any deities is a wild, thrill-a-minute, roller coaster life, let me tell you.
If that professor makes a bigger effort at affirming religion, there's a chair of sociology at Liberty University in his future.
Posted by: Nullifidian | May 16, 2008 10:40 AM
No, read the article -- he is NOT just stupid. He really means to denigrate atheism, and is a vicious bigot.
His explanation is men have less ability to "curb their impulses". Even if this is true, it serves as a poor explanation. I didn't become an atheist on a whim. I don't stay an atheist on a whim. Becoming an atheist did almost nothing to change my morality.
This isn't just a bad argument. It's bad science. People like him are a cause of despair to those who'd like to see a truly scientific study of psychology.
Posted by: CrypticLife | May 16, 2008 10:41 AM
I don't recall the particular measures, but IIRC men tend to show higher variance on a variety of mental traits, including intelligence.
They're more likely to be unusually intelligent or unusually unintelligent, more likely to be authoritarian or anti-authoritarian, etc.
As far as I know those things are not well-explained by poor impulse control. (If they were, that would be an interesting result.)
So given that the majority is religious, it's not really surprising that there are more men who are atheists. I think---but don't know---there are more men who are extreme religious wackaloons as well.
And if poor impulse control is what causes atheism, I'm really curious how so many atheists manage to become scientists and especially top scientists. Either poor impulse control is good for your scientific ability, or there's something about atheism that makes you 100 times as likely to become a top scientist despite poor impulse control, or the minority of atheists with good impulse control are doing even more than 100 times their share of top science.
Go figure. :-)
Posted by: Paul W. | May 16, 2008 10:42 AM
I wonder how much of it has to do with men being traditionally more involved in the sciences? Many scientist are atheists; many scientists are men, therefore you will have a disproportionate number of male atheists.
In my family, it's the man who believes.
I do think the social aspects also have a role in this. Women do seem to enjoy hanging out at church a bit more than men - although there are some exceptions!
Posted by: Heather | May 16, 2008 10:42 AM
It seems to me that - even if you could prove that women are more religious than men, which is doubtful - in a patriarchal society, the male gender is the one who is afforded the most leeway in straying from societal norms. Women in such a society are actively made to conform, while some males have the authority and societal weight to stray from conformation. Since religious belief in this country is definitely a societal norm, being an atheist is still considered socially stigmatic, and as such men have more freedom of expression when it comes to their beliefs. But, in saying that, it doesn't explain how males are more religious per se, but simply how males are more free to express their doubts about their beliefs than women are ina strictly patriarchal society.
But, of course, all that was speculation - much like the original article - and I didn't even need a sociology degree to come up with that.
Posted by: brokenSoldier | May 16, 2008 10:42 AM
Historically, more men go to college than women. This leads to new ideas and a less sheltered life. I imagine that since it is more even now, we'll see the men/women atheism stats level out.
Interesting hypothesis -- could be tested, at least in part.
For my part, my (female) fiancee is just as educated as I am (terminal degree), and I'd say we're equally religious, although in different ways. I'm into the philosophical/analytical/historical side of it. She's into the worship side of it.
Consequently, she likes to go to church much more than I do, but I like to discuss and debate.
That's why I think the "churches are keyed more to the emotional needs of women than to the needs of men." Go into any church or college bible study and you'll see more women than dudes. And (according to many church-attending women), the dudes that go to church tend to act like more women.
Posted by: ungtss | May 16, 2008 10:43 AM
No True Sociologist would ever write such a ridiculous thing. :)
It's worth noting that, historically, many women who have been active in religious organizations have also been more active publicly in general. For example, in the 19th century, this was one of the few avenues in which women could participate in the public sphere (and thus in movements like anti-slavery, etc.). Same goes for spiritualism/feminism. Thus religion gave them some cover to engage in risk-taking behavior. Which is not to say that they were just using religion instrumentally - the relationships are far more complicated than that - but it is something to consider.
There's an interesting and relevant article at the Social Science Research Council's site "Is Race Real?" by Roger Lancaster about the supposed risk-taking gene:
raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/
(They're all interesting, but this one is most relevant here.)
Posted by: SC | May 16, 2008 10:43 AM
ungtss wrote, "I'm hearing a lot of sexism against women in here. I find that disturbing."
I find it disturbing that you automatically assume that church attendance means religous.
Posted by: Flex | May 16, 2008 10:50 AM
I find it disturbing that you automatically assume that church attendance means religous.
Please read what people write before responding to it. I specifically said it wasn't a perfect measure, but was a start. Do you disagree with that? I later said that I think my fiancee are equally religious, even though she likes church much more than I do.
Read and think next time. It'll help you out. Thanks.
Posted by: ungtss | May 16, 2008 10:52 AM
ungtss,
There's nothing inherently bad, weak, or irrational in being social. If your explanation is that religion is more tuned to the needs of women (which isn't the worst starting point), you have to say HOW they're tuned to the needs of women.
As soon as you do this, you'll get right into the "sexist" explanations. What are the needs of women to which you refer? Are women's needs so uniform? Why don't men have these same needs to the same degree?
Posted by: CrypticLife | May 16, 2008 10:52 AM
Don't "cross" me....hehehehehe.......no crucifixation (defined as having an inordinate amount of reverence for a torture device) here I take it. :)
Posted by: Umbo | May 16, 2008 10:52 AM
Yeah! I'm BAD! I'm BAD, mofo! Every time I enact the atheist asacraments, it stabs Baby Jeebus in the heart!
Posted by: aiabx | May 16, 2008 10:53 AM
Blaming society for being hostile to women, and not women themselves for sex-related differences is sexist now? Well shit, i'm sure behind the times. Good thing there was a dude there to straighten me out.
Posted by: Ugly In Pink | May 16, 2008 10:54 AM
By waving his magic(al thinking) wand?
Posted by: David | May 16, 2008 10:54 AM
I'm going out on a limb here, saying that there is a sex difference, which is expressed in different ways in different cultures.
Men tend to get together to do a common thing (hunt, watch football, drink, shoot the breeze), but women get together to establish and maintain their social position. Which is why they are always comparing clothes, hats, children etc, and read magazines about how to lose weight, improve looks and so on.
Now obviously this is not a hard and fast gender determined set of behavious, merely a tendency. In the UK we have a TV program called "Songs of Praise", transmitted from a different church each week - the congregation attend from other churches in the vicinity too. There are roughly equal numbers of boys and girls in the congregation, but many fewer adult males than women (especially the really old, I gexpect the old men are all dead). My guess is that the women are 'showing off their social status'. The church is not so much a place of religion, but a lek for the female of the species...
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | May 16, 2008 10:54 AM
By waving his magic(al thinking) wand
I've never heard that term for it before. ;-)
Posted by: Ugly In Pink | May 16, 2008 10:56 AM
Men tend to get together to do a common thing (hunt, watch football, drink, shoot the breeze), but women get together to establish and maintain their social position.
Jaw hits floor. I guess you used your magical thinking wand to determine that, huh?
Posted by: Ugly In Pink | May 16, 2008 10:58 AM
You have to be really careful in interpreting those prison statistics. It's a group of people in a dangerous and stressful position who are under pressure to form groups for their own safety, and there are also programs in prison that give privileges to the religious, and so there's an element of compulsion in their religiosity. There may be many criminals who are atheists who find it expedient to adopt a religion while in jail.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to consider how this might be relevant to sex differences in religiosity in a patriarchal culture.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 16, 2008 10:59 AM