i find the study kind of silly as well. for a multitude of reasons. primarily because i find its cause and effect correlation slightly wonky. i find its cause and effect causality also wonky. so here is a work by an ‘academic’ whose correlation and causality are both screwed:) So there isn’t much left.

And i find it quite amazing that they have held neither parents, nor schools, nor the state – 3 institutions with which youngsters interact the most – responsible for breakdown in society. Rather, it is the role of the “church”. As far as media is concerned i am slightly ambivalent about the ‘media effects’ theory. coz most criminals are shown as dead or caught. most heros/heroines are in steady long term relationships. most people who have abortions are shown as losers. most who consume drugs are shown the same. So i am not sure that they are conforming to media images. I am fairly sure that there is breakdown of society for two reasons:

a) there are those areas where there is little or no parental control
b) there are those areas where increasing fundamentalism is causing parents to exert too much control.

and both are contributing to deviancy.

Wouldn’t it be great is someone could come up with a cure for stupidity. With just one treatment we could eliminate 99.9% of the world’s problems.

A social “scientist” named Gregory Paul has published a “study” in the “Journal of Religion and Society” which purports to show that there is a correlation between religiosity and social ills. Just what the world needed: more stupidity to further muddy up the on-going debate between legitimate scientists and religious fanatics.

First, no one should be allowed to use the word “scientist” in their title unless they have a firm understanding of mathematics and are capable of interpreting the statistics they generate. This effectively eliminates all sociologists and psychologists. These pretenders obviously have not mastered even basic math and have no understanding of the scientific method. Their jumping into the debate with faulty interpretation of questionable statistics only adds confusion. The religious fanatics will capitalize on this “study” by a “scientist” to further discredit their opponents.

Second, the debate has enough stupid players already. On the one hand we have fools who ignore all evidence that disagrees with their preconceived ideas, no matter how convincing it may be. On the other hand, we have arrogant scientists who should know better than to argue with these close-minded dimwits.

GP states that in the US, “the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution.” How did he determine this? Did he rely on a survey? Does he not realize that most Americans are conformist, who would claim to believe in a creator simply because they think that is the popular thing to do. He certainly didn’t monitor church attendance because most people don’t attend regularly. Perhaps he just listened to our very vocal preachers and politicians: a couple of groups who wouldn’t know the truth if it hit them in the face.

A more plausible explanation for the high rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide in the US is the aforementioned tendency of Americans to conform to what is currently popular. People, especially teens, are heavily influenced by movies and television, and one need only view some of the offensive offerings of the media to see why we have high STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide. The growth of drug activity and gangs in our cities explains homicide, and juvenile and early adult mortality. Suicide is a byproduct of the increasing stress of urban life. All of this is the result of our compulsion to conform.

On the other hand, perhaps someone already has come up with a cure for stupidity: nuclear war. We may end the debate after all.