In Investigator #167 Mr Straughen suggests that church attendance and belief in the Bible causes crime. Not all crime, just more crime on average than non-believers commit.

He begins by arguing that crime in Australia measured nationwide has decreased in the past century.

Then he cites data to show that religious belief and church attendance have also decreased:

In 1911 there were 10,000 people (0.4%) who chose the option 'No religion' on their Census form; in 2011 there were just under 4.8 million (22% of Australians).

Between 1950 to 2007 frequent church attendance [i.e. people who attend at least monthly] has declined from 44% to 17%.



Psychologists have made discoveries from which it ought to follow that Christians are outstandingly law-abiding.

Firstly, Cognitive Dissonance theory states that people tend to match their behaviour to their beliefs. Inconsistency between belief and behavior produces a tension that psychologists call "cognitive dissonance". To dispel the unpleasant feeling people will alter either what they believe or how they act.

Psychologist Kendra Cherry explains:


Similarly Wikipedia:


Since people strive for internal consistency including consistency of belief with conduct, the beliefs and values of different groups of people should indicate which groups commit less crime.

The New Testament teaches honesty, truthfulness, generosity, courage, virtue, morality, charity, hospitality, self control, care for others, fairness, compassion, sobriety, tolerance, peace, conformity to secular laws, and much more and sums it all up with "Love does no wrong to a neighbor."

Believers in the New Testament should therefore by Cognitive Dissonance theory be outstandingly law-abiding. Indeed, millions of ministries by ordinary Christians for the good of others confirm that the Bible's positive influence is effective.

The second discovery is that being observed or merely believing one is being observed reduces bad behaviour.

Baraniuk (2013) writes: "If we are being watched, we are a lot less likely to transgress social norms, cheat, litter or steal."

The Journal of Experimental Child Psychology reports an investigation in which 67 children played a game the rules of which were so tough that success required cheating. Each child played either in the presence of an adult, or alone, or in the presence of "Princess Alice" an invisible person who, the researchers assured the child, would be watching. Prior to the game each child was asked whether he believed in Princess Alice. Of 11 believers only one child cheated. Of seven disbelievers five cheated.

The Bible teaches that everyone is under ultimate surveillance: "And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account." (Hebrews 4:13)

Bible believers, therefore, feel restraints against doing evil and encouragements to do good that unbelievers lack.



Since psychological discovery suggests that Straughen's argument for disproportional crime by Christians is mistaken, where did he go wrong?

One error is that he argues mainly in terms of "religion", "religious belief" and "religiosity". This allows him to combine Bible believers with all sorts of riff-raff. To illustrate, consider ancient times when idol worship was the norm. If an ancient researcher did research in terms of "religiosity" instead of distinguishing "idol worshippers" and "almighty-God worshippers", he would have wrongly lumped Christians with idol worshippers. Straughen likewise failed to define his categories or groups with sufficient detail.

His second error is that correlation is not causation.

Runyon and Haber (1967) explain:


I'll illustrate the point with some examples:

Nankervis (2016) reports: "Tougher licence restrictions for new drivers have helped more than halve the number of teenage motorists killed and injured on the state's roads."

Nankervis says that fewer teenagers are killed or injured because the government introduced new laws that keep teenage drivers out of high-risk situations. If we did not know about the new laws, but we knew that religion is declining, we might blame "religiosity" for having caused more traffic accidents.

If church-attendance promotes crime and church-attendance has declined then the crime of retail theft should have shrunk. Instead it has "skyrocketed". Consider:



Straughen claims atheism is increasing. Therefore by "correlation" we might blame increased retail theft on thieving atheists! However, the preceding quotation, suggests that increased self-service created increased opportunity. Three variables — retail theft, atheists, and self-service — increased together but did not necessarily cause each other.

Another problem is that Straughen did not calculate the extent of the correlation. Mathematicians have formulae to calculate the degree of correlation between two variables where zero means no correlation, and +1 means 100% positive correlation. Suppose we compare the weights of ten people with their bank accounts and using the mathematical test known as "Pearson r" calculate a correlation of 0.9. This would be a significant result, but although significant it would not prove that weight-gain causes increased savings or vice-versa. Straughen, however, did not give us even this much.



What's behind the change in some crime statistics in Australia at the same time church attendance went down? I offer some suggestions:

The networks of charity and social work conducted by many churches have been copied and largely superseded in people's lives by government services. The result is that many who attended church for the material benefits and counted themselves as "Christians" in censuses, progressively stayed away. My parents were of that sort, they got help from churches (in their case they did not even attend church) but on census forms professed church membership.

Furthermore, the Bible's teaching on tolerance (see #167) includes being non-judgmental, giving people the benefit of the doubt, being "ready to forgive", and treating people as innocent until guilt is proved. Such tolerance makes it easy for imitation Christians to mingle with genuine ones, which Jesus foretold would happen — "let both of them grow together..." (Matthew 13:30). The many people who were "hangers on" with little knowledge of the Bible would not have been much concerned about ethics or be especially law-abiding, hence giving an elevated "Christian" crime rate. Had churches gone against what Jesus said and excluded people on suspicion, critics would shout "Intolerance!" The choice is between welcoming many and be "tarred with the same brush" or exclude and be called "intolerant".

As people progressively left the churches, the following factors, I suggest, coincidentally reduced some crime statistics:

1.    Technology and increased free trade have made almost everything cheap. A pensioner today who avoids illegal drugs, gambling, smoking and drunkenness can afford to purchase almost everything the rich of fifty years ago could afford — and a lot more that previous generations never thought of. Possessing almost everything money can buy probably inhibits crime because criminal conduct won't gain much more yet risks losing everything by imprisonment.

2.    Beginning with finger-printing in the 1890s crime investigation became progressively more sophisticated. Reports of perpetrators who were uncovered with new technology decades after they committed their crime have multiplied. Lately society has installed cameras everywhere. A person who covers his face, and wears plastic suits to avoid shedding DNA, might still be recognized by his "gait" for which data bases have already been started. It may be that many potential criminals are inhibited by increased risk of detection.

3.    People are now more likely than before to report certain crimes such as child abuse and domestic violence; and some "crimes" have been decriminalized and are no longer counted as crimes. Both changes affect the overall statistics.



Mr Straughen suggests education would reduce crime and he lists factors such as alcohol, immaturity of youth, poverty, and parental neglect which education and community support can combat.

Here he agrees with the Bible which advocated education in ethics and right conduct for both children and adults thousands of years ago! From Moses' time onwards parents taught their children the Law of Moses. (Deuteronomy 6:6-7, 25) After Solomon's time, instruction at home and in synagogues included the Book of Proverbs, and after Jesus the New Testament. (Ephesians 6:4)

The proverbs, if obeyed, give "length of days and years of life and abundant welfare". (3:1-2) In particular, Proverbs includes information on alcohol, youth, poverty and parenting such as to reduce crime.


REFERENCES:

Baraniuk, C. End of anonymity, New Scientist, 26 October, 2013, 34-37

Cherry, K.
http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/f/dissonance

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.003

Nankervis, D. Changes Preserving lives, Sunday Mail, February 28, 2016, p. 9

Nelson, D. & Perrone, S. Understanding and Controlling Retail Theft, Australian Institute of Criminology No. 152, 2000

Runyon, R.P. & Haber, A. 1977 Fundamentals of Behavioral Statistics, Third Edition, Addison-Wesley, p. 160

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

www.newscientist.com/article/dn20391-godlike-princess-curbs-childhood-cheating

 

---

In his comments on my article Religious Belief and Moral Behaviour - A Reply (No. 167, pg 40), anonymous says "Mr Straughen suggests that
church attendance and belief in the Bible causes crime." (pg 46)

This is a misapprehension of the aim of my article.

The article's primary aim was to examine if a decline in religious belief was associated with or has led to an increase in crime, particularly violent crime, and I tried to make this clear when I asked the following rhetorical question on page 42: "Violence exists and the level fluctuates, but is a decline in religious belief responsible for periods when violence increases?"

And in my conclusion I stated that "there does not appear to be any conclusive evidence that fluctuations in the level of violence in Australia are linked to the degree of religiosity of our society" (pg 49).

My research led me to the conclusion that there is no causal link between the prevalence of religious belief and the level of crime, and I thought I made this clear in my concluding remarks as shown above.

A section of my article on page 44 was titled "Religious Belief and Criminality" which shows how criminals can misuse religion to justify their crimes, and I can only assume Anonymous misunderstood the intent of the comments contained therein.

My intention was to show that a person's religious beliefs were distinct from their ethical behaviour, not to show or imply that church attendance and belief in the Bible causes crime as Anonymous suggests.

Again, I made this clear when I said on page 45: "The evidence presented so far indicates that the presence or absence of religious belief is not a factor in criminality or violence."

Anonymous' criticism of my article appears to be largely based on his misapprehension that I was attempting to establish a causal link between religion and crime when in fact this was not at all the case. In hindsight perhaps I should have stated this in greater detail at the outset.

---

In #168 I represented Mr Straughen's argument in #167 as follows:


Straughen in #169, p.10 says this "is a misapprehension" of his aim.

The misapprehension was easy to make.

Under his subheading "The Prevalence of Historical Violence" in #167 Straughen argues: "If there was a causal link between high levels of religious belief and low levels of violence we would expect to see centuries of high religious belief and church attendance having lower rates of violence than today."

He then shows that the opposite to "what we would expect" has occurred in Australia. He cites statistics that show religious attendance has declined or remained static but crime and violence have decreased. Of other societies he says:


He adds that: "Most criminals have religious beliefs..."

I apologize to Mr Straughen for not seeing his real intention which was to show that:


However, my refutation in #168 is not wasted since the same points also refute Straughen's clarified case in which he implies:


To come up with such conclusions Straughen combined all religions, and all religious beliefs into one big mix as if there is nothing to distinguish them. An ISIS murderer who murders in the name of his religion has definitely not kept his "religious beliefs ... distinct from his ethical behaviour" but has combined them.  Similarly, a Bible believer who heals the blind because Jesus set the example has also not kept his "religious beliefs ... distinct from his ethical behaviour" but has combined them.

If we collect statistics under the label "religion" that combine the actions of murderers with the actions of healers, the conclusion will misrepresent and defame the latter.

Beliefs, whether they are religious, secular, or biblical make a difference to behaviour because people tend to act in agreement with their beliefs. This is self evident, and confirmed by "Cognitive Dissonance" theory as explained in #168.

---

I have read Anonymous' response to my previous article (No. 170, pg 38) and must respectfully disagree with him.

If I have understood him correctly he appears to be suggesting that going to church can reduce crime because of cognitive dissonance — people will act in accordance with the teachings of Christianity because to do otherwise will result in mental discomfort such as feelings of guilt or sin which in turn will
cause them to do the right thing to reduce this discomfort.

The problem is that people often overcome cognitive dissonance not by changing their behaviour for the better, but by a variety of psychological defence mechanisms. For example:

Minimize or Avoid
A person may adopt a "who cares" attitude and avoid examining the inconsistency, or divert their attention to something else.

Rationalization
A person can simply make excuses or justifications for the inconsistency.

Acceptance
Rather than avoiding the inconsistency or justifying it a person can just consciously accept that it exists, and deal with the feelings that it generates. (1)

Anonymous also argues that people act in accordance with their beliefs. This is clearly not always the case, and this is probably because we are not purely rational beings. For example, Christianity teaches that infidelity is wrong, and yet when the data is examined we find the following:


Although these Christians know that infidelity is wrong it doesn't stop them from being unfaithful — they cope with or manage to avoid cognitive dissonance and do what they want to do despite the church's teachings, possibly through a process of tautological rationalisation, which can be defined as follows:


Anonymous claims his criticisms are still valid because I have not distinguished between religious beliefs, and compares the actions of murderous religious fanatics with healers in an attempt to illustrate his point. Again, I must respectfully disagree with him.

Here, he seems to be implying that we can separate out true Christians from pseudo-Christians (to use his terminology) and would no doubt categorise those Christians who commit adultery as being in the latter category.

The definition of a Christian in very broad terms is one who professed belief in Jesus — that he is the Son of God, that he was crucified for the sins of humanity and rose from the dead, and that all who believe in him shall be saved.

Can we really say that all those adulterous Christians denied the above tenants and were therefore in some way not Christians? Belief and action can be quite different things. Apart from the psychological defence mechanisms against cognitive dissonance that I have already mentioned there is also compartmentalisation — a state of mind that enables conflicting ideas to co-exist by inhibiting direct or explicit acknowledgement of the fact:


In Letters (No 170, pg 4) Anonymous wonders if the statistics I quoted which show the overall trends in the incidences of crime are reducing are in fact misleading. Anonymous can wonder all he likes, and I respect his right to do so, but something far more substantial than anecdotes is required to disprove the data.

Finally, if people engage in socially acceptable behaviour then I think it is more likely because they have been socialised properly and lack sociopathic tendencies. On the other hand if people want to do the wrong thing they will find a way of justifying their actions, either consciously or unconsciously.


References

(1) Resolving Cognitive Dissonance
 http://www.willmeekphd.com/resolving-cognitive-dissonance/

(2) Why Affairs Happen
 http://www.todayschristianwoman.com/articies/2008/september/
 why-affairs-happen.htrnl

(3) Hypocrisy
 http://www.hardcoretruth.com/Hypocrisy /

(4) 15 Common Defence Mechanisms
http://psychcentral.com/l ib/15-common-defense-mechanisms/

---

Mr Straughen misunderstands me to have argued:


I've actually never met a Christian who reasoned, "I must do what is right so as to reduce my cognitive dissonance."

The proper motivation for living a godly life is, as the Bible says, the "love of God":


The feelings and motivations are positive, not negative or destructive. From such motivation it follows that a Christian's behaviour should closely match the ethical requirements taught in the New Testament.

Straughen, however, believes in science, or so he claims. For that reason I cited "Cognitive Dissonance theory" as the scientific reason to conclude Christians have a lower crime rate than non-Christians.

According to Cognitive Dissonance people strive for internal consistency and this includes trying to match their behaviour to their beliefs. If they don't they'll suffer an unpleasant tension or stress which will move them to alter either what they believe or how they act.

The New Testament teaches many principles that are incompatible with criminal conduct such as honesty, truthfulness, "good Samaritanism", charity, obedience to lawful authorities, sexual morality, being examples of good conduct, and many more. Individuals who take these seriously would not add to the crime statistics.

Cognitive Dissonance theory does not predict 100% agreement of conduct with belief since, as Straughen points out, people often adopt "psychological defense mechanisms" to cope with the dissonance. The opposite is true too — psychological defense mechanisms do not compel people to act contrary to their beliefs all the time but can be recognized for what they are and sidelined.

In Investigator #63 I provided a biblical list of how people deceive themselves, and some methods in the list are similar to the "psychological defense mechanisms". The Bible tells people: "But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves." (James 1:22)



So, why do official crime statistics sometimes show little difference between Christians and non-Christians?

Christianity has a welcoming attitude besides being helpful, charitable and generous. Prior to the rise of welfare states this attracted many for the benefits they could get and resulted in many who call themselves "Christian" without being serious about it.

Sometimes congregations and whole denominations go bad:


In addition modern societies have incorporated many biblical principles into modern law, resulting in overall conduct that is more benign and biblical than a few centuries ago.

We thus have two converging trends that together obscure the statistics.