George Gallup, one of the most respected public opinion pollsters in the world, echoes some of the criticisms I made about Gregory Paul's study which purported to find a positive correlation between religious belief and several social pathologies. Mr Gallup has written a letter to the Times of London taking Ruth Gledhill to task for her uncritical news article puffing Mr Paul's little study.
From David Virtue's exclusive report, here are Gallup's two main objections to Paul's work:
First. Paul claims that regressions and multivariate analyses were not used because 'causal factors for rates of societal function are complex', and because he finds enough uniformity across the cases of 18 of the world's most powerful societies to consider them basically consistent and not in need of control variables. Can he identify a single other study published in a major social scientific journal that compared results across countries that did not employ multivariate analysis to control for differences among nations? No, because multivariate analysis is required for cross-national comparisons of this sort.
Secondly. In order for the author's bold claims against religious commitment contributing to society to hold true, he would have to refute the hundreds of volumes that have proven otherwise. From discussions on parenting and fatherhood, to mental and physical health, the weight of empirical evidence is against Paul's assertions: religious commitment has notably positive effects on the individual and collective levels of human society.
That first criticism is the same as one I presented in my post of 27 September. As I said then, regression analysis, or some other kind of multi-variate analysis, is required to assess adequately the factors Mr Paul attempts to correlate on a pair-wise basis.
Mr Gallup's second point has been noted by other bloggers. Mr Paul's work represents a single study with this finding, compared to hundreds of other, far more rigourous studies showing that religious faith is correlated with all kinds of positive individual chacteristics and social outcomes. It is simply not rational to reject all those other findings on the basis of this one simple-minded analysis which, to be honest, seems to have been done on the back of an envelope.
Read the whole thing for an outline of how properly to measure religious belief and practice, and the results that obtain when such measures are correlated with specific behaviours.
Vindication is sweet.
UPDATE (30 Dec.): Touchstone Magazine has published George Gallup's article criticising Mr Paul's study.









Posts
