Part of the reason, I think, is a confusion on the part of many of its supporters. Most of those who like Paul’s conclusions like it because they want to say that there is no clear link between secularism and social dysfunction. If someone thinks this is probably true, they can do two different things: try to show that there are philosophical reasons for doubting such a link (e.g., reasons that have to do with ethics itself); or try to show that there are empirical reasons for doubting such a link. The Paul study purports to be a first attempt at the latter; but often when people are faced with the problems of the study, they retreat to the more purely philosophical reasons, and treat those not merely as reasons to think the desired conclusion right, but also as reasons to think Paul’s particular argument right. Paul’s reasoning gets conflated with a more reasonable argument (in the sense that people could reasonably be convinced by it, whatever its ultimate merit), and we get an oscillation: Paul’s argument is supposed to provide empirical reasons for the conclusion, and they must be good reasons because they lead to the right conclusion (as shown by some other, more philosophical argument). This is all sophistry, of course, but it’s hard to eradicate.

Of course it’s often slightly more subtly expressed than that. We find a related version of the oscillation in Paul’s own article: he starts out claiming that he’s looking at whether secularization is inconsistent with society’s possession of the moral foundations necessary for a healthy society. This puts it entirely in philosophical territory (i.e., whether secularization is a means rationally consistent with certain social goals). He then shifts over to muddling about with the statistics in order to argue that belief in the creator does not benefit “national cultures” — which is a purely empirical issue. Then he concludes that “The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.” (“A Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster,” however, is a stronger claim, and much easier to criticize, than the claim that godlessness is not consistent with the goal of establishing moral foundations for a healthy society.) Depending on what societal disaster he means this could either be an ethical claim about consistency of means and ends again (which it would have to be to answer the question he began with), in which case it’s not supported by the argument; or an empirical conclusion about the apparent consequences as they currently stand. But if it’s the latter, it doesn’t require any of the statistics he actually looks at, since all you’d have to do is look to see whether there are any societies that are (1) godless; and (2) not experiencing societal disaster. (This is, in fact, virtually admitted by Paul himself, since he supports the conclusion by pointing out that there are secular societies that “are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain social cohesion”. Now, you don’t have to look at homicide rates to know that the Swedes are able to govern themselves and exist as a coherent society, since the existence of Sweden is proof of both. But this doesn’t tell you much at all about how to answer the original question.) And anyone taken in by that is likely to make the same mistake themselves.

This Skeptic magazine, and the like-named Society, are headed by Michael Shermer, who spends a lot of time going around saying Intelligent Design is not science. He could stay closer to home and discover a great example of non-science in his own magazine. But that wouldn’t fit his pre-determined conclusions.