Sociologist Philip Truscott of Southwest Baptist University has published a “scientific” paper titled “Rape, Suicide, and the Rise of Religious Nones“. Within it he argues that being non-religious makes you far more probably a rapist and also prone to suicide.
Spoiler: Don’t panic, his paper is pure BS, and the “journal” he has published it in, “the journal of sociology and christianity“. It is not an unbiased source.
OK, let’s dive right into it.
The Abstract
It reads (yes sorry, it is long)…
One of the most widely quoted concepts in late twentieth century criminology was the general theory of crime which proposed that insufficiency of self-control is the most important predictor of criminal behavior. The presence or absence of social bonds promoting self-control is an important element of this theory. This article argues that the decline of one important societal bond, religious affiliation, is impacting the incidence of rape. Since the 2010s, there has been a positive correlation between the proportion of the population declaring no religious affiliation (the “None” rate) in the 50 USA states and the campus rape rate. This correlation was significant in the four years from 2016 (r=0.464, p. 0.001) to 2019 (r=0.393, p. 0.005). Beginning in 2018, the None rate in the 50 states also correlates with the rape rate in the general US population (r=.343, p. 0.015) identified by Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Was this due to a variation in actual crimes or in reporting rates? Recent data make the reporting rate explanation implausible. Furthermore, the UCR rape rate is directly correlated with another violence statistic that is not susceptible to reporting error: suicide rates published by the CDC. This research contends that suicide rates are a proxy indicator for male self-control, as three quarters of suicides are male. Rape perpetration is also overwhelmingly male. The correlation of rape rates and suicide rates in the USA rose from 2014 (r=.55, p. = 0.00001) to 2019 (r=.66, p. = 0.0000001). It is argued that declining religiosity is lowering self-control, and that this is a plausible mechanism driving both increased rape and suicide.
Permit me to sum all that up for you.
He is presenting a correlation between the rise of non-religious people and also the rise of reported rapes on college campuses since 2010. This correlation is also supposedly maintained for suicide rates.
That’s it, that is his entire hypothesis. As in … “Hey, here is a correlation that panders to my beliefs so I’ll run with this and turn it into a paper“.
This is figure 1 …
And here is Figure 2, his suicide chart …
He even asks the very obvious question – “Is the correlation of religious none rates with campus rape rates due to reporting variations or real differences in occurrence?“, and he then makes the leap to the ever so obvious answer … “Since more religious states might attach a greater social stigma to sexual behavior, victim-blaming and correspondingly lower reporting rates might be the reason for lower apparent crime rates“, but then does a bit of vague arm waving to dismiss that.
The Obvious
For the first figure both lines are more or less the same flat lines over the years he measures (2012 to 2021). How is this an actual correlation?
I can pluck almost any two flat lines of totally unrelated things and pop them into a chart. If I then claimed some kind of causal relationship the mockery would indeed be an appropriate response.
For the second figure, we can see a steep rise and fall in one while the other line remains more or less the same … and this is also supposed to be a correlation!!!
For each, how exactly does one cause the other?
His “proof” is that the lines sort of look ever so vaguely similar and that’s it, that is all he has.
What do the subject matter experts say about this?
The Religious News Service saw the paper and thought, let’s ask the experts.
The title of their article on Jan 3 is not exactly a surprise – “Does a lack of faith lead to suicide? One study says yes. Scholars of secularism say no.“
I do have a very very minor quibble with their use of the word “study” to describe this deeply flawed and very silly paper. Beyond that, it’s an excellent debunking of what some will no doubt now pick up and run with as “scientific proof” that “you must be religious to be moral” claim.
So who did RNS ask about this?
They asked Ryan Cragun …
Ryan Cragun, a sociology professor at the University of Tampa, reviewed Prescott’s paper and said that, while it does show a correlation between the share of nones and rates of suicide and sexual assault, Truscott fails to prove that disbelief causes those higher rates. Cragun also said the paper ignores other data, such as that showing that states with higher murder rates are correlated to higher per-capita populations of evangelicals.
“If I were to use his logic, then I should be able to argue that evangelicals are more likely to kill people,” said Cragun, co-author with Jesse M. Smith of “Goodbye Religion: The Causes and Consequences of Secularization.”
They also asked David Speed …
David Speed, a Canadian scholar who studies the connection between atheism and health, said Truscott is asking an important question about the social effects of the decline of religion. But Speed, a professor of psychology at the University of New Brunswick in St. John, Canada, said Truscott failed to prove his claims.
While Truscott did show that both secularism and campus sexual assault were on the rise in some states, said Speed, he did not show that one caused the other.…
…Proving a causal link between the loss of religion and rise in suicide rates or assaults, said Speed, would require a great deal more data and analysis. So far, he added, no other studies have suggested that atheists or other nonbelievers are more likely to take their own lives or to commit crimes like sexual assault. Truscott’s critics also argue there’s no evidence for his claim that more faith-based schools would lead to fewer suicides.
They then went to Truscott himself with all this feedback and asked him to comment. Here is his “amazing” rebuttal …
To critics he simply says, “Prove that I am wrong.”
Oh FFS!, that’s not how anything works.
Two very very important points
This is very basic stuff.
Point 1 – If you make a claim then you need to prove it
If you can’t prove it, then there is no requirement for those that doubt your claim to disprove it, they can simply ignore it.
People can, and do, churn out claims that have no credible evidence at all – ghosts, gods, spirits, aliens, lock ness monster, bigfoot, etc… If we accepted every claim until disproven, then our grasp upon reality would indeed be deeply flawed.
Point 2 – A correlation is not a causation
Weird and wild correlations do indeed occur. The fact that they do does not in any way establish that one causes the other.
Via the wonderful “Spurious Correlations” website here are three randomly selected examples of correlations …
Via GenAI, we can even explain it …(by just getting GenAI to make stuff up) …”Parents naming their kids Aubrey are investing more in fancy cars, leading to an increase in gas consumption and therefore, an uptick in demand for Exxon Mobil’s products. Looks like the name Aubrey is driving more than just social media popularity!“
So yes, don’t trust what GenAI ever tells you, ah but that’s a discussion for another day, so let’s not go there now.
So here is another correlation …
Again via GenAI – “As the air cleared in Des Moines, it seems the postmasters weren’t the only ones feeling a bit “un-stationed.” It’s possible that with cleaner air, postal workers and machinery were operating more efficiently, leading to a reduced need for postmasters statewide. It’s a classic case of smog being the only thing propping up those postage-oriented job positions!“
How about this next one as “proof” that astrology might be on to something …
… and yet again via GenAI …“As Neptune moved closer, it got too close for comfort, creating gravitational budget cuts at NASA. The astronomical expenses simply couldn’t be kept afloat, sinking their funding to new depths. It seems even in space, the budget has no limit – it’s truly out of this world!”
Still Worried about your non-belief?
Don’t be.
No really, just don’t. As has been pointed out by Sociologist Phil Zuckerman, yes this time a real data-driven sociologist, …
it is the affirmatively godless who are exhibiting greater moral proclivities in our nation today than the proudly pious.
… and you don’t need to lean upon studies by subject matter experts to appreciate that. Just look at the support for the most malevolent and corrupt SCOTUS ever, an actual felon, by almost 81% of evangelicals, and also let’s not forget the almost daily list of pastors convicted of sexual abuse.
One Further Thought
Is belief actually a choice?
If for example it was scientifically established that belief in Athena led to far higher morality and a far better life, could you then will yourself to start believing in Athena?
There are two indisputable facts that the paper does establish
The first rather robust fact that this paper does indeed establish is that the author is an idiot. Once again for those asleep in the back – Putting aside the dubiousness of his specific correlations, a correlation does not establish any causation.
The second fact is the impact upon the reputation of the “peer-reviewed” journal that published this. He submitted his paper to other far more reputable journals, and they all said “Absolutely No way“. Meanwhile, this “journal of sociology and christianity” reviewed it, and by saying “yes we will publish this” they have obliterated any reputation that they might have been striving to cling to.
Further Reading
- Religious News Service debunking of it all – Does a lack of faith lead to suicide? One study says yes. Scholars of secularism say no.
- Friendly Atheist debunking – With awful logic, Christian professor says atheism leads to more sexual assault and self-harm