I've been concerned that as or society becomes more secular and less Judeo-Christian we'll become increasingly immoral and politically radical. And by "morality" I'm not just talking about sex: I also mean things like not returning lost items, or petty theft, or lying. And that we'll lose some of the best features of our political system through popular neglect or even animosity.

This relates to an 'argument'* I've had with John Ray of Dissecting Leftism: I've made this argument to him, and he's pointed out that Australia, as measured by church attendance, is generally irreligious, but certainly doing quite well morally and is certainly quite politically conservative.

(* To say "argument" presumes quite a bit, given the popularity of his own work, and my own obscurity. We simply exchanged a few letters and he politely brushed me off, remarking we should discuss it over a glass of wine. Should I get to his corner of Australia and have time, I may call his bluff -- or discover otherwise! ;-))

To quote something he wrote on Front Page Magazine:

Many influential conservative writers of the past (e.g. Burke, 1790) have held that Christianity is an essential foundation for conservatism — though others (e.g. Hayek, 1944) disagree. A large part of the reason for that is the traditional role of the church as arbiter and enforcer of morality in general and sexual morality in particular. Although suspicious of authority generally, conservatives have never shrunk from the need for authority if they consider it essential to the functioning of a civil society. And morality has always to them seemed essential for any kind of civilization. And morality generally has to be taught and to some degree enforced. It does not always come naturally. And both the church and the State have generally seemed needed for setting and maintaining moral standards.

In the modern world, however, it is clear that civil society and a modicum of morality (both sexual and otherwise) can survive without the church so the Burkean view that religion and its moral codes are essential to a good life can no longer be reasonably maintained by conservatives or anyone else.

Elsewhere, he backs this view up by pointing to Aussies, who are generally irreligious, as measured by low church attendance, but who are politically conservative, and as moral as any other nation, if not moreso.

But I've always thought it mattered that they were generally irreligious Christians (just as John Ray is an atheist who absorbed many of his morals, if I read his bio correctly, from a phase when he was a devout Presbyterian), and that there is still a small but meaningful strata of believers among them.

If I may, I'd like to quote something written by Rodney Stark (italics in original):

Two conclusions follow... First, the effects of religion on morality are contingent upon images of Gods as conscious, morally concerned beings; religiousness based on impersonal or amoral Gods will not influence moral choices. Second, participation in religious rites will have little or no independent effect on morality.

Recently, to test these conclusions, I conducted an elaborate research study based on data for the United States and thirty-three other nations. The results were consistent and overwhelmingly supportive.

In each of the twenty-seven nations within Christendom, the greater the importance people placed on God, the less likely they were to approve of buying good they knew to be stolen; of failure to report that one had accidentally damaged an auto in a parking lot; or of smoking marijuana. The correlations were as high in Protestant as in Roman Catholic nations and whether average levels of church attendance were high or low....

The findings are similar for Muslim nations, where the importance place on Allah is very strongly correlated with morality, but mosque attendance is of no significance. In India, too, concern for the Gods matters, but temple attendance has no detectable effect on morality. But in Japan, where the Gods are conceived of as many, small, and not particularly interested in human moral behavior, religions is irrelevant to moral outlooks... Nor are there God or temple effects in China. However, in China prayer does matter, but in the wrong direction! That is, the more often they pray, the more tolerant the Chinese are of immorality. I suggest that this result is due to the fact that in China, "prayer" seldom implies a long-standing, deeply felt relationship with a God, but merely involves requests for favors from various divinities of small scope. As such, praying tends to represent a quite self-centered and self-serving activity, consistent with rapidly shifting from one God to another on the basis of results, or even taking a stick to the statue of a God who fails....

These results show that, in and of themselves, rites and rituals have little or no impact on... conformity to the moral order... [However] Images of Gods as conscious, powerful, morally concerned beings function to sustain the moral order. [For the Glory of God, pp 374-376]

I would point out that church attendance *has* been linked to certain categories of individual moral behavior -- for example, churchgoers give more money and time to charity (including even secular charities) than the irreligious, at least in the US -- and I'd also note that Stark's research measured moral beliefs and standards, not necessarily subsequent actions.

However, my point here is that it does seem that our image of God is extremely important for "sustain[ing] the moral order." As I've said, in the West, even our atheists are typically Judeo-Christian-flavored atheists.

So my concern isn't so much about church attendance, but more about losing the image and importance of the "theistic" God we've embraced in the West. As "God" becomes more nonjudgmental and pagan-y, and/or more mentally absent, I believe morality (and political conservatism, with which John Ray is concerned, above) will indeed decline.

And it seems that is, in fact, happening now in Europe.

So the difference between Australia and Europe, again, is that Aussies, while irreligious, are irreligious about a God they feel fairly strongly and friendly toward, a God who cares about traditional moral categories. In Europe, on the other hand, the image of the theistic God is on the decline -- even as alternative forms of religious ritual increase. So you can have people attending churches (or performing neo-Druidic rituals), but learning of a God/Goddess who wants you to have the right opinion on global issues but isn't especially concerned if you cheat on your spouse or pad your expenses at work.

Update: More of John Ray's objections can be found here. A strong objection found there might be that "Australians DO have a widely agreed-on moral code -- but it is not a Christian one." He gives, as examples, five commandments of which only one (don't incriminate friends) doesn't overlap with Christian values. But of course there are far more basic values which keep Australia livable -- don't steal, etc.

I agree entirely that individuals can be highly moral without believing in (for example) Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. They could, for example, arrive at moral values through the study of history. And I'm open minded toward the argument that societies could have other sources of moral learning.

But nonetheless, it seems belief in a theistic God can be generally helpful towards encouraging moral behavior. Further, it doesn't seem that Australia is all that irreligious, in terms of belief: although church attendance may be low, it seems that only 15% of Australians consider themselves nonreligious (in comparison with 13.5% of Americans) [1]. Another survey mentioned here seems to show about 80% (79% here) of Australians believe in "God" (63% being Christian), whereas, to contrast with Europe again, only 55% of Brits (here, and similar numbers here) claim to believe in God -- yet 65% believe in ghosts and spirits.