GLENN STANTON debunks the widely cited claim that Christians divorce more often than those with no religious affiliation. In fact, the opposite is true. Unfortunately, the numbers he mentions for divorce among those who “regularly attend church” are still high.

— Comments —-

Jesse Powell writes:

The article by Glenn Stanton supports something I have observed when looking at demographic data, that is that people who “take their religion seriously” have a wide variety of positive social indicators that those who are more secular don’t. I think the key is “religiosity” or more broadly being devout. Those who are more devout do better than those who are not and it doesn’t matter much what specific form the devoutness takes; it’s the devoutness itself that is important. I will add that atheists can be devout in the way I am using the term here; devoutness doesn’t require religion even though religion is very helpful and important in directing people towards a devout understanding of life.

So what is “devoutness” exactly in the way I am using the term here? Devoutness is taking life seriously, taking one’s obligations in life seriously, taking one’s purpose in life seriously, being oriented towards “duties” rather than “rights”. A “duty” is about service to others while a “right” is about the elevation of self. Duties tend to be socially constructive while an emphasis on “rights” tends to be narcissistic and socially destructive. A devout person is oriented towards obedience to God as opposed to the assertion of the will. A devout person views the purpose of life as being laid out and imposed by “The Creator” where his main task in life is to discern what it is that God wants him to do and then to enact God’s plan for his life as faithfully and obediently as possible.

One might ask how an atheist can meaningfully believe in his duty to “obey God” when by definition the atheist does not believe in God. An atheist can construct such a sense of duty by defining God as “that which is good” or “that which creates and sustains life”. By obeying this construction of God the atheist is then promoting “that which is good” and is sustaining the continuation of life and in that way is “serving God” and therefore being good. In other words God is that which is good; this then means that God is good. Obeying God is then good as God itself is good. Obeying the good is good. Serving God is good as serving God means to serve the good, and it is good to serve the good. Obeying God then means to obey that which is good. One has a duty to obey that which is good; therefore one has a duty to obey God. This is how an atheist can construct a meaningful belief in his duty to obey God. The atheist simply defines God as being “that which is good” and everything then follows from that premise.

Devoutness is what I would characterize as being “The Truth” and this is why devoutness leads to positive social outcomes and a well functioning society in general. The greater the level of devoutness the lower the level of a whole range of social pathologies. Regular church attendance is a marker of greater devoutness in one’s outlook on life; this is why people who attend church regularly do better on a variety of social indicators including having a lower divorce rate.

Devoutness is a universally attainable and desirable attribute. I think that the promotion and resurrection of devoutness in American life is the central means by which American culture will be rebuilt.

Please follow and like us: