Gods, Rituals, and the Moral Order

Author(s): Rodney Stark

Source: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 2001), pp. 619-636
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387656
Accessed: 02/04/2009 16:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org
Gods, Rituals, and the Moral Order

RODNEY STARK

Thefunctionalist "law" that religion sustains the moral ordermustbe amended.As is demonstratedin this study,
religionhas this effectonlyas it is based on belief inpowetful, active,conscious,morally-concernedgods. Contra-r
to Durkheim'sclaims,participationin religious ritualsper se has little independentimpacton moralityand none
when done on behalf of gods conceivedas unconsciousessences, or as conscious gods of small scope and lacking
moral concerns. Thus, the link between gods and morality is limited mainly to societies having more complex
cultures,buteven in some highlydevelopedsocieties a religious basisfor moralityis missing.Quantitativeresults
are based on 427 societies included in the Atlas of WorldCultures,and on surveysof the United States and 33
other nations.

Religion functions to sustain the moral order. This classic proposition,handeddown from
the founders,is regardedby many as the closest thing to a "law"thatthe social scientificstudy of
religion possesses.
In his Burett Lectures,W. RobertsonSmithexplainedthat"evenin its rudestform Religion
was a moral force, the powers that men reveredwere on the side of social orderand moral law;
and the fear of the gods was a motive to enforce the laws of society, which were also the laws
of morality"(1889:53). Emile Durkheim,of course, arguedthat religion exists because it unites
humansinto moralcommunities,and while law and custom also regulateconduct,religion alone
"assertsitself not only over conductbut over the conscience. It not only dictatesactionsbut ideas
and sentiments"([1886] 1994:21). And, according to Bronislaw Malinowski, "every religion
implies some rewardof virtueand punishmentof sin" (1935:viii).
In one formor another,this propositionundoubtedlyappearsin every introductorysociology
and anthropologytext on the market.But, as will be seen, it's wrong. Moreover,it wasn't even
handeddown from the founders,at least not unanimously!Indeed,the founderof Britishanthro-
pology, EdwardTylor,and the founderof British sociology, HerbertSpencer,1both took pains to
point out that only some kindsof religions have moral implications.
Tylor([1871] 1958:446) reported:

To some the statementmay seem startling,yet the evidence seems to justify it, that the relationof morality to
religion is one that only belongs in its rudiments,or not at all, to rudimentarycivilization. The comparisonof
savage and civilized religions bring into view ... a deep-lying contrastin theirpracticalaction on humanlife ...
the popularidea thatthe moralgovernmentof the universeis an essential tenet of naturalreligion simply falls to
the ground.Savageanimism[religion]is almostdevoid of thatethicalelementwhich to the educatedmoder mind
is the very mainspringof practicalreligion. Not, as I have said, that moralityis absentfrom the life of the lower
[cultures].... But these ethical laws stand on their own groundof traditionand public opinion, comparatively
independentof the animistic beliefs and rites which exist beside them. The lower animism is not immoral,it is
unmoral.

Spencer(1896 11:808-09) also noted thatmany religions ignore morality,and he went even
fartherby suggestingthatsome religionsactivelyencouragecrimeandimmorality:"Atthe present
time in India, we have freebooterslike the Domras, among whom a successful theft is always
celebratedby a sacrificeto theirchief god Gandak."
Although little noticed, this dissentingview has continuedamong anthropologists.In 1922,
J. P. Mills (p. 121) noted thatthe religion of the Lhotas includes no moralcode: "Whateverit be

RodneyStarkis Professorof Sociology and of ComparativeReligion, Universityof Washington,Seattle, WA98195-3340.

Email: socstark@aol.com

Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion 40:4 (2001) 619-636

620 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

which causes so many Lhotas to lead virtuouslives it is not their religion."In his distinguished
studyof the Manusof New Guinea,Reo Fortune(1935:357) contrastedthe moralaspects of their
religion with that of the typical tribe, agreeing that "Tyloris entirely correct in stating that in
most primitiveregions of the world religion and moralitymaintainthemselves independently."
Ruth Benedict (1938:633) also arguedthat to generalizethe link between religion and morality
"is to misconceive"the "historyof religions."She suggestedthatthis linkageprobablyis typical
only of "thehigherethical religions."RalphBarton(1946) reportedthatthe Ifugaos imputetheir
own unscrupulousexchange practicesto their gods and seize every opportunityto cheat them.
PeterLawrence(1964) foundthatthe Gariaof New Guineahave no conceptionwhateverof "sin,"
and "no idea of rewardsin the next world for good works."And Mary Douglas (1975:77) flatly
assertedthatthereis no "inherentrelationbetweenreligionandmorality:thereareprimitiveswho
can be religious withoutbeing moraland moral withoutbeing religious."
Tylor's observationthat not all religions supportthe moral orderalways should have been
obvious to anyone familiar with Greek and Roman mythology. The Greco-Romangods were
quite morallydeficient.They were thoughtto do terriblethings to one anotherand to humansas
well-sometimes merely for amusement.And while they were quite apt to do wicked things to
humansif the humansfailed to propitiatethem, the gods had no interestin anything(wicked or
otherwise)humansmight do to one another.Instead,the Greekand Romangods only concerned
themselves with direct affronts. For example, no religious sanctions were incurredby young
womenwho engagedin premaritalsex unless they immersedthemselvesin sacredwatersreserved
for virgins(MacMullen1981:58).Because Aristotletaughtthatthe gods were incapableof caring
aboutmere humans(MacMullen 1981:53), he could not have concurredthat religion serves the
functionof sustainingandlegitimatingthe moralorder.Indeed,classical philosopherswould have
ridiculedsuch a propositionas peculiarto Jews andChristians-and they wouldhave been correct
(MacMullen 1981; Meeks 1993; Stark 1996). As will be seen, the propositionabout the moral
functionsof religion requiresa particularconceptionof supernaturalbeings as deeply concerned
aboutthe behaviorof humanstowardone another.Such a conceptionof the gods is found in many
of the majorworld faiths, includingJudaism,Christianity,Islam, and Hinduism,but it appearsto
be largelylacking in the supernaturalconceptionsprevalentin much of Asia and in animismand
folk religions generally.
It would seem to follow, therefore,thatthe moralbehaviorof individualswould be influenced
by theirreligiouscommitmentsonly in societies where the dominantreligious organizationsgive
clear and consistent expression to divine moral imperatives.Thus, for example, were proper
surveydata available,they should show thatthose who frequentedthe temples in Greco-Roman
times were no moreobservantof the prevailingmoralcodes thanwere those who were lax in their
religious practice.As Tylor pointed out, this is not to suggest that societies in antiquitylacked
moralcodes, but only thatthese were not predicatedon religious foundations.
When and why, then, did social scientists get it so wrong?The errorbegan when Durkheim
andthe otherearly functionalists(includingRobertsonSmithandMalinowski)dismissedgods as
unimportantwindow-dressing,stressinginsteadthatrites andritualsare the fundamentalstuff of
religion. In a long reviewof PartVI of HerbertSpencer'sPrinciplesof Sociology,Emile Durkheim
([1886] 1994:19)condemnedSpencerforreducingreligion"tobeing merelya collectionof beliefs
and practicesrelatingto a supernaturalagent."Seen from the perspectiveof real sociology (i.e.,
Frenchfunctionalism):

The idea of God which seemed to be the sum total of religion a short while ago, is now no more than a minor
accident. It is a psychological phenomenonwhich has got mixed up with a whole sociological process whose
importanceis of quite a differentorder.... We might perhapsbe able to discoverwhat is thus hiddenbeneaththis
quite superficialphenomenon...
Thus the sociologist will pay scant attentionto the differentways in which men andpeoples have conceived
the unknowncause and mysteriousdepthof things. He will set aside all such metaphysicalspeculationsand will
see in religion only a social discipline.
GODS, RITUALS,AND THE MORALORDER 621

Thus began a new social science orthodoxy:it is only throughparticipationin collective

ritualsthatpeople are bound into a moralcommunity.Eventuallythis line of analysis "bottomed
out" in such absurditiesas Rodney Needham's (1972) denial of the existence of any "interior
state"thatmight be called religious belief and S. R. F. Price's (1984) claim thatreligious belief is
a purelyChristianinvention,so thatwhen "primitives"prayfor things, they don't really mean it.
In any event, it long has been regardedas self-evident that all religions exist as ritualsdesigned
to sustainthe moralorder.
In this essay I will more fully develop and test the thesis that it is particularconceptionsof
God, not participationin rites andrituals,thatempowerreligions to sustainthe moralorder.I will
formulatemy views as specific hypotheses, which I will test on appropriatecross-culturaland
cross-nationaldata.

GODS AND MORALITY

Durkheimto the contrary,the foundationof all religions rests on some conception of the
supernatural-of essences, forces, entities, realities, or beings beyond or outside nature,which
are thoughtto be able, at least to some extent,to suspend,alter,or ignorephysical forces. Beyond
this vague generalization,however, there is unendingconflict among religions about what the
supernaturalis like, and intense disputesconcerningwhat it does, if anything.In some religions,
the supernaturalis conceived of as an omnipresentessence or principlegoverningall life, but that
is impersonal,remote, and definitely not a being. In others, the supernaturaltakes the form of
conscious beings called gods.
I will examine these variationsin images of God more fully when specific religions are
discussed laterin the article.Here it suffices to recognize thatdivine essences are unableto issue
commandmentsor makemoraljudgments.Thus, conceptionsof the supernaturalare irrelevantto
the moralorderunless the supernaturalis conceived of as a being-a thing having consciousness
and desires.Put anotherway, only beings can desiremoralconformity.Even thatis not sufficient.
Gods can lend sanctionsto the moralorderonly if they are concernedabout,informedabout,and
act on behalf of humans.Moreover,to promotevirtue among humans,gods must be virtuous-
they must favor good over evil. Finally, gods will be effective in sustaining moral precepts
dependingon theirscope-that is, the greaterthe diversityof theirpowers,the greaterwill be the
range of their influence.All-powerful,all-seeing gods ruling the entire universeare the ultimate
deterrent.

Can any hide himself in secretplaces thatI shall not see him? saith the Lord.Do not I fill heaven and earth?saith
the Lord. (Jeremiah23:24)

This analysis does, of course, imply progressfrom less to more complex culturesand that
the linkage between religion and moralityreflectssuch a progression.In a colorful passage, Ruth
Benedict(1938:633) wrotethatmoralconcernsbecomea centralvalueof "religionin man'shistory
just as the pearl constitutesthe value of the oyster."But, she noted,just as oysters must develop
pearls, religions must develop moral engagement. This development occurs as the prevailing
conceptionsof thegods shiftin thedirectionof fewergods orgreaterscope, a shiftthatusuallytakes
place as partof the developmentof a more complex culture(Starkand Bainbridge[ 1987] 1996).
The discussion can be summedup in four hypotheses:
HI: In many societies, religion and morality will not be linked.
H2: This linkage will tend to be limited to more complex cultures.
H3: The effects of religiousness on individual morality are contingent on images of gods as
conscious, morally-concerned beings; religiousness based on impersonal or unmoral gods will
not influence moral choices.
622 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

H4: Participationin religious rites and rituals will have little or no independenteffect on
morality.
In the remainderof the essay I test these hypotheses.

RELIGION, MORALITY, AND "PROGRESS"

Both Tylor and Spencer believed that the connection between religion and moralitywas a
markof culturalprogress-that it was somethingto be foundin the religions of more"advanced"
peoples. They based this conclusion on theirimmense knowledgeof ethnographicreports.How-
ever, a less impressionisticevaluationof this hypothesis became possible with the advent of
quantitativecross-culturalstudies, pioneeredby George Peter Murdock(1949, 1981; Murdock
and White 1969) and his colleagues following WorldWarII. In The Birth of the Gods (1960),
Guy E. Swanson selected 37 premoder societies from Murdock'sthen-currentset of 556 and
coded them as to whetheror not the supernaturalwas believed to impose sanctionson "immoral"
behavior.Even thoughhis criteriafor coding the presenceof such sanctionswere very generous,
Swansonfound no such sanctionsin a quarterof these societies. He interpretedthis as evidence
against Tylor (HI), noting that "Contraryto Tylor's formulation,a considerableproportionof
the simplerpeoples do make a connectionbetween supernaturalsanctionsand moral behavior"
(p. 174). As is obvious, Swanson's study sufferedfrom a very small numberof cases. In addi-
tion, Swanson's theoreticalapproachwas relentlessly psychological and this led him to try to
relate the presence of supernaturalsanctionsto various possible sources of "tension"affecting
the individual.Most of these turnedout not to be correlatedsignificantlywith the presence of
supernaturalsanctions,butfour,includingthe prevalenceof personaldebts,the existence of social
classes, privatepropertyownership,andprimogeniture,were significantlycorrelatedwith super-
naturalsanctioning.Swanson took this as mixed supportfor his hypothesis concerningtension
as the basis for the link between the gods and morality.But, of course, Tylorand Spencerwould
have noticed that the variablesyielding significantresults all measure aspects of cultural and
social complexity,or what they called "civilization."Thus, Swanson'sdiscoverythateach of the
above variableswas significantly,positively associatedwith divine sanctionswas confirmationof
Hypothesis 2. Although Swanson was one of the few contemporarysocial scientists who was
awareof Tylorand Spencer'shypothesis (H2), if he recognizedthese implicationsof his results,
he chose to ignore them. A somewhat abortiveattemptto replicate Swanson's study, based on
72 Native NorthAmericansocieties, also ignoredthe matter(Peregrine1996).
For nearly 20 years it has been possible to test these two key hypotheses on a very large
selection of cases (althoughI can find no indicationsthat anyone has done so). When Murdock
publishedthe Atlas of WorldCultures(1981), he respondedto Swanson'searlierwork by coding
whetheror not the "HighGods"in each of 427 societies were "active,and specificallysupportive
of humanmorality"(183 of these societies lacked any notion of a High God). Moreover,for a
decade,these andotherof Murdock's"samples"havebeen availablein a carefullycross-checked,
electronicformatfrom the MicroCaseCorporation,and that is the version I have used.
The results show that only about a fourth (23.9 percent) of these societies acknowledged
a "High God" who was concernedwith human morality,thus confirmingTylor and Spencer's
judgment that most premoder societies do not link religion and morality.However, some of
the gods in societies lacking High Gods might also promotehumanmorality-that was not part
of the coding scheme. But, even if we omit all societies without High Gods, the High Gods in
58 percentof the remaining244 societies do not supporthumanmorality.Eitherway, in keeping
with Hypothesis 1, a lack of connectionbetween religion and moralityis common in premoder
societies.
What about Hypothesis 2, that this linkage develops as societies become more culturally
sophisticated?Table 1 offers very strikingconfirmation.The presence of "MoralGods" is very
GODS, ANDTHEMORAL
RITUALS, ORDER 623

TABLE 1
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN "CULTURAL
COMPLEXITY" AND "MORAL GODS"

withthePresence
Correlations
of MoralGods
Dairyherds 0.898**
Domesticated largeanimals 0.876**
Existenceof thestate 0.790**
Metalworking 0.777**
Weaving 0.718**
Cereal-based agriculture 0.689**
Potterymaking 0.655**
n = 427.
**Significantabove 0.000.

highly correlated(Gamma)with seven measuresof "CulturalComplexity."Thus it seems thatthe

linkage between religion and moralitygenerallyis limited to the more "advancedreligions,"just
as the early anthropologistsclaimed.
I devote the remainderof this articleto testing Hypotheses 3 and 4 in various societies that
differ in theirgeneralconceptionsof God.

GOD AND MORALITY

Itemsincludedin the WorldValuesSurveys2of 1990-1991 includesome adequatefor testing

the relationshipbetween images of God and the moral order.These surveys consist of national
polls conductedin many nations,using the same questions(translatedinto the local language)in
each. While not all items were asked in each nation, most were, making it possible to replicate
findings in a great variety of cultures and social settings. Respondents in most nations were
presentedwith a batteryof items askingtheirapprovalor disapprovalof variouskinds of behavior
subjectto moral interpretations.Most of these behaviorslacked cross-culturalconsensus-in at
least a few nationsthe majoritydid not disapprove.These includeditems concerningprostitution,
abortion,homosexuality,divorce, lying, euthanasia,and suicide. However,three suitable items
werejudged as unjustifiedby a substantialmajorityin each nation.

Please tell me for each of the following statementswhetheryou thinkit can always be justified,never be justified,
or somethingin between.

Buying somethingyou knew was stolen. (Stolen Goods)

Failingto reportdamageyou've done accidentallyto a parkedcar. (Hit/Run)
Takingthe drugmarijuanaor hashish.(Smoke Dope)

Respondentswere askedto place themselveson a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being alwaysjustified,

and 1 being neverjustified.In similarfashion,respondentswere asked,"Howimportantis God in
yourlife?" andaskedto place themselveson a scale from 1 ("notat all")to 10 ("veryimportant").
Table 2 shows that in the United States the importanceplaced on God is very significantly,
negatively correlated(Gamma)with each of the three measuresof tolerancefor immorality.No
doubt, Durkheimwould propose the counterhypothesisthat the real basis for these correlations
is participationin collective religious ritualsas these sustainboth belief in the supernaturaland
commitmentto the moralorder.However,this claim is refutedby the second row of correlations,
which reportthe effects of ritual,measuredas churchattendance.Attendanceis an eight-point
624 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

TABLE 2
GOD, CHURCH ATTENDANCE, AND THE MORAL ORDER IN THE
UNITED STATES

StolenGoods Hit/Run SmokeDope

withImportance
Correlations of God -0.30** -0.23** -0.38**
withChurchAttendance
Correlations -0.20** -0. 15** -0.26**
RegressionAnalysis Betas
Standardized
God -0.138** -0.085* -0.243**
ChurchAttendance -0.040 -0.052 -0.038
R2= 0.026** 0.015** 0.163**
**Significantabove 0.01.
* Significantabove 0.05.

scale, rangingfrom (8) "Morethanonce a week"to (1) "Never,or practicallynever."Both belief

andattendancearecorrelatedwith morality,butin all threecomparisonsthe ritualeffect is notably
weakerthanthe God effect. Moreover,when enteredinto a regressionanalysis, the God variable
eliminates all effects of churchattendance.Contraryto Durkheim'srevisionism, it appearsthat
Tylorand Spencerwere right that ideas about God ratherthan ritualsare the most fundamental
basis of religion. People may take partin ritualactivities,especially those pursuedin public, for
many nonreligiousreasons.But, belief in God is religiousnessper se. Thus, Hypotheses3 and 4
are stronglysupportedby U.S. data.
In the remainderof this articleI will repeatthis analysisof the joint effects of the importance
placed on God and ritualparticipationon moralityin 33 nations. Because the natureof God is
left unspecifiedin the item, I will dependon culturalcontexts to define God. For societies where
God generally is conceived of as a conscious being who imposes moral demands,Hypothesis 3
anticipatesnegativecorrelationsbetween the importanceplaced on God and willingness to con-
done moralviolations. But in societies where God(s) generallyis regardedas unconcernedabout
morality,or as an impersonalessence, no correlationsshouldexist betweenthe importanceplaced
on God and willingness to condone moral violations. And, in accord with Hypothesis 4, the
effects of ritual participationshould be weaker than, and contingent on, images of God(s).
I shall proceedon the basis of appropriategeoculturalblocs, as will be seen.

GOD AND MORALITY IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

Table 3 shows the correlationsbetween the importanceof God in one's life and the three
measuresof adherenceto the moral order in five nations of the WesternHemisphere:Canada,
Mexico, Brazil,Chile, andArgentina.While these nationsdiffergreatlyin manyways, they share
a generalconceptionof God as an active, divine being who imposes moral standards.Therefore,
the correlationswith the importanceof God should be negative, and they are. Each of the 15
correlations is negative and highly statistically significant. Hypothesis 3 is strongly confirmed.
The table also includes the correlations with church attendance. In 14 of the 15 comparisons
with the God effects, the church attendance effect is weaker-usually substantially weaker. Only
on smoking marijuana in Argentina does this generalization not hold and that probably can be
dismissed as a random fluctuation. Again, Hypothesis 4 is confirmed.

GOD AND MORALITY IN WESTERN EUROPE

By Durkheim's definition, many nations of Western Europe are quite irreligious, church
attendance being so low that few people are involved in collective religious rituals. But, as defined
GODS, RITUALS,AND THE MORALORDER 625

TABLE 3
GOD AND THE MORAL ORDER IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

Correlationswith Importanceof God

Stolen Goods Hit/Run Smoke Dope

Canada -0.24** -0.19** -0.34**
Mexico -0.17** -0.11 ** -0.25**
Brazil -0.39** -0.22** -0.50**
Chile -0.29** -0.11** -0.38**
Argentina -0.37** -0.20** -0.30**
Correlationswith ChurchAttendance
Canada -0.19** -0.09* -0.25**
Mexico -0.04 -0.08* -0.13**
Brazil -0.22** -0.17** -0.39**
Chile -0.12** -0.08* -0.26**
Argentina -0.30** -0.16** -0.41**
** Significant above 0.01.
*
Significantabove 0.05.

by Tylor and Spencer, most people in Western Europe remain religious. Atheists are few (seldom
more than 5 percent) and the great majority consider themselves to be "a religious person"-they
are "believing non-belongers" as Grace Davie (1994) so aptly put it. Moreover, the prevailing
conception of God is the conventional Christian deity. These nations of Western Europe make
it possible to examine the effects of God on morality in settings where belief is not confounded
with participation in religious rituals, as it is in the Western Hemisphere where both belief and
church attendance are high. Indeed, in accord with Hypothesis 4, within the European context
the correlations ought to be as strongly negative in Scandinavia, where religious participation is
extremely low, as in Southern Europe, where participation is high. Put another way, data from
Western Europe allow comparisons of Catholic and Protestant cultures.
Table 4 confirms that belief in God is highly correlated with morality in all these nations,
Protestant or Catholic, having high church attendance or low. Of the 48 correlations shown, all are
negative and only one falls short of statistical significance (smoking dope in Sweden). Moreover,
the correlations are about of equal strength in Scandinavia and Southern Europe. In addition,
(not shown) in only 7 of the 48 comparisons does the church attendance correlation equal or
exceed the God effect. As in the Western Hemisphere, the church attendance correlations typically
were substantially lower, lending support to Hypothesis 4.

GOD AND MORALITY IN EASTERN EUROPE

Thus far I have been hypothesizing negative correlations between the importance placed
on God and acceptance of moral violations because of the conception of God prevalent in the
nations examined. However, for parts of Eastern Europe I do not anticipate such effects, in part
because Eastern Orthodoxy stresses rite and ritual, icons and incense, and has remarkably little
to say about sin-"The emphasis is not so much on truth and justice as on beauty and love"
(Weaver 1998:76). Consequently, orthodoxy projects a comparatively remote and nonjudgmental
image of God. Unfortunately, in the nations available for analysis, this religious factor is partly
confounded with a long history of Communist repression of religion and with the collaboration
of most orthodox churches with their repressors (Filatov 1994)-both these factors ought to have
weakened the link between religion and morality.
626 FORTHESCIENTIFIC
JOURNAL STUDYOFRELIGION

TABLE 4
GOD AND THE MORAL ORDER IN WESTERN EUROPE

Correlationswith Importanceof God

Stolen Goods Hit/Run Smoke Dope

GreatBritain -0.29** -0.23** -0.31**
Ireland -0.43** -0.29** -0.45**
NorthernIreland -0.59** -0.39** -0.57**
Scandinavia
Norway -0.37** -0.21** -0.41**
Sweden -0.24** -0.27** -0.12
Finland -0.31** -0.20** -0.25**
Denmark -0.30** -0.16** -0.31**
Iceland -0.37** -0.21** -0.41**
NorthernEurope
West Germany -0.35** -0.24** -0.33**
Netherlands -0.23** -0.13** -0.32**
Belgium -0.22** -0.17** -0.26**
Switzerland -0.26** -0.24** -0.32**
SouthernEurope
France -0.24** -0.15** -0.29**
Italy -0.35** -0.10** -0.38**
Spain -0.21** -0.18** -0.35**
Portugal -0.30** -0.20** -0.37**
**Significantabove 0.01.
*
Significantabove 0.05.

Compared with Christianity in the West, Eastern Orthodoxy far more closely fits the model
of religion proposed by Durkheim and the functionalists in that it is a religion of collective ritual
and rite, putting far greater emphasis on the sacraments than on a direct relationship with God.
An indication of this is the virtual absence of any discussion of sin and the almost exclusive
focus on sacraments in the few discussions of sin that do appear in recent summaries of orthodox
theology (Ware 1997, 1979; Clendenin 1995). Indeed, orthodox writers stress that confession of
sins (if sincere) automatically results in complete forgiveness and they are very critical of the
"Latin church" for "teaching of penalties and punishments," including the concept of purgatory,
"all of which the Orthodox church most strenuously rejects" (Karmiris 1973:29). Nicolas Zemov
(1959:101) offers this contrast:

In the Roman Churchthe role of the priest in the confessional is that of judge .... In the East the priest is not a
judge, but a witness.

However, rather than emphasizing a personal relationship between the penitent and God, this
orthodox approach to confession seems to have quite the opposite effect of making the process
impersonal. Moreover, the distaste for punishment of sin (and even the concept of sin) carries over
into orthodox teaching about salvation. Bishop Kallistos (Anthony) Ware (1997:262) explained
that in the Orthodox view, although:

Hell exists as a final possibility ... several of the Fathershave none the less believed that in the end all will be
reconciledto God. It is hereticalto say that all must be saved, for this is to deny free will; but it is legitimateto
hope thatall may be saved.
GODS, RITUALS,AND THE MORALORDER 627

As Nikos Kokosalakis(1994:143) noted, "Thereis a remarkableflexibility,approachingpermis-

siveness, in the OrthodoxChurch."
Orthodoxy also stresses the collective nature even of salvation-as Aleksei Khomiakov
(1895:216) explained,"no one is saved alone."Nicolas Zemov (1959:98) drew this contrast:

Orthodoxystartswith community,and sees the individualas a memberthereof.WesternChristianitybegins with

the individual,and interpretsthe communityas the outcome of a decision made by individualsto act together.

The greater emphasis on the individual in the West may have originatedin (or been greatly
increasedby) the Reformationand the CounterReformation,neitherof which had any impacton
orthodoxy.In any event, the emphasison collectivity and ritualshows up in prayeras orthodoxy
discouragesattemptsto establish a direct, personalrelationshipwith God of the sort typical of
the devotionallife in the West (albeitthereare denominationaldifferencesin the West too).
These differences in doctrinemay seem subtle, but they are quite apparentas the religion
is experiencedby the laity-from the pew, God seems remote and ratherinactive. However,in
and of itself, I would only expect this aspect of the orthodoxconception of God to reduce, not
eliminate,the link between the individual'scommitmentto God and his or her moralconformity.
That is, I would expect negative, significant,but substantiallyweaker correlationsin orthodox
nations than in the West. Unfortunately,as mentioned,the effects of orthodoxyare confounded
with the effects of Communism,which also ought to reducethe correlations.
In the wakeof the RussianRevolution,the Communistregimeimposedbrutalandunrelenting
religious repression.On ordersfrom Lenin (Troyanovsky1991), thousandsof priests and nuns
were murdered-often in bizarreways afterextendedtorture(Pospielovsky 1988). Partysquads
also looted all the churches, many of which had very valuable art work and altar vessels-
even all the churchbells were confiscatedand melted down for scrap (MacKenzie 1930). Most
churchbuildings were seized, and some of the most famous and beautifulwere convertedinto
museumsof scientificatheism.Following the initialcampaignof terror,repressionwas sustained
at a somewhatless ferocious level throughoutthe Communistera-millions were exiled to labor
campsforpersistingin religion,especiallyfor practicingnonorthodoxreligions.Millionsof others
were discriminatedagainst(excludedfromthe Party,frombetterjobs, andfromhighereducation)
because they were knownto be, or suspectedof being, religious (Pospielovsky 1988). At the start
of the Revolution there were more than 80,000 orthodoxchurches in what became the Soviet
Union. By 1939 therewere only about 1,000 (Barrett1982). Similarly,in 1917 there were more
than 1,200 orthodoxmonasteries,a decade latertherewere none-some had been convertedinto
prisons(Timberlake1995). Then,in responseto the need for nationalunityfollowing the German
invasion,Stalin slightly eased the repression,only to increaseit somewhatagain at the war'send
(Anderson1994;Pospielovsky 1997).Duringthe 1980s therewere about5,000 Christianchurches
in the USSR (not countingsecretProtestantcongregations),or about 1 per 50,000 people (Barrett
1982). Islamic groups also endured intense repression.In the former Soviet of Dagestan, for
example, therehad been more than 1,700 mosques in 1917. By 1988 therewere only 12 to serve
a far largerpopulationthan in 1917 (Bobrovnikov1996).3 Nor were Buddhistsspared(Snelling
1993). Although the antireligiouscampaignwas not directedagainst them until 1930, by 1936
all Buddhistmonasterieshad been destroyedand "Molotovcould rejoice in the liquidationof the
'parasiticallama class' as one of the achievementsof Soviet Policy" (Snelling 1993:243).
Throughoutthe Soviet Union the police (and on holidays volunteersfrom Communistyouth
groups) preventedanyone but elderly, regularmembers from entering a church or mosque to
attendservices. In additionto closing churchesand mosques, and persecutingreligious people,
the Soviet regime conducteda constantprogramof atheisteducation,makingit a regularpartof
the primaryand secondaryschool curricula.One of the primarygoals of this campaignwas to
disconnectmoralityand religion and the schools devotedconsiderableeffort to moraleducation,
combinedwith attackson religion.
628 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

Following WorldWarII, when the USSR imposed Communistregimes on many nationsof

EasternEurope,attemptswere made to impose similarlevels of religious repression.Compared
with the early terrorcampaignin Russia, far fewer clergy were murdered(althougha substantial
numberwere put to death in Albania),but largenumberswere imprisoned,many churcheswere
seized, andmanyotherswere closed. However,the effectivenessof these effortsvarieddepending
on the level of local cooperation,whichwas farhigherin nationsdominatedby the orthodoxchurch
than in RomanCatholicnations.
We now know thatthese Communisteffortsto stampout religion were not very successful in
the sense thatbelief in God remainswidespreadin EasternEurope-even in Russiaonly 8 percent
identifiedthemselves as atheists in 1991. But, repressiondid greatly diminish religious partici-
pationand, especially,religious education.Moreover,a side effect of religious repressionwas to
discredit"theChurch"in most nationswhere the EasternOrthodoxChurchpredominates.For a
varietyof reasons,the nationalorthodoxchurcheswere successfullycooptedby local Communist
regimesto such an extentthatclergy frequentlyinformedon nonorthodoxreligious activitiesand
even on religiousdissidentswithintheirown ranks.Worseyet, some orthodoxclergy were willing
to ratifyviews such as, "Godis identicalwith the Marxistconcept of history"(Pasztor1995:27),
or to defend governmentprohibitionson churchattendanceby young people because "religious
instructionof underagechildrenpromotesprejudices"(Johansen1983:15).(Romaniais a notable
exception, as will be seen.) In contrast,in the nonorthodoxnationsthe churches,particularlythe
RomanCatholicChurch,managedto preservetheirhonor and become beacons of resistance.
I anticipatethat each of these factors-repression, collaboration,and a more distantimage
of God-will tend to have an effect, as formulatedin these subsidiaryhypotheses:
1. Communistefforts to weakenthe link between religion and moralitywill show up in substan-
tially weakercorrelationsin the nonorthodoxnationsof EasternEuropethanfound in Western
Europe.
2. WithinEasternEurope,the moreremoteorthodoxconceptionof God will resultin correlations
thatare weakerin orthodoxnationsthan in the nonorthodoxnations.In combinationwith the
effects of Communistrepression,thiswill resultin a lack of any significantcorrelationsbetween
God and moralityin the orthodoxnations,except for Romania.
As can be seen in Table 5, the first of these subsidiaryhypotheses is strongly supported.
Although significant, negative correlationsobtain in 10 of the 11 instances, they do tend to
be weaker than in Table 4. For example, all three correlationsare much higher in the former
West Germanythan in the formerEast Germany.Only the correlationsin Poland resemble the
magnitudestypicalin WesternEurope,but,of course,nowherein EasternEuropewas thechurchso
effective in resistingthe regimeas in this nation,whichproducedthe firstnon-ItalianPope in many
centuries.As for Hypothesis4, in 10 of the 11 comparisons(not shown), the churchattendance
effect is substantiallyweaker(most correlationsare not significant)thanthe God effect.
The second subsidiaryhypothesisalso is stronglysupportedby Table5. In Russia,all threeof
the correlationsareminuscule.In anothersamplebased only on the populationof Moscow, again
none of the threecorrelationsis significant.Nor arethereany significantcorrelationsin Bulgaria.
There are two small, significantcorrelationsin Byelorus, but they are in the wrong direction!
That is, the more importanceByelorussiansplace on God, the more willing they are to condone
immorality.I suspect thatthis is a meaninglessfinding.
Then there is Romania. It too is an orthodox nation and it too long enduredCommunist
rule. But, all three correlationsare strong, negative, and highly significant.Why? Part of the
answer would seem to lie in the effective resistanceof the RomanianOrthodoxChurch,which
unlike the orthodoxchurch in Russia,4had never been subservientto the state for a time in
the 1930s the RomanianOrthodoxPatriarchalso was the PrimeMinister.But, perhapsthe major
reasonbehindthese correlationscan be tracedto the idiosyncrasiesof thatstrangetyrantNicolas
Ceausescu,who ruledthe nationfrom 1965 untilhe was executedby revolutionarieson Christmas
Day, 1989. Is it uncertainwhatCeausescu'sprivatereligiousviews may have been, althoughafter
GODS, RITUALS,AND THE MORALORDER 629

TABLE 5
GOD AND THE MORAL ORDER IN EASTERN EUROPE

Correlationswith Importanceof God

Stolen Goods Hit/Run Smoke Dope
Non-OrthodoxNations
Poland -0.17* -0.21**
East Germany -0.19** -0.11** -0.12**
Hungary -0.15** -0.08* -0.12**
Slovenia -0.03 -0.14** -0.19**
OrthodoxNations
Russia 0.02 -0.06 0.04
(Moscow) 0.07 0.03 -0.04
Bulgaria -0.07 -0.07 0.00
Byelorus 0.09* 0.05 0.10*

Romania -0.26** -0.22** -0.31**

-Question not asked
** Significant above 0.01.
* Significantabove 0.05.

taking power he did provide a religious funeral for his father. But, from the beginning of his rule he
established very friendly, personal relationships with the heads of all religious bodies in Romania,
including Protestants and Jews. Following the overthrow of the Ceausescu regime, some have
condemned these relationships as collaboration (Tokes 1990). Perhaps so, but they also resulted in
a religious climate unlike that in any other Communist state. For example, rather than demand that
Communist Party members be staunch atheists, Ceausescu merely required that Party members
not hold religious offices-many Party members were openly active Christians. In addition, under
Ceausescu, the government gave extensive financial subsidies to all the churches and exempted
all seminarians and clergy from military service. Most important of all, the churches were freely
permitted to operate a huge system of Sunday schools (Barrett 1982). Thus, in Romania, moral
education remained religious education. Writing approximately 15 years after Ceausescu took
over, Earl A. Pope (1981:4) reported that:

thereappearsto be a very importantresurgenceof religiousfaith in Romania.Paradoxicalas it may seem, the rise

of Marxismhas led to the innerstrengtheningof religious communities.In certainrespects,some of them appear
to be healthiernow thanthey were in an earlierera-despite the limitationsand restrictionsimposed.

Granted that Ceausescu did not tolerate opposition from anyone, including church leaders, but the
fact remains that the religious situation in Romania was unique among Communist states (Barrett
1982; Pope 1981, 1992).
I am unable to document that the image of God portrayed in these Romanian Sunday schools,
including those that were orthodox (as most of them were), was more vigorous and morally
relevant than was sustained in other orthodox nations such as Bulgaria, Byelorus, or Russia, but
that seems likely given that the Romanian Orthodox Church recently welcomed World Vision,
one of the leading evangelical Protestant world mission agencies, to help with the "spiritual
recovery" of Romania. In fact, the majority of staff and board members of World Vision Romania
are provided by the orthodox church (Athyal 1998). This partnership with World Vision is unique
among orthodox churches in Eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union. Indeed, these other
national orthodox churches have become militant opponents of all possible competitors, especially
"outsiders" such as World Vision.
630 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

TABLE 6
GOD, MOSQUE ATTENDANCE, AND THE MORAL ORDER
IN TURKEY

Stolen Goods Hit/Run Smoke Dope

Correlationswith Importanceof God -0.45** -0.31** -0.44**
Correlationswith Mosque Attendance -0.19** -0.12* -0.12
RegressionAnalysis StandardizedBetas
God -0.184** -0.138** -0.162**
Mosque Attendance -0.051 -0.036 -0.027
R2 0.042** 0.024** 0.030**
**Significantabove 0.01.
* Significantabove 0.05.

Given the greatemphasison ritualin the orthodoxchurch,Durkheimsurelywould proposea

counterhypothesis.However,the data(not shown)offer no supportfor the ritualalternative,being
entirelyconsistentwith Hypothesis4. Only one of the 12 correlationswith churchattendanceis
significant,and it is in the wrong direction!Religion, either as God or as ritual,fails to support
the moralorderin these orthodoxnations.

GOD AND MORALITY IN ISLAM

Muslims believe that the God of the Torahand of the New Testamentis the same God who
gave the Qur'anto Muhammad,the final prophetin a line beginningwith Abraham.

He hathrevealedunto thee (Muhammad)the Scripturewith truth,confirmingthatwhich was (revealed)before it,

even as He revealedthe Torahand the Gospel. (Qur'an III:3)

Not surprisingly,the Muslimimageof God'snatureis very similarto thatof traditionalJudaismand

Christianity:an all-seeing, all-powerful,eternal,conscious, virtuous,morally-concernedbeing.

Allah! There is no God save Him, the Alive, the Eternal.

Lo! nothingin the earthor in the heavens is hiddenfrom Allah. (Qur'an III:2,5)

As for morality,the Qur'an is entirelyclear abouthow humansareto behavetowardone another,

aboutthe immenserewardsawaitingthe virtuous,and aboutthe eternalsanctionsto befall those
who fail to conform.
Consequently,Muslims,who place the greatestimportanceon God, oughtto be most opposed
to moraltransgressions.Table6 stronglysupportsHypothesis3-all the correlationsbetweenGod
and toleranceof immoralityare negative, significant,and of a magnitudecomparablewith the
highest found elsewhere.The second row of correlationsshows thathere, too, Durkheim'sritual
alternativefails quitebadly.As predictedby Hypothesis4, the correlationswithmosqueattendance
are far weakerand one even falls shortof significance.In fact, regressionanalysis eliminatesall
tracesof a mosque attendanceeffect.

GOD AND MORALITY IN INDIA

It easily could be assumedthattherewouldbe at best a very tenuouslink betweenreligionand

moralityin Indiasince the generalimpressionamongWesternersis thatHinduismis polytheistic
GODS, RITUALS,AND THE MORALORDER 631

TABLE 7
GOD, TEMPLE VISITS, AND THE MORAL ORDER IN INDIA
StolenGoods Hit/Run SmokeDope
Correlations
withImportance
of God -0.25** -0.20** -0.27**
withTempleVisits
Correlations 0.02 -0.05 0.08
**Significantabove 0.01.
* Significantabove 0.05.

and, hence, relationshipswith any given God are short-termand utilitarian,as is typical in poly-
theistic religions. But, this is quite erroneous(Fowler 1997; Knipe 1993; Parrinder1983; Smart
1984; Weightman1984). Firstof all, the Hindugods really numberonly two: Vishnuand Shiva.
Each of the many other apparentgods is regardedas an additionalaspect, avatar,or incarnation
of one of these two. Thus, while thereexist many differentHindusects devotedto differentincar-
nations, it is understoodthateach incarnationreally is eitherVishnuor Shiva. Thus, the popular
Krishnais an avatarof Vishnu. Some scholars claim that, in fact, Hindus do not worship both
Vishnu and Shiva (Fowler 1997; Weightman1984). Following a principleknown as ishtadeva,
"the chosen deity,"the individualHindu worshipsone or the other "exclusively as the supreme
God":

one could spend a lifetime in India and never find a "polytheist"in Westernterms, because even an unlettered
peasantwho has just made offerings at several shrineswill affirmthat ... God is one. (Weightman1984:212)

Indeed, Ninian Smart (1984:136) suggests that Hindus do not really believe that there are two
gods, but only one, who can be worshippedeither in the form of Vishnuor Shiva.
No matterwhich form a Hinduchooses to representGod, moralityis centralto Hinduteach-
ings and is subjectto divine sanctions,which take the form of "badkarma."Moralliving in this
world is specified in the dharmasutras and the dharmashastras, which are essentially religious
law books. And, as Simon Weightman(1984:197) explained,rightliving in this world,or dharma,
is "the very centre of Hinduism."While observing dharma is regardedas an end in itself, it is
crucialin termsof karma,the doctrinethatevery actioninfluencesone's futureincarnations.This
is closely related to anothercentral doctrine concerning the sanctity of the caste system: that
anyone's position in this life is God-givenand earnedthroughsin or righteousness.Hence, if the
lowest castes sufferhell on earth,thatis regardedas simplejustice in thatthey are in hell, having
earnedtheirpunishmentin a priorlife. Thus, in termsof moraledification,for a Hinduto observe
the misery of low caste life is tantamountto an actualvisit to hell. These views have declined and
softened to some extent over the past century,as has the concept of hell within Christianity,but
there still ought to be a strongreligious componentto morality.
It follows thatin Indiathe importancegiven to God will be negativelycorrelatedwithtolerance
for immorality.Table7 confirmsHypothesis3-all threecorrelationsin the top row are negative
and significant.The correlationsin the second row are quite remarkable.Had no question been
asked about God, forcing the use only of temple visits as a measureof religiousness, it would
have seemed thatreligion fails to supportmoralityin India:all three correlationsare trivial.But
this would have been very misleading since, in India, God matters,even if ritual participation
does not. Hypotheses3 and 4 are stronglysupported.

GOD AND MORALITYIN JAPAN

The spiritual life of the Japanese takes the form of individual "religious portfolios"
(Iannaccone1995). There are many gods and most Japaneseselect a subset from whom to seek
632 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

benefits,much as cautiousinvestorsdistributetheir funds among variousoptions. In additionto

many gods, two majorreligious traditionsdominatein Japan-Shinto and Buddhism-and most
Japanese"belong"to both. Indeed, Buddhism, like AmericanProtestantism,is fracturedinto
manyfactionsand sects, but whereasmost AmericanProtestantsbelong to only one group,many
JapaneseBuddhists adhere to several. Consequently,many Japanesereportmultiple religious
affiliations,with the resultthatstatisticson religiousmembershipadd up to nearly200 percentof
the total population(Parrinder1983). As Alan S. Miller (1995:235) explained:

Probablythe most accurateway a Japanesepersoncan answerthe question"whatreligion do you belong to?" is

to reply"I am Japanese."One does not become a Shintoist,butratherparticipatesin some Shinto-basedritualsor
festivals. Similarly,one does not become a Buddhist,but ratheruses Buddhistteachings as guidelinesfor how to
care for deceased relativesor pray for spiritualassistance.And, of course, one does not stop being a Shintoistor
Buddhistwhen one no longer needs these services.

Consequently,when asked if they are Shintoists, many Japaneseprobablywill say "No,"and

the next day drive their new automobileto a Shinto Temple to have it blessed by the priest, or
invite the priestto a buildingsite to quiet the spiritspriorto construction(Nelson 1992). As this
widespreadreliance on Shinto demonstrates,there is a great deal of magic involved in Shinto
practices. Moreover,the gods of Shinto are many, small in scope, and lacking in concern for
humans.Like the Greco-Romangods, they may provide benefits in returnfor propersacrifices,
but the wise supplicantseeks aid from several gods at once and is preparedto switch his or her
patronageon the basis of results(Earhart1984, 1993; Parrinder1983).
In all of its forms,Buddhismemphasizesmorality,as expressedin the five observancesrecited
as partof devotions.These pledge the individualnot to injureothers,to not steal or lie, to avoid
sexual immorality,and not to use alcohol or drugs (Parrinder1983:272). However,these moral
obligations are not associatedwith God's will because most Buddhistsreject the existence of a
conscious, all-powerful,concernedGod of the sort worshippedby Jews, Christians,or Muslims.
Indeed, the existence of such a God has for many centuriesbeen the basis of dispute between
Buddhistsand Hindus and "Buddhistshave even gone so far as to say that belief in such a God
often leads to ethical degradation"(Clough 1997:57).
However,rankandfile Buddhistsarenot atheistsanddo embracea whole "pantheonof spirits
andminordeities"(Clough 1997:58) and supernaturalcreaturesaboundin Shinto (Earhart1984,
1993). Indeed, "one of the chief characteristicsof Shinto is the close and intimaterelationship
between humans and kami,"which are acknowledgedin JapaneseBuddhismas well (Earhart
1984:16). The kami are supernaturalentities, but of small scope as they are subjectto many of
the laws of natureand are of very limited power. Otherdeities are known as buddhas(not to be
confused with Buddhahimself). These are closely related to the kami and there is a Japanese
term that includes both (Earhart1993:1115). However,the buddhasare deities of substantially
greaterpowerandscope and,like Hindugods, a given buddhatakes severalforms.ThusKannon,
the goddess of mercy, who is one of the most popularbuddhas,also takes the form of Koyasu
Kannon,to whom appealsaredirectedfor an easy childbirth,as well as the formof Bato Kannon,
who serves as a sort of patronsaint of livestock breeders(Earhart1993:1117). However,while
the variouskamiandbuddhasmay grantfavorsor inflictharm,issues of moralityarenot germane
to pleasing them.
The core of Japanesereligion consists of frequentrites and rituals,most of which are con-
ductedat home. Most Japanesemaintaina kami-dana,or Shintohome shrine,before which they
makeceremonialofferingseach morningandevening. In addition,nearlyeveryhouseholdheaded
by a firstson also has a Buddhistaltardevotedto the spiritsof the family dead.This altarcontains
scrolls listing ancestorsof the family-ancestor "worship"is an importantpartof both Buddhism
and Shinto.Each year,on the anniversaryof each family member'sdeath(going back for several
generationsor more),the family gathersat the altarto makeofferingsto the ancestors-sometimes
GODS, RITUALS,AND THE MORALORDER 633

TABLE 8
GOD, RITUALS, AND THE MORAL ORDER IN JAPAN

Stolen Goods Hit/Run Smoke Dope

Correlationswith Importanceof God -0.07 -0.08 0.11
Correlations
withTempleVisits -0.06 -0.09 0.04
Correlations
withPrayerorMeditation -0.04 -0.09 0.01
**Significantabove 0.01.
* Significantabove 0.05.

a priestis engagedfor the occasion. Thus,religionin the Japanesehouseholdapproachesthe func-

tionalistideal type, as it maximizes collective ritualsand minimizes the significanceof the gods.
It follows from Hypothesis 3 that, given their conceptions of the gods, there should
not be significant correlationsbetween the importanceplaced on God and moral attitudes in
Japan.Table8 confirmsthe hypothesis-all threecorrelationsare insignificant.
Nor does ritualsustainmoralityin Japan.The second row of correlationsshows thatnone of
the threecorrelationsinvolvingtemplevisits is significant.In addition,since so much of the ritual
of Japanesereligious life occurs in the home, I have added a thirdrow to examine the effects of
the frequencyof "prayeror meditation."Here, too, all threecorrelationsare trivial.
No matterhow it is measured,religion does not sustainthe moral orderin Japan.

GOD AND MORALITY IN CHINA

Chinahas four greatreligions:Confucianism,Taoism,Buddhism,and the ancient,vigorous,

and highly magical faith known variously as "popularreligion" or as "Chinese folk religion"
(ShaharandWeller1996). The firsttwo areindigenousandoriginatedmoreas elite and"Godless"
philosophiesthanas religions.Justas Buddhadeniedthe existence of a God, Confuciusis believed
to have advisedthat"Absorptionin the studyof the supernaturalis most harmful"(Giles 1993:94).
As for the Tao, the Chinesedo acknowledgeit as a sortof FirstCause in the creationof the world,
butit is thoughtto be an inactive,nonconscious,essence-not only a nonbeing,buta "not-being"
(Eichhor 1959:393).As noted,Buddhismalso originatedas a "Godless"philosophyin India,but
by the time it migratedto Japanabout 1,500 years ago, it had acquireda pantheonof supernatural
creatures.The same came to be true of Chinese Confucianism and Taoism. In fact the four
religions are somewhat amalgamated."Gods are mutuallyborrowedand sometimes are shared
by two, three, or all four religions"(Shaharand Weller 1996:3). However,all these gods are of
very limited power and scope and usually lack moral concern and even dignity (Eichhorn1959;
Lang and Ragvald 1993; Shaharand Weller 1996). Thus, Chinese who have made an offering in
a temple and not received the requestedboon, have been known to attackthe image of the God
who failed (Chen 1995:1).
For these reasons,consistentwith Hypothesis3, I would not expect a link between commit-
ment to God and moralityin China.Moreover,the militantcampaignagainstreligion thatraged
in Chinafor 40 years (and has now resumed)also shouldhave some effect. Indeed,antireligious
propagandaandrepressionmay be the reasonthatit is necessaryto use a substitute"Godvariable"
in the Chinese data. The item used in the other nations was a 10-pointscale of "how important
is God in your life." In the 1991 Chinese survey,this item was essentially invariant-virtually no
one in China said God was important.However,the Chinese survey also included this question
concerningGod:

Which one of these statementscomes closest to your beliefs?

There is a personalGod.
634 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

TABLE 9
GOD, PRAYER, AND THE MORAL ORDER IN CHINA
Stolen Goods Hit/Run Smoke Dope
Correlationswith Belief in God -0.01 0.04 -0.11
Correlationswith Prayeror Meditation 0.32** 0.27** 0.42**
**Significantabove 0.01.
*
Significantabove 0.05.

There is some sort of spiritor life force.

I don't really know what to think.
I don't really thinkthereis any sort of spirit,God, or life force.

These responses can be convertedinto a three-pointscale of the degree of belief in God. Since
only 22 Chinese expressed faith in a personal God, I combined them with the 311 (of 1,000)
who believed in some sort of spirit or life force and scored them as 3 to indicate belief. Those
who didn't know what to thinkwere scored 2. The nonbelieverswere scored 1. It is precisely in
keeping with my analysis of Chinese religion that 94 percent of the believers (those scored 3)
clearlyrejectedthe existence of God as a supernaturalbeing. And, as in Japan,such a God has no
influenceon moraljudgmentsin China(Table9): all threecorrelationsare tiny and insignificant.
It was impossibleto pursuethe effects of temple visits in Chinasince almost no one goes to
the temples-only 2 percentadmitteddoing so even once a year. On the otherhand, 20 percent
said they sometimesprayedor meditated.Scored as a four-pointscale of the frequencyof prayer
or meditation,this variableresulted in a surprisingeffect, as can be seen in the second row of
correlations.Each correlationis strong,highly significant,andpositive! That is, the more often
they prayor meditate,the more tolerantthe Chinese are of immorality.I suggest thatthis resultis
due to the fact thatin China,"prayer"seldomimpliesa long-standing,deeply-feltrelationshipwith
a God, but merely involves requestsfor favors from various divinities of small scope. As such,
praying tends to reflect a quite self-centered and self-serving activity, consistent with rapidly
shifting from one God to anotheron the basis of results (Chen 1995; Green 1988; Lang and
Ragvold 1993). Seen in this light, a question about prayeris likely to select those somewhat
lacking in terms of a social conscience. In any case, these correlationsoffer no supportto the
"law"concerningreligion and the moralorder.

CONCLUSION

Durkheimmade a majorerrorwhen he dismissed gods as a mere religious epiphenomena.

Unfortunately,his errorhad severe, widespread,and long-lasting consequences, for it quickly
becamethe exclusive sociological view thatreligionconsists of rites andritualandthatthese exist
only because their latentfunctionis to integratesocieties and to therebylend sacredsanctionsto
the norms.In retrospect,it seems remarkablethatsuch a notion gainedsuch rapidacceptanceand
went unchallengedfor so long. Strippedof its functionalistjargon,the basic argumentseems to
have been that since "we"know there are no gods, they can't be the real object of religion-the
notionthatthingsarerealto the extentthatpeople definethem as realfailed to make anyheadway
in this areaof social science.
The results presentedabove show that, in and of themselves, rites and ritualshave little or
no impact on the majoreffect universallyattributedto religion-conformity to the moral order.
Thus, it seems necessary to revise the opening line of this essay as follows: Images of gods as
conscious, powerful,morally-concernedbeingsfunction to sustain the moral order.
GODS, RITUALS,AND THE MORALORDER 635

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authorthanksGraemeLang, SharonLinzey, Alan Miller, and Michael Williamsfor helpful advice.

NOTES

1. In responseto CraneBrinton'srhetoricalexcess "Whonow readsSpencer?"-quoted with glowing approvalby Talcott

Parsonsas the opening sentence of his now unreadclassic The Structureof Social Action (1937)-it seems fitting
to note that throughoutmy careerI have cited Spencerrathermore frequentlythan Parsonsand I cannot recall ever
having cited Brinton.
2. Data providedby the Inter-universityConsortiumfor Political and Social Research,Ann Arbor,Michigan.
3. By 1994 therewere 5,000!
4. From 1700 until 1917 the RussianOrthodoxChurchwas understrictstate control,a policy begun by Peterthe Great.

REFERENCES

Anderson, John. 1994. Religion, state and politics in the Soviet Union and successor states. Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Athyal, Saphir.1998. Agencies work togetherin Romania.MarcNewsletter98(3):1, 6.
Barrett,David B. 1982. WorldChristianencyclopedia.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Barton,Ralph. 1946. The religion of the Ifugaos.AmericanAnthropologist40:4.
Benedict, Ruth. 1938. Religion. In General anthropolgy,edited by FranzBoas, pp. 627-65. New York:C. D. Heath.
Bobrovnikov,Vladimir.1996. The Islamic revivaland the nationalquestionin Post-Soviet Dagestan.Religion, State and
Society 24:233-38.
Chen, Hsinchih. 1995. The developmentof Taiwanesefolk religion, 1683-1945. Ph.D. dissertation,Departmentof Soci-
ology. Seattle, WA:Universityof Washington.
Clendenin,Daniel B. (ed.). 1995. Eastern orthodoxtheology:A contemporaryreader.GrandRapids,MI: BakerBooks.
Clough, BradleyS. 1997. Buddhism.In God, edited by Jacob Neusner,pp. 56-84. Cleveland,OH: PilgrimPress.
Davie, Grace. 1994. Religion in Britain since 1945. Believing withoutbelonging. Oxford:Blackwell.
Douglas, Mary. 1975. Implicitmeanings:Essays in anthropology.London:Routledge& KeganPaul.
Durkheim, Emile. [1886] 1994. Review of Part VI of the Principles of Sociology by Herbert Spencer. In Revue
philosophiquede la France et de le'tranger, 21:61-69, translatedand publishedby W. S. F. Pickering,Durkheim
on Religion, pp. 13-23. Atlanta,GA: ScholarsPress.
Earhart,H. Byron. 1993. Religions of Japan:Manytraditions,one sacredway. In Religious traditionsof the world, edited
by H. Byron Earhart,pp. 1077-1187. San Francisco,CA: HarperSanFrancisco.
.1984. Religions of Japan. San Francisco,CA: HarperSanFrancisco.
Eichhor, Werner.1959. Taoism. In The concise encyclopaedia of livingfaiths, edited by R. C. Zaehner,pp. 385-401.
Boston, MA: Beacon.
Filatov, Sergei. 1994. On paradoxesof the Post-CommunistRussian OrthodoxChurch.In Religions sans frontieres?,
edited by RobertoCipriani,pp. 117-25. Roma:Dipartimentoper L'Informazionee Editoria.
Fortune,Reo F. 1935. Manusreligion. Memoirsof the AmericanPhilosophical Society 3.
Fowler,Jeaneane.1997. Hinduism.Beliefs and practices. Brighton:Sussex Academic Press.
Greeley, Andrew. 1983. Religious imaginationquestions in the GSS-A note for interestedparties.National Opinion
ResearchCenterReport.
Green,RonaldM. 1988. Religion and moral reason:A new methodfor comparativestudy.New York:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Johansen,Alf. 1983. The RussianOrthodoxChurchas reflectedin orthodoxand atheistpublicationsin the Soviet Union.
Occasional Paperson Religion in EasternEurope3(2):1-26.
Karmiris,John. 1973. Concerningthe sacraments.In Eastern Orthodoxtheology: A contemporaryreader, edited by
Daniel B. Clendenin, 1995:21-31. GrandRapids,MI: BakerBooks.
Khomiakov,Aleksei. 1895. The church is one. In Russia and the English church in the last fifty years, edited by
W. J. Birbeck,pp. 201-37. London:Rivington.
Knipe, David. M. 1993. Hinduism: Experiments in the sacred. In Religious traditions of the world, edited by
H. Byron Earhart,pp. 713-840. San Francisco,CA: HarperSanFrancisco.
Kokosalakis, Nikos. 1994. The historical continuity of cultural specificity of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.In Re-
ligions sans frontieres?, edited by Roberto Cipriani, pp. 126-43. Roma: Dipartimento per L'Informazione
e Editoria.
Lang, Graemeand LarsRagvold. 1993. The rise of a refugeGod: Hong Kong'sWongTai Sin. Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press.
636 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

Lawrence, Peter. 1964. Road belong cargo: A study of the cargo movementin South Madang District, New Guinea.
Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
MacKenzie,F. A. 1930. TheRussiancr-ucifixion:Thefull story of thepersecutionof religion underBolshevism.London:
Jarrolds.
MacMullen,Ramsay. 1981. Paganismin the RomanEmpire.New Haven:Yale.
Malinowski,Bronislaw.1935. Thefoundations offaith and morals. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Meeks, Wayne. 1993. The origins of Christianmorality:Thefirst two centuries.New Haven, CT:Yale UniversityPress.
Miller,Alan. 1995. A rationalmodel of religiousbehaviorin Japan.Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion34:234-44.
Mills, J. P. 1922. The LhotaNagas. London:Macmillan.
Murdock,George Peter. 1981. Atlas of world cultures.Pittsburgh,PA: Universityof PittsburghPress.
1949. Social structures.New York:Macmillan.
Murdock,George Peterand Douglas R. White. 1969. The standardcross-culturalsample.Ethnology8:329-69.
Needham,Rodney. 1972. Belief, language and experience.Chicago, IL: Universityof Chicago Press.
Nelson, John. 1992. Shintoritual:Managingchaos in contemporaryJapan.Ethnos57:78-104.
Parrinder,Geoffrey. 1983. Worldreligions. New York:Facts on File.
Pasztor,Janos. 1995. The theology of the servingchurchandthe theology of Diaconiain the Protestantchurchesandtheir
consequencesin Hungaryduringthe time of socialism. Religion in EasternEu-ope 15(6):22-35.
Peregrine,Peter. 1996. The birthof the gods revisited:A partialreplicationof Guy Swanson's(1960) cross-culturalstudy
of religion. Cross-CulturalResearch30:84-122.
Pope, Earl A. 1992. The role of religion in the Romanianrevolution.Occasional Papers on Religion in EasterniEurope
12(2):1-18.
- . 1981. The RomanianOrthodoxChurch.Occasional Papers on Religion in EasternEurope 1(3):1-17.
Pospielovsky,DimitryV. 1997. The "bestyears"of Stalin'schurchpolicy (1942-1948) in the light of archivaldocuments.
Religion, State & Society 25:139-62.
1988. Soviet antireligiouscampaignsand persecutions.New York:St. Martin'sPress.
Price,S. R. F. 1984.Ritualsandpower: TheRomanimperialcult in Asia Minor.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Shahar,Meir and Robert P. Weller (eds.). 1996. Un2rulygods: Divinity and society in China. Honolulu: Universityof
Hawaii Press.
Smart,Ninian. 1984. The religious experienceof mankind(3rd ed.). New York:CharlesScribner'sSons.
Smith,W. Robertson.1889. The religion of the Semites:Fundamentalinstitutions.Edinburgh:Adam and CharlesBlack.
Snelling, John. 1993. Buddhismin Russia. New York:HarperCollins.
Spencer,Herbert.1896. Principles of sociology, (two vols., rev.ed.). New York:D. Appletonand Company.
Stark,Rodney.1996.The rise of Christianity:A sociologist reconsidershistory.Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress.
Stark,Rodney and William Sims Bainbridge.[1987] 1996. A theoryof religion (new ed.). New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers
UniversityPress.
Swanson, Guy E. 1960. The birth of the gods: The origin of primitive beliefs. Ann Arbor,MI: Universityof Michigan
Press.
Timberlake,Charles. 1995. Fate of the Russian orthodoxmonasteriesand convents since 1917. Donald W. Treadgold
Papers#103. HenryM. JacksonSchool of InternationalStudies, Universityof Washington.
Tokes, Laszlo. 1990. The possible role of Rumania'schurcheson the social renewalof the country.Occasional Papers
on Religion in EasternEurope 10(5):29-32.
Troyanovsky.Igor (ed.). 1991. Religion in the SovietRepublics.San Francisco,CA: HarperSanFrancisco.
Tylor,EdwardBurnett.[1971] 1958. Religion in primitiveculture.New York:Harperand Brothers.
Ware,Bishop Kallistos (Timothy). 1997. The orthodoxchurch.London:PenguinBooks.
. 1979. The orthodoxway. Crestwood,NY: St. Vladimir'sSeminaryPress.
Weaver,Mary Jo (with David Brakke and Jason Bivins). 1998. Introductionto Christianity(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Weightman,Simon. 1984. Hinduism.InA handbookof living religions,editedby JohnR. Hinnells,pp. 191-236. London:
Penguin Books.
Zernov,Nicolas. 1959. Christianity:The easternschism andthe EasternOrthodoxChurch.In The concise encyclopaedia
of livingfaiths, edited by R. C. Zaehner,pp. 86-107. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.