Society Without God. A Review.

In his recent book titled, “Society Without God”, Sociologist Phil Zuckerman has this to say:

First of all, I argue that society without God is not only possible, but can be quite civil and pleasant. This admittedly polemical aspect of my book is aimed primarily at countering the claims of certain outspoken, conservative Christians who regularly argue that a society without God would be hell on earth: rampant with immorality, full of evil, and teeming with depravity. Well, it isn’t. Denmark and Sweden are remarkably strong, safe, healthy, moral, and prosperous societies…

He goes on to say,

- “…their overall rates of violent crime – such as murder, aggravated assault, and rape – are among the lowest on earth. Yet the majority of Danes and Swedes do not believe that God is “up there,” keeping diligent tabs on their behavior… In fact, most Danes and Swedes don’t even believe in the very notion of “sin.” Almost nobody in Denmark and Sweden believes that the Bible is divine in origin. And the rate of weekly church attendance in these Nordic nations is the lowest on earth…

Rather than succeeding in arguing that a “society without God” can thrive, what Zuckerman offers is a textbook on why sociologists should leave the theology to theologians.

First of all, to suggest that the lack of faith in God is somehow equivalent to God’s absence is absurd. He could avoid this error simply by discussing “society without faith in God”. Even this is ridiculous, however, since societies do not believe, people do. However, I must admit that there is no harm in comparing a society dominated by atheists with a society dominated by “conservative Christians”.

That would be an interesting comparison indeed… if only one could find a society dominated by conservative Christians.

You see, another flaw in Zuckerman’s argument is his interpretation of “conservative Christianity” and his identification of societies that bear this identifier. The term “conservative Christian”, first of all, is a loaded one. It is loaded, that is, with a wide variety of religious expression. Let’s put it this way, a Roman Catholic and a Baptist would both fall into Zuckerman’s category of “conservative Christian”. Why? Because they both hold similar views on abortion? On the Divinity of Jesus? On the inspiration of Scripture?

These are some of the hallmarks Zuckerman indicates separate Danes and Swedes from “conservative Christians”. But a good theologian will understand that any atheist might agree with an anti-abortion Christian about abortion, simply on moral grounds. And just put a Roman Catholic in the same room as a Baptist and ask them to explain the inspiration of Scripture! You will soon see that so-called “conservative Christians” often have more to disagree about than agree about… even when they seem to agree. The term itself is flawed. It is a non-category.

The second problem with describing a society as a “conservative Christian” one has to do with what we learn from scripture. We are veritably guaranteed that there will be NO “Christian” society here on earth. Throughout the Old Testament, God is constantly frustrated that “His people” can’t get it right. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is warning us that we cannot rely on an earthly culture (or society) to resemble God’s design. And throughout the rest of the New Testament, we are consistently warned to not even look to the Christian Church to understand God, but to look to Jesus Himself if we want to see God.

In other words, if Zuckerman wants to compare a “Godless” society against the God of the Bible, he needs to compare it with Jesus, not with the USA, Israel, or even a trans-cultural society like the church.

What if he did make that comparison? His argument would disintegrate! For one example, Zuckerman points out the longer life-span among Danes and Swedes as compared to “conservative Christian societies”. But compare the “life-span” of Jesus with that of the Danes and Swedes. Um… God wins. And for that matter, the “LIFE” span of a single Christ-follower out measures the entirety of atheism combined! God does not measure life the way sociologists do.

There is more wrong with Zuckerman’s identifier of “conservative Christian” and his association of such with particular societies. But let’s move on to another part of his argument.

Zuckerman wants his readers to notice that in so-called “Godless” societies like Denmark and Sweden, certain crime rates, especially the most violent ones, are lower. Here is where we find Zuckerman’s (and the atheists he is studying) misunderstanding of sin and its impacts.

From a Biblical perspective, prostitution as every bit as disastrous as murder. So is lying, cheating on taxes, and (for that matter) atheism! In other words, to single out merely so-called “violent” crimes and their concurrent statistics, and to use these as evidence about the impact of “Godlessness” in society is naïve – at least from a theological bent. Theologically, the proliferation of atheism is evidence enough of the dangers of a lack of faith in Jesus, his divinity, and his sacrificial atonement. In other words, Zuckerman is using a secular distinction to describe a theological phenomenon. It won’t.

But it is not a sociologist’s job to point out such things. Which is why I wish Zuckerman had stuck to sociology (by arguing about societies which lack faith in God) and avoided theology (by arguing about the actual absence of God).

Honestly, Zuckerman’s book makes for good sociology. I suspect he strategically titled and labeled his book and arguments for the sake of sales-building-attention (or else his marketing advisors did). He admits, at least, that he is being polemical. It is his right. Just as it is my right to point out that his polemical move forced him out of his field into mine.

Perhaps the most annoying tendency of his book, however, is his willingness to subtly allow the atheists to define Christianity.  For instance he writes,

When they say … “Christian” they are just referring to a cultural heritage and history. When asked what it means to be Christian, they said 'being kind to others, taking care of the poor and sick, and being a good and moral person.' They almost never mentioned God, Jesus, or the Bible in their explanation of Christian identity.

Amsterdam will probably always be a great place to visit if I want to get stoned and laid legally. It will never be where I will go to understand the mind of God. Oh, to be sure, God is at work in Amsterdam. And any half decent theologian will have no trouble at all see that. But I will never look at Danes, Swedes, Roman Catholics, Baptists, or any other society if I want to learn actual truth about God. For that, I will stick with Jesus.

All quotes taken from "Society Without God", Phil Zuckerman, 2008, New York University Press,