"...those nations with the lowest rates of theism tend to be the ‘healthiest’ in terms of prosperity, equality, freedom, democracy, women’s rights, human rights, educational attainment, crime rates, life-expectancy, etc. (though not all, to be sure, such as Vietnam or China), and those nations with the highest rates of theism tend to be relatively unsuccessful in terms of any standard sociological measurements of societal health.

"Given that those societies with the highest rates of theism are burdened by the most social problems. And conversely, the corollary thesis that atheism is dangerous or deleterious for society can be soundly refuted, given that those societies with the lowest levels of theism are faring the best, overall, in terms of just about every measure of societal health and well-being imaginable.

"It is important to stress what is being argued here, and what is not. I am not arguing that theism is necessarily bad for society, or that, in and of itself, theism directly causes social problems. Such an argument could possibly be made — but it is not being made here, and it is certainly not supported by the data presented above.

"However, the correlation/causation story that appears to make the most sense — and currently has the best data to support it — comes from the work of Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart. In their important book Sacred and Secular, Norris and Inglehart show that it is not theism that causes societal disarray, nor atheism that causes societal well-being.

"Thus, atheism and societal well-being are indeed most likely causally-linked, but it is the latter (societal wellbeing) which most likely causes the former (atheism), and not the other way around."

(From: Phil Zuckerman: "Atheism and Societal Health" )