Stark said lower rates of male religiousness is a form of risk-taking behavior just as criminality is, and men are far more likely to commit crimes than women.
"Any phenomenon that occurs in many and very different social and cultural settings necessitates explanations that are equally general, which tends to rule out most social and cultural factors," he wrote in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
"Recent studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills."
The upshot is that some men are shortsighted and don't think ahead, and so "going to prison or going to hell just doesn't matter to these men," Stark said.
So in response, I wrote an email to Mr. Schwarz (His email address is listed at the header above the article):
Your article on men being more impulsive and less religious than women was interesting. You pointed out that men are less religious, while simultaneously being more criminal-minded and risk-taking, than women.
So I am interested in your take on a few questions that popped into my head:
If irreligiosity correlates with -or is somehow related to- higher crime, then why does post-religious Europe have less murder, less rape, less petty crime, less substance abuse, less infant mortality, higher life expectancy, higher education ratings, and generally higher quality of life ratings than much-more-religious America?
And if secularism relates to the higher risk-taking behavior of men, then is it safe to say that higher religiosity in women relates to their tendency to be more submissive?
And finally, why is Europe less dangerous, and healthier, than America if it is also less religious?