Hard to believe in these post-enlightenment, post-industrial, post-modern times, that 88% of the world’s population believes in a supreme being. So I guess the world isn’t being taken over by atheists after all.
The question I have is, why, in these hip and enlightened times, are we still superstitious?
According to Time Magazine’s Your Brain: A User’s Guide, “having faith can improve your health…People who attend religious services do have a lower risk of dying in any given year than people who don’t attend.”
As an aside, it’s not just belief in any old god that’s important. The kind of god comes into play. “People who believe in a loving God fare better after a diagnosis of illness than people who believe in a punitive God.”
Interesting.
So there’s a link between faith and long life. What is it about religion that keeps you healthy?
Lots of theories come to mind, the most obvious being if you love God, then God loves you back. Kind of selfish on God’s part, don’t you think? How about: Smart people believe in God; smart people know how to take care of themselves.
That could be it, but I doubt it. I don’t think IQ has anything to do with religiosity.
Personally I think the religion/health connection has to do with the social factor. People are happier if they are part of a social network. Religion often provides a nurturing social place (especially if your God is a loving God as opposed to a punitive God). And there’s a clear link between depression and ill health. The happier you are, the healthier you are. You could do worse than hanging with your homeys at church.
There are other reasons why the religious are healthier. The December issue of Scientific American mentions that certain religions frown on smoking, drinking, taking recreational drugs, and engaging in risky sex. Not participating in those behaviors goes a long way in keeping you healthy. Religion promotes self-control which curbs self-destructive behaviors.
Finally, there’s prayer. Specifically prayer healing the sick and dying. There have been tons of experiments designed to prove whether or not prayer works. These experiments seem to prove whatever the experimenter wants them to prove so I’m not sure they prove anything at all. However, I believe prayer can heal. I say this because I know the placebo effect heals as well. The human body can heal itself. All it takes is a method to tap into the inherent healing power of the body. Call it prayer, call it the placebo effect, whatever it takes, the body will heal itself. Even knowing that someone else is praying for you in your time of need will speed you on your recovery. It doesn’t even have to be your own prayer for your own health.
So the reason for the popularity of religious belief seems obvious to me: it endows you with longer and healthier life. What’s not to love?
Come all you faithful, joyful and triumphant.
Thanks for reading.
This essay was first posted on December 25, 2011 at the Singularity Watch blog.
I’d have to question whether the religions who prohibit drinking, smoking, etc., provide an actual health benefit. For one thing, pretty much all the Christian religions who take that attitude are also down on dancing, which is definitely healthy. Secondly, while smoking is a serious health risk, moderate drinking has health benefits. Teetotalers may live longer than alcoholics, but they don’t fare as well as those who have the occasional glass of wine. (There are some scientific studies on that.) Also, while these churches do preach redemption, they are also big on hellfire and damnation — rather punitive.
And finally, based on my pure anecdotal observations from growing up in the Bible Belt, the prohibitions led some members of those churches to do their drinking (and other prohibited activities) on the sly and to overindulge when they did. And every girl I knew in high school who “had to get married” went to a fundamentalist church full of “thou shalt nots.”
I was raised in a variety of Christian churches that discouraged drinking, smoking, drug use and promiscuity, but none of them discouraged dancing or music or having fun in other ways. There are certainly fringe groups that do, but they’re not the norm.
The religion in which I have lived my entire adult life is more definite in its prohibition on drugs and alcohol than my former churches, and—as politically incorrect as it is—it still upholds chastity and fidelity as virtues. But Baha’is are still a fun-loving bunch who enjoy music, dancing, good food and good company.
What was missing from my adult religious experience was the sense of guilt. It’s possible to have those standards and goals for behavior based on a belief in the inherent nobility of the human being, as opposed to our supposed wickedness. It’s also possible to have those goals and standards without “watchdogism”. A Baha’i is supposed (as Buddha would have it) to keep their eye on their own spiritual row, and not someone else’s, to exercise self-control rather than expect it from other believers or the institutions of their faith.
Alas, religion, as a whole is regularly and frequently judged by the apparently newsworthy excesses of certain sub-sectf of Christianity and Islam. It’s neither fair nor rational, but it is what it is.
Unfortunately, the prohibition on dancing is not limited to fringe religions. The religion I was thinking of when I wrote my comment was the Southern Baptists — one of the largest religious groups in the U.S. — though the same prohibitions can be found in a number of smaller Christian denominations.
With the exception of a few religions that use drugs in a ritual way (and condemn their abuse), I don’t know of any religion that approves of drug use. Most seem to be in favor of restraint and commitment in sexual relationships as well.
I grew up in the Episcopal Church, which preached moderation. My parents were among those who started an Episcopal Church in our community. It was the third church in town, joining a very conservative branch of the Quakers (no dancing, drinking, etc.) and a Southern Baptist Church (same prohibitions). There were no dances in the local schools (separation of church and state had not been heard of that deep in the Bible Belt), so we began to hold them in the Episcopal Church because my parents believed strongly that teenagers needed wholesome activities to keep them out of trouble.
I’m no longer a practicing Episcopalian because I have realized I do not believe in God, but I’m very proud of the way the church has led on the issues of women and gays in the priesthood, same sex marriage, and other issues of rights and justice.
I think that anything that creates genuine community promotes health, both in terms of social/psychological health, improved physical care of its members, and shared resources.
I think asking “why we’re still superstitious” is a statement of conclusion for which one is seeking support. Which is fine, though not the scientific method as I understand it.
The most interesting discussion of “the science of religion” (or “the religion of science”) I’ve seen of late is here.
I have a bit of a problem with the equation of belief in a supreme being (however one wishes to define that) with “superstition”. It’s possible to come to the conclusion that there is an intelligence in the universe (or beyond it or in some way associated with it) that our unique human intelligence is a reflection or evidence of. I contribute to a website: http://www.commongroundgroup.net at which a number of bloggers—one a physicist by profession—discuss a wide range of subjects relating to faith and reason, science and religion.
In fact, there’s an essay you can download from our site entitled “The Science of Religion” written by the late mathematician William S. Hatcher. He goes into great detail about the importance of reason in matters of faith and the importance of faith in the sciences.
You’ll probably laugh at this, but my religion actually has very strong statements in its sacred texts about the need to combat superstition with reason. One of its first principles is the independent investigation of reality, and a second is the need for universal education so that everyone can have access to scientific knowledge. The rational faculty (or the rational soul) is, according to those texts, what makes us human and gives us the capacity to explore reality—both material and spiritual.
For the record, what I find “attractive” about religious belief is that it answers the questions that are important to me, makes sense of our jigsaw puzzle world, and gives me a set of goals to shoot for in my personal development that go beyond how much money I make, where I live, or how much stuff I possess. It also gives me the tools to know how to handle sometimes difficult situations and people. It gives me both a reason and a means to love people who, for various reasons may be difficult to even like—people who may even wish me ill.
I think there’s even more value in that than there is in longevity and good health for an individual. And ultimately, that is what attracts me to my religion—it’s not just about me, it’s about the world I live in and the people I share it with.
BTW, you might be interested in a series of studies that were written up in a book entitled “American Grace”. One finding was that religion isn’t just good for individuals, it’s good for society—religious people give significantly more of their money and time to community service and charities (both religious and secular) than non-religious citizens do. As Deb says, it can create a sense of community and integration.
Thanks for the links, Sherwood and Maya.
A study, just out, reports that evangelical teens in fact have more out-of-wedlock births and abortions than not-so-religious ones, possibly because of the lack of sex ed and contraceptive information. I presume that a generation earlier this would have been reflected in more shotgun weddings.
The fact that so many cultures and peoples have or develop a religion seems ton indicate that it has some survival value. If religion’s effects were purely negative, surely we would have dropped it long ago.
I’m stuck on the very first assertion, that 88% of the world’s population believes in a supreme being (or “believes in God” as the answers link puts it). To even begin to accept that, we have to define Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism as “belief in (a supreme being/God),” which is not how I believe most followers of those religions would characterize themselves.
There’s lots more to chew on here, but that’s what I wanted to call out.
There is a Spirit which is mind and life, light and truth and vast spaces. He contains all works, and all desires, and all perfumes, and all tastes. He enfolds the whole Universe, and in silence is loving to all. This is the Spirit that is in my heart, smaller than a grain of rice, or a grain of barley, or a grain of mustard seed, or a kernel of a grain of mustard seed. This is the Spirit that is in my heart, greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than Heaven itself, greater than all these worlds. This is the Spirit that is in my heart. This is Brahman (the Creator).” — Chandogya Upanishad
Those who love the gods go to the gods; but those who love me come unto me. The unwise think I am that form of my lower nature which is seen by mortal eyes; they know not my higher nature, imperishable and supreme. For my glory is not seen by all; I am hidden by my veil of mystery; and in its delusion the world knows me not, who was never born and forever I AM.— Krishna, Bhagavad Gita, 7:23-25
Brahman is the Supreme, the Eternal. Atman is His Spirit in man. Karma is the force of creation, from which all things have their life. — Krishna, Bhagavad Gita, 8:3
The above are from sacred Hindu texts. The following are Buddhist:
“There is, O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, O monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated formed.” —Udana 80-81
The Tathagata knows the straight path that leads to union with Brahma. He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahma and has been born in it. There can be no doubt in the Tathagata. — Digha-nikaya I.235
Grist for the mill
Between thinking about Debbie’s observation about the religions that aren’t built around worship of a supreme being and a couple of the points in Sue’s post, I’m getting the idea that the researchers are asking the wrong question by tying their studies so closely to belief in God or participation in a religious organization. I’d be willing to speculate that the people who are healthier are those who have some kind of practice that helps them stay centered and are active in some form of community that is doing something positive for both them and the larger group. I used to say my Aikido dojo was more like my church than it was like a gym. The practice of Qigong, T’ai Chi, yoga, and other similar studies can provide both the centering space and the community, regardless of whether the practice itself is in any way religious. Aren’t those Chinese people who gather in the early mornings to do T’ai Chi supposed to be very healthy as well?
I think a lot of research and analysis comes up with sloppy results that get quoted as received wisdom not because they’re completely untrue, but because the researchers weren’t asking the right question. I imagine people who believe in a loving God and are active in their church community are healthier than people who sit around alone at home feeling bitter, but I suspect atheists who train regularly in Aikido and participate in running the dojo probably are, too. Plus with Aikido you get exercise!