If happiness is the road to utopia, or vice versa, then maybe this tidbit will help pave the way. A paper submitted to the Royal Economic Society's annual conference, entitled "Deliver us from Evil: Religion as insurance", claims that, "the religious enjoy higher levels of life satisfaction, and that religion does insure against some adverse life events." This is billed as 'Believers are happier than atheists' in the British Telegraph.co.uk.
You might think that Atheists would protest this study, and of course they have and no doubt will. But as Daniel Dennett sums up his book, "Consciousness Explained", "wouldn't it be nice if it were true?" Except in this case, the data says it is true.
Or does it? I don't know what the actual data says, because the download for the file containing the actual paper won't work. So the news blurbs running around the web are essentially non-confirmable. This doesn't stop the news from spreading and being either welcomed or decried by folks that probably, like me, can't even access the full study.
However, I can give you a flavor, via the abstract which started the whole thing. So here it is:
This paper focusses on the insurance role of religion in buffering the well-being impact of stressful life events, and the ensuing economic and social implications. Using two large-scale European data sets, we show that the religious enjoy higher levels of life satisfaction, and that religion does insure against some adverse life events. All denominations suffer less psychological harm from unemployment than do the non-religious; equally both Catholics and Protestants are less hurt by marital separation. However, while Protestants are protected against divorce, Catholics are punished for it. These results do not seem to come about from the endogeneity of religion. These patterns in subjective well-being correspond to data on both attitudes (the religious are both anti-divorce and anti-job creation for the unemployed) and behaviour (the religious unemployed are less likely to be actively looking for work). In panel data, as implied by insurance, the religious have less variation in life satisfaction. Last, we suggest that religion s insurance role might be reflected in support for different economic and social systems: consistent with this, unemployment replacement rates across Europe are lower in more religious countries.
So while I don't know how valid it is, I have to smile at the controversy it will leave in its wake.
5 comments:
Beez says,
I don't find this even slightly controversial. It's quite evident to me that religious involvement probably soothes social and general life woes in many ways. I often lament my lack of religion. I would love the social support and community offered by church membership.
Everybody needs support from a community, and (as Beez's comment suggests), non-believers may be relatively bereft of such support. I know that the elderly in my congregation speak often about how much they value 'their church family' as they deal with illness and loneliness. This is one of the many positive benefits of participating in a community of faith.
However, where the science is concerned, we always have to watch out confusing correlation with causation. In fact, it is even legitimate to wonder if there is a certain sort of atheism that is manifested in one's personality. I'm talking about the assertive, contrarian type (usually male) who takes visible pleasure in holding forth about the shortcomings of whatever conventional view they reject. I hasten to say I know many atheists who do not fit this type, but to the extent that some do, and it seems an obvious extension of their contrarian nature, I would not be surprised to see a weak linkage between atheism in general and a certain disaffection for all sorts of community, with concomitant health effects.
But that's not particularly damning. There was a sociology study that found that Yankee fans were twice as likely to be divorced as non-Yankee fans, but that doesn't mean a fan of the Bronx Zoo couldn't be personally delightful and highly social.
Beez says,
I'd say there's something to that personality distinction, and I probably exhibit certain traits of it. There's a difference between progressive and radical. For some people the only solution is to tear all asunder, presumably to rebuild for the better. But for some others, the object is simply to destroy, often motivated initially by a genuine anger at injustice.
Some people will simply remained peeved at reality, and they're usually not the church-goers. I like to think we're the ones too pissed off to give in. I'd probably be a lot happier otherwise. I once saw a bumper sticker in Santa Cruz:
"I feel much better now that I've given up."
I don't mean to imply that churchgoers have "given up." But anyone who knows me would tell you that for me, that's precisely what it would mean.
Beez said,
"I feel much better now that I've given up."
"I don't mean to imply that churchgoers have "given up." But anyone who knows me would tell you that for me, that's precisely what it would mean."
Beez, I personally think that this is confusing nihilism with the Christian attempt to relinquish the perceived need to personally control all the events surrounding oneself.
In a sense, Christians do give up, but not as you seem to think. They attempt to give up their concept of themselves as the center of the universe, the deriver of moral behaviors, the answer to everyone else's problems. This accompanies a release to pursue one's own ability to conform to an ideal, and to help those who want it, while leaving alone those who do not want it.
These are, of course, ideals for the Christian. Christians are faulty humans. They can and do sometimes fail at their attempt to give up these things. But they seem to be happier when they do succeed.
Stan,
That is a particularly insightful interpretation of Christianity and one that begins to actually meld with Eastern Philosophy of acceptance and enlightenment. Unfortunately not all Christians have risen to that level. They in fact use the ideal that you speak of as a reference to judge others. Also, I'm not sure why that interpretation isn't available to us atheists. Why do we need a “spiritual” angle? I can invent an ideal right on my own, probably one that nobody could ever realize.
Beez
Post a Comment