Well, it may depend on where you live — which in turn suggests that the answer may be more complicated than many assume, if not indeterminate. Paul Bloom in Slate last month, via Will Wilkinson:
Many Americans doubt the morality of atheists. According to a 2007 Gallup poll, a majority of Americans say that they would not vote for an otherwise qualified atheist as president, meaning a nonbeliever would have a harder time getting elected than a Muslim, a homosexual, or a Jew. Many would go further and agree with conservative commentator Laura Schlessinger that morality requires a belief in God—otherwise, all we have is our selfish desires. …
And, indeed, there is evidence within the United States for a correlation between religion and what might broadly be called “niceness.” In Gross National Happiness, Arthur Brooks notes that atheists are less charitable than their God-fearing counterparts: They donate less blood, for example, and are less likely to offer change to homeless people on the street. Since giving to charity makes one happy, Brooks speculates that this could be one reason why atheists are so miserable. In a 2004 study, twice as many religious people say that they are very happy with their lives, while the secular are twice as likely to say that they feel like failures….
So people in deeply secularized countries are less nice and less happy than Americans, right? No, they aren’t. “It is at this point,” writes Bloom, “that the ‘We need God to be good’ case falls apart.” One study of democracies finds that the less religious ones have lower rates of social dysfunction, while a newer book on Denmark and Sweden, by some measure the world’s most unbelieving countries, finds that they score very highly on “niceness”, low crime rates, social cohesion, and so forth. (Yes, it would be great to adjust in part for cultural and ethnic variables by running a comparison to, say, Scandinavian-Americans in Minnesota, rather than Americans generally. But at the least the evidence tends to contradict the “take away religion and things begin reverting to barbarism” hypothesis. If the objection is raised that Scandinavian-Americans have no great intensity of belief these days either, then you have to ask why their indicators of social health, too, remain so high).
One hypothesis Bloom lays out is that in America, where church commitment is a leading (if not the leading) way people form communities with each other, being an unbeliever tends to mean being an outsider, which in turn tends to correlate with unhappiness, lack of social support, and dysfunction. Where an entire country has moved away from religious belief, on the other hand, it seems that either other supportive forms of community move into the gap, or churches themselves alter their role to one in which unbelievers can participate more comfortably. In his new study of Scandinavia, Society Without God, Phil Zuckerman finds (according to Bloom) that in Sweden and Denmark the Lutheran churches continue to serve many valued functions as social institutions; it’s just that most of the congregants no longer believe in the churches’ notional theology. One wonders whether any of the more liberal denominations in the U.S. are evolving, or have already evolved, in that direction.
“Since giving to charity makes one happy, Brooks speculates that this could be one reason why atheists are so miserable.”
Miserable? I’ll give you miserable. Try spending years gritting your teeth, squeezing your eyes tightly shut, balling your fists, and chanting over and over, “I really do believe this stuff. I really do believe this stuff….”
Religion might make a person nicer or happier, but if the atheists are correct, God doesn’t make religious people any nicer or happier. (Whatever niceness or hapiness the religious people posses is coming from somewhere else.)
Pingback: Do “niceness” and religiosity correlate? « Rants and Ramblings
Miserable? I’ll give you miserable. Try spending years gritting your teeth, squeezing your eyes tightly shut, balling your fists, and chanting over and over, “I really do believe this stuff. I really do believe this stuff….”
I totally empathize with this. I was raised in a Muslim family, and frankly, if religion is the oxygen that people breath, I’m an anaerobe for whom oxygen is a poison. I used to dread Eid because my parents would take us to spend the whole at the masjid. I really wished someone would shoot me so that it could finally end.
That being said, I don’t think I’m a typical human in this way. Instead of splitting these issues into stark dichotomies and not acknowledging the diversity of human dispositions, I think one might contend that for some people religion might make them nice, but for others it is irrelevant, and for others might cause problems insofar as they might rationalize psychopathy.
Is this study truly of belief or churchgoers? I could see myself going to, say, a Unity church even though I don’t believe. The people there are nice (I’ve gone a few times with my wife) and they do good work to help out the community. Maybe a once-weekly quasi-mediation session helps enhance happiness. Though now that I think about it, the times I went I usually found myself wanting to start an argument with the minister.
I don’t give to charity. I like to know where my money is going, and the thought that it is going to advertising for more handouts, and to give the destitute bibles and rice doesn’t give me any hope that it has improved the world. I would happily start a company that engineers drought resistant crops for third world countries. This doesn’t count towards the researchers charity statistics, but it would likely be more effective.
I figure I’m about as happy as I ought to be, which is my preference. I don’t need fairy tales to inflate my reality.
“The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.” – George Bernard Shaw
I totally empathize with this. I was raised in a Muslim family, and frankly, if religion is the oxygen that people breath, I’m an anaerobe for whom oxygen is a poison. I used to dread Eid because my parents would take us to spend the whole at the masjid. I really wished someone would shoot me so that it could finally end.
Likewise, and I’ve never heard it expressed so succinctly (and I shall steal the anaerobe line for future use if you don’t mind). I had pretty much the same experience as you (except it was a ‘Gospel Hall’ instead of a Masjid). I wonder if we are both hard-wired to have innate resistance to the religious virus? (or did we aquire it from somewhere?)
I wonder whether the situation in Scandinavian countries is really that different from most parts of the First World, except that people have crossed over the crucial threshold that causes them to claim to believe theology.
Once a certain fraction of the population has openly ceased to make that claim, it’s no longer shocking or strange to do so… and once most people do so, conformity begins working in the opposite direction.
I also wonder whether David Hume’s unwillingness to say ‘bad’ things about the religiously credulous stems from the fact that his parents are among them. The fact that religions also serve as social clubs doesn’t make them one whit less irrational and pernicious. It just ensures that people are unwilling to dispose of the bathwater because there’s a baby in it.
>I also wonder whether David Hume’s unwillingness to say ‘bad’ things about the religiously credulous stems from the fact that his parents are among them.
It’s true, many of us try to avoid discussing these topics in a spirit of pursuing culture war, lest we bring pain to persons we love. You make that sound like a bad thing.
I also wonder whether David Hume’s unwillingness to say ‘bad’ things about the religiously credulous stems from the fact that his parents are among them.
Don’t be a retard Caledonian. Leave the psychoanalyzing for people you know in real life.
I wonder how this relates to the work by Norenzayan and Shariff from a while back regarding the effects of religious/secular primers on prosociality:
http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Norenzayan&Shariff_Science.pdf
Perhaps the religious are ‘nicer’ because the probability of being around someone from the in-group who can effect their reputation is higher. Or maybe the religious meet the equivalent of the religious primer from the article above more frequently in a normal environment than the secular are explicitly reminded of relevant secular authorities.
David Hume, Dave M: I’m with both of you guys, except for me it was the “All Catholic League”, with a full compliment of priests, nuns, and gender segregation during school. (Just when you wanted girls around, bam! They’re gone. 🙁 )
Catholicism certainly didn’t “take” with me, and the more I was exposed to it (which seemed inversely related to the amount of confidence I expressed in it), the greater my “issues” with it. (E.g., learning the Old and New Testaments back to front merely enhanced my ability to parry and counter-thrust during the interminable arguments/debates around the dinner table.)
But I’ve found…as they years go on, that I’m happier when I’m not directly fighting about religion with family. This has become easier as I’ve become an adult, of course, as I gradually grew less and less dependant on the ‘Rents, till full independence. (So that the old leverage-disguised-as-generosity switcheroo can’t be deployed against me.)
I’m much happier now that Catholicism and its rhythms are (more or less) out of my life completely. Indeed, some Springs I’m not even aware of which weekend is Easter. (Ahhh blissful ignorance!)
BTW, and FWIW, I do make charitable donations – including even to the old little Catholic HS I went to. I’m not troubled by this, as that school did well by me, all in all. (There was great fun to be had mercilessly torturing the priests with our collective impiety.) I figure, religion should be irrelevant, and there are always people less well off than I, who could use some help. So I’ll give to the Salvation Army here and there, as well as secular outfits (though not the Red Cross, because their overhead costs are a nightmare.)
Best,
This might sound naive, but isn’t the majority in power usually happier than the minorities who aren’t?
Caledonian said: “The fact that religions also serve as social clubs doesn’t make them one whit less irrational and pernicious.”
This isn’t right. Considered as social clubs, it is rational to belong to them in so far as they help you to accomplish certain goals (i.e., a rational end to have is social well-being), and they are helpful (not pernicious) in the same way.
I disagree. The dues are too high for the rational mind that values its integrity. One would be expected to feign piety, as most of the other members do; or at the very least, to show deference and respect for the devout.
I have frequently lamented how I envy Christians their community. Back when my rational mind could hide behind the mantle of an agnostic seeking truth, I occasionally attended a potluck social, and reveled in their joyous fellowship. They were welcoming, kind, and trusting to a fault; and their women were supportive, nurturing, and wholesome. It is not difficult to understand why many Christian men are happy.
Now an old man, I think back to the preponderance of lonely widows among them with perhaps slight temptation; but alas my godless honor and self-imposed integrity would not allow me to feign piety, or even show it respect. I tried joining a freethinkers social club as an alternative; but they were more dogmatic than the Christians, and sure didn’t appreciate being told so. It is probably a good thing I am content as a hermit, even if a less than joyful curmudgeon. 🙂 ◄Dave►
“‘Considered as social clubs, it is rational to belong to the…'”
“I disagree. The dues are too high for the rational mind that values its integrity.”
But that would not make it *irrational.* If the cost is loss of integrity is offset by an increase in, say, community (but really any value could be punched in here), it could be rational. (But, of course, that depends on how one values such things as integrity and community, which is the rub…)
Hello, all! I’ve been lurking here for a couple weeks now (you can thank The Volokh Conspiracy for that) but this thread finally got me to introduce myself and put in my two cents.
Back on topic: Religion is not the source of morality; it’s merely an elaborate reinforcement mechanism for a specific moral code. The thing is, in order to serve that purpose, religions usually have to masquerade as the source of that code as well. A moral code with a perceived divine origin and/or divine endorsement is a lot less tricky for a religion to explain, or to justify its reinforcement role, to its flock than one acknowledged as having a more earthly origin such as millennia of social evolution. After all if morality has nothing to do with God, what business does religion have encouraging it?
It seems to me that plays a big role in coloring the views of devout believers toward nonbelievers. Believers, by and large, have either been raised with or (in the case of converts) brought around to this notion that God, religion and morality are inextricably bound together, that you can’t embrace (or reject) one without implicitly embracing (or rejecting) the others.
I have other thoughts on the matter of religion as moral reinforcement mechanism, but they have either already been covered by others in this thread or are somewhat off-topic, so they will have to wait for another day. I’ll be away from the blogs for two weeks or so, for obvious reasons, so until then, Merry Christmas!
I always have to laugh when I see this topic brought up. The first question to be asked is– does religion make you happier or nicer than what? Clams? Dogs? Animists? Atheists? What sort of measure could one use to decide that X has happiness and niceness as a Lutheran but would have had more niceness and happiness as an atheist?
It is fun to try and tease some sort of answer out but, ultimately, useless. I am inclined to believe that the question remains: Is it true? I can’t see that happiness and niceness need to come into it at all.
Lily said: “It is fun to try and tease some sort of answer out but, ultimately, useless.”
I agree that questions about whether religious participation makes you more happy than the opposite are probably over-broad.
Yet, why do you think that it’s useless to pose even more specific sorts of questions (your ex., would I be happier as a Lutheran or atheist?) – is it simply that it’s difficult to figure out counterfactuals?
From Bloom’s article: “[Atheists are] less likely to offer change to homeless people on the street[.]”
If you believe giving money to homeless people is more likely to perpetuate their problems than not, then I am guessing that you wouldn’t feel better after giving change to a homeless person on the street.
This is a great topic for endless interpretation but still it cannot be avoided if we wish to anticipate a more secular future, which, if we are epistemologically right, will test the boundaries of human nature.
We all accept the fact that man is a social animal so we logically expect communities to have mechanisms that encourage friendship and pleasure, two aspects of life that are very basic to our nature.Happiness will arise in any social stting that promotes the best aspects of human fulfillment.Where people are deprived of basic necessities, as in Haiti, Congo, or Somalia, you expect misery and you find it in abundance.All the religiousity in the world cannot save the poor souls trapped in the hellholes of our planet.
Given that reality and the checkered history of religion, we still must admit that religious folks often find abundant happiness in their faith and brotherhood.In America secular thinkers are more often isolated by their beliefs and those who join Humanist organisations become religionists of the kind who follow Paul Kurtz. I acknowleged in my book that Paul Kurtz greatly influenced me in the lonely fifties as I became an atheist with no support whatsoever.However, I have never been highly social and was perfectly comfortable in my secret atheism.I even met a brilliant student in a biology class at Montclair High in N.J.( I was the teacher of an honors class)who became an atheist before my eyes after long discussions with me after school. Today I might well be fired by meticulously PC administrators.Most atheists I have met are hard-core liberals who love Darwin but do not share Darwin’s belief in human inequality. On abortion,mercy killing, “social justice” and other issues I felt removed from this species.
Denmark and Sweden surely discredit the notion that happiness and peace are the province of religionists alone.However, those complex cultures were quite homogeneous before Muslim immigration and probably enjoyed a silent inertia of Lutheran morality from the past.Now the rapes by Muslims against their women (Sweden) will disrupt that historic tranquillity.
Removing religion forcefully as was the case in 1917 Russia proved morally devestating to a people accustomed to suffering. Indeed, Dostoevsky extolled suffering and he is surely right unless the suffering is prolonged to the point of human total dysfunction.Psychological trauma is rarely beneficial.Life is still cheap in Russia and corruption abounds.Human nature that experiences too much fear and devestation becomes deeply distorted and cannot experience happiness in a normal way.The slow, gradual demythologization of religion in Denmark and Sweden is far more effective pyschologically and morally.Such may be our fate, but doctrinaire liberal atheism has some very ugly aspects.
A moral code with a perceived divine origin and/or divine endorsement is a lot less tricky for a religion to explain, etc…
There is a very simple psychological explanation for the attribution of moral rules to “transcendent entities” which I mentionned before on SR, (justified) lack of self confidence in one’s own moral strength…
Well, I suppose if you’re confident that eternal joy will be yours following physical death, you’d have reason to be happy, at least about that. Nicer? I’ve known a number of pious crooks, adulterers, and liars in my time. And a strong Roman Catholic tradition doesn’t seem to have upgraded the niceness quotient of the Mafia that much.
People who adhere to a religion are not qualitatively different than those who do not. To illustrate what I mean I need to ask– what quality or qualities do religious people have that atheists don’t? Can anyone really name one? My experience has been that if, say, 10% of the human population is mentally ill, one will find that that holds true equally for atheists and religious people. If 25% of all humans have essentially cheerful dispositions, you will find that is equally true of both atheists and religious, too.
I go back to what I said earlier. The issue, in my opinion, is what one believes is true. Fools have believed and so have exceedingly well-educated, wise men and women. Humorless gits have believed and so have those with wonderful senses of humor. Your niceness and happiness depend on your temperment and upbringing. Your decision to be an atheist or a Lutheran depend on what you believe to be true.
Susan, I am quite sure that you have known (seemingly) pious crooks, adulterers and liars in your time. But, if they were really pious, they wouldn’t be crooks, adulterers and liars. You have known superstitious people who talk the talk but have no intention of walking the walk, so to speak. We have all known such types. Likewise, the Mafia is Catholic in name only– it is a tribal identification. You see that sort of thinking with the Kennedys who continue to claim to be Catholic but will refer to the teachings of the Church as Catholis bullsh-t, even in public.
The problem with the question, as asked originally, is that it supposes that religious people are all one thing and that they think and act in lockstep. But if you think about it, you must see that that cannot possibly be so. Now, it is certainly possible that religious belief gives an individual real reason to cheer up– but it doesn’t change a fundamentally pessimistic disposition into an optimisic one– it can influence it in positive ways. Likewise, a mentally ill Presbyterian still needs his meds, just like the mentally ill atheist.
It is all about truth. Not happiness; not niceness.
Lily, I agree with all the points you made–and made very well, may I add. Of course liars and cheats aren’t truly pious as you and I would understand the word to mean. But my point really is that “piety” and “faith” and even Christianity all seem to be words that have lost their objective meaning. It’s perfectly possible for a cheat or a liar to regard himself as a true Christian–some people can justify any kind of sleaziness to themselves. Look at Martin Luther King, Junior. He’s popularly regarded as being about as near to being a Protestant saint as it’s possible to be–yet he was a serial adulterer and a plagiarist, either of which alone should disqualify him from telling other people how to lead their moral lives.
For the rest, I don’t think “happy” and “nice,” particularly nice, have much to do with religious affiliation or lack ot it.
Lily said: “Now, it is certainly possible that religious belief gives an individual real reason to cheer up– but it doesn’t change a fundamentally pessimistic disposition into an optimisic one– it can influence it in positive ways. Likewise, a mentally ill Presbyterian still needs his meds, just like the mentally ill atheist. It is all about truth. Not happiness; not niceness.”
Then you’ve just conceded that it can make you happier (“can influence it in positive ways”). You then leap to the non sequitur that it’s “all about truth”.
To your larger point: aren’t we talking about statistical patterns here? There are going to be exceptions all over the place. Perhaps religion tends to make individuals more happy in the U.S., but it makes some individuals less happy in the U.S. Perhaps the effect isn’t large. Perhaps it makes people less happy. The question of the post seems to be: under which conditions does some sort of religious affiliation make one better off, and under which does it not?
I just do not know how one can quantify happiness or niceness! I didn’t say that it couldn’t make one happier, at least at times. But how does “influence in a positive way” equate to “make (someone) happier” as measured against the same person as an atheist? Honestly, the point I am trying to make is that it is meaningless to measure the happiness of Ms Methodist against the happiness of Mr. Atheist. It can’t be done. They are two different people.
Now you have changed the question fundamentally by asking under what conditions religious affiliation makes one better off and under which does it not. I actually think that is rather easier to answer, assuming we can define what “better off” means.
@Susan
Susan: I meant to respond to this and failed to in my answer to Anthony. I think I agree with virtually all that you have written– it is certainly true that because Christianity is so strong in the US and has had so strong an impact on the culture, that there are so many people who consider themselves Christians without ever understanding what that claim really means. This is certainly the downside of success!
I know what you mean about MLK and yet, think of King David! He was an adulterer and a murderer. Yet, according to the OT, God forgave him, though David paid a terrible price for his sins. I think, if anything, it is possible that we see in both cases that greatness and human failing are always with us and may contend with one another in the same soul. I do not know how MLK struggled with his sins but I do know that no matter how great they were, the love of God is stronger. Of course, since this is the “secular” right, I don’t want to say too much more about it in this venue than that.
Hi Lily,
By ‘better off’, I just meant ‘better sense of well-being, more happy, and so on’.
The obvious way to quantify happiness is to ask people: “On a scale from 1 to 10, how happy are you?”
I suppose if you asked people how happy they were on a scale of one to ten, you might get some reasonably honest answers. Now, if you asked people how nice they were on a scale of one to ten, the dishonesty or inaccuracy of the responses would be breathtaking. The “nicest” people would probably rate themselves the lowest, just as the biggest crooks would probably give themselves a ten.
It would be a bit like that infamous “self-esteem” test that was given to teenagers about fifteen or so years ago, the results of which were promptly buried. The ones who scored lowest in self-esteem were white female overachievers. The ones who scored highest in self-esteem were black males with criminal records.