- Per John Tierney in the Times, a new review of the literature has “concluded that religious belief and piety promote self-control”, which may help explain why religious belief is often associated with greater success in such goals as personal health and marital stability. Mere going through the motions doesn’t seem to be enough, “Dr. [Michael] McCullough told me, because personality studies have identified a difference between true believers and others who attend services for extrinsic reasons, like wanting to impress people or make social connections. The intrinsically religious people have higher self-control, but the extrinsically religious do not.”
- A new Vanity Fair article based on interview with GWBush administration insiders includes this quote from David Kuo:
“The reality in the White House is – if you look at the most senior staff – you’re seeing people who aren’t personally religious and have no particular affection for people who are religious-right leaders,” Kuo said.
“In the political affairs shop in particular, you saw a lot of people who just rolled their eyes at … basically every religious-right leader that was out there, because they just found them annoying and insufferable. These guys were pains in the butt who had to be accommodated.”
Note, by contrast or otherwise, DH’s just-preceding post on GWB’s personal beliefs.
- For those who haven’t overdosed on the subject, the gang at Volokh Conspiracy have a lot to say about the “Merry Christmas” vs. “Happy Holidays” question, with attention to the use of the latter phrase (long before the recent culture wars) as an attempted way to avoid awkwardness between Christians and Jews. Relatedly, David Kopel brings word that readers of the Boulder, Colorado, Daily Camera, have now heard from one of the world’s touchiest atheists on the subject.
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
I suspect there are 3 different personality types that lead to fervent belief in a particular religion.
The first is the non-rebel. He inherited his beliefs from his family and wants to stay loyal for that reason. My friend Chris from law school (a devout Catholic) fit this to a “t.” He believed everything his church preached (though, he found it hard to always “practice” it).
The second is sort of a rebel — the kind of rebellious person who can’t control himself. He may have had problems with drugs, alcohol, gambling, prison and the like and religion helps keep him in line. George Bush arguably fits here. Religion may have helped him overcome alcoholism.
The third is the neurotic — someone who can’t handle life without the “rock” of God. Death and danger terrify him. Jessee Ventura with a poor choice of words referred to this type of person as “weak minded.” He later qualified his words noting his wife was a “worrier” and used religion for this purpose. Pat Robertson has testified as well that he converted Christ chiefly for this reason.
Those three probably represent 90-99% of how folks come to fervent religious belief. And fourth category, much smaller (so small I thought about not even mentioning it) the philosopher. Someone who “searches” for ultimate truth and finds it in a particular “religion.”
Of course Leo Strauss once reportedly said that no true philosopher can believe in God, that they are “paid” to be atheists.
1) Read the paper Tierney alludes to here (PDF).
2) Be careful of taking the ceteris paribus assumption literally and overgeneralizing. For example, they cite research which suggests that religious students have higher test scores and GPAs. Don’t be tempted to conclude the most elite universities in the United States have the most religious students!
3) Pay close attention to the r-squareds. Many are not too large (though some are non-trivial indeed).
4) They don’t do a good job clearing up whether religion precedes prosocial tendencies, or whether prosocial tendencies precede religion. In other words, particularly conscientious people might be attracted to religion, or religion might produce particularly conscientious people. I would bet on the former, while social engineers would prefer the latter (though it is probably a mix of the two, the weights of which one matter).
People who are interested in meeting social standards, for whatever reason, are more likely to participate deeply in religious practices and are more likely to claim to be religious believers.
That much is obvious.
Whether religion itself is really very relevant is less so. I suspect examples of highly-conformist but irreligious countries like Sweden indicate that the social organization doesn’t necessarily have to be ‘religious’ in nature.
What do you mean by “social standards”? I wasn’t raised in any religion, and have been a non-believer since childhood, but I think I meet the social standards, if by those you mean not breaking the law and conducting myself with a degree of consideration for others. If I need money I don’t rob a bank because I’m afraid The Bogeyman will get me after I croak; I don’t rob banks because it’s a destructive thing to do.
As for religion: No, I don’t it’s necessary in a small homogeneous society (such as Sweden was, until fairly recently) where the norms of behavior may be implicitly agreed-upon by all the members. But Sweden may be a bad example of such–the country has always had a high suicide rate and a high alcoholism rate, neither of which are indicators of an entirely healthy society.
“if by those you mean not breaking the law and conducting myself with a degree of consideration for others”
No.