Tuesday, March 18, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Religion 'linked to happy life'

by BBC News

Thanks to Chris Ward for the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7302609.stm

Religion 'linked to happy life'

A belief in God could lead to a more contented life, research suggests.

Religious people are better able to cope with shocks such as losing a job or divorce, claims the study presented to a Royal Economic Society conference.

Data from thousands of Europeans revealed higher levels of "life satisfaction" in believers.

However, researcher Professor Andrew Clark said other aspects of a religious upbringing unrelated to belief may influence future happiness.

This is not the first study to draw links between religion and happiness, with a belief among many psychologists that some factor in either belief, or its observance, offering benefits.

Professor Clark, from the Paris School of Economics, and co-author Dr Orsolya Lelkes from the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, used information from household surveys to analyse the attitudes of Christians - both Catholic and Protestant - not only to their own happiness, but also to issues such as unemployment.

Their findings, they said, suggested that religion could offer a "buffer" which protected from life's disappointments.

Professor Clark said: "We originally started the research to work out why some European countries had more generous unemployment benefits than others, but our analysis suggested that religious people suffered less psychological harm from unemployment than the non-religious.

"They had higher levels of life satisfaction".

Purpose of life

Even though churchgoers were unsurprisingly more likely to oppose divorce, they were both less psychologically affected by marital separation when it did happen, he said.

"What we found was that religious people were experiencing current day rewards, rather than storing them up for the future."

However, he said that the nature of the surveys used meant that undetected factors, perhaps in the lifestyle or upbringing of religious people, such as stable family life and relationships, could be the cause of this increased satisfaction.

The precise contribution of religion to mental health remains controversial, although there is other evidence that it does directly improve happiness, said Professor Leslie Francis, from the University of Warwick.

He said that the benefit might stem from the increased "purpose of life" felt by believers.

He said: "These findings are consistent with other studies which suggest that religion does have a positive effect, although there are other views which say that religion can lead to self-doubt, and failure, and thereby have a negative effect.

"The belief that religion damages people is still in the minds of many."

'Meaningless'

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, which represents the interests of atheists and agnostics, said that studies purporting to show a link between happiness and religion were "all meaningless".

"Non-believers can't just turn on a faith in order to be happy. If you find religious claims incredible, then you won't believe them, whatever the supposed rewards in terms of personal fulfilment.

"Happiness is an elusive concept, anyway - I find listening to classical music blissful and watching football repulsive.

"Other people feel exactly the opposite. In the end, it comes down to the individual and, to an extent, their genetic predispositions."

But Justin Thacker, head of Theology for the Evangelical Alliance, said that there should now be no doubt about the connection between religious belief and happiness.

"There is more than one reason for this - part of it will be the sense of community and the relationships fostered, but that doesn't account for all of it.

"A large part of it is due to the meaning, purpose and value which believing in God gives you, whereas not believing in God can leave you without those things."

Posted: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 51 - 100 of 130 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

51. Comment #146246 by kintaro_crab on March 18, 2008 at 8:12 pm

hah, I hate these stupid nonsense studies (Social Scientists lol). I would go so far as to say that Christians, who most likely made up the largest percentage of those surveyed, are mostly lairs.( e.g. Discovery Institute). So they definitely would lie on a survey asking them if they are "happy".

quote: "our analysis suggested that religious people suffered less psychological harm from unemployment than the non-religious."

My conclusion on this is that, Religious people don't fully understand the position they are in. They are so self deluded that they are happy to leech off their governments and the people around them.

Other Comments by kintaro_crab

52. Comment #146247 by Gordy on March 18, 2008 at 8:13 pm

notsobad,
You might well be right, but I was thinking more, for example, are Muslims happier than Christians? etc. Since most religions make contradictory claims, it follows that they can't all be true. If only one religion made people happier, it could be taken as evidence for the truth of that religion. If, on the other hand, all religions make people equally happy then, whatever the reason might turn out to be, it can't be because they're all true! The effect must be due to something else, like involvement in a community, etc.

For anyone who's interested, Jonathan Haidt considers this in "The Happiness Hypothesis". Well worth reading, imo.

Other Comments by Gordy

53. Comment #146283 by neilcreek on March 18, 2008 at 9:46 pm

I posted this comment to the thread on Digg discussing the same story:

I don't believe this result for an instant. From my own personal experience, being aware of the world as it REALLY is makes me happier. Appreciating a HUGE and majestic universe and an intricately beautuful world far grander than any dreamed by any iron-age superstitions makes me happier. Knowing that the great things that I achieve are due to my own talent and hard work, and the mistakes I make are my own to learn from makes me happy. Knowing that the universe ISN'T fair and that the innocnt who suffer from disease and misfortune don't deserve it and aren't being punished by some diety, makes me happy.

I recall reading not that long ago that there were studies that show the opposite, that believers are less happy. The divorce rate among believers is significantly greater than among non-believers. The prison population of the US is 2% atheist, while the atheist population of the rest of the nation is more like 10-15%. I can't recall sources right now, but there's no shortage of stories mentioning stats like these on digg.

I'm willing to call it and say non believers are happier than believers, and the study is simply wrong.

Also - regarding the comment that more intelligent people are more pessimistic, I couldn't disagree more. Pessimism and optimisim are a seperate spectrum to intelligence, and I don't see that there's a lot of cross-over. An intelligent person can be an optimist because they can be confident that human nature is fundamentally altrusistic and the continual improvement of the quiality of life around the world, due to the efforts of people, is evidence of this. And that's not the only argument an intelligent person could offer to justify their optimism.

And I think I should mention that I'm a Major in Psychology to give my opinion a little more credibility.

Other Comments by neilcreek

54. Comment #146285 by Chispita on March 18, 2008 at 9:51 pm

I am sick of hearing that Atheist have no "purpose of life." I have never felt so sure about the meaning of life as I do now. This is just a convenient cliche.
They may think happiness is linked to religion but as Catholic I was taught that suffering earns you heaven and misery in this life is a good thing. That's what all the saints and martyrs did.
I say happiness is subjective and it has nothing to do with your belief in what happens after death.

Other Comments by Chispita

55. Comment #146287 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 10:00 pm

neilcreek,

Perhaps the problem is religious people feel more obliged to declare publicly that they are happy while non-religious people being more reflective will not give simple answers to loaded questions like 'Are You Happy?'

Happiness is an abstract concept with no well understood definition. You do not need to be a psychologist to know that. I think religion commits you to its creed so tightly that the default knee jerk answer to that question is 'yes'. Especially if the previous question is 'Are you religious?'

Non-religious people will probably think for themselves, ask more questions and will give non-exaggerated answers that will make them appear less happier on such crudely done surveys.

Religious people cannot after all honestly express their lack of life satisfaction at any given moment without feeling a sense of betrayal to their faith. Can they say, it seemed like a good idea them, but I wonder now. It takes a brave person to come out that way.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

56. Comment #146288 by Nullarbor Ranger on March 18, 2008 at 10:02 pm

If we start loooking at people who take solace from delusion as suffering from some psychological condition, there would be less people willing to openly admit their religiosity and what it does to their general feeling of well being. It is up to educators and scientists to cultivate an atmosphere where, through scientific education in classrooms, it becomes unacceptable for any one to openly claim religiosity and not worry about being sidelined by mainstream socity.

Other Comments by Nullarbor Ranger

57. Comment #146293 by Styrer- on March 18, 2008 at 10:16 pm

May I offer a slight re-wording of this piece, in order to make clear the article's true import, which might otherwise be compromised?

Santanism 'linked to happy life'
by BBC News
Thanks to Chris Ward for the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7302609.stm

Santanism 'linked to happy life'

A belief in Santa Claus could lead to a more contented life, research suggests.

Santanists are better able to cope with shocks such as losing a job or divorce, claims the study presented to a Royal Economic Society conference.

Data from thousands of Europeans revealed higher levels of "life satisfaction" in believers.

However, researcher Professor Andrew Clark said other aspects of a Santanist upbringing unrelated to belief may influence future happiness.

This is not the first study to draw links between Santanism and happiness, with a belief among many psychologists that some factor in either belief, or its observance, offering benefits.

Professor Clark, from the Paris School of Economics, and co-author Dr Orsolya Lelkes from the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, used information from household surveys to analyse the attitudes of Fairyists - both Pixieists and Elvists - not only to their own happiness, but also to issues such as unemployment.

Their findings, they said, suggested that Santanism could offer a "buffer" which protected from life's disappointments.

Professor Clark said: "We originally started the research to work out why some European countries had more generous unemployment benefits than others, but our analysis suggested that Santanists suffered less psychological harm from unemployment than the non-Santanist.

"They had higher levels of life satisfaction".

Purpose of life

Even though Santanists were unsurprisingly more likely to oppose divorce, they were both less psychologically affected by marital separation when it did happen, he said.

"What we found was that Santanists were experiencing current day rewards, rather than storing them up for the future."

However, he said that the nature of the surveys used meant that undetected factors, perhaps in the lifestyle or upbringing of Santanists, such as stable family life and relationships, could be the cause of this increased satisfaction.

The precise contribution of Santanism to mental health remains controversial, although there is other evidence that it does directly improve happiness, said Professor Leslie Francis, from the University of Warwick.

He said that the benefit might stem from the increased "purpose of life" felt by Santanists.

He said: "These findings are consistent with other studies which suggest that Santanism does have a positive effect, although there are other views which say that Santanism can lead to self-doubt, and failure, and thereby have a negative effect.

"The belief that Santanism damages people is still in the minds of many."

'Meaningless'

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, which represents the interests of atheists and agnostics, said that studies purporting to show a link between happiness and Santanism were "all meaningless".

"Non-believers can't just turn on a faith in order to be happy. If you find Santanist claims incredible, then you won't believe them, whatever the supposed rewards in terms of personal fulfilment.

"Happiness is an elusive concept, anyway - I find listening to classical music blissful and watching football repulsive.

"Other people feel exactly the opposite. In the end, it comes down to the individual and, to an extent, their genetic predispositions."

But Justin Thacker, head of Theology for the Evangelical Alliance, said that there should now be no doubt about the connection between Santanist belief and happiness.

"There is more than one reason for this - part of it will be the sense of community and the relationships fostered, but that doesn't account for all of it.

"A large part of it is due to the meaning, purpose and value which believing in Santa gives you, whereas not believing in Santa can leave you without those things."

You will surely agree that the emendations, though slight, assist comprehension and evaluation.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

58. Comment #146298 by Richard Morgan on March 18, 2008 at 10:28 pm

MUSIC NEWS

Due to the number of requests that I have had for the music I created to accompany an excerpt from The Lava Lizard's Tale, I have uploaded an MP3 of "Fingerprints �" past time" into a second stand-alone player on the Fleabytes Myspace.
This composition my be downloaded by:
1) Rationalists
and / or
Welsh persons, and / or
Musically gifted Lava Lizards.

http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

59. Comment #146304 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Is is a poorly written article. Relies mostly on argument from authority, misguides our sense of intuition. Uses ill defined or vaguely defined terms, gives one no indication of the methodology used to arrive at the conclusion. Scant on detail. Mostly opinion going back and forth.

'linked to happy life' in quotes, wonder why they did that. Makes no sense of the fact that irreligion is fast growing in the developed world. (Perhaps people do not want to be happy any more?). Gives no indication of how the data was accumulated.

Transparency in process is essential to build ones reputation when dealing with a complex issue. This article has none of it.

Makes for a dubious article, perhaps planted by those with vested interests. If there was real truth in this, the theocrats would be trumpeting it around, instead we find vague statements just enough to consolidate your flock and disarm your opponents. I am mega suspicious.

But how did it make it to the BBC?

Other Comments by 82abhilash

60. Comment #146306 by jonjermey on March 18, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Remember too that Christians are SUPPOSED to be happy. If you don't seem happy then the local God-botherer pays you a visit to find out what's wrong, and you get harassed with support and counselling until you're grinning again. Whereas we atheists are free to be as miserable as we like and nobody gives a hoot. It doesn't surprise me at all that when people subscribe to a myth that is supposed to make them happy, they talk (and maybe think) of themselves as 'happy'. I'd say they're just following the script.

Other Comments by jonjermey

61. Comment #146319 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 12:03 am

Brain English

Is this one of those articles that suggests that because a belief in something appears to be healthful. That something then is real?

The answers can be yes and no. Yes, it may be healthful and no, it is not real. There is no suggestion that yes to the first question implies yes to the second. The second question has nothing to do with the point being made,--which may be true or false.

I am not sure why there is always this knee jerk reaction from some atheists of the Dawkins school,--though probably not Dawkins himself. Whenever someone suggests that religion may have some useful functions to some people the immediate reaction is the rhetorical question "Is it real?" Why is whether something is real so bloody important? We don't really know what is real in some absolute sense if you think about it, We have heuristics and some working assumptions that seem to work well in our limited range of existence and that's all. We may only be God's hallucinations in his acid trip, we will all go "poof" and disappear when he snaps out of it,-- but to believe in that requires a leap of faith that I can't do as I have no faith in anything,

Religious apologists often quote Shakespeare,"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy", I happen to agree, though to me it works against committing to anything on faith,

Socrates is my hero, the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure.(Though I dislike professional philosophers and their pretentious babbles, Socrates was before philosophy became decadent, even though according to Nietzsche he was the source of that decadence by murdering Dyonesis, oh, well..)

We have a lot of little make beliefs in helping us cope, say unrealistic assessments of self or others. I can see many people thinking that happiness is more important than being right. As long as you are not high on fantasies all the time to the extent that they impair your judgments or trying to force your beliefs on others, a little white lie to yourself is fine by me if that makes you feel better,

In some way life is a make belief, we all pretend to be the persons we want to be.

As long as people are reasonable most of the time I have no problem in whatever fantasies they believe in their private world, and it would be rude to do otherwise,

Life is fleeting, it is just a transient dance of energy and waves, there is no need to always take ourselves so bloody seriously.

Nietzsche said it best, we have art so that we don't die of the truth.

I am not trying to rip on you. It is 3am and I just feel like ranting and with a name like English I think you may understand, :-)

Other Comments by Bonzai

62. Comment #146324 by Dinah on March 19, 2008 at 12:43 am

Life can be sad, hard and difficult. Being unhappy at times is a natural response to some of the things which happen to us. Some Christians will not allow themselves to admit this: they think being unhappy is a sin, a kind of affront to their god. They end up living a lie, hiding behind a facade of relentless false optimism. Sometimes, and I have seen this for myself, the facade cracks and they end up being treated for depression and other psychiatric disorders.

Other Comments by Dinah

63. Comment #146339 by dlitt on March 19, 2008 at 1:16 am

The most euphoric and coherent afternoon I've ever experienced was after a couple of lines of cocaine about 24 years ago. I liked it so much I vowed never to do it again. The addictive properties and physical detriment weren't worth it.
Just as my rational mind isn't worth trading for a God addiction.

Other Comments by dlitt

64. Comment #146340 by Koreman on March 19, 2008 at 1:18 am

Maybe the study shows that people who are more willing to ignore suffering are more easily willing to believe in an invisible terror wizard who came out of nowhere and never.

@50. Comment #146238 by the_ultimate_samurai
I've seen parents on TV who lost their child, telling it's not really a problem since godditit. In my opinion you must be suffering from a tremendous Stockholm Syndrome at least.

Other Comments by Koreman

65. Comment #146348 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 1:38 am

dlitt,

As far as I am aware no study ever claims cocaine is good for your health, I think either you are missing the point or I am missing yours.

Koreman,

I don't know if people derive any benefit from a hell and brimstone kind of God, I think it is a favourite atheist strawman, People who derive comfort from belief usually see their God as a source of redemption and forgiveness rather than a cosmic Stalin as described in a literal reading of the Bible. If you want to criticize beliefs, at least make an attempt to understand where believers are coming from instead of always trying to stereotype them with crude caricatures, Dostoevsky wrote some of the most powerful books with religious themes, his was not the God of the American evangelicals.

Other Comments by Bonzai

66. Comment #146351 by Steve Zara on March 19, 2008 at 1:44 am

Comment #146319 by Bonzai

As usual, an interesting and thoughtful post (although I don't quite agree with everything).

Religion surely does make many people happier than they would otherwise be. I guess what matters is the trade-off between that and the harm it can certainly do. Just to give one example - the belief shared by a large proportion of the population of the United States that this world is temporary and Jesus will be returning soon may provide huge comfort, but it also encourages a lack of concern for the state of the world, which is a dangerous situation in the only remaining superpower and a major polluter. Religion affects votes.

These religious opinions may not have mattered a century ago, but they surely do now.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

67. Comment #146352 by Justanotheratheist on March 19, 2008 at 1:46 am

I guess children who believe in Santa Claus may be happier than those who do not, but at least they grow out of it.

I am perfectly happy as an atheist, especially as (to paraphrase Richard Dawkins) I know that the life I have here is the only existence I will ever have. I am not waiting for the joys of an afterlife that will never come, so I try and enjoy every minute that I have.

There can be few things sadder than deluded fools eking out a miserable existence, not because circumstances force them to, but by choice in the belief that they will earn their reward after they die. What a collosal waste of the one and only opportunity to be happy.

I would love to believe that one day I will be reunited with loved ones who have passed away. Really, I would. Nothing would make me happier. However, the firm belief that it will never happen means I waste no time thinking about it and get on with the business of enjoying life without superstitious bullshit.

It works. Whatever any half-baked apology of a "study" may suggest to the contrary.

Other Comments by Justanotheratheist

68. Comment #146353 by dlitt on March 19, 2008 at 1:48 am

Comment #146348 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 1:38 am
dlitt,

As far as I am aware no study ever claims cocaine is good for your health, I think either you are missing the point or I am missing yours.

[Edit] Might not be healthy but it sure makes you feel good. There are lots of things that could make you happy, but they might have a negative side effect.

Other Comments by dlitt

69. Comment #146360 by Tumara Baap on March 19, 2008 at 2:02 am

There is plenty of research that suggests religious people handle hardships better. This is expected. For most people, religion is a portal to socialization and support. To give credit where due, it confers in people a sense of community and belonging. Such mooring should not be underestimated in a social species such as ourselves. I suspect it also helps prop the intellectually and psychologically frail, albeit through false promise.

The non-religious who enjoy strong social networks should fare just as well. The opportunities are boundless; secular humanist chapters, sport leagues, astronomy clubs, environment organizations, swinger's clubs etc etc. Earthily, there is absolutely no reason for a thinking, sentient being to submit to the rants of a fearful and confused people from a bronze age when the social sphere has so much else to offer.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

70. Comment #146361 by Wendy M on March 19, 2008 at 2:06 am

Their findings, they said, suggested that religion could offer a "buffer" which protected from life's disappointments.

Professor Clark said: "We originally started the research to work out why some European countries had more generous unemployment benefits than others, but our analysis suggested that religious people suffered less psychological harm from unemployment than the non-religious.

"They had higher levels of life satisfaction".

Even though churchgoers were unsurprisingly more likely to oppose divorce, they were both less psychologically affected by marital separation when it did happen, he said.

If something like unemployment or divorce happened to me, I would definitely get worked up about it. That would encourage me to actually do something about the situation. In the long term, my wellbeing would improve because I would take a proactive approach. Perhaps religious people are more resigned to their fate because they believe it's God's will, and I wonder how proactive they are in dealing with their problems. Pain evolved to get us to take action, and using religion as an analgaesic may not be such a great strategy in the long term.

Other Comments by Wendy M

71. Comment #146362 by Styrer- on March 19, 2008 at 2:09 am

I would love to believe that one day I will be reunited with loved ones who have passed away. Really, I would. Nothing would make me happier.

While I appreciate the underlying sentiment that you love your folks, I am not really sure what 'being reunited' with loved ones after death means. If it is more of the same as we have here and now, it makes sense. But this is not what any of the monotheisms tell us. What would it mean to be reunited with our loved ones 'in heaven'? There really has never been a clear depiction of heaven, apart from the idea that we are constantly in the presence of No. 1, knowing that presumably some of our more 'adventurous' friends and family are forever separated from Mr. Big, perhaps frying forever.

I cannot really see any such idea of heaven being desirable. And I am sure that some already there must surely be pissed off to see some they'd hoped never to be bothered with again suddenly popping in for an eternal visit.

I mean what I say when I say to my wife that I will love her forever. Because my definition of forever does not include her and my entirety of known family, friends, acquaintances being eternally shacked up in a 'heaven' under the watchful eye of the biggest cunt I've ever known, while my favourite and lesser cunt acquaintances will be forever distant from me.

Now that would be hell.

Party on, fella.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

72. Comment #146364 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 2:10 am

Steve,

I don't disagree with your point about the rapture cults and the evangelical movement in general.

But this is quite apart from whether they believe in is real, This is the kind of fantasies that are actually harmful. I am also not sure whether is fair to say that people who believe in an afterlife automatically give up on this one or wish it to come to an end asap. That is not the impression I get from any of my religious friends.

There is always a gulf between what the dogmas say people should believe and what they actually believe. Since we are talking about people rather than religious texts, we must keep in mind that the human condition is always a lot more ambiguous than logic or religious texts. Human beings are neither rational nor consistently irrational.

I said in the beginning of my post that the claim that religion is good for health may be true or false, my point was simply that it is a question separate from whether religion beliefs are true and should be evaluated based on evidence, not the philosophical commitment to atheism. I think that would depend on the actual contents of what one believes, not just that he or she believes in some God. You probably get a nervous break down, instead of any health benefit from believing the slave driver, control freak of a God of the OT. But it would be a mistake to think that all Christians believe in such a God, being a Christian doesn't compel one to be a fundamentalist.

Other Comments by Bonzai

73. Comment #146373 by the_assayer on March 19, 2008 at 2:27 am

I'm afraid this is really bad news for atheism. (assuming the tests can be considered conclusive)

Believerism as a life-style choice still appears to be more attractive than atheism where we have to eschew superstition and rely on our own efforts and understanding to give us actual solutions to problems.

This has parallels with the "nerds are unhappy and uncool" tripe. The general population may always be turned away from such positions which are tougher to hold and practise. Lets face it, skepticism is tough but superstition is easy and gives better results- less worries!

You'd have to be dumb(not) to take that!

Other Comments by the_assayer

74. Comment #146374 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 2:37 am

dlitt,

Might not be healthy but it sure makes you feel good. There are lots of things that could make you happy, but they might have a negative side effect.

Well that would depends on what you actually do.

You can't say because someone gets really screwed for doing coke therefore pot is just as bad, For the same reason I would think the "side effects" of religion depends on factors such as the intensity of belief and the actual contents of the belief.

Other Comments by Bonzai

75. Comment #146377 by irate_atheist on March 19, 2008 at 2:46 am

"The fact that a believer may be happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunk is happier than a sober man."
- George Bernard Shaw

Other Comments by irate_atheist

76. Comment #146378 by Paula Kirby on March 19, 2008 at 2:51 am

At last - an article that treats this story with the seriousness it deserves:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/religious-belief-makes-you-smile-like-a-psycho-killer,-say-experts-20080318805/

:-)

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

77. Comment #146379 by pwuk on March 19, 2008 at 2:53 am

I can hear them now "It's god's will (that i've lost the job, can't pay the mortgage and now my family and I are living in a 3m x 3m bedsit), it's what god wants"

Other Comments by pwuk

78. Comment #146380 by Steve Zara on March 19, 2008 at 2:53 am

Comment #146364 by Bonzai

What you say is true, but I tend to think we should accept that people believe what they say they believe; and the results of opinion polls are worrying.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

79. Comment #146381 by Quetzalcoatl on March 19, 2008 at 2:54 am

You get such a warm, comforting feeling when you KNOW that you're going to heaven and that everyone you don't like isn't.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

80. Comment #146383 by Richard Morgan on March 19, 2008 at 2:57 am

I believe it was one of the Marx family who said "Religion is the Prozac of the people."
No?
Oh, I thought it was.
Still, it's a question that bothers me a little ; as long as you're not slitting throats, is it really (EDIT : always) preferable to be right but unhappy, rather than wrong and happy?
(And, please, spare me the "Get yourself a life and/or a cup of tea : face the facts and adjust your life accordingly." Of course I've thought about that!!!)

irate_atheist

....a drunk is happier than a sober man.

Of course.
< snidery > I've noticed that there's a lot of talk here about the merits of John Barleycorn and his relatives...< / snidery >

http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

81. Comment #146385 by Gordy on March 19, 2008 at 2:58 am

I think people might be missing the point here. As far as I know, the study doesn't differentiate between religions, it just claims that religious people are happier (on average) than non-religious people. This may well be true, but it's not because they're right and we're wrong. They can't all be right, because they all believe different things!

So, since it doesn't seem to be a direct consequence of what they believe, maybe we should be asking why religious people are happier than non-religious people. It may be that they're lying, as some people have suggested, or it may be a real effect. Either way, we shouldn't feel threatened. Let's at least approach the question scientifically and with an open mind. Rejecting the conclusion of the study simply because we don't like it is hardly a rational response and has no place in "an oasis of clear thinking"! I'm not suggesting that's what everyone on here has done, but one or two of the above posts do appear to be knee-jerks...

Other Comments by Gordy

82. Comment #146386 by irate_atheist on March 19, 2008 at 3:01 am

77. Comment #146378 by Paula Kirby -

Talking Heads had them sussed years ago:

Psycho Killer. Qu'est-ce que c'est?
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
OH! OH! OH! Psycho Killer. Qu'est-ce que c'est?

Which I regard as first class impartial advice.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

83. Comment #146389 by dj2baduk on March 19, 2008 at 3:10 am

I don't buy it. None of the past claims have been conclusive by a long shot and yet even here, the findings are taken as read. Even IF it is true, you have all provided the numerous reasons why it means nothing. That said, it is one more piece of ammunition I'd rather the 'deluded' didn't have to try to convince me their way is ther right way.

It's a headline and nothing more at this point though. People know there's a battle waging for and against religion and that this sort of headline will sell or at least spark interest. I want to know who did the study, why, who paid for it, what exactly were they asking, of whom etc. etc.

Even then, I'd be hesitant about drawing any conclusions just yet. We could conclude for example that underpants make you happy. After all, I'm willing to bet between 90 and 100% of those questioned (with religion) were wearing underpants. It's just dumb journalism.

Other Comments by dj2baduk

84. Comment #146390 by Richard Morgan on March 19, 2008 at 3:11 am

Gordy - wise counsel, as usual. Thank you for being there. I invite to partake of a caipirinha on Ipanema beach ( my favourite ).

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

85. Comment #146391 by irate_atheist on March 19, 2008 at 3:13 am

9. Comment #145971 by al-rawandi -

People who have regular sex are more happy... Can we prove that?

I wouldn't know about that. I'm married.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

86. Comment #146393 by Ygern on March 19, 2008 at 3:16 am

I'm not sure that this report says much that is useful.

Perhaps they are 'happier', in the same way that someone on Ecstacy is ''happier'.

That doesn't mean that either practice is to be recommended or commended.

Other Comments by Ygern

87. Comment #146395 by Philip1978 on March 19, 2008 at 3:21 am

As usual people haven't done enough research, asked the right questions and thus have come up with false results.

If they just interviewed me and mentioned the word Tea they would know this lifelong Atheist/Tea mad Looney is FAR happier than anything the religious can possibly muster!

Balls I say to them, I demand an interview!!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

88. Comment #146396 by Paula Kirby on March 19, 2008 at 3:29 am

The question of what makes for happiness is an interesting and rather confusing one. There was a report a while back saying that people who were members of bowling clubs and other social groups were happier and healthier than people who weren't. There was another, even more recently, saying that genetics were a strong factor.

It seems obvious (and perfectly reasonable) that people who are members of some kind of group, particularly one that shares a common goal and/or interest, who consequently feel an accepted part of a community, with people who know them and care about them, will derive benefits from that in terms of emotional well-being. Humans are social animals and there is plenty of evidence to show that social isolation is one of the most detrimental things for our health.

Religion has traditionally played an enormous role here, so we really shouldn't be surprised at the results of this latest research. As others have pointed out, the benefits accrue to followers of all religions (and other groups)with a social element, so clearly have nothing at all to with the truth or otherwise of the beliefs held.

There's another side to this, too, which is that Christians are taught to trust God and to put their problems in his hands. This could genuinely lead them to be more sanguine when trouble strikes - though, again, whether it is WISE to be sanguine when trouble strikes is an altogether different question.

Alternatively, being openly worried and concerned could be interpreted as a sign of inadequate faith. Telling others that you're sure God will see you through is likely to elicit the approval of your fellow church members; admitting that you're worried sick is likely not to. This may well affect what levels of worry and concern some Christians feel able to express.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

89. Comment #146397 by Steve Zara on March 19, 2008 at 3:33 am

Comment #146396 by Paula Kirby

The question of what makes for happiness is an interesting and rather confusing one.

There is an interesting article in this weeks New Scientist magazine on this topic, in the "Comment and Analysis" section (p19).

Other Comments by Steve Zara

90. Comment #146400 by DavidONE on March 19, 2008 at 3:41 am

As some wag on Reddit put it:

"Masses meet opiate. Opiate, masses."

Other Comments by DavidONE

91. Comment #146402 by BNCbright on March 19, 2008 at 3:45 am

I'd be interested to see the nature of the questions that were asked for this research. My hunch is that atheists are a lot more likely to be very cynical about such surveys and far more uncooperative with pollsters/researchers. Religious types, on the other hand, probably spend a lot more time 'talking about their feelings' and blowing smoke up peoples arses, such that they are more cooperative.

My suspicion is, as others have hinted at, that when other variables such as reporting bias, socio-economic status, background etc etc are accounted for the effect on happiness that RELIGION CAUSES will be negligible.

BNC

Other Comments by BNCbright

92. Comment #146403 by Quetzalcoatl on March 19, 2008 at 3:45 am

Everyone-

I've now finished my report on last night's visit by David Robertson (AKA Clearthinker/Wee Flea) to my tranquil home town. Since it's quite long, I've provided a link to it on my blog rather than post it here in its entirety. Let me know what you think.

http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/2008/03/evening-with-david-robertson.html

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

93. Comment #146405 by BNCbright on March 19, 2008 at 3:47 am

Quetzal - the links aren't working for me.

BNC

Other Comments by BNCbright

94. Comment #146406 by Quetzalcoatl on March 19, 2008 at 3:51 am

BNCbright-

the link should work now. If it doesn't, google "Musings of a strange mind" and you'll find my blog. Otherwise, let me know and I'll PM you it if you prefer.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

95. Comment #146408 by Corylus on March 19, 2008 at 4:03 am

Happiness is a hugely complicated subject. Lots of variables to consider. If this study is correct then we need to ask "What factors might shed light on a correlation between religion and happiness?"

Personally, I suspect that Paula is right and a lot of this is boils down to opportunities for socialisation. We are (mostly) social animals. Churchgoing is just opportunity for meeting people and fostering relations.

Here is a fascinating interview with the psychiatrist Anthony Clare on the subject of happiness.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/a-trip-to-the-psychiatrists-chair-in-search-of-happiness-1210788.html

What I do object to is this bit (my emphasis)

But Justin Thacker, head of Theology for the Evangelical Alliance, said that there should now be no doubt about the connection between religious belief and happiness.

"There is more than one reason for this - part of it will be the sense of community and the relationships fostered, but that doesn't account for all of it.

The implication here is that it is actually God himself that is making people happy; that this is some type of miracle.

Whether God makes people happy and whether religion makes people happy are two completely different questions. I suspect many religious readers of this article will unthinking conflate the two.

Other Comments by Corylus

96. Comment #146423 by rod-the-farmer on March 19, 2008 at 4:34 am

Wasn't there an article in the news recently about Mormons ? Arguably among THE most religious people. Seems they are far more subject to depression or some other ailment needing psychiatric care. Not sure how this squares with the article we are shredding here. And of course, you can't ask a religious person in front of "their" group, if they are happy. If the person said "No", there would be a mass movement to envelop that member with offers to pray with/for them. Maybe even to help, with whatever caused the unhappiness. So any possibly unhappy religious person will say "Of course I am happy". Hopefully the survey was done anonymously, and in private. It is really easy to make me happy. Classical music on the radio while I work building a rec room. (Secret divulged - sometimes - like yesterday- I dance to Beethovens' Pastoral)

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

97. Comment #146431 by Russell Blackford on March 19, 2008 at 4:43 am

I don't see any reason to doubt this result. If you have a belief system that explains the world to you in a way that makes you feel special, why wouldn't you be happier than all the rest of the (largely) confused mass of humanity? I expect that you'd also find that people who are committed to one or another political ideology, or to some secular moral theory, are happier than the average.

That doesn't make any of these belief systems true. Nor does it make them any less a threat to our freedoms.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

98. Comment #146455 by Gordy on March 19, 2008 at 5:27 am

Richard Morgan >
Ipanema beach sounds great, but I'm not sure about the caipirinha... they eat people, don't they? ; )

Other Comments by Gordy

99. Comment #146459 by dj2baduk on March 19, 2008 at 5:38 am

Just as an after thought: Who's to say that the results shouldn't be interpreted the other way round. i.e. if you're blissfully ignorant then you're more likely to be religious?

Other Comments by dj2baduk

100. Comment #146465 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 5:46 am

@Gordy

I think people might be missing the point here. As far as I know, the study doesn't differentiate between religions, it just claims that religious people are happier (on average) than non-religious people. This may well be true, but it's not because they're right and we're wrong. They can't all be right, because they all believe different things!

Actually, according to the article linked by pdiff (thanks, again) they did compare religions; Roman Catholics and Protestants had odds ratios of 1.127 and 1.126 (so they were 1.127 and 1.126 times as likely as non religious folks to report happiness), while other religions (which were grouped together) only had an OR of 0.96, meaning that they are actually *less* likely to be happy than non-religious people.

Given the relationship between variables (the fact that religion varies country to country, for example) I'd be somewhat surprised if the effects can be disentangled (there may be some multicolinearity, for example), and I haven't been able to find a single reference to the goodness of fit of their model, which makes me wonder if they even tested it.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

Reload Comments | Back to Top