tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post9070605605669494615..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The cultural evolution of religionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54862813628477628442008-10-13T10:34:00.000-04:002008-10-13T10:34:00.000-04:00Woops! That last quotation of Lyubomirsky above sh...Woops! That last quotation of Lyubomirsky above should have ended with "satisfaction" (not "sanctification").<BR/><BR/>BTW, she defines "spirituality" as a "search for the sacred" — that is, "a search for meaning in life through something that is larger than the individual self." She also specifies that "the majority of spiritual people also define themselves as religious" and that "Spiritual people are relatively happier than nonspiritual people, have superior mental health, cope better with stressors, have more satisfying marriages, use drugs and alcohol less often, are physically healthier, and live longer lives."<BR/><BR/>Please note that she's dealing with statistics here and mentions exceptions (e.g. "people who strongly believe that prayer can cure their ills are less likely to exercise and are less involved in their own health care" [Physical activity, along with meditation, is a part of Activity No. 12.], not to mention other, more violent forms of religious extremism). I know that I have some exceptions in mind.<BR/><BR/>But these observations do raise concerns for me about whether nonreligious individuals have the same access to these benefits (i.e. aside from any concerns about the impacts on happiness of secular beliefs themselves). After all, in my experience, grouping naturalists and humanists into "religious" communities is like herding cats. There may well be other benefits to such rugged individualism (e.g. an avoidance of group-think and petty political conflicts), but it does suggest that we tend to forgo the same level of communal support that religious individuals derive from their institutions. <BR/><BR/>IOW, the inherent weaknesses of the go-it-alone approach to spirituality (as Lyubomirsky defines it) might well explain at least some of the statistical gap between religious and nonreligious groups in the study of happiness. (However, I'd like to see a study that includes a control group comprised of <B>unaffiliated</B> believers in the supernatural - just to confirm that they do not own spirituality so much as promote it in a more organized fashion.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381138707884092921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25865455269135094882008-10-13T06:47:00.000-04:002008-10-13T06:47:00.000-04:00Tom,I'm not sure that's really surprising. The lon...Tom,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that's really surprising. The longevity of the secular communes might have been simply too short, and -- more importantly -- their variation in membership requirements too little -- to have a measurable effect. Regardless, the main point of difference between the two kinds of communes still holds.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30754223494461682302008-10-13T06:40:00.000-04:002008-10-13T06:40:00.000-04:00it turns out that the real predictor of commune lo...<I>it turns out that the real predictor of commune longevity was not religiosity, but the number of costly requirements for membership! ... The overall difference between religious and non-religious communes was simply due to the fact that the latter, on average...</I><BR/><BR/>Actually not so. Surprisingly the analysis shows that the relationship between commitment and longevity only holds for the religious communes, not the secular ones.<BR/><BR/>See: Sosis & Bressler (2003). Cooperation and Commune Longevity: A Test of the Costly Signaling Theory of Religion. Cross-Cultural Research, 37 (2), 211-239 <BR/><BR/>I have more on the Norenzayan & Shariff paper at: http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2008/10/religion-situations-but-not-religion.htmlEpiphenomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420404206189437710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45706933989930413372008-10-12T12:53:00.000-04:002008-10-12T12:53:00.000-04:00I will try to define spiritual, but first I want t...I will try to define spiritual, but first I want to stress that any definition coming from a single person (in this case me) is highly questionable. Everybody’s interpretation of spirituality is colored by their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Coming up with a consensus view of spirituality, and then going on to find ways to measure it, is a huge task of itself. I think it is essential, though, in order to study religion as a social and psychological phenomenon. The scientific approach draws much of its power from reductionism. Religion is such a many-faceted and varied conglomeration that it is essential to tease apart its components and understand their natures and effects separately.<BR/><BR/>Spirituality deals with strictly subjective aspects of human existence. This makes it a tricky topic for objective scientific study, but lets start with definition alone. At its core, I would define spirituality in terms of subjective feelings of wonder and awe at the mere fact of existence. With this comes heightened awareness of every aspect of the human experience, dissolution of the petty dominance of the ego, and a feeling of unity with aspects of reality outside the “self”, whether this goes by the name of God, the universe in general, or anything else. Spirituality does not require any form of belief whatsoever.<BR/><BR/>Spirituality is a natural part of the human condition, whether somebody is “religious” or not. Although it occurs spontaneously, it can also be cultivated and refined. This is where religious practices come in, since many (eg, prayer, meditation) do exactly this. So it is possible that the subset of nominally religious people who take these practices seriously have a heightened spirituality, which is a plausible candidate cause of many of the putative benefits of “religion”, including happiness and morality. If this is true, then “non-religious” people who also apply discipline to the cultivation of spirituality gain the same benefits. This is what Lyubomirsky's passage on sanctification seems to be saying. I would add that the core is not just to pay lip service to these great things and assess how they fit in to where you stand now, but to apply some discipline, train the mind, and cultivate them so that they play a larger part of your life. It is possible that organized religion helps provide this discipline, at least for some individuals.Joanna Maselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14213528673854230496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38571457451528221182008-10-11T21:53:00.000-04:002008-10-11T21:53:00.000-04:00Joanna, if you can't define the word "spiritual", ...Joanna, if you can't define the word "spiritual", then you can't even begin to test for it, as you don't know what you're testing <I>for</I>. This is why definitions are so important.Kimpatsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06156184889287692016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5453440853431820852008-10-11T17:07:00.000-04:002008-10-11T17:07:00.000-04:00>>Secular people are just as likely (or not)...>>Secular people are just as likely (or not) to help someone in distress as are religious people. <BR/><BR/>"Secular" is not a good distinction from the evolutionary perspective. Pre-mythic was the tribal structure, not the "secular" structure of modernity. Compared to the tribal structure the mythic structure does solve many tribal problems( as the book seems to say ). <BR/><BR/><BR/>As the studies say, mythic structures helped transcend the kinship identity of tribes to an identity of common belief. Thus society grew from 50-150 people to millions of people. But to say that modern structures are a replacement for mythic structures isn't correct. Evolutionary structure is cumulative. Mythic structures and Modern structures serve very different purposes,zfu22https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769916793522287740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24753137985907270992008-10-11T16:50:00.000-04:002008-10-11T16:50:00.000-04:00I think this comedy video sums up the religion iss...I think this comedy video sums up the religion issue nicely:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.ucbcomedy.com/videos/play/2467" REL="nofollow">http://www.ucbcomedy.com/videos/play/2467</A>Derek (formerly 'me')https://www.blogger.com/profile/01993249375321760846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66830843772894023502008-10-11T12:28:00.000-04:002008-10-11T12:28:00.000-04:00Since I cited Lyubomirsky's book, I feel oblig...Since I cited Lyubomirsky's book, I feel obliged to add some more caveats to my earlier report...<BR/><BR/>Firstly, she offers 12 activities that, based on scientific research, suggest one can increase one's happiness (albeit, only within the 40% share that is given to intentional activity - the rest's being given to genetic and circumstantial factors). Practicing Religion & Spirituality is only Activity No. 11, and she explicitly advises readers to pick and choose from the 12, as befits one's temperament and tastes. She even offers a quiz to help readers decide which ones to focus on. In other words, No. 11 is only 1/12 of the given ways to increase happiness, and is (as far as I can tell) not a necessary one. In some cases (my own history comes to mind), the activity may even <B>decrease</B> happiness.<BR/><BR/>It's true what I said about Lyubomirsky's interpretation of the studies - "that the fact that religious people are happier than the nonreligious" has to do with "the substance of their religious and spiritual beliefs - with God, with living life in accordance to their holy texts, with the sanctity of life, or with the sense of meaning that religious faith gives their lives", and not merely "with the simple fact that their religions bring them into contact with other similarly minded and caring people." I don't like it, but she's the expert in the field, and I am not. (Remember Massimo's essay on trusting experts in their respective fields?)<BR/><BR/>But that brings me to my second caveat, in Lyubomirsky's own words:<BR/><BR/>"...those of you who do not believe in God may still be able to sanctify ordinary things on earth. If you think of your work as a calling (divine or not), if you perceive your children as blessings, if you understand love as eternal, or if you believe that the body is holy, you are imbuing aspects of life with sacred or divine qualities. Sanctification, it turns out, can provide motivation, meaning, and sanctification."<BR/><BR/>Okay, that might still sound too religious for some of us, but I think I can relate somewhat to what she says here; e.g. I cherish my loved ones, my health, and my ideals - perhaps as much (or even more so) as any fervent Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. I tend to use weaker terms than "holy" and "sacred" (let alone "divine"), but that seems to me more a matter of linguistic taste (for which there is no accounting, right?).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381138707884092921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36907969130816653002008-10-11T11:26:00.000-04:002008-10-11T11:26:00.000-04:00I agree that spirituality is hard to define, let a...I agree that spirituality is hard to define, let alone measure, but if we agree that it is an important hidden correlate, then we have to try. Of course it is not confined to religious people. It is a natural part of the human condition, but it tends to grow when cultivated. Religion is one of the things that can set out to cultivate it. Religion has two components, beliefs and practices. A lot of people focus on the belief aspect, but the practices are probably more important, at least for putative positive aspects of religion. Some religious practices actively cultivate spirituality. So do some secular ones, eg, hiking alone somewhere stunningly beautiful.<BR/><BR/>One approach is to start with a set of people that are widely accepted to be spiritual, with as diverse a set of beliefs as possible. See what qualities they share, compared to the majority of humanity. Then you could try to design a survey that captures those qualities, choosing those that are as far as possible belief-free. For example, how comfortable are you sitting alone in solitude and silence for an extended period of time?Joanna Maselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14213528673854230496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38753731054180897022008-10-11T08:01:00.000-04:002008-10-11T08:01:00.000-04:00Joanna,but if by "spirituality" one means concern ...Joanna,<BR/><BR/>but if by "spirituality" one means concern with non-material (but not supernatural) things, like moral values and concern for others, then I'm sure many humanists would consider themselves spiritual. Spirituality in that sense is not the province of religion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14965975650270679492008-10-11T02:18:00.000-04:002008-10-11T02:18:00.000-04:00I'm hardly hardline anti-religious. More soft and ...I'm hardly hardline anti-religious. More soft and fuzzy anti-religious. I'm willing to accept religion so long as it practiced between consenting adults.<BR/>The point about spirituality is an important one but, if we are to look at it in separation from religious practice, we have to try and clarify what it is. And I really am not sure how to do that.Konrad Talmont-Kaminskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136133369582249025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66449740665902546162008-10-10T20:02:00.000-04:002008-10-10T20:02:00.000-04:00I know some of you hardline anti-religious people ...I know some of you hardline anti-religious people are uncomfortable talking about it, but spirituality is an obvious hidden correlate in the happiness studies. Of course it is tremendously difficult to measure, but it seems very plausible that it promotes happiness simply given the universal similarities in people's description of it. How spirituality correlates with religion in practice is of course an open question. But many religions declare themselves as mediators of spirituality, and so the plausibility of a link between religion and happiness may come through this implication.Joanna Maselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14213528673854230496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47675803471406020002008-10-10T17:37:00.000-04:002008-10-10T17:37:00.000-04:00Mufi, the problem with talking about religious bel...Mufi, the problem with talking about religious belief 'an sich' is how to measure it. Very often it is measured by... church attendance, i.e. participation in a group. Even when researchers go on reports of religious belief of the "Would you rate your religious beliefs as: 1) Held with certainty, 2) Weak and wishy-washy or 3) Non-existent" type there remains the problem of the confound that answers of type 1 will strongly correlate with church attendance etc. So, one needs to control for that and, from what I've seen, most often the methodology is lacking in just this respect. What is most annoying, however, is when the problem is not with the methodology but with the interpretation. For example I recall one New Scientist article (OK, so this is not a proper example) headlined 'religious belief makes people happy' over a detailed discussion out of which it became clear that, actually, committed, socially-active humanists are every bit as happy. You might as well have an article stating that red Ferraris go really fast (and then adding that, actually, Ferraris of any colour go as fast).Konrad Talmont-Kaminskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136133369582249025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1563736780937010472008-10-10T17:02:00.000-04:002008-10-10T17:02:00.000-04:00Massimo,Even though the effect of moral authority ...Massimo,<BR/><BR/>Even though the effect of moral authority is the same (which I do not doubt), it seems plausible to me that the cause may be more pervasive (or invasive) in religious communities, given the theology of divine omnipresence (the religious version of Big Brother).<BR/><BR/>But I feel obliged to add that: (a) the set of morals themselves differ between religious and secular communities (perhaps most notably regarding sex); and (b) affiliation is one thing and piety is quite another, such that (in my experience) it's not uncommon to meet religious individuals who appear more fervent in public than in private, or when their guard is down (i.e. even though God is supposedly watching in any and all situations).<BR/><BR/>Konrad & Paul, <BR/><BR/>I'm not a psychologist, so I'm only going on the memory of Lyubomirsky's book. Suffice it to say, I was impressed enough by the book's endorsements<BR/>and her research-based approach to read it through. Perhaps I'll delve into a serious analysis of the chapter on religion and spirituality at some point, but for now, I'm just reporting the take-home message I got from that portion; viz. that religious belief <B>in itself</B> (and not just group membership) correlates strongly with happiness. (Lyubomirsky herself is not religious, btw.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381138707884092921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9463875480685822842008-10-10T14:32:00.000-04:002008-10-10T14:32:00.000-04:00I recall reading about a German study, in which th...I recall reading about a German study, in which theism (by self-identification) was yoked with church attendance for theists, and humanism was yoked with subscription to a certain humanist magazine. Both groups scored high in the happiness index, while seemingly less committed theists and humanists scored lower. I believe the suggestion was that degree of certainty was a contributor to overall sense of well-being.paul01https://www.blogger.com/profile/06306440944379183875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39848833936913359092008-10-10T14:18:00.000-04:002008-10-10T14:18:00.000-04:00mufi,"they would argue that their belief system de...mufi,<BR/><BR/>"they would argue that their belief system delivers the "presence of moral authority" motive much more strongly than any liberal, secular state ever could."<BR/><BR/>Well, yes, but the data show that the effect of the moral authority is the same, regardless of whether it is religious or secular.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54864148293932955792008-10-10T13:46:00.000-04:002008-10-10T13:46:00.000-04:00Excellent review Massimo -especially for us that c...Excellent review Massimo -especially for us that cannot get access to the original research. I will link and quote your post as soon as I find the time!stavroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17955155066751331751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30188740947542493802008-10-10T13:15:00.000-04:002008-10-10T13:15:00.000-04:00The overall impression I have got from reading the...The overall impression I have got from reading the happiness studies is that happiness is actually correlated to an understanding of one's position in the universe and to being a part of a supportive community. Committed theists and atheists seem to get much the same bonus from the first side of things, and lots of socially active people get the community benefit. I suspect the lift some people account for in terms of religion originates with these variables.Konrad Talmont-Kaminskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136133369582249025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68376100028865617782008-10-10T12:39:00.000-04:002008-10-10T12:39:00.000-04:00I know that many religious folks still believe thi...I know that many religious folks still believe this claim about religion's (or at least <B>their</B> religion's) being a prerequisite for morality, but lately I've been hearing more of another claim (even from otherwise liberal-minded people), one which has (at least superficial) support from psychological research: that religious folks are <B>happier</B> than non-religious folks. [See, e.g., The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want by research psychologist and professor of psychology Sonja Lyubomirsky.]<BR/><BR/>But, just to add force to Konrad's observation, I doubt (based on personal experience) that many religious folks would be bothered by this study's findings. After all, unless its policies are truly Orwellian, no state is as watchful, judgmental, or intrusive into one's privacy as the Deity that they imagine. In other words, they would argue that their belief system delivers the "presence of moral authority" motive much more strongly than any liberal, secular state ever could, and they might even be right about that!<BR/><BR/>Regardless, I prefer to take my chances with the liberal, secular state — especially given the quality of "morals" defined in the Abrahamic religious traditions, which are still promoted and defended today by our more orthodox religious citizenry.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381138707884092921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13108122085269690512008-10-10T10:56:00.000-04:002008-10-10T10:56:00.000-04:00Sounds like another fascinating study. The outline...Sounds like another fascinating study. The outline you give suggests, though, not that religions do not lead to pro-social behaviour but, more weakly, that they include certain elements that mean they are one way to increase pro-social behaviour. Not the only way nor necessarily the best way. I'll be very interested to see how DS Wilson responds.Konrad Talmont-Kaminskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136133369582249025noreply@blogger.com