Field of Science

A brief history of 2009

Happy (Gregorian) New Year everyone! Let's kick off with a traditional round-up - 2009 was a great year for new research into belief and non-belief, and here's some of the highlights!

First up, brain scans. Neuroimaging studies are starting to get under the skin of religious beliefs, and several this year showed the religious beliefs seem to tap into the neural pathways used for everyday life. For example, one showed that praying to God is much the same as interacting with another human.

We also learned that God wants the same thing as you happen to want, and also that people seem to create god in their own image. Sam Harris and colleagues showed that religious brains work in a pretty similar way to non-religious brains.

What are the effects of religion? Well, research this year showed that religion acts like an antidepressant, reducing anxiety over mistakes. We got some insights into the link between religion and homophobia, and found that religious prompts make people more obedient.

Spiritual guidance doesn't reduce substance abuse. Praying can reduce your own anxiety, but praying for sick people doesn't have any effect.

There were a raft of studies showing that, contrary to expectations, religious beliefs don't seem to have much effect on behaviour. Rather, the important factor seems to be the social side - attending religious meetings, for example.

Religious attendance, but not beliefs, were linked to a improved health, a reduction in suicides, and increased marital fidelity. Christians behave better, but only on Sundays.

On the down side, religious services - but not religious beliefs - also increase hostility towards people outside your group. And Church goers are more likely to steal newspapers.

So much for the effects of religion, are we any closer to understanding why religion is still so popular? I think so. In 2009, we learned that God is the ultimate attachment figure, and that people get more religious when they feel events are out of their control (although not if you first make them feel good about themselves). What's more, God is someone to blame when disaster strikes.

The highlight for me was my own paper. This added to the growing body of evidence that social conditions - particularly ones that increase feelings of insecurity - are a major reason why people turn to religion. A paper from Greg Paul also showed a link between religion and societal ill health. The Global Peace Index for 2009 was published, and the countries with the most atheists also scored the best.

And why do people become atheists? The reason young adults are less religious than children and older adults might be to do with cognitive abilities. The correlation between atheism and IQ was discussed in at least one controversial paper. Education increases church attendance, but decreases religious beliefs, and simply reading a couple of paragraphs by Dawkins can make you less religious.

So as society becomes more secure, you might expect more people to lose their religion. Sure enough, the ARIS survey in the USA and the British Social Attitudes Survey both showed religion is continuing to decline.

How will society look with more atheists? Well, one of the first studies to look at atheists (rather than the non-religious) finds that they are a happy bunch after all! Perhaps this is because, although transcendental spirituality did not increase happiness in children, 'personal' and 'communal' spirituality does. What's more, atheists also experience a sense of awe and wonder.

Atheist parents are more likely to tolerate divergent opinions from their children. In the US, atheists are notoriously the least trusted minority. But new research shows that this is probably simply because they are 'unknown outsiders', and that this fear can be reduced simply by atheists being open. In fact, the least religious societies are also the ones with the highest levels of trust.

And finally, we all know that university academics are a pretty irreligious bunch, but which discipline has the most godless? That prize goes, perhaps unsurprisingly, to the psychologists! (Although new research that came out in December suggests that philosophers probably trump the lot!)

__________________________________________________________________________
Creative Commons License This article by Tom Rees was first published on Epiphenom. It is licensed under Creative Commons.

15 comments:

  1. Thanks for the quick survey. Very useful, indeed. I hope you're planning to make it a regular feature. Being a philosopher, myself, I'm going to walk ever so slightly taller today.

    And a Happy New Year to you, too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A brief history of arrogance? Do you think people go to church to be happy? You really are confused. Stop pretending you're trying to understand. I'll keep reading your blog for the entertainment and from morbid curiosity. David Mc

    ReplyDelete
  3. David Mc, I'm interested, why do you think people go to church?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Where else can you connect with people in relation to the universe in an open and loving way without the baggage of ego? I think we're all good underneath. Most of us need a very safe place to expose ourselves. Sorry I was a bit short, but you did delete a harmless post. I wasn't trying to proselytize. Notice I didn't inject any ideas about faith. I really do like your work. Thanks for asking.

    Anyway, do you blog for fun (or ego), or in a search for truth? Church is/ should be the same. David Mc

    ReplyDelete
  5. David Mc asks:

    Where else can you connect with people in relation to the universe in an open and loving way without the baggage of ego?

    Sounds like an academic conference I went to last year.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Konrad,

    I happen to be a research chemist (>28 yrs, 16 good patents and 4 pending) and I smell bull. Oops, there goes the ego I guess.

    Well, I'll possibly buy it if there was plenty of ethanol involved. David Mc

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey Konrad, I was at your blog. Anyway, to be honest, I grew up in a Catholic church and school till the 6th grade. Pretty much turned away until my first marriage where we went to an Episcopal church for a few years. Was an outspoken atheist for about 20 years and only returned a year ago when my current wife started going to a non-creed type church. I think a continual strong resonance and memory of believing christian morality and some very strong early deja vue experiences linked to dreams (maybe a few acid trips mixed in) and, ironically, my science education, prevents me from taking space and time too seriously. I do feel like a underground spy sometimes. I'm not sneaky though. I've taken a couple "bible study" and the pastor's "theology 101" class. Even the long time parishioners were pretty unruly in regards to dogma. None of us take the bible as infallible...at all. We have discussions I couldn't imagine taking place anywhere else besides one-on-one physiotherapy. David Mc

    ReplyDelete
  8. The biggest draw I guess, our 21 yr old son, with Down's, absolutely loves the service, especially communion. Sleeps through 98% of the sermons though. David Mc

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hope it was obvious "physiotherapy" should have been psychotherapy

    ReplyDelete
  10. David Mc, the weird part to me is that you objected so strongly to some kind of characterization of people going to church to try "to be happy", when everything you have said about the reasons you go to church seems to be about trying to be happy....

    Anyway, lots of people go for guilt, and the defense, "Hey, my religion is super liberal and doesn't take the Bible as infallible!" is bunk when it comes to the way most people practice religious belief in the US and in the world at large.

    ReplyDelete
  11. We try to focus on the best way to pool resources and help heal the world. We don't do it to be happy or get credit, or from guilt for that matter. I'm as happy now that I withhold disbelief as I was when I withheld belief (and slept in on Sunday). I guess I'm happy to find a group that truly cares to step up and try to improve our world, but being happy isn't the point. If you want to lump us all into your stereotypes, go ahead, but it isn't very scholarly, is it? As far as trust, I guess I make you nervous by entering your "safe place"? Anyway, I'm here now to fetch Konrad's link, but I'll be back! Oh, and I apologize again for being rude. David Mc

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm as happy now that I withhold disbelief as I was when I withheld belief

    I reject the notion that belief and disbelief are symmetric. This is a false equivalence. Russell's Teapot, dude...

    If you want to lump us all into your stereotypes, go ahead

    When exactly did I do that?! FWIW, I don't think most churchgoers go because "it makes them happy" -- my gut feeling (and I believe this is at least consistent with the available data) is that the most common reason is just because that's what their parents and their grandparents before them did. That is probably changing today, but I still feel it's probably the most common reason.

    Other possible reasons include fear, a love of charity work, guilt, the (false) belief that it helps children learn to be moral, familial harmony, etcetera. There are many, many reasons, some reasonable and some not so much.

    I was merely trying to get at your reasons, since apparently the suggestion that even some people might go in order to make themselves happy prompted you to make comments about "arrogance" and "morbid curiosity" and "[s]top pretending you're trying to understand." Such strong wording piqued my curiosity. I apologize if you thought I was stereotyping.

    As far as trust, I guess I make you nervous by entering your "safe place"?

    heh. This old trope. "Ah hah! The fact that you disagree with me and bother to say so must mean that you feel threatened by what I am saying! And if what I was saying wasn't true, why would you feel threatened? Gotcha!"

    Fallacious through and through. I I could just turn it around and argue that I'm making you feel "nervous" by asking probing questions about your "safe place". See how lame that argument is? Please, let's stick to legitimate discourse here.

    On a side note, I'm confused because you keep addressing me like I am the blog author. That's Tom Rees, not me. I'm just "Some Guy". I'm not even a scholar like Tom, I'm a lowly engineer. :)

    Anyway, it sounds like the theological community you find yourself a part of is a pretty thoughtful, positive one. That's hunky-dory, admirable even (though I do have reservations about whether the possible benefits of moderate religion are ever worth the risk of extremism introduced by the very concept of faith, but this is a philosophical digression that has little import on the world as it exists today). I would reiterate, though, that this nice little example has little bearing on how religion is generally practiced by the majority of adherents across the world...

    ReplyDelete
  13. "That's Tom Rees, not me. I'm just "Some Guy". I'm not even a scholar like Tom, I'm a lowly engineer. :)"

    Oh, you caught me being lazy.
    Sorry Tom. I'll keep to the topics from now on. I know enough about physics and biology to follow the conversation. I'm here to learn. Thanks James. David Mc

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think saying that Philosophers are the most athieistic is cheating a bit. After all theologians are also philosophers. Philosophers are non religous theologians. So it would be kind of obviuos that they are the most non religous academic field in the same sense that Marxists economists are the most anti-capitalist economists.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As a professional philosopher, I would very much disagree with the contention that philosophers are atheist theologians. There are a significant number of theists working on numerous topics within philosophy that often have nothing to do with their religious convictions. For example, I have been lead to believe that Jerry Fodor, who is one of the most famous living philosophers, is a practicing Jew. As it happens, I do not actually know for sure that this is the case. But that merely makes my case - I know of no work within theology that has been done by Fodor and see no real evidence for his religious beliefs - for or against - within his philosophical work. His religion is essentially irrelevant to his work as it is for very many philosophers. Also, I find vaguely insulting the suggestion that theologians are philosophers of any sort. The job of the philosopher is to allow the argument to take them where it will. The job of the theologian is to find an argument that gets back to where they started from. In so far as there is any similarity between what some philosophers do and theology, all the worse for those philosophers. I suggest reading Susan Haack - a philosopher - on sham reasoning.

    Konrad

    ReplyDelete

Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="http://www.fieldofscience.com/">FoS</a> = FoS