A new study has suggested that religion may have evolved because it helps humans have more self-control:
Self-control is critical for success in life, and a new study by University of Miami professor of Psychology Michael McCullough finds that religious people have more self-control than do their less religious counterparts. These findings imply that religious people may be better at pursuing and achieving long-term goals that are important to them and their religious groups. This, in turn, might help explain why religious people tend to have lower rates of substance abuse, better school achievement, less delinquency, better health behaviors, less depression, and longer lives.
Among the most interesting conclusions that the research team drew were the following:
• Religious rituals such as prayer and meditation affect the parts of the human brain that are most important for self-regulation and self-control;
• When people view their goals as “sacred,” they put more energy and effort into pursuing those goals, and therefore, are probably more effective at attaining them;
• Religious lifestyles may contribute to self-control by providing people with clear standards for their behavior, by causing people to monitor their own behavior more closely, and by giving people the sense that God is watching their behavior;
• The fact that religious people tend to be higher in self-control helps explain why religious people are less likely to misuse drugs and alcohol and experience problems with crime and delinquency.
“self-control” seems to be poorly defined in this discussion. Instead of the common venacular it seems to me that highly religious individuals are more likely to follow the “standards” of their particular religious world view. Unless one is following a doctrine fundamentally, usually these views are pretty conveluded.
The interesting part comes when individuals do follow their doctrine to the letter of the law, such as with the history of the Mormon church. Since part of the doctrine includes receiving revelations from God personally, there are some horrific stories of individuals believing that they were supposed to kill others because God commanded it. Others (including the founding leaders of the church) engaged in polygamy.
I am always confused when the discussion point is made that religion provides a “clear standard for behavior”. This has never been proven to me.
When children are scared of their father, they tend to obey and have more self control. And the god of the bible is a terrifying father. “Obey my rules and love me or I’ll burn you for eternity in a lake of fire.”
Sir, yes sir!
If you have to be scared of burning in hell to be a good person, that means you’re not a good person.
Also, what are they defining as ‘Religious’ in this context? Is it people who engage in religious activity weekly? People who claim to believe in god/s?
Because I don’t think just believing in a god grants any of these benefits. Nearly everyone in a drug program or prison probably claims to believe in a god of some kind.
And nearly all the out and out atheists I know are energetic career minded folks. Many of them with advanced degrees that take decades to achieve.
I’d be willing to be the real factor here is no religion, but dedication to a cause of some kind. An atheists research scientist doesn’t take drugs because it would affect his ability to do the work that is extremely important to him. Tacking the word ‘sacred’ onto the reason is, to me, unimportant.
“religious people tend to have lower rates of substance abuse, better school achievement, less delinquency, better health behaviors, less depression, and longer lives”
hmmm, I don’t think so. Something tells me that their control and test groups are skewed.
@Lila: It would be hard for it not to be skewed, especially since many Christians would “stretch the truth” a little to some of the responses. They know they’re supposed to be happy, so they’re more prone to say they are. They know they’re not supposed to abuse substances, so they’ll say they didn’t drink THAT much. Etc.
It’s kind of like those surveys where people say they go to church every week — because they think they should, not because they actually do.
But maybe they accounted for this somehow, I don’t know.
Also from the article: “By thinking of religion as a social force that provides people with resources for controlling their impulses (including the impulse for self-preservation, in some cases) in the service of higher goals, religion can motivate people to do just about anything.”
Which I don’t have any problem believing. The problem is that “just about anything” can be good or bad.
From the article “Among the study’s more practical implications is that religious people may have at their disposal a set of unique psychological resources for adhering to their New Year’s Resolutions in the year to come.” Hmm, smells fishy to me. It suggests that non-religious people are somehow lacking an important psychological resource, yup, lack of faith is bad for you!
These non-overwhelming conclusions are supposed to correct an oversight in the scientific lit? Well, then, let me add this insight: people who live in countries with traffic laws have more self-control because they are observed to stop regularly at traffic signs, speed less, and don’t drink and drive. Anything to add to the archive of obvious conclusions?
The article points out he is a “professor of Psychology” at UofM, but doesn’t point out he is also part of UofM’s Department of Religious Studies. Maybe cause that would make him seem bias?
From the ‘about the author’ section for one of his books on Amazon.com: “Michael E. McCullough is a professor of psychology at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, where he directs the Laboratory for Social and Clinical Psychology. His research is focused on human moral sentiments such as forgiveness, the desire for revenge, and gratitude. He also studies the evolutionary underpinnings and modern-day consequences of religious behavior.”
For the bullets:
#1 Meditation does not require religion.
#2 What about all the christian teens that take the “sacred abstinence oath” then have sex anyway?
#3 What about the mothers that have killed their children because god told them to?
#4 Every drug-addict I’ve ever met was a devout born-again christian, praying that god would help them overcome their addiction.
Seems like a study that got skewed when someone noticed that most of the people in the study said they were religious; so someone jump to the biased conclusion that being religious must make your life better. Here’s a countering study!
bear in mind that daniel linked to a press-release. to get a proper clue about the quality of the work you need to read the full paper.
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2008-18777-008
i don’t have a subscription. the abstract sounds less conclusive than the press release.
i am skeptical
So, what about the stats showing the highly religious ares of the world are also frequently the most socially dysfunctional? There seems to be a disconnect between the effects of religion on individuals, and on societies.
Sorry, something about that last link fubar’d in the post… Here’s the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece
“The fact that religious people tend to be higher in self-control helps explain why religious people are less likely to misuse drugs and alcohol and experience problems with crime and delinquency.”
Yet curiously, the success rate of quasi-religious groups like AA and NA is not significantly higher than those of secular recovery groups or those who quit on their own (see Jim Christopher’s book “SOS Recovery.”)
Something stinks about this study.
You know what.. i find this.. … I think “amusing” is the right word.
I would rather have someone that would be honest for a change about what they do or don’t do.
I don’t drink often.. but when i do it’s at a party. .or with friends and i don’t really know my limit than.. so the next day i’m terribly hung over or end up with a 10 cm scar on my skull.. (true story, ask adamus).
I don’t think.. “god is punishing me for having drunk too much”
I think.. gosh.. it was a good party but next time i should try harder to not go over my boundry..
I do drugs.. once a year.. new years eve, when my best friend makes a space cake that we really really really enjoy :)
I guess that makes me a bad person who will be more likely to drink more or all the time and fall into a bad drug habbit..
Really.
My skepticality meter is pinging. In light of modern neuroscience, I am surprised that a professional would frame a study around ‘self control’ (if the framing is in fact not an invention of the reporter).
On the other hand, there is a lot of data piling up that religious people tend to be more strongly authoritarian (rules followers). If the rules are ‘be happy’, ‘don’t over use drugs’, or ‘obey the speed limit’, etc, then it shouldn’t be surprising that religious people report higher correlation or even that nonbiased studies show such correlation.
Another bullet point for the above article could be: the self control (adherence to objectified rules) of religious people perhaps explains their higher tendency toward intolerance.
Hmmmmmm.
I thought religion for early humans came from “OMFG! where did that lightening bolt just come from?!?!”, moreso than “well we just need to make up a scary leader that doesn’t keep dying on us, or else we all go apeshit!”
I wonder how it justifies low crime rates and inter-personal civility in indigenous cultures that have no god beliefs?
Hmmm.. Grapeape can you tell me of some indigenous groups that have NO religious beliefs whatsoever? I can’t think of any hahahh
>This, in turn, might help explain why religious people tend to have lower rates of substance abuse, better school achievement, less delinquency, better health behaviors, less depression, and longer lives.<
It would also explain why some religious people are bores.
“I thought religion for early humans came from “OMFG! where did that lightening bolt just come from?!?!””
Our brains really do get very scared when we can’t attach a cause to an effect.
“I thought religion for early humans came from “OMFG! where did that lightening bolt just come from?!?!””
“Our brains really do get very scared when we can’t attach a cause to an effect.”
I think this has more to do with fear of death. As soon as an event becomes mundane, no one cares about it’s cause or effect, let alone it’s behaviour in complex systems. On the other hand, practically all adults are aware of the concept of death, and instead of trying to come to terms with that they invent ways to ‘escape’ it. (Whether it’s by reincarnation, immortal souls or some other variation, the theme is the same.)
Attributing the unknown to gods is what comes after you’ve already thought up the idea of god.
“so the next day i’m terribly hung over or end up with a 10 cm scar on my skull.. (true story, ask adamus).”
Yeah, true story. :) That was an interesting night.
“This, in turn, might help explain why religious people tend to have lower rates of substance abuse, better school achievement, less delinquency, better health behaviors, less depression, and longer lives.”
I call bullsh!t. Someone with an agenda pulled this out of their rectal orifice. Almost all of these claims (save for the ‘less depression’ one) is verifiably false.
exactly!
this is the primary reason why there is no difference between a devout christian and a devout buddhist and a devout hindu and one who simply lives a good life but doesn’t believe in any gods!
regardless of what the “christians” claim about their “god” being “the only real god” and buddhists, hindus and athiests (and everybody else whose beliefs aren’t exactly like theirs) are going to hell!
@ Adamus
I have heard the “religious people have less depression” story before, but not seen whatever studies have been done on the subject. Got any references?
I would imagine that people who actively involve themselves in a healthy group of any sort would be less depressed because of the social interaction, and the effects should be the same whether the group is religious or not. The opposite can also be true where the group concerned is unhealthy, something I know from personal experience and observation of those around me before I left the church. My mental health improved markedly and quickly once I left – although I hasten to add that the church I went to was a cult by the psychosocial definitions (I don’t much care about the doctrinal definitions these days!).
The debate about whether any group based on religion can be described as “healthy” is one which can probably be held on a different thread… :-)
I’m with andyb on this one. Until you actually look at the details of the research then dismissing the results based on the bullet points of press release is ridiculous. Firstly does the press release reflect the research and secondly is the research flawed.
To be totally honest some of the posts have come across as formulated in a manner that we would jump on if it came from a believer. So let’s check the facts before posting this is all untrue.
Atheists are vastly under-represented in the prison population.
I have a tough time buying this study’s conclusions.
“I’m with andyb on this one. Until you actually look at the details of the research then dismissing the results based on the bullet points of press release is ridiculous. Firstly does the press release reflect the research and secondly is the research flawed.”
Also keep in mind that the researchers DON’T usually write the press releases. Admittedly, I only have experience in a top research university but my department has a whole team of reporters who write all our press releases. You are supposed to meet with them and explain the details and kind of vet their article but that person has only a rudimentary grasp of your larger area, let along any specific project.
@Sive
My understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that it’s likely that press releases although mainly correct have a tendency to make the work sound interesting by for example pushing forward claims that are ‘media friendly’ or using headline grabbing figures – do you have power of veto on what goes in? Once these get into the hands of the press it becomes even worse as you now have people with an agenda who may not even have a science background being told to write something that sells newspapers. I like to think of the whole process as some kind of chinese whispers using foreign phrases books.
McLir – “Atheists are vastly under-represented in the prison population.
I have a tough time buying this study’s conclusions.”
I have seen this fact reported before, and mentioned several times in this blog. While I am of the opinion that religion has no positive correlation with lawfulness, I’m not sure that stating that most convicts are religious, though factually true, says much. I thought that this is simply because of the ratio of atheists to christians overall.
Are there statistics of the ratio of law-breaking atheists to law abiding atheists, contrasted with the law-breaking religious to the law-abiding religious? I’m not sure, but even if there were, and even if it did seem to imply that atheists are less likely to be criminals overall, the inference could be skewed since again, there are so few atheists to sample from in contrast with the religious/christians.
Well I probably behaved slightly better as a child because Sky Daddy was looking over my shoulder the whole time.
Then I reached the age of reason, and abandoned Him. And amazingly enough I haven’t become a crazed rapist or serial murderer since.
@whuiskas
If atheists are X % of the population, and 1/10th of X% in the prisons, then absolute numbers don’t matter. The ratio of atheists to christians is less in prisons than in society. Sample size may affect the margin of error, but the effect is there.
This data is from 1997 (http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm)
Response Number % —————————- ——– Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
—————————- ——–
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)
Considering that atheists are somewhere betwen 8% and 16% of the American population, I think a 0.2% atheist population in prisons is quite significant.
BTW I am assuming “nation” means Aryan Nation. I can’t think of any other “religion” that contains the word.
“BTW I am assuming “nation” means Aryan Nation. I can’t think of any other “religion” that contains the word.”
Perhaps is stands for Nation of Islam, which isn’t exactly Muslim. I don’t think of the Aryan Nation as a religion.
“The ratio of atheists to christians is less in prisons than in society.”
Aor – I knew that but I didn’t know exactly how much. Thanks for the statistics! Yes I agree, that does sound quite significant. I think my opinion of that theory has just shifted from sceptical to highy plausible. I won’t call it definitive but it does seem quite probable.
Sample size probably still matters though, like how the hindus, santeria etc are even less represented obviously because of that.
@Metro
oh but you became a blasphemous, immoral, satan worshipper. that’s gotta be worse than being a rapist. I’m sure many among the, say, Protestant 26162 35.008% would agree.
@Metro
Like all statistics they can prove everything and nothing. I think they are useful to counter the all atheist are immoral argument which can clearly been shown to be untrue (assuming that the legal system is considered directly related to moral behaviour) but it of course doesn’t necessarily follow that being an atheist makes you more moral. I think more interesting statistics would by splitting up the same facts into categories that have been shown to be key factors in the likely hood of being in gaol. So for example analysis socio-economic groups vs. belief and further than that categorising into those who may be classed as active believers and those who merely ‘pay lip service’ to the idea. Personally I can quite believe that those who are active in a community have lower rates off conviction than those that don’t. This could of course easily be down not to religion itself but that more ‘moral’ people are likely to be active in the community in the first place or community as a whole encourage moral behaviour. Anyway I think I’ve started rambling so in conclusion it’s trying to prove the cause that is the tricky bit otherwise you get to such unlikely facts as fish fingers cause crime as more people in gaol eat fish fingers than the average population
True faith is not of religion. Religion is made by man. Yet faith can rise up in the hearts of those who have not been fed religion. Tillich writes about God beyond God. God beyond man’s concept of God is the only God we can truly believe in because man is imperfect, human, and as such his/her concept of God will always be imperfect. God is the force that scientists are awed by in their studies. An OK scientist basically studies what another scientist has studied. However the great scientists are truly faced with the hem of the great mystery and many of them believe and see there is a power, a life energy, far greater than they are capable of measuring or understanding. God exists. However we have to let go of our little God, and our little religious tenets, to begin to touch the mystery of God beyond God.
So you are adding a new meaning to the word god, that older generations didn’t have? This author you refer to is changing the meaning of the central concept of your religion? Is that what you are saying?
Hmm…it almost sounds like it answers the problem, but isn’t this just a dressed up variation of “humans in their finite minds are the ones getting it wrong; it’s not god’s fault”. “God exists” and a “God beyond God” is no less a baseless assertion than saying God exists because religion says so.
@Heather
You could of saved yourself a lot of trouble by just saying god works in mysterious ways which we can’t hope to understand. Oh and by the way have you got any evidence for this god you believe in?
The “God of theism” is the symbolically-conceived God that is forever transcended by the True God.
Thomas Adams writes in his blog…
“militant atheists have adopted an interesting “divide and conquer” strategy towards religion. As they see it, there are only two types of religious people: i) “true believers” (i.e., fundamentalists), and ii) “closet-atheists” who are simply lying to themselves. The brilliance of this strategy is that it allows them to dismiss “moderate” and reasonable” believers as insincere cowards, while applying the “religious” label only to easily-dismissed extremists and fanatics. Moreover, their scheme slams the door on any attempt to reconcile science and religion, since the slightest accommodation on the part of religion is viewed as an attempt to salvage what is already lost. …Not interested in accommodation or peaceful coexistence; they want to see religion annihilated. By suggesting that there are only two viable philosophical positions for intellectually honest people – primitive theism or scientific materialism – they hope to increase the chances that people will pick the latter. ”
http://woauthority.blogspot.com/2006/03/was-paul-tillich-atheist.html
God is not a being. God is being itself. There is no measure. There are hints everywhere. We would not want a God we could measure. I would not. Would you? Can you prove that a man’s love saves the life of his wife who has cancer. There is no direct measurement. Yet, science has shown that a woman with a mate that loves her is more likely to survive than a woman with a poor marital relationship. Can you prove this directly, A. cause, B. effect. No.
To ask one to prove God is as silly as my writing this to a group of people who have already decided there is no God. The proof is everywhere. But to you it will always be nowhere. It is a choice to see or not to see, to feel or not to feel. One can always decide not to see, to just pretend that we will be able to explain that strange phenomenon someday through science. We will never be able to fully explain this force of life that pulses in our veins. But you believe we will.
That was very well said.
Heather, I have no idea who this Thomas Adams fellow is or why you think his words have some kind of deep meaning. Consider the truth of his words, and if people can show his words to be untrue then you can decide how reliable he is as an author.
Only two kinds of theists? I have never heard any atheist say anything of the kind. Spurious claim, no basis. Does he provide a source?
Dismiss moderates as insincere cowards? First I have heard of it. Moderates get much better treatment than fundamentalists.
Dismiss fanatics as extremists? I see fanatics getting the most attention. Most discussions result in the fanatic being the largest target. The most fanatical claims are the ones that are easiest to disprove.
So Heather, so far this man isn’t looking very reliable. I’ll go on to discuss your words.
This claim is an odd one, despite how common it is. Sometimes the claim is god is love, god is truth, god is fill-in-the-blanks. This seems to limit god to being an emotion or a concept. It adds nothing to understanding of what your religious beliefs are. This is one of those things you to be careful about saying though.. at some point in the future you may want to claim that god is unknowable, and then you would be contradicting yourself. That would be something to avoid, assuming you care about your belief system being internally consistent.
Actually proof is quite important. Do you believe that cows are holy? Why not? Oh, you would need some kind of proof? I see. Is Scientology real? Oh, you would expect a claim that MASSIVELY UNBELIEVABLE to be proved. Understood. I agree, actually. Big claims should be provable, the more batshit insane the more proof I would expect. Very few people would disagree with anything I have said, except when it comes to their own religion which they carefully mark off as being beyond doubt.
@Jabster
Um, the stats weren’t mine but Aor’s.
@Heather
Here are some more words of wisdom:
“Militant Christians have adopted an interesting “divide and conquer” strategy towards atheism. As they see it, there are only two types of atheists: i) “true believers” (i.e., anti-God people), and ii) “closet-theists” who are simply lying to themselves.”
We do get rather tired of being told that we’re just failed believers. Or that we haven’t thought it through properly, or didn’t really believe.
Now that we have established that neither of us are militant… I am pro complete disillusionment with fundamentalist brainwashing. I applaud men and women who question the book, who question literal translation and take issue with religious control (especially fear and shame based), horrifically antiquated concepts of good and evil, and myopic, egocentric concepts of the shape and form of “God.” I respect that some like Butter Pecan and others like Mint chocolate chip. I respect anyone’s choice of ice cream flavor as long as eating it doesn’t increase prejudice, homophobia, sexism, and suffering for good and innocent people. I appreciate your comments. I would far rather talk about faith than religious belief. I respect your choice to discuss religious belief. Peace out. Heather
@heather
So you don’t think that any religion that claims to be the one true path to god would increase prejudice?
Or that a religion which preaches against homosexuality could be homophobic?
Or that a religion which preaches that women are flawed lesser creatures is sexist?
Would a religion that supports the existence of slavery in the ten commandments be supportive of human rights?
I would like to see a response to what I said a few posts back also Heather. Not to be mean, but when points are raised and someone ignores them I start to look for reasons they would do so.
I understand that you would rather talk about faith, but.. what is there to talk about? Faith is a simple concept. Once you get a definition of what the word means, there isn’t much more to talk about. Unless you mean that you want to talk about your particular faith, which is just another way of saying your religious beliefs.
Those who like Mint Chocolate Chip are apostates and must be burned at the stake.
You can’t talk about the disease without discussing the symptoms alongside the cause. Faith in an unseen deity gives rise to religion, which in turn has been used to justify all those nasty little human habits you mentioned.
So we arrive at first causes: Why believe in the ridiculously unlikely?
Talking about religion having evolved is dicey at the best of times. I would prefer to look at it from the other direction: clearly certain traits have evolved in humans that aided survival at some point. Perhaps these traits are also ones that increase the chances of taking up religious behaviour.
Evidence for this hypothesis would be a correlation between some traits and religion, although it wouldn’t be conclusive. The guy in the video Daniel linked to (McCullough) seems a little confused about this: he begins with the plausible suggestion that an evolved capacity for seeing agency, tuned to a level where false positives are generally less harmful than false negatives might well tend to result in a belief in gods, but then he starts talking about religion facilitating cooperation, which is a completely different point, a lot less plausible and would involve a completely different mechanism. He seems to lump the two together, although it might just seem that way: its not easy to come out with a spontaneous monologue to cameara, aimed at laypeople, and not misrepresent your own point.
Additionally, the evolution of cooperative behaviour in humans is by no means a mystery and there are various plausible theories. I’m by no means against someone coming up with another one, but I don’t understand why one is needed: we can explain cooperative behaviour in humans with reference to comparable behaviour in other animals and there is no obvious gap that needs an extra explanation.
There are also some uncomfortable statements about “ancestral humans *on their way to becoming modern*” and some stuff about traits evolving because they were beneficial in the long run, both of which seem to point to a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works.
The whole thing smacks of a just-so story to me: it sounds like they are asking the wrong question.
But that impression could be completely unfair. I haven’t read the paper and I’m wary of drawing conclusions from press releases.
Here’s a question:
How was “self-control” measured? I seriously doubt a reliable answer can be obtained by “browsing data” that spans “eight decades.” A proper self-control experiment should involve a test group, a control group, and an actual event that causes participants of either group to respond (or fail to) with some form of self-imposed restraint.
But all I see is that “religious people have better self control,” apparently because they are religious.
Here’s a thought: did you know more humans die from lung cancer every year than all other great apes? Shall we, together, venture a guess as to why that is?