Image: Illustration by Gary Musgrave
Ever since 2000, when psychologist Michael E. McCullough, now at the University of Miami, and his colleagues published a meta-analysis of more than three dozen studies showing a strong correlation between religiosity and lower mortality, skeptics have been challenged by believers to explain why—as if to say, “See, there is a God, and this is the payoff for believing.”
In science, however, “God did it” is not a testable hypothesis. Inquiring minds would want to know how God did it and what forces or mechanisms were employed (and “God works in mysterious ways” will not pass peer review). Even such explanations as “belief in God” or “religiosity” must be broken down into their component parts to find possible causal mechanisms for the links between belief and behavior that lead to health, well-being and longevity. This McCullough and his then Miami colleague Brian Willoughby did in a 2009 paper that reported the results of a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies revealing that religious people are more likely to engage in healthy behaviors, such as visiting dentists and wearing seat belts, and are less likely to smoke, drink, take recreational drugs and engage in risky sex. Why? Religion provides a tight social network that reinforces positive behaviors and punishes negative habits and leads to greater self-regulation for goal achievement and self-control over negative temptations.
Self-control is the subject of Florida State University psychologist Roy Baumeister’s new book, Willpower, co-authored with science writer John Tierney. Self-control is the employment of one’s power to will a behavioral outcome, and research shows that young children who delay gratification (for example, forgoing one marshmallow now for two later) score higher on measures of academic achievement and social adjustment later. Religions offer the ultimate delay of gratification strategy (eternal life), and the authors cite research showing that “religiously devout children were rated relatively low in impulsiveness by both parents and teachers.”
The underlying mechanisms of setting goals and monitoring one’s progress, however, can be tapped by anyone, religious or not. Alcoholics Anonymous urges members to surrender to a “higher power,” but that need not even be a deity—it can be anything that helps you stay focused on the greater goal of sobriety. Zen meditation, in which you count your breaths up to 10 and then do it over and over, the authors note, “builds mental discipline. So does saying the rosary, chanting Hebrew psalms, repeating Hindu mantras.” Brain scans of people conducting such rituals show strong activity in areas associated with self-regulation and attention. McCullough, in fact, describes prayers and meditation rituals as “a kind of anaerobic workout for self-control.” In his lab Baumeister has demonstrated that self-control can be increased with practice of resisting temptation, but you have to pace yourself because, like a muscle, self-control can become depleted after excessive effort. Finally, the authors note, “Religion also improves the monitoring of behavior, another of the central steps of self-control. Religious people tend to feel that someone important is watching them.” For believers, that monitor may be God or other members of their religion; for nonbelievers, it can be family, friends and colleagues.
The world is full of temptations, and as Oscar Wilde boasted, “I can resist everything except temptation.” We may take the religious path of Augustine in his pre-saintly days when he prayed to God to “give me chastity and continence, but not yet.” Or we can choose the secular path of 19th-century explorer Henry Morton Stanley, who proclaimed that “self-control is more indispensable than gunpowder,” especially if we have a “sacred task,” as Stanley called it (his was the abolition of slavery). I would say you should select your sacred task, monitor and pace your progress toward that goal, eat and sleep regularly (lack of both diminishes willpower), sit and stand up straight, be organized and well groomed (Stanley shaved every day in the jungle), and surround yourself with a supportive social network that reinforces your efforts. Such sacred salubriousness is the province of everyone—believers and nonbelievers—who will themselves to loftier purposes.
This article was originally published with the title Sacred Salubriousness.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
23 Comments
Add Comment"surround yourself with a supportive social network that reinforces your efforts".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis really sounds like a church. Dr. Shermer tells us how to behave, by acting like religious people? Temptations? Really? "If it sounds like a duck...", maybe it IS religion. Why does this preaching about "How to behave" belong in Scientific American?
Lots of questions, and all the answers point to a new religion for scientists, guiding us to the good life. Here comes the "New Scientology", with L.Ron Hubard replaced by Dr. Shermer.
If europe is looked upon,from "our time"...from 0 to 2011,the place can not scientifly be named:sound for human beings!(lots of war-horror within the period!!!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSound religion has (LAW!!):
"do not to others,what you do not whant them to do to you*"
This law,is to find in many religions!!
NOW:apostle Paulus say:make GODS WAY,make GODS WAY,make GODS WAY...
and allso:we must stretch ourself out to GOD...
Now:how CAN it be "hard diciplin" to "MAKE WAY&SRETCH OUT to GODS law*???
All 7 billion know our soul is set FREE by the law*!!
The observation that "self-control can become depleted after excessive effort" touches on something very important. Recent research (sorry, no citation) has shown that the poor often make bad decisions because their constrained economic circumstances force them to constantly make daunting tradeoffs ("Should I buy food or clothes?"). Their decision-making apparatus literally becomes exhausted and sometimes doesn't work in their own best interests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch overreaction from sunspot. Scheese already. Count to ten a few times. This piece was at least somewhat tongue in cheek. And it is the first thing I've read from Shermer that allowed some positive side to religion -- and only because of numerous empirical findings pointing to this. He also made clear you could improve self-control with or without religious trappings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops. I too overreacted. It's hard not to do that. Sorry about the negative tone. Looks like I have to redouble my meditation efforts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think what Shermer was saying is that you do not have to belly-up to religion to have a peaceful healthy life, but since religion is so abundant, and in most places - well established, use it to help yourself if you can stand or tolerate all the unbelievable crap they will try to shove down your throat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArticles like this make me question my faith in science...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience (yes, science too), business, culture, etc. all have those who try to push unbelievable crap - that surely isn't the exclusive domain of religions. Spiritual discernment, like scientific discernment, is an acquired ability which can help you filter the crap regardless of the source. Scientific American probably isn't the place to look for spiritual guidance - interpretation of the data are up to the reader.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer show here, that he is a skeptic (A person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions) who can change his mind based on information, as opposed to the religious fanatics who deride him, for whom information (especially contrary information) is irrelevant or blasphemous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAhhh, a quote from the "great" Henry Morton Stanley. He may claim he wanted to free slaves- but he helped the Belgian King enslave an entire nation. The congo which Stanley helped set up and run was basically an entire nation enslaved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe treated some African men on his expedition with respect- but was widely known for his disdain and brutality to others. He butchered many a native african.
He allowed men on his expedition to pick up children so that they could be delivered to cannibals because they wanted to document how they prepared and ate them. (he claimed he didn't know about this- but it seems amazing to me that he couldn't have known).
I respect that he may have wanted to end slavery in the US, a noble cause- but he is a hypocrite and far from a man to model oneself upon.
/sorry this comment is no scientific- just felt it needed to be voiced.
This is one of Shermer's tamer pieces, not totally condescending, with a touch of acceptance to the other side. However, in reducing religiosity to social networks and self-control, he has once again created a caricature of his religious opponent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy main beef with Shermer is his narrow skepticism. He is an methodological skeptic, meaning that he dogmatically believes in something called the scientific method as the only means to understanding the world. Nothing can prove this method--and we can hardly give it a rigorous theoretical structure, although philosophers have tried. More, he ignores that experimental evidence must be interpreted, making it possible for some (not all) scientists to practically make-up facts (see almost any SciAm article about cognitive science with reference to brain-imaging for fantastic factual claims).
Although science as we understand it today has been productive in many ways, there are almost certainly other ways of obtaining knowledge. How you say? Have you not had an experience, some situation in your life, that taught you more about the world than a year's worth of classroom learning? Did you not learn how to do your job well through experience independent of any scientific method or theorizing? And what of mathematics and logic? These may grant us knowledge, a knowledge that has nothing to do with what can be observed with the senses through experiment.
Who said science is classroom learning? Science is not just senses and experiments. It is also theory, mathematics and logic. Without theories, science is just a bunch of data. Scientists use logic to formulate scientific theories. And mathematics? You wouldn't pass physics 101 without using algebra. Theoretical physicists today have become almost pure mathematicians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Spiritual" is defined in some religious circles as the summation of the person. A person whose reason for being is the pursuit of truth could just as well be a scientist as a religious person. Both, in their pursuit of truth find more success the more their "spirit" is integrated with the ideal of the pursuit of truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbestofnothing: First off, nice comment. A pleasure to read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing I suggest is viewing Shermer's style as a mirror of the average religious statements made to him. It is hard, having grown up all our lives with them, to see our own religious beliefs as arbitrary stories. It is not at all uncommon to encounter people who claim the entire bible is literally true. Stories of a person's strength being a function of the length of their hair, a month long rain storm flooding the entire earth, a man who was swallowed by a whale and spit out unharmed 3 days later, a man who died and came back to life after three days - it's pretty far fetched at best.
Somehow, people mistake beliefs for practice, and cling to them. Beliefs are like a tool or money. Their value is in their use, not in and of themselves. You can't eat a fork or a dollar bill, but you can use them to feed yourself and others. Shermer often tries to point out the absurdity of world religions because of this. It's not as though people don't understand the concept. Look at how quick some people are to say the particular beliefs of Mormons or Christian Scientists are just strange stories (because they are new to them, or not from 'ancient' times), yet not see their own beliefs are just another set of arbitrary stories.
Shermer also defends science, not because he thinks it is the only way to think, but because it is abused by non-scientific people twisting it to try to 'scientifically' prove their claims. Homeopathy is a perfect example. Believers try to use scientific style concepts to describe how it 'works'. Hahnemann's "law of similars" and "law of infinitesimals" were couched and are (especially) currently presented in a scientific way, yet they have no physiological or clinical basis whatsoever. Even before the universally negative studies are brought up, the 'science' is bad. This is what I think Shermer is defending against with his style.
Good article, with concepts I have supscribed to for over 40 years, without the belief in any of current or old gods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll this blather about how a nonbeliever might be able to do what a believer does is a snooze. Religionists are humans and religions are the expression of their humanness, in human condition. Rather than carry on this insipid "I can do that too," better to be grateful to religionists for finding such remarkable "solutions." If you're a hard core atheist, check out Jonathan Haidt chapters on religion in "The Happiness Hypothesis." But please spare me the tiresome, "I'm a religious skeptic" posturing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll this blather about whether nonreligious folks can do what religious folks do is a snooze. Religionists are humans, religion is an expression of their humanness, from within the human situation. No disprespect intended toward people of faith traditions. Better to be grateful that religious traditions have found such great "solutions," and learn from them. But please spare me all the "you don't have to be religious" rant. If you're a hardcore atheist, take a look an the work on Jonathan Haidt (social psychologist and atheist) about religion, e.g. his chapters on religion in "The Happiness Hypothesis" and his forthcoming (March 2012) "The Righteous Mind."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere could be other factors the examiner does not realize. I would have taken one marshmallow. The next day my mother would have said, "I never made that promise." Perhaps the people who delayed gratification were raised in families where they could trust their parents. I wonder if the scientists considered that possibility?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a passing comment. It's just occurred to me that anti-theists appropriate the natural science to justify their a priori bias and their rant that there's no fat man in the chimney and reindeer on the roof (which religious people could have told them). Pretty much the same sort of operation as Islamicist terrorists justifying their hatred with the Koran (which they are ignorant of) , and the religious right trying to use Fundamentalism to justify Social Darwinism. The type of information differs, but the disingenuity is the same. And it's tiresome coming from any of these sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNIL DESPERANDUM! Don't despair. There is a BIG Elephant Dame in the room: Eve O' Lucion, Patroness of Sciences..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShe knows about us forever trying to set our own parameters around Big Daddy God, in our neotenous ways & ends, over the past three millennia or so.
SCIENCE means nothing more than 'knowledge', anyway, and the Grand Old Man Socrates put it this way:
Eu oida hoti ouden oida - still meaning: I know I know nought.
An enlightened author, Alexander Pope, comes to mind:
Presume not GOD to scan -
the proper study of MANkind is MAN.
( whose brain we can now SCAN! - to see HOW we score in the social-animal stakes, under the auspices of abovementioned Dame Eve'O')
Religions are fiction, out of science, but Science is not doing enough to help both poor people and desperate people. Religions follow continuously and with capillarity who is trusting them; Science doesn't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo better fiction then desperation.
As one of probably millions of examples, my grandmother was very religious, had diabetes, heart problems, name it she had it. She died at 65. Had an atheist uncle, with his own health problems, like everybody else, died at 88.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI still have an issue with stats that say you'll live longer if you're religious. Somehow, worrying about some imaginary, invisible sky-daddy watching me every second of my life would make me want to commit suicide.
What null says fits with my experience. We went to church for 35 years while being an agnostic because of the social structure and the weekly focus on constructive living. The two ministers in that period took lessons from the bible which are normal human experiences that can help one resolve many of the paradoxes in life which existed then just as now regarding human nature. We enjoyed it. Then in our last church the minister retired and a new one came on who totally focused on believing precise myths and never anything practical and was a back-slapper who was looking over your shoulder at the next victim while pretending to be listening to you. We quit that church and only miss the children, the music, and the friendships. Nothing has replaced that yet in five years. So I follow Shermer's advice, which is based on evolutionary psychology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this