New research on self-control explains the connection between religion and health
In 2000, psychologist Michael A. McCullough, who currently works at the University of Miami, and his colleagues published a meta-analysis of more than 40 studies that showed a strong correlation between religiosity and low mortality rates. Since then the believers challenge the skeptics and ask for an explanation. They seem to say: "You see, there is a God, and this is his reward for faith."
However, "God did it" is not a testable hypothesis. Inquisitive minds will want to know how God did this and what forces and mechanisms were involved (and no, the statement "God's ways are hidden" will not pass peer review). Even explanations such as "belief in God" or "religiousness" must be broken down into their components to find possible causal mechanisms that will explain how the relationship between belief and behavior results in better health, a sense of well-being and longevity. McCullough and his colleague Brian Willoughby, who then worked with him at the University of Miami, published in 2009 the results of such a super-analysis that looked at hundreds of studies. The analysis revealed that religious people tend to engage in healthy behaviors, such as routine dental checkups and wearing seat belts, and are less likely to smoke, drink alcohol, use drugs, and engage in risky sex. why? Because religion provides a tight social network that encourages positive behavior and punishes negative habits. This results in increased self-regulation that enables the achievement of goals, and increased self-control that allows overcoming negative temptations.
Self-control is the subject of a new book, Willpower, written by Florida State University psychologist Roy Baumeister and science reporter John Tierney. Self-control is the exercise of a person's willpower to achieve a certain behavioral outcome. The research shows that young children who delay gratification (for example, giving up one marshmallow now to get two later) achieve higher academic achievements later in life and better integrate into society. Religion offers the method of total rejection of gratification (eternal life), and the authors of the book cite a study showing that "both parents and teachers rate children who are religious in their religion as having a lower level of impulsivity."
But every person, religious or not, can harness the mechanisms that work at the base of setting personal goals and monitoring progress towards them. Alcoholics Anonymous encourages its members to surrender to some "higher power" that does not have to be divine. They can choose anything that will help them stay focused on the big goal: staying sober. The authors write that Zen meditation, where you repeatedly count ten breaths, "builds mental discipline. And so is repeating Christian prayers, psalms or Hindu mantras." Brain scans of people who perform such rituals moderately show high activity in areas of the brain associated with self-control and attention. In fact, McCullough describes the prayers and meditations as "a kind of aerobic exercise for self-control." Baumeister demonstrated in the laboratory that it is possible to increase self-control through training in resisting temptations. But you have to do it at a regular pace, because you can get tired from self-control as from excessive muscle activation. And finally, the authors say that "religion also improves behavior monitoring, another important step in self-control. Religious people tend to feel that someone important is watching over them." For believers it can be God or other members of the same religion, for non-believers it can be family, friends and co-workers.
The world is full of temptations, and as Oscar Wilde boasted: "I can withstand everything except temptation." We can walk the religious path that Augustine walked before he was canonized, when he prayed to his God: "Give me chastity and restraint, but not yet." Or we choose the secular path of the 19th-century scholar Henry Morton Stanley who declared that "self-control is more essential than a fiery struggle," especially when we have a "sacred mission," as Stanley called it (and his mission was the elimination of slavery). Stanley recommends that you choose the task that is sacred to you, monitor the progress towards it and determine its allowance, eat and sleep regularly (hunger and fatigue weaken willpower), sit and stand straight, be organized and well-groomed (Stanley shaved in the jungle every day) and surround yourself with a network A supportive society that strengthens your efforts. Anyone who wants to bring himself to higher achievements can reach such sacred health, believers and non-believers alike.
Comment on the article atwww.sciam.co.il
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
About the author
Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com his new book is The Believing Mind. Follow him on Twitter: @michaelshermer
25 תגובות
Joseph:
I have expressed my opinion more than once.
I also referred people to the website of the Or party.
It does not change anything in the objectivity of my words.
I am a member of the Or party precisely for the obvious reason, which is that the predatory agenda of a depressing member will destroy the country and the world if not eradicated.
Any position can be described as a political position and the fact that you emphasize the fact that your words express a political position and thus (implicitly) claim that your words are not such is simply demagoguery if not an outright lie.
This is also the reason why I find it appropriate to answer your words even though they are merely an attempt to attack a person's body and without any reference to the content of his words.
How did I not think to check this before?
A simple search reveals that Michael Rothschild appears as a member of the leadership of the "Or" party. While there is nothing wrong with taking a political position (and perhaps this is commendable), the implication here is that there is a basic position unrelated to this concrete discussion. By the way, maybe it would have been appropriate for you to reveal this fact at the beginning of the discussion? (I don't know, what do you think?)
(There was a long comment here that was deleted. The religious-secular discussion does not interest me in this context).
Therefore, since my basic question was about the limits of science and where the theory of evolution stands in relation to this limit, the current development of the discussion does not really suit me.
Joseph:
remember me
Nothing from what I wrote ruled out the possibility of the existence of such a citizen, so it is not clear to me why you ask if I remember.
What I said about the comparison between religious and secular is true in every field and this includes the field of health.
The issue of morality was just an example of the difference between the secular and the ultra-Orthodox.
Let's describe for a moment an example that is completely disconnected from the current reality but is not far-fetched in principle:
Suppose they were to discover a drug that doubles life expectancy but that is derived from pork.
In this case the religion would limit the lifespan of the religious.
That's the kind of thing I meant.
There are, of course, other things that are beyond the scope of the article itself, but their importance is enormous.
The religious live a lot in an environment created for them by the secular (an environment where there is advanced science and medicine).
In countries where there are not many seculars (like Islamic countries) everyone lives a little - and that's because of religion.
Michael, one by one:
I quote what you wrote "All they have in common is apostasy in religion, but the decision whether following this apostasy they will become rational and self-controlled scientists - at one end of the spectrum - or drugged criminals at the other end"
On the other hand, you wrote a whole speech about religious people. But, do you remember a certain religious person (he was a very senior citizen) who went to prison for rape? Another religious who committed murder? And there is more
You have the right to write what you want, but I am not referring to the question of whether being religious is good or bad, but to the question of whether religiosity contributes to health or not. Therefore, the discussion about homophobia is not really relevant because it is not a position that has anything to do (as far as I know) with the mental or physical health of the holder of the position.
By the way, in the context of health and religiosity, I "played" a little more with the CBS social survey and was surprised (really surprised) to find out that ultra-Orthodox smoke less than seculars (the religious are close on the scale to the secular).
A comparison between secularism and religiosity is a comparison between a gender and non-gender because secularism is not a religion and is therefore not comparable to another religion.
Religion has rules of behavior that are not derived from democratic decisions but from an external source of authority.
Secularism is defined as non-religiousness.
Therefore - there is a very limited variety of ways in which one can be religious in any religion, but there are endless ways to be secular.
The point is that in the absence of rules of behavior dictated from the outside, the secular has the possibility to be truly good.
This is because he can choose to obey the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and violate the commandment "kill the active homosexual".
I am always amused by the claim of the religious as if religion is the source of morality on earth.
I have many answers to this claim.
The simplest of them is the following answer: "Please tell me, is what you are trying to tell me that if you were not religious you would have become a rapist and a murderer? Because if this is the case, you must be a very corrupt person! After all, I am not religious and I am not a rapist and a murderer. How do you explain that?”
But there are also more sophisticated answers.
For example, I sometimes answer like this:
"When religious people try to convince me that religion brings morality to the world, they always use examples like the law 'Thou shalt not murder'.
They never use the 'kill the active gay' examples.
Have you ever tried to think why this is so?
I guess not, because otherwise you wouldn't do it yourself, so let me explain:
They use the example 'thou shalt not murder' because they know it is an example of a moral law.
They also know - and this is what is important - that this example can convince me.
But actually - how do they know it will convince me?
They know this because they know that I also think it is a moral law, even though I don't believe in bullshit.
And how do they know I think so?
Because in the secret of their hearts, they know that they too feel the same regardless of religion!
They know - even if they are not aware of it - that the morality of this law stems from human nature and not from God!
And why don't they use the example of 'murdering the active gay'?
For exactly the same reason: they know in the secret of their hearts that this example will not convince me, and this is because they know themselves, despite the religious brainwashing they have undergone, that this law is immoral.
In other words - they themselves know that the source of a person's morality is not religion."
so true
Just as secularism allows a person to be truly good - it also allows him to be truly evil, while religion obliges everyone to be evil - but makes it difficult for them to reach the heights of evil.
The point is that this is not the argument between us.
After all, when I say that religion is harmful, I am not presenting as an alternative all the ways to be secular.
The alternative I present is that of the good secular!
This confusion that the religious are trying to create with the question succeeds in confusing the secular as well.
I often hear phrases like "it's better to be religious than to be drugged", as if the only alternative to religion is addiction to another drug (instead of opium for the masses).
It's as if someone who had heard that his son was taking LSD would have said, "No, Mila." It's better than ecstasy" (it's a metaphor - I don't really know which drug is worse so don't get me wrong on this point).
So let's be clear: being drugged is not the only alternative to religiosity and when I try to make a person sober up from the delusion of religion I am not trying to degenerate him to drugs.
Joseph:
Not true.
The religious are subject to the commandments of the religion and if the religion commands them to be homophobic they become homophobic even if by nature they are normal
Michael, you "fall" in the section of "I mean.. on the good side of the rainbow"
Even among the religious there are good and bad people, nice and mean people (it hurts the heart, but religiosity does not completely prevent despicable things)
Therefore, the same variation you expect in the secular will also exist in the religious. Just as it is impossible to see the secularists from one side, this is also not true for the religious
By the way, for the sake of the exercise, I ran an excerpt from the social survey on general health status versus level of religiosity: general health status very good + good was among the ultra-Orthodox 91.1% religious 81.2% and secular 83.4%
Health condition not so good and not good at all was among ultra-Orthodox 9% religious 18.8% and secular 16.4%
True, these numbers are anything but not really research. But I thought it was interesting in our context…
Shmulik:
What is "will be better in religion"?
A person born secular will not be better at religion even if he has innate self-control because he will not be religious at all.
Religion directs all believers to greater self-control whether their innate ability in this field is high or low.
*******
The debate between Joseph לBouncer It is not a debate about facts but about words.
The gatekeeper claims - and rightly so - that man's self-control stems from his belief that God will punish him if he does not control himself, but he is wrong in saying that this is not about self-control.
This is a mistake - both in the religious value system where "everything is expected and permission is given" or "everything is in the hands of heaven except for the fear of heaven" - and in his value system where there is no God, so it is clear that it is not God who controls the religious person, but the religious person himself.
*******
Religion does encourage self-control and it turns out that this encouragement adds years to life.
What is clear is that this encouragement actually decreases the amount of life in years (and what is the point of postponing death if there is no life before it either?).
*******
A rational person can take the best of all worlds.
He can practice self-control by avoiding harmful activities and practices without succumbing to the self-control that prohibits independent thought and compels immoral behaviors.
The problem with all these comparisons between religious and secular always stems from the same misunderstanding that sees the secular as one piece.
they are not.
All they have in common is apostasy in religion, but the decision whether following this apostasy they will become rational and self-controlled scientists - at one end of the spectrum - or drugged criminals at the other end - creates a very high difference between the secular and themselves.
When I say that it is better for a person to be secular, I mean, obviously, the good side of the rainbow and not the bad side.
I assume that a study that compares the life expectancy of people of this type with that of religious people - will not find a difference.
The book can be summed up in one sentence: faith gives peace of mind.
Bouncer
That is, there is self-control that comes from self-decision from self-awareness
And there is so-called self-control when a person refrains from doing something out of fear of being punished
Gatekeeper, you have no idea what you are talking about!
To be religious is to know that there are things that, although tempting, are forbidden
Being religious is, for example, even though it's hard to get up in the morning. Make an effort and get up because you have to go to prayer
You just have no idea what you are talking about
True, Deti has someone to ask complicated questions to
But, the great majority of the secular simply do not ask and let things pass by
don't believe me Look at the huge number of people staring at the show "The Big Bin" on Tambulizia
So I'm secular too, right?
But to say that my religion does not require self-control is simply not true
Let's try to overcome the stereotypes and have a serious discussion. OK?
To Yossi
"Being religious requires self-control" -? No !
For the whole essence of religion is the control of "God" or a rabbi or priest,
Control means someone who thinks for you and tells you what is allowed and what is not,
What is good and what is bad, the pious believer does not need independent thought
Therefore, not in "self-control" either.
And now let's talk seriously (a)
First, it can certainly be argued that religion is a form of self-control, of constant practice in how to manage yourself so that these abilities are also strengthened in other areas of our lives.
Who would want to say that it is as I think Karl Marx said that religion is a crutch for the soul? So, okay. I got. Would any of us dare to mock a person with an injured leg who uses crutches? God forbid. And from parable to parable: I am a weak person, I cannot overcome certain habits. If there is a practice/method that will strengthen my ability to overcome and do what is right and good, then what is wrong even if it is crutches?
and now let's talk seriously (b)
It is easy for me to think that there is correlation here and not cause and effect. A person with good self-control (say from birth or education) will manage both to control his bad health behaviors and to be better religious (being religious requires considerable self-control)
Therefore, there is A here from which results X and Y arise and the studies that showed a correlation between X and Y missed the explanatory factor
point
In the same spirit….
If it turned out that they live much less
One could argue that there is a God.
And he worries about the future of his people.
It can be argued that there is a God.
And he worries about the future of his people.
If it turned out that they live much less
point
In the same spirit….
Awaiting response
Wait, is whale kosher?
The answer is the opposite: some of the believers ascended to heaven in chariots of fire and on a winged horse so that they did not die, they sit in the sky and eat the wild ox and the leviathan.
DA the trailer about low death rates among believers made me laugh...
Certainly the mortality rate is one hundred percent.
Or maybe even more some believe because some believers died twice :-).
Self-control not only against temptations but also against the "little dictator" as Carlos Castaneda describes in his books.
"A good ruler in his spirit binds a city together" (Proverbs XNUMX:XNUMX).
It would be better if pearls of wisdom from Jewish folklore were also imported to this site.
To the question which came first "the egg or the chicken".
As a father of children, I can safely say that there are children who are born with high concentration and self-control abilities, and from that comes a difficulty in delaying gratification, compared to children who naturally lack attention and concentration, those children have great difficulty following patterns that will advance them towards their goals.
This cannot be attributed to religion, but on the contrary, children with a high ability to concentrate will also be able to excel in a religion that requires a high concentration for a long time, in events such as prayers and long and tiring Torah lessons, but also those children who are successful in schools and later in life in what they try to do, as the saying goes "a ruler in his spirit "...
They live longer because God gives them a chance to try and improve their lives, but to no avail.