AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑February 4th, 2022, 7:43 pm
GE Morton wrote: ↑February 4th, 2022, 4:27 pm
AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑October 5th, 2021, 5:41 pm
In all, we found evidence that national religiosity helps explain why the psychological burden of lower SES is attenuated in developing nations and amplified in developed ones. As such, our results demonstrate that the harmful effects of lower SES on well-being are not set in stone. In some of the most religious nations, we even found that those harmful effects were absent altogether
The PNAS authors are guilty of conflating correlation with causation, or at least, inviting other to make that faulty connection.
The "psychological burden" of lower SES arises from envy, and increases as the differences between high- and low-SES groups become greater and more apparent, as inevitably occurs as economic development proceeds (in a free economy). As the low-SES person looks around and sees many others who are better off than he is, some much better off, he becomes depressed and withdrawn, or resentful and rebellious. That is the "psychological burden."
Less economically developed societies also tend to be more religious, and also more accepting of other mythologies and supernatural phenomena. Indeed, economic development
requires abandonment of many of those mythologies. So while the two phenomena --- religiosity and economic development and the envy it arouses --- are (inversely) correlated, there is no causal relation between them, though for persons for whom religion remains a central focus in their lives, it may distract from the economic differences and thus suppress envy (while also reducing their prospects of "upward mobility").
If religion play such an important role in the mental health of poor people, should Religion not play a role in national policy on social programs?
While not venturing to guess how beneficial (or harmful) religion may be to anyone's mental health, the "burden" to which the PNAS authors refer arises entirely from the real economic differences they observe. Absorption in religion may minimize the importance of those differences for some, but not likely for many. They're pretty hard to ignore.
Guilty?? A peer reviewed article with all data presented? On what basis are you saying the researchers dont know what they are talking about in their conclusion? For what purpose?
The US, the most advanced and country of billionaires has more religiosity than any other advanced countries. Check Pew research. The US also has greatest income inequality, an outlier among other nations.
That it is envy that affects the poor is your biased and poorly informed opinion.Poverty itself is a disease, with malnutrition among children, poor brain growth that haunts them all through life. There are many studies that show the positive effect of religion on mental health.
Causation is difficult to prove. I didn't read the article carefully enough to judge the methods, but judging the "psychological burden" of low Socioeconomic status must be difficult (if not impossible) to accurately measure. I'd be willing to bet (I haven't done any research, but I'm guessing that my assumptions are at least as good as those of Berkessel et. al.) that giving birth to many children, a few of whom die before they are six years old, produces a considerable "psychological burden" on loving parents. It's hard to imagine that non-religious folks in the U.S. -- clothed and fed, although sometimes not housed -- suffer equal psychological trauma.
I don't doubt, though, that religion reduces psychological trauma in general -- whatever the SES of the believers. Emile Durkheim -- the founder of modern sociology -- wrote a famous study on suicide in which he postulated that
anomie was a leading cause of suicide. Anomie refers to a condition of normlessness, often created by inconsistent or changing moral tenets and inconsistant or changing social relationships.
I didn't go through the methods of the study thoroughly (it's too boring), but the measurements include answers to questionaires, which are notioriously unreliable. Look at two descriptions of the methods:
SES.
GWP: “Which one of these phrases comes closest to your own feelings about your household’s income these days: living comfortably on present income [1], getting by on present income [2], finding it difficult on present income [3], or finding it very difficult on present income [4]?” (reverse coded); IPP: “[…] where would you place yourself on the following spectrum for social class?” (working class [1], lower class [2], middle class [3], upper-middle class [4], upper class [5]); WVS: “People sometimes describe themselves as belonging to the working class, the middle class, or the upper or lower class. Would you describe yourself as belonging to the upper class [1], upper middle class [2], lower middle class [3], working class [4], lower class [5]” (reverse coded).†
Well-Being.
GWP: “Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?” (44); IPP: “I see myself as someone who has high self-esteem” (strongly disagree [1], strongly agree [5]; 45); WVS: “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days? Using this card on which 1 means you are completely dissatisfied and 10 means you are completely satisfied where would you put your satisfaction with your life as a whole?”
The study appears to measure not socioeconomic status, but subjects' perceptions of their socioeconomic status. Then the study measures not well-being, but the subjects' perception of well-being. I don't trust it. In some developed countries (especially my own, the U.S.) economic inequality is a whipping boy of the press. Many comfortably well-off people may be persuaded they are unsatisfied with their SES. Let's face facts: we're a nation of whiners. Because Americans have bought into the Protestant and Capitalist notion that economic success is somehow tied to merit, they see lack of success as a display of at least incompetence, if not sin ("Sloth?). They see a shiny new pick-up truck as a sort of testimonial to personal merit.
Of course if anomie is a cause of trauma, religion (surely) reduces a feeling of both normlessness and social isolation. In addition, although my experience with the "Born Again" community in the U.S. is limited, it tells me that Evangelicals are REQUIRED by the customs of their churches to put on a happy face. "If only you bere born again," they say constantly, "All of your problems would be solved, and you would be as happy as I am."
Of course it might be true that they are happier and healthier than the rest of us. But I don't think we can assume it is true based on what they say, which is as required of them as a Catholic Confession.
So although I would guess that religion prevents psychological trauma, I didn't find the study particularly enlightening or persuasive, although (like many sociological studies) it appears to confirm what people already know.
It would be more interesting to try to introduce some nuance to such a study: What is it (one wonders) about religion that either reduces psychological trauma or (at least) allows believers to THINK it reduces such trauma? The obvious possibilities include:
1) Established moral and ethical norms reduce anomie and promote will being. (Do non-religious institutions that promote established ethical norms promote well being as well as religion does? How about judges, or doctors who have established professional ethics?)
2) Belief in a Just God or an afterlife dissiplates fear and promotes weil being. (This is a favorite of anti-religious atheists, but it never made sense to me. Hell doesn't sound like much consolation. Also, what about Judaism, Buddhism, etc. in which there is little promies in the afterlife?)
3) Regular social interaction and roup activities promote well being. (Does regular participation on a sports team, or The Elks Club, or a golf club promote these measures of well being as well as religion does?)
To close, surely nobody here thinks anyone should promote his psychological well-being with methods -- proven effective though they may be-- which compromise his intellectual honesty, love for the truth, and personal honor.
