…and this is a 
Arguments for morality are not arguments for religion
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: September 12, 2007 2:00 PM, by PZ Myers
(This article is also available on Edge, along with some other rebuttals to and affirmations of Haidt's piece.)
Jonathan Haidt has a complicated article on moral psychology and the misunderstanding of religion on Edge. I'm going to give it a mixed review here. The first part, on moral psychology, is fascinating and a good read that I think clarifies a few ideas about morality. The second part, though, where he tries to apply his insights about morality to the New Atheists*, fails badly. I can see where he has thought deeply about morality, but unfortunately, he hasn't thought clearly about the New Atheism (and perhaps that isn't entirely his fault. We're "New", after all, and I don't think the structure and goals of these New Atheists have quite gelled yet.)
Let me do great and horrible violence to the part of his essay that I enjoyed; I'm going to abbreviate it savagely, just so I can move past it to the bits I want to argue with. Haidt makes the case with some sophistication that emotion and experience play a greater role in morality than has typically been credited—we don't make decisions about what is right to do by cooly and objectively weighing evidence and alternatives, but instead make judgments rapidly and intuitively. Often the reasoning part of our morality comes after the fact, as an attempt to cobble together an intellectual justification for a moral position we've already taken on the basis of deeper biases. And finally, that morality is a tool that may very well have strong adaptive value in binding individuals in a society together and fostering cooperation.
He also provides a clear, simple definition for morality that I like very much.
Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, practices, institutions, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.
That covers about half the essay, although Haidt does of course discuss it in considerably more depth. Read the whole thing, as they say, it's worth it for his expertise in moral psychology.
Unfortunately, then he tries to bring these ideas about morality to bear in a criticism of the New Atheists, and there … well, the linkage simply disintegrates. Haidt makes many assumptions that he doesn't justify (although this essay is obviously much shorter than his book; maybe the justifications are there) about both religion and the New Atheists that make his criticisms feel peculiarly irrelevant to me.
One deep flaw in his argument is an implicit shift in the target. He makes a good general definition of moral systems; religion is simply assumed to be a moral system; Dawkins and Harris criticize religion strongly; now, suddenly, Haidt starts treating the New Atheist arguments as an assault on moral systems. This is simply wrong. I'm all for moral systems, and I suspect both Dawkins and Harris would agree that a good moral system, especially as defined by Haidt, is essential. The argument is much narrower. Is religion a good moral system? (Our answer is no.) Are there significant aspects of religion that do not represent a moral system at all, and actually make social life more difficult? (Yes.) And can we erect a better moral system that is stripped of the supernatural and much of the pathological baggage that afflicts religion? (Yes, optimistically, but the implementation remains to be done.)
Haidt doesn't even seem to recognize the possibility of these questions, let alone try to argue for different answers. He seems to have made them vanish, reducing them to tautologies, by equating religion with moral systems. This section reads like an unconscious echo of the tired canard that atheists are amoral — it lacks any appreciation of the fact that these New Atheists are all espousing moral behavior in a framework that simply rejects the false virtues of faith. This is especially odd since Haidt is also an atheist; it must be just the New Atheists who are the immoral ones.
We also get another familiar trope, that the New Atheists are just another religion with heresies and orthodoxies and unscientific thinking. I'm beginning to get the feeling that the New Atheists are really just the new outgroup, the bad Other on which the Old Atheists can now turn the same old tired arguments that theists used against us all, once upon a time. The sins are to be concentrated upon a vocal few, who may then be safely cast out.
Haidt's argument in this case is particularly weak. It seems to rest largely on the fact that Dawkins dismissed the possibility of group selection favoring religion in The God Delusion. But Dawkins spent several pages discussing group selection models in the book, and is far from dogmatic in rejecting it: he says, "Those of us who belittle group selection admit that in principle it can happen. The question is whether it amounts to a significant force in evolution." He also doesn't merely dismiss it, but gives several reasons why he rejects it, with examples…it is false to claim as Haidt does that he dismisses "a credible position without reasons". Now I'm certainly more sympathetic to the idea of group selection than Dawkins, but I'm also going to provisionally reject it here for another good reason that Dawkins discusses at some length — we don't have any evidence that religion is adaptive in any way! If anyone wants to present the supporting evidence for group selection, it is most definitely not going to be using religion as an example. It's too complicated, it's too nebulous, we don't even have good evidence that it's a heritable attribute, and it's all in a species that isn't easily subject to testing.
If that part of the case is weak, though, the conclusion is monumental in its flabbiness, and collapses completely. Its ignorance of what the New Atheism is about is absolute.
Here's the argument: Haidt says that "surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people," and then makes the case that we ought not to dismiss religion—it might well have something useful to tell us.
I've heard that same story often, and it does not convince. Note that the US is currently suffering the social and international consequences of its recent domination by the religious right, and that atheists are, if not an actively oppressed minority, a minority that is urged to be silent. I would be absolutely gobsmacked if surveys showed that we were happier than Christians about this state of affairs.
We also tend to be more isolated — how often have you heard the phrase, "I thought I was the only atheist around here!" — and we know that community is important to human health. There is no reason to assume that religion itself enhances health, or that atheism itself is a detriment: the difference lies in the minority status of one versus the other.
Similarly, atheists may not give as much for a very good reason divorced from the essence of their lack of religious beliefs: who are they going to give to? I am surrounded by requests for charity, and most of them are for religious organizations that I do not trust. There is a great deal of charitable giving that is assessed in these surveys as a moral virtue, but that I consider a moral detriment: why should I contribute to the construction of church buildings, the employment of priests, or the sending of missionaries to Africa? I question whether we should consider those charities at all; rather, they seem to be self-serving propaganda and oppression efforts.
These surveys that Haidt believes are evidence of a virtue in religion actually have a different meaning. They state that scattered individuals who are excluded from communities do not receive the benefits of community, nor do they feel willing to contribute to the communities that exclude them. It is community that benefits people, not religion. Unfortunately, in this same essay, Haidt apparently deplores the efforts by Dawkins to engage in consciousness raising and the building of a community of atheists, precisely the thing that I suspect would reveal the hollowness of those surveys and would give the godless those benefits of which we are mostly currently deprived.
Strangely, Haidt wants to claim that the New Atheists have been trying to close their eyes and deny the results of surveys that show the religious as happier and healthier. Note that I do not. I think the results of those surveys are weak and biased, and tend to be over-interpreted to favor the virtues of religion, but I'll readily concede that yes, the Christian majority in America tends to be happy with its dominance and that they do have institutions to care for their own. I will also point out that Dawkins concedes this point as well, and adds an important caveat: "I wish it were not necessary to add that such beneficial effects in no way boost the truth value of religion's claims." And there we have a critical point, one that Dr Haidt overlooks entirely.
This is not an argument about whether the faithful are happier, or longer-lived, or more moral (I should point out, too, that Haidt's own definition of moral systems that I liked so much does not include happiness or longevity in its terms). It's about the truth of their claims. It's about whether we should trust social institutions that are both founded on falsehood and lack mechanisms for correcting error.
I attended graduate school in Oregon at the time the Baghwan Shree Rajneesh had his commune in the state. On the news, we'd often see video of the smiling hairy guru going for his morning drive in one of his fleet of Rolls-Royces, and his acolytes would line the road, waving joyfully as he went by. They were ecstatic. If we are to judge the value and virtue of a "moral system" by the happiness of its followers, then the Rajneeshis were contesting for the pinnacle of radiant glee; interviews would always have them gushing over the Baghwan, and I'm sure that any survey would have shown them far exceeding the happiness quotient of us sullen, gloomy, miserable atheists.
Shall we assess the merits of any social institution by the professions of happiness of its followers? Is that what we want?
By my side right now, I have a small plush animal. If it were conclusively shown that beliefs in a god or religion were definitely beneficial in and of themselves, that humans needed this little kernel of worship in order to thrive a little better, and I said that my toy octopus was a god, lord and savior of us all, and if only you believed in him, you would gain an empirically demonstrable extra year of life and a quantifiable increase in your happiness, what would you do? Would you abandon one little piece of rationality and bow down before the toy? Would you even be capable of that level of credulity?
I would say that the New Atheists definitely would not, not even for an extra year of life (I don't know about the rest of you; I'm beginning to be suspicious.) We couldn't. I would also say we shouldn't. There is more to our lives than the raw quantity of it, and bliss isn't the ultimate goal of our existence — I think even the American religious who are the subject of those surveys might be a little aghast at the idea that the purpose of their belief was to help them cling to a life of hedonism for as long as possible. I would sacrifice a little happiness to know the truth, and I would find no consolation in a lie, no matter how cheerful that lie might be. I'm sure there was a time when I was extremely happy about Santa Claus, but that was long ago, and I have no desire to return to that state of blissful ignorance. I grew up. Most of us do.
Haidt closes his essay with another trite accusation. The New Atheists might help advance the cause of atheism, but it muddles up science with "moralistic dogma" and damages the "prestige of science" — we're hurting the cause, that tiresome old whine. Oh, please, do buck up. The New Atheism isn't about throwing away moral systems or introducing a new dogma, it's about opening up a protected realm to inquiry and sweeping away old cobwebs, refusing to allow people to hide absurd ideas from criticism behind the foolish plea of faith. It's much more compatible with the spirit of science to question the follies of the priests than to argue that because priests hand out charity, we should overlook the fact that they also claim that gods speak to them and tell them who is naughty and who is nice, and that the good boys and girls will receive magical rewards.
I entirely agree with Haidt that many religious people are good people, that religion has incorporated moral systems that contribute to people's well-being, and that there are kernels of wisdom in religious thought. Where I disagree is that I see the superstition and dogma and error of religion as separable from those desirable elements — that religion is not synonymous with morality and is actually an unfortunate excrescence of the human condition that does not have to be and should not be respected.
*I have in the past, and will continue to object to the label "New Atheism" for many reasons. It's becoming clear, though, that the label is going to stick, appropriate or not, so I'll use it under protest. It's sure going to look silly in 2050, though, when it's the Old Atheism.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: sailor | September 12, 2007 2:13 PM
"Strangely, Haidt wants to claim that the New Atheists have been trying to close their eyes and deny the results of surveys that show the religious as happier and healthier. Note that I do not. I think the results of those surveys are weak and biased, and tend to be over-interpreted to favor the virtues of religion"
They are very tenuous. Firstly you have to take into account those people who die because they wont get medical treatment because of their religion.
Then you have to equalize the groups for social isolation. People who feel really socially isolated (a good isk factor for helath and happiness problems) may not have the drive to go and be religious.
If you euqalize for these two things I would be amazed if consistent benefit on mood or health could be shown.
Posted by: Sean | September 12, 2007 2:13 PM
Could someone help me out here? I believe I missed the inception of this 'new atheist' meme and wiki does not provide a conveniently packaged answer.
As defined by the people who use the term, what does it mean?
With reference to 'new' in the label. A town I lived in got a second mall in the middle of the 1980s. Until the town's first mall was leveled fifteen or so years later, it was always referred to as The New Mall. Confusing as hell to any resident newer than The New Mall's construction.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | September 12, 2007 2:16 PM
Why should atheists give money to send missions to Africa? I can see a P. Z. Myers Center for the Distribution of Mosquito Netting and Malaria Treatment. Why not?
Heaven knows, church-based hospitals probably aren't going to be involved in passing out free nets. They're in the business of healing sick people, not preventing health people from getting sick.
And don't get me started on the need for non-religious groups to pass out condoms, since so many religious groups prefer that children die from sexually-transmitted disease than protect the kids during sex.
Posted by: Caucasian Jesus | September 12, 2007 2:22 PM
Interesting that theists are generally more happy than their counterparts. After all, their divorce rates are higher. Whether a person is happy or not is largely dependent on the time and way a person is asked. Ask a Christian after church if he is happy, and it's probably an overwhelming "yes!" Ask the same person after he sees a car wreck, and it's probably a "no."
Now, in this case, atheists and theists are largely affected by the same negativity. But a theist might have more opportunity to falsely accuse himself of being generally happy because of his x daily/weekly exposure to a church service (even if he himself doesn't subscribe to all of the organizations' beliefs).
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 12, 2007 2:29 PM
I'm not sure where the "New Atheist" label came from. It might be this article by Gary Wolf in Wired.
I'm also suspicious of the surveys that claim the religious are happier and healthier. There's also a negative correlation between education and religiosity; all those poor people who have found the Lord are also happier and healthier than the rich? Well, maybe. I don't have any evidence one way or the other, so I have to go with what the surveys say -- but it doesn't matter, for reasons I gave above.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 12, 2007 2:33 PM
Yes? Isn't it legitimate to point out this hypocrisy?1)After all, fundamentalists claim to interpret the Bible literally, and to base their morality on it. If they're not really doing that, then they are being inaccurate and dishonest.
2) Religious people frequently state that nonreligious people cannot be moral without accepting God and the scriptures. This heightens the hypocrisy.
3) Fundamentalists also use their alleged literal interpretation to justify some inhumane and non-modern behaviour, such as bigotry against gays.
Posted by: True Bob | September 12, 2007 2:34 PM
I would wager that slaves were (and are) less happy and healthy than the slave holders, and they don't contribute so much to slave holders' charities. There is quite a lens on those surveys. Call us the Jaded Reality-based Community.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | September 12, 2007 2:36 PM
There was an interesting article in the September 1 issue of New Scientist, "What Good is God?" that suggests that religion might have evolved after morality in response to a niche for greater social cohesion and certain behavioral refinements. Religion is sort of a mindhack--a shortcut to trust and self-control. But those things are available to us, albeit in a slower, more cautious form, without the baggage of superstition. And in recent years, we have seen over and again that religiosity is often a false advertisement for trustworthiness and moral behavior. Ask any child who's been raped by kindly Father Pete O'File.
Posted by: cyril | September 12, 2007 2:37 PM
What about this for a project: instead of comparing happiness levels inside the weirdness that is the USA, try comparing religiousity vs. happiness by country. Same thing with regiousity vs. freedoms or religiousity vs. lifespan or child mortality. My sense is that the US is an outlier and that most countries leave religion behind as they modernize. Anyone know if this work has been done?
Posted by: Mike | September 12, 2007 2:43 PM
For some reason I read this as "Whether a person is happy or not is largely dependent on the amount of time and the way a person is naked."
Strangely enough it still rings true.
Posted by: rjb | September 12, 2007 2:46 PM
I have to agree with you, PZ, about the problem with giving to charities. I tend to feel that giving locally is best, when I know something about the local work being done. Two groups to whom I have contributed to include Big Brothers and Big Sisters, which is a secular organization AFAIK, and Habitat for Humanity, which is a religious based organization, but one that actually believes in the principle that faith without works is dead.
That being said, my local paper today had a piece on a new local home being built by HFH, and about half of the article was talking to volunteers about how their faith led them to volunteer, and that faith was necessary for their moral behavior. Reading this makes me less likely to be involved with them in the future, because it left me with the feeling that they wouldn't accept my contribution of time and/or money if they knew that I was an amoral (or immoral) atheist.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 12, 2007 2:47 PM
The article is actually an argument against the importance of reason. What are generally referred to as "moral" decisions are made without reason, and in fact are usually incompatible with both reason and the interests (at least in the immediate, short-term interests) of the individual applying them.
Religions are similarly a bunch of claims that people are supposed to accept and instructions that they are supposed to apply - without reasoning about them, and that are usually contrary to reason.
If we reject religion because of its irrationality and ability to preserve and foster harmful claims and instructions, the argument suggests, we must also reject moral decisionmaking, because the same arguments apply equally to it. Since no one wants to reject "morality", or at least people willing to reject the things the label is frequently applied to are rare, it follows that we must reject the arguments in favor of atheism.
I think by this point you can guess what my response to this position will be.
Posted by: Sean | September 12, 2007 2:48 PM
Ok, quick skim of the linked article later. Thanks PZ.
So any atheist who does not hush and be unseen, or at least label himself agnostic to avoid offending the religious, is now a New Atheist?
I was a New Atheist twenty five years ago. Who knew?
Posted by: Mike P | September 12, 2007 2:48 PM
Extremely, extremely well said, PZ.
Re: The "New" Atheism.
There is certainly a surge in popularity in atheistica. All of Dawkins' books, this website, Flock of Dodos, newspaper articles, etc. Atheist publications existed a decade ago, of course, but it wasn't so visible. It was kind of swept under the rug of "outsider" philosophy, and atheists seemed more or less content to be outsiders. I know there have always been vocal atheists, but I'm talking about your average joe atheist strolling down the street, minding his own business, not believing in gods. So why this newfound vocalness?
I think it has to do with the Intelligent Design movement. All of a sudden evolution is in the news, and atheism uses the public awareness of pull itself up by DI's bootstraps. I'm not sure the New Atheism* would even exist if not for the high media exposure of the Kansas warning labels and the Dover trial. It cast an indirect spotlight on atheism, and now I think atheists are more willing to embrace it. Now, at least in the eyes of other rational people, scientists are the virtuous defenders of reason. Atheism is the next logical step from there.
*I agree with PZ's stipulation.
Posted by: Che | September 12, 2007 2:49 PM
The classic response to "Theists are happier than atheists." is "And a drunk man is happier than a sober man. So what?"
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | September 12, 2007 2:51 PM
I find it somewhat noticeable that he only refers to surveys in the US, where atheists are a minority. Wouldn't it be more relevant to compare secular and religious countries? Here, the results are quite different.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 12, 2007 2:53 PM
I've read about studies of people who are happy and healthy...
Basically they have a warped world view and don't worry... about ANYTHING.
If they don't come in contact with it... it doesn't matter to them. Everything is SUPER.
Sound alot like religious people, funny enough. "Why worry about anything? I'm going to heaven!"
Their kids however...
Posted by: justawriter | September 12, 2007 2:53 PM
I'm comfortable with my own little personal heresy, ignosticism. It is a belief that your belief in a deity or afterlife has no bearing whatsoever on your behavior. God or gods are just irrelevant, to the point where religion is not a fit subject for discussion. (Churches, on the other had, are social institutions and have a great deal of influence on their members actions, and are fit subjects for discussion and analysis. But that ain't god.) Morals are based on how people treat each other, their community and the world around them. There's no need for a deity or associated trappings to tell me right from wrong. So god is worse than dead, he's irrelevant.
Posted by: Mike P | September 12, 2007 2:55 PM
Che #15,
Hey now, be careful with those wide brushes. That is totally unfair to drunkenness. It is much preferable to religion!
Posted by: Patrick Quigley | September 12, 2007 3:04 PM
I wish you wouldn't give in and start using the phrase "new atheists." I have been using the phrase "uppity atheists" ever since you suggested it, and I think that it is an effective bit of rhetoric.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 12, 2007 3:04 PM
Mike P:
Plausible, as far as it goes; 9/11 and the continuing clash of organized religion and civil rights might figure in there too.
Posted by: david | September 12, 2007 3:11 PM
i read that whole piece, and all i could think was... "i want a toy octopus, dammit!"
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 12, 2007 3:12 PM
As to the etymology of "the New Atheism", I did find a prior instance in a 1994 fundagelical book, but I don't think anybody actually noticed it.
I dislike the term, too, which is why I stuck "the New Enlightenment" in my website's tagline and why I employ the phrase "uppity atheists".
Posted by: caynazzo | September 12, 2007 3:13 PM
I agree. Why not adopt the more literary Post Atheism?
Posted by: H. Humbert | September 12, 2007 3:15 PM
From Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/It would seem the price of happiness is high.
Posted by: SEF | September 12, 2007 3:22 PM
Sort of:
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/statistics/some_findings.html
Posted by: Callandor | September 12, 2007 3:25 PM
My happiness changes all the time, day to day, event to event. I guess my moral system is shot to shit....
Posted by: Mike P | September 12, 2007 3:34 PM
Callandor,
You could try listening to The Cure all the time. You'd be sad all the time, but at least it would offer you some consistency...
Posted by: Keith | September 12, 2007 3:37 PM
Whether a person is happy or not is largely dependent on the time and way a person is asked. Ask a Christian after church if he is happy, and it's probably an overwhelming "yes!"
Not necessarily. Having sat on a hard bench, being told in dull language that you're a no good shit for an hour or more doesn't make for happy folk.
My wife and I, non churchgoers that we are, usually go out for lunch on Sundays. One day we were sitting at a table in a restaurant merrily chatting while waiting for the waiter. When he arrived he said, "You two obviously didn't just come form church."
We asked how he could tell.
"Because, you're smiling."
Apparently, the Sunday lunch crowd is often surly and they tip poorly, too.
Posted by: Tom Buckner | September 12, 2007 3:44 PM
Frans De Waal, in Our Inner Ape and elsewhere, makes a good case that most of our moral/ethical attitudes are far older than any religion; all humans have basically the same ideas about how to behave because that's how our ancestors survived for millions of years as social creatures. Reciprocation, cooperation, sharing, empathy, and an innate sense of justice exist in nonhuman primates (as do competition and selfishness). One good definition of moral behavior might be 'not doing anything that could get me kicked out of the tribe.' You don't need an angry old man in the sky to scare you into behaving morally; the fear of ostracism will do nicely, since it's almost impossible to survive alone for long. Chimps are not noted for their church attendance, but they manage to live together.
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Inner-Ape-Frans-Waal/dp/1573223123
Posted by: Greg Peterson | September 12, 2007 3:55 PM
I am sure that I was happier as a Christian than as an atheist. Just as I feel sure I'd be happier if I believed there is treasure buried in my back yard as opposed to thinking there is not. Atheism is maturity. It means taking responsibility and making choices. It's not death to happiness, nor even to transcendant joy. But we're sitting at the adults' table, and we're aware of the destructive delusions being bandied about at the kids' table, and that doesn't have us rolling in puppies all the time. So what. Ignorance might be bliss, and unmerited confidence in nonsense might be orgasmic, but someone has to drive. In a culture where half the people aren't concerned about global climate change cuz Jesus, he's a-coming, we're the designated drivers. Happy don't enter into it, though it is accompanied by a more profound sense of wisdom and properness, which is satisfying in different way.
Posted by: eyelessgame | September 12, 2007 3:56 PM
Haidt says that "surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people," and then makes the case that we ought not to dismiss religion
and
We also get another familiar trope, that the New Atheists are just another religion with heresies and orthodoxies and unscientific thinking.
These two misapprehensions would seem to cancel each other out...
Posted by: Sastra | September 12, 2007 3:56 PM
In his recent book God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchins asks a question which goes something like "Can you give an example of a moral action which a theist can justify which an atheist can't?"
It's an interesting question, because of course anything which can't be justified as fair, kind, or reasonable on secular grounds is going to be ruled out as an example. Atheists can't justify forbidding gay marriage: atheists can't justify honor killings; atheists can't justify penalties for blasphemy. To which the atheist replies "well, good."
I think that people with and without religion pretty much reason about morality the same way. What religion provides, however, are different "facts" which can re-frame situations. I've often pointed out that if you were willing to grant every single one of the background suppositions of the 9-11 suicide bombers -- agree that yes, Americans are evil tools of Satan and Allah wants them destroyed -- then in that context what they did was noble and brave.
You can have religious "facts" which lead to benign results: God is the source of all value, and people are valuable because they are all made in the image of God. And you can have religious "facts" which do not (at least from the standpoint of the world): some people are more in the image of God than others, and those who reject the source of all value have less value themselves. And, as PZ says, all such supernaturally-based claims "lack mechanisms for correcting error."
As for the other issue, I would guess that, if theists really do act more charitably than atheists, it might be put down to two factors 1.) The Santa-Claus Effect (you are being watched when you don't know it) and 2.) the Church-Sign-Up-Sheet Effect (you are being watched when you do know it.)
Posted by: Tom Buckner | September 12, 2007 3:56 PM
Oh, and regarding happiness: I read a year or two ago about a mental health professional (psychologist/psyciatrist/something similar) who had recently raveled in that most religious of nations, Saudi Arabia. Now, Saudis traveling abroad let their hair down; we hear of them drinking, going to strip bars, and so on. Returning home they don their burnooses on the plane and put on their game faces for the five prayers a day and cold sobriety of a theocracy. This shrink reported that he was stunned by all the fidgeting, nail biting, toe tapping, sighing, and general restlessness of the people he encountered. He estimated that (if I recall) at least a third of Saudis were clinically depressed.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 12, 2007 3:58 PM
I'd prefer post-theism. Better term, better world.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 12, 2007 4:02 PM
The Cure makes me very very happy actually.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | September 12, 2007 4:08 PM
I used to work for a pharmacy benefits management company, where it was widely known that Mormon antidepressant use was through the roof. It was something we had to keep in mind when bidding on insurance for organizations in Utah. So clearly just any religion can't promise happiness. And have you ever heard a voodoo priestess whistle?
Posted by: Sinbad | September 12, 2007 4:12 PM
"Here's the argument: Haidt says that 'surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people,' and then makes the case that we ought not to dismiss religion--it might well have something useful to tell us.
"I've heard that same story often, and it does not convince."
Let's take a look.
"Note that the US is currently suffering the social and international consequences of its recent domination by the religious right, and that atheists are, if not an actively oppressed minority, a minority that is urged to be silent. I would be absolutely gobsmacked if surveys showed that we were happier than Christians about this state of affairs."
The "we're so presecuted whine" sounds no more convincing when you offer it than when D. James Kennedy offers it. Moreover, but for a few crazies, I don't know anyone in the 21st C. USA whose general happiness is predicated upon his/her political status. Of course, since you don't even try to support the charge with evidence, we don't even need to get to my anecdotal sightings.
"We also tend to be more isolated -- how often have you heard the phrase, 'I thought I was the only atheist around here!' -- and we know that community is important to human health. There is no reason to assume that religion itself enhances health, or that atheism itself is a detriment: the difference lies in the minority status of one versus the other."
I agree. You may be right, but without some evidence supporting your idea, both are plausible and justify the idea that religion ought not be dismissed outright, especially since the correlation between officially atheist governments and huge numbers of murdered citizens is incredibly high.
"Similarly, atheists may not give as much for a very good reason divorced from the essence of their lack of religious beliefs: who are they going to give to?"
This is a monumental cop-out on at least two levels. Firstly, the research shows that religious people even give more to secular causes than secular people do: "Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs."
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html
Secondly, to suggest that there simply aren't any (or enough) secular charities to give to is either laughably lazy or dishonest. For example and with no research at all:
http://www.the-brights.net/action/brightsonly/secularist_charities.htm
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-81110.html
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=109405
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?=&p=112222
http://www.wish.org/help/donate?sourceID=05GOMRC0809
http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/discussions/viewthread/2596/#35768
The possibilites are far more than adequate for anyone who truly wishes to be charitable.
"This is not an argument about whether the faithful are happier, or longer-lived, or more moral (I should point out, too, that Haidt's own definition of moral systems that I liked so much does not include happiness or longevity in its terms). It's about the truth of their claims. It's about whether we should trust social institutions that are both founded on falsehood and lack mechanisms for correcting error."
Modern atheism, which so often seeks to be a mere default position and to stand for nothing at all, even if correct, falls short (as the research indicates). How depressing to be defined by what you aren't or by what you don't believe. As Harvard University humanist "chaplain" Greg Epstein pointed out over the summer:
"My problem with the atheists...is not that they're saying God doesn't exist. What I'm saying is we've got to build something."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140641/site/newsweek/
Unless and until modern atheism deigns to try to "build something," religion will likely continue to win lots of cultural battles, "correctness" notwithstanding.
"I entirely agree with Haidt that many religious people are good people, that religion has incorporated moral systems that contribute to people's well-being, and that there are kernels of wisdom in religious thought. Where I disagree is that I see the superstition and dogma and error of religion as separable from those desirable elements -- that religion is not synonymous with morality and is actually an unfortunate excrescence of the human condition that does not have to be and should not be respected."
Unless and until atheists actually "build something" (which requires more than argument - it requires time, money, effort and sacrifice), I suspect that your hypothesis will remain entirely theoretical.
Posted by: Sastra | September 12, 2007 4:16 PM
No, Greg, I have never heard a voodoo priestess whistle, and darn good thing, too. When you hear the voodoo priestess whistle, that's when little arms grow out of your neck and strangle you.
Posted by: Fatboy | September 12, 2007 4:21 PM
Re: MikeP at #14
Actually, ID did have a lot to do with me becoming an atheist, so there's one data point. I was a theistic evolutionist before, but all the brouhaha made me look at why I really believed what I did.
The Internet had a lot to do with it, too. If the ID controversy had erupted pre-Internet, I would have been too embarassed to buy atheist books from the bookstore, or check them out from the library. But with the anonymity of the web, I was able to read all types of heretical writings.
Posted by: Pan sapien | September 12, 2007 4:35 PM
Brilliant response PZ.I loved it.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 12, 2007 4:35 PM
I just want to make one point, however, that should give contractualists pause: surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people. Most of these effects have been documented in Europe too. If you believe that morality is about happiness and suffering, then I think you are obligated to take a close look at the way religious people actually live and ask what they are doing right.
Yeah, and if you become intoxicated or smoke weed all the time, you may also be happier than someone who does not live an anaesthetized life.
What's his point? What they are doing right is escaping reality! Is that going to be the new goal of life?
If that's the case, let's legalize all the pleasure-inducing drugs.
Posted by: bullfighter | September 12, 2007 4:54 PM
Is religion adaptive? To be fair, I think that's very plausible. It seems likely that religion has been advantageous in the past to human groups and societies. But the same is true of slavery. And war. And rape. (Without war and rape, inbreeding might have been disastrous.) That something was beneficial in the past is not sufficient evidence that it still is.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | September 12, 2007 5:01 PM
"This shrink reported that he was stunned by all the fidgeting, nail biting, toe tapping, sighing, and general restlessness of the people he encountered."
Toe tapping, you say? In a country full of hypocritical theocrats? Sounds like Larry Craig's kind of place!
Posted by: Anton Mates | September 12, 2007 5:07 PM
And even if it aided us in the past, why would that mean we should endorse it now? Cravings for sugar, salt and fat were adaptive for most of our species' existence, but we still have to restrain them now. The fitness landscape changes.
Moreover, even something which is adaptive in the present isn't necessarily good. Very few people follow a moral code which recommends maximizing their reproductive potential above all else.
In support of this view, pretty much all the studies I've seen on the subject (such as those summarized here) find that regular religious attendance is correlated with happiness and health and giving. This has, so far as I can see, absolutely nothing to do with religious belief, other that in some cultures belief is a strong motivator for attendance. Studies such as this one provide evidence that belief, in itself, is a negative factor--countries with higher rates of belief also have higher rates of early mortality, homicide, STDs, abortions, and so forth.
It's all about the socializing.
Posted by: Anton Mates | September 12, 2007 5:14 PM
Sure they can. Huxley, who by our standards was certainly an atheist, justified penalties for blasphemy because he thought it was a rude and pointless disturbance of the peace.
Likewise atheists could oppose gay rights because they think homosexuality is psychologically or socially damaging, and support honor killings on the purely moral ground that a woman shouldn't shame her family.
Most atheists don't, of course, but it's certainly possible. Most believers have a battery of secular justifications for their moral positions anyway.
Posted by: SEF | September 12, 2007 5:17 PM
On my link list next to that same Times article one are this link and that link.
Posted by: MyaR | September 12, 2007 5:37 PM
Hmmm, I'm much happier as an atheist than I ever was as a theist, although I was never a very good one. Well, I was an exceptional one on the outside, as I figured out in first grade that it was just better not to ask certain questions. Better to just give the response they wanted and go find books that, say, actually had something undogmatic to say about theology or science or whatever. I was unhappiest as an agnostic, actually, in that inbetween time.
Completely unrelatedly (and probably unoriginally), I've been thinking about creationists' fascination with abiogenesis. It seems that this might be a positive -- they've figured out that biology=evolution (well, that biology only makes sense with evolution), and the origins of life are inherently biology (debatable, I think), therefore abiogenesis must be evolution.
Posted by: Sastra | September 12, 2007 5:43 PM
Anton Mates>
Excellent point. You're right, of course. I was trying to come up with some actual examples I've heard from believers (ok, the honor killing bit was made up.) I should have made it clearer that I was being a bit casual in my assumptions, and dealing with the usual situations. If, on the other hand, you have a secular reason for promoting or encouraging religious belief per se, then an atheist can even justify bizarre taboos and rituals from a secular ground. Technically speaking, there are even atheists who are in favor of uniting church and state (Straussians) because it makes citizens more compliant and willing to obey the government -- not because it pleases God and encourages Him to smile down upon us.
Given the same moral rule, is a secular justification stronger or weaker than a religious one? A religious justification is less arguable, I think-- pro, or con. It makes a rule inflexible. But a secular justification is more persuasive to outsiders -- and will eventually be used to explain the religious justification. Why does God want such-and-such? Well, can't you see the good benefits?
It's when the good results can only be confirmed in the afterlife that we get into major trouble, I think.
Posted by: George Atkinson | September 12, 2007 5:51 PM
GB Shaw commented: "The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
Posted by: AnInGe | September 12, 2007 6:32 PM
That those surveys show that theists are happier than atheists is an artifact of the surveys and is due to the fact that atheists are much better cooks than theists. This is explained by remembering exactly how those surveys are conducted. They are always done over the phone (much cheaper that way), and those phone calls are always made at dinner time when there is the greatest likelihood of finding someone (other than little three year old Suzy) at home. The interview is always conducted by some poor minimum wage loser who responded to a "Make Oodles of money in your spare time at home" advertisement in the back of Hollywood Stars magazine (primary readership being younger women without a life) or Miss Teen magazine (primary readership being older men without a life).
These interviews contain several questions concerning the respondents religious convictions and their current state of happiness. Because atheists are generally very good cooks, their state of happiness is that they are pretty pissed at having their dinner interrupted. For the religious folk, the interruption is seen as a godsend.
Understanding this survey process also explains why similar surveys show that only 10% of Americans are Atheists. 93.7% of Atheists are intelligent enough to know how to install a Tele-Zapper (and to even know that such devices exist). Only 24.6% of theists are capable of doing this. (Conducting the survey that produced these statistics was obviously a very difficult undertaking.) If those surveys included the disconnects (due to the Tele-Zapper) and the Hang-ups (due to people actually having lives) in the atheist column, we would get results much closer to reality and atheists wouldn't feel so isolated.
Posted by: Dale | September 12, 2007 6:33 PM
"I would sacrifice a little happiness to know the truth, and I would find no consolation in a lie, no matter how cheerful that lie might be."
Ah, so you swallowed the red pill?
Perhaps "redpills" can be another name for Atheists (secret decoding ring here). The analogy seems quite apt.
Posted by: lockean | September 12, 2007 6:45 PM
1) What's the deal with sexual selection?
It seems that some scientists treat natural and sexual selection as two distinct entities (as Darwin did), some treat sexual selection as a type of natural selection, and some (like this article) don't treat sexual selection at all.
Does anyone know of any general article written by a scientist about the contemporary epistemology of sexual selection?
2) The best explanation of the well-attested happiness of the religious is what sociologists call 'social capital.' Basically, those who spend more time with friends and family are happier--whether they are going to church, playing cards or drinking. Those who mostly sit at home alone are less happy. It doesn't have to do with what people believe; it has to do with how lonely they are.
Social capital also correlates with education, income, and other factors, but the religious-group membership correlation is especially strong--probably b/c so many other types of groups are organized by, for and around churches.
I highly recommend, Bowling Alone, by Robert Putnam, as a summary of the data on social capital.
Posted by: Ryogam | September 12, 2007 6:53 PM
When I was a believer, I certainly was more content, if not happy. Religion, at least of the Catholic Christianist type common among my peers, said two very comforting things:
1. You can do any sin you wish, but as long as you regret it and confess to a priest, your place in heaven after you die will be safe. I hear many evangelicals say, "Accept Christ and you are guaranteed a place in heaven," which is an even bigger "Get Out of Sin" card.
2. When anything bad happens to you, it's all part of god's plan. Lose a job? Be happy, god's got a plan. It will all turn out for the best, in the end. And when life doesn't turn out for the best? Well, their already guaranteed a place in heaven, so who cares if the mortgage can't be paid?
No wonder religious believers are so happy. It's the ultimate protection from reality.
Comment 31 hit the target dead center. Giving up comforting false religious beliefs is simple maturity. It might not be fun, but it sure is liberating.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | September 12, 2007 7:39 PM
(admiring) I wish I had written some of the sentences in this essay. The passage discussing the worship of a plush toy was a pearl. Hope something like that makes it into print pretty soon, PZ.
Posted by: Chris | September 12, 2007 7:46 PM
Drop the "self" and I'll agree. Religion is a system of mind control. It makes the congregation trust and obey the clergy - even while the same clergy is molesting the congregation's children and burning their neighbors at the stake.It is no accident that one of the synonyms for pious is "God-fearing". Do what the priests and scriptures say or God will punish you - that's the central message of most religions (including the biggest and most successful).
Posted by: uncle frogy | September 12, 2007 7:56 PM
this has been posted before when the discussion was about happiness.
From Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians:
This chapter has presented my main research findings on religious fundamentalists. The first thing I want to emphasize...is that they are highly likely to be authoritarian followers. They are highly submissive to established authority, aggressive in the name of that authority, and conventional to the point of insisting everyone should behave as their authorities decide. They are fearful and self-righteous and have a lot of hostility in them that they readily direct toward various out-groups. They are easily incited, easily led, rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason, and rely instead on social support to maintain their beliefs. They bring strong loyalty to their in-groups, have
thick-walled, highly compartmentalized minds, use a lot of double standards in their judgments, are surprisingly unprincipled at times, and are often hypocrites.
But they are also Teflon-coated when it comes to guilt. They are blind to themselves, ethnocentric and prejudiced, and as closed-minded as they are narrowminded. They can be woefully uninformed about things they oppose, but they prefer ignorance and want to make others become as ignorant as they. They are also surprisingly uninformed about the things they say they believe in, and deep, deep, deep down inside many of them have secret doubts about their core belief. But they are very happy, highly giving, and quite zealous. In fact, they are about the only zealous people around nowadays in North America, which explains a lot of their success in their endless (and necessary) pursuit of converts. [emphasis mine]
sorry to copy the whole thing again but I think the reason "all of this" is coming up has a lot to do with ID and the resurgence of the Fundies. Also it has been the policy of the republican party since Reagan to exploit and pander to the the religious right for the exact reasons given in the above quote
they are fearful and believe in authority.
the description fits the Bush admin. to a T
I think that the biggest problem with fundamentalist and science is the only thing that counts is authority. Facts do not have the weight as authority. Helps explain the ease in distortion and lies also why they go back to Darwin. No amount of facts can win an argument with people like that and there is no way to change their minds either.the argument is deeper and personal ,psychological because it really aint about evolution at all
that happiness thing is interesting. what other studies have there been into what groups are happy or not. Is it only religious groups or is it some other quality of religious groups outside of belief that imparts this feeling of happiness. could it have more to do with social support, community than god?
Posted by: Sastra | September 12, 2007 8:25 PM
uncle frogy:
What I get from creationists isn't so much a sense that they love authority, but that they love being mavericks who buck authority. They think that the little guy, with just a bit of education, no training, and a pure heart, can cut through 200 years of scientific consensus and just figger out where those pointy-headed intellectuals go wrong. All you need to understand science is common sense -- and evolution makes no sense!
Creationist literature is filled with "read it yourself" and "figure it out for yourself" and "think for yourself" rhetoric. They're not so much pulling authority as telling people to "take charge" of their own education and don't just rely on what establishment scientists try to dictate to you. Show them what simple goodness and clear-headed thinking can accomplish, on its own. We're telling you there are holes in evolutionary theory, but don't take our word for it. Look for yourself, and see.
And they do -- or think they do. Pseudoscience is easier than real science, because you only need just a little understanding and there are lots and lots of appeals to intuition and what "feels" right. Creationists are like the uneducated fellow on the barstool at the back of the bar, refuting Einstein's Theory of Relativity on the back of a cocktail napkin. Only, in their story, turns out he gets it right! It's not so much authoritarianism, I think, as it is the Myth of the American Cowboy.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 12, 2007 8:26 PM
Tell us more about this wonderful salvific toy octopus!
How can we find happiness, longevity and transfiguration without knowing in Whose Holy Name we are offering prayer and sacrifice?
Posted by: Peter Holt | September 12, 2007 8:39 PM
In fact, Hitchens' challenge has nothing to do with justifying actions, it has to do with actions taken.
To quote from his appearance on the Hugh Hewitt radio program:
This is quite different. Believers justify immoral actions all the time, for example, bombing abortion clinics.
As to the rate of charitable giving, I would be deeply skeptical about such figures. Social desirability bias plays very strongly in such self-reporting. If the religious are capable of hugely exaggerating their church attendance,