-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/05/17/arthur-brooks-on-religion-and-happiness/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Robert S. Porter
56 comments · 1 points
-
uknowbetter
362 comments · 19 points
-
huadpe
40 comments · 1 points
-
Vangel
43 comments · 1 points
-
Michael Drake
109 comments · 3 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
A Little Mystic Nationalism
2 days ago · 40 comments
-
Scott Winship on Income Inequality
2 weeks ago · 26 comments
-
Now Let Us Praise Results-Facilitating Virtue!
5 days ago · 8 comments
-
Why Are There So few Women in Philosophy?
2 weeks ago · 20 comments
-
Hey, I Can’t Actually Quite Imagine a World in Which Things Are Exactly as Different as the Need to Be to Give Me What I Want, but It Would Be Neat if I Could!!
2 weeks ago · 21 comments
-
A Little Mystic Nationalism
One other note:
"It doesn’t take an econometric wizard to eyeball the relationship: religion down, happiness up. Doesn’t this fact simply devastate Brooks’ strong implication that secularization is antagonistic to national happiness? Yes it does."
I thought it was becoming cliche to start in on the old correlation/causation diatribe, but apparently not.
By the way, I agree that it is specious for Brooks not to have taken worldwide data into account.
Sorry that this was a bit random.
Interestingly, in his earlier book he notes that self reported conservatives were more likely to be civically engaged. If the culture and well being thing holds, and Scandinavians are happier because their personal collectivism meshes with society/state, then it really IS just a matter of socializing Americans over generations to be happy with big government. Path dependence might make that very difficult for the diverse and unwieldy citizenry of the US, but just give it enough time...
Hitchens seems like a deeply unhappy individual. Almost the perfect stereotype of the spiritually depleted and cold communist bureaucrat.
Only "relatively", though, because if there has ever been a better example of non-random independent variable assignment, I haven't seen it. Since nobody's ever going to find convincingly-valid manipulation in this context, I smell a structural model...
Europeans don't seem to care for the "market test", so I don't know if that explains much.
I have read that regions of the country with the highest religious identification also have the highgest incidents of negative indices such as abortion, illegitimacy, divorce, alcoholism, drug abuse, murder, rape, suicide etc. This might be informing us that the religious aren't telling the truth when they are polled.
I wonder if the form of evangelism in the south is not more than coincidental vis-a-vis the high divorce rates, etc. I suppose in a place where faith healers and the like are popular, the time preference of the general population would also be conducive to getting in over one's head in matters of love and lust.
It's all about passion.
I agree with your main point, but of course mechanism matters. For instance, happiness in marriage has stayed the same over the last 30 years but that masks the changing dynamics of that happiness: married people talk to each other less than 30 years ago which lowers marital satisfaction, but they earn more household income than 30 years ago which raises it by a similar amount. The result is a wash, but it didn't have to be. Communication could have been more important and marital happiness would have gone down, or money could have been more important and happiness would have gone up.
Going back to the national comparisons, perhaps loss of religion does lower happiness, it's just that money more than makes up for it. It is certainly possible that happiness could have been higher still in every one of those countries if religious belief/culture had been preserved through whatever means.
If government policy A leads to a growth rate of 1000% and government policy B leads to a growth rate of 1%, you can't say B was a success (instead of a disaster) just because you are moving in a better direction.
You used the same fallacy thinking about immigration.
And yet, I suspect that there is another factor: I suspect that European religion tends to be more gloomy than American religion. I suspect that, in Europe, preachers tell us that we could end up in Hell; in America, preachers tell you that you can go to Heaven.
OK, I'm grossly exaggerating; but please send in some missionaries!
I have read that regions of the country with the highest religious identification also have the highgest incidents of negative indices such as abortion, illegitimacy, divorce, alcoholism, drug abuse, murder, rape, suicide etc. This might be informing us that the religious aren’t telling the truth when they are polled.
""""""
People who actually practice their faith are happier, have less divorce, yadda, yadda... than any other groups. People who self identify with but don't actually practice their faith are worse than atheists/agnostics.
Regardless, all "happiness" research is a joke.
Yes, Jason raises a logical possibility, but so what? Go ahead and look at the multivariate regression.
As an agnostic (with sympathy for Viking paganism), I have no dog in this fight. What I like about Brooks' work is his challenging the received opinion that people labeling themselves "conservatives" must be grumpy old men. That has nothing to do with religion, of course.
Are religious folk in Tibet happier than the other Chinese who aren't burdened with false beliefs the government wishes to eliminate? My guess would be no.
I believe it is the oppression of lies that the religious force upon the irreligious that could be the problem in the USA. It's harder to be happy when you have people believing in magical creatures that fly around and that they make decisions with their souls and not their brains- and then you aren't allowed to criticize their false beliefs. Much as it must be difficult to believe in one the various imaginary gods in a place that falsely reveres Mao or Kim Jong-Il.
Brooks' assertion of causation is ridiculous and certainly subtracts from any assessment of the independence of his work.
Substance Abuse Treatment
How would you characterize yourself?
A) A religious nut
B) Not a complete nut but an intelligent skeptic
C) A stupid person who believes in God
D) An intelligent person who sees the folly of religion.
Now if the subject answers A, B, or C then you asks him:
How would you characterize you emotional life:
A) Totally miserable
B) Dreadfully unhappy
C) Deeply depress with life
D) The small happiness I get out of life is hoping there is no God.
If he doesn’t answer A, B, or C but D then you ask him:
How would you characterize you emotional life:
A) Ecstatically happy
B) Totally happy
C) Quite happy
D) Couldn’t be happier