In this section, we will argue that, despite all the criticism that can be advanced against religion, faith can have some positive effects on the well-being of a believer, i.e., it can positively impact physical and mental health, happiness, and life satisfaction.
Measuring such positive effects of religion is not easy: First, data collection can be expensive and tricky, as people may over-report, under-report, or even refuse to reveal their religious attitudes (for reasons we have previously discussed). Second, religious belief itself is difficult to measure: Is it certainty in the existence of God? The frequency of attending religious services? Or a qualitative description of an adherent’s religious attitude? Since the frequency of attending services is easiest to quantify, many studies focus on this variable — but is attending services really indicative of one’s faith? Third, religiosity and personal well-being can interact in various ways, and one need not always impact the other: A study may find that prayer correlates with illness. But this does not mean that prayer makes you ill, it could simply indicate that those who are ill pray more often. Likewise, if a study were to find that people who attend services feel lonely, this may not mean that attending services makes you lonely. Rather, it could be a consequence of the fact that older people attend services more often, and older people are more likely to suffer from loneliness. Furthermore, the fact that older people attend services more often may itself be related to the fact that Western societies are becoming less religious, which means that studies of religiosity are shooting at a moving target. Finally, mystical states or spiritual experiences are often difficult to distinguish from psychotic behavior or hallucinations. In a somewhat biased appreciation, one tends to call them “mystical” if they are pleasurable and “pathological” when they are distressing1.
Social scientists are trying their best to compensate for these difficulties in data collection by, for example, seeking to clarify definitions, relying on large cohort-studies with tens of thousands of participants, controlling for variables such as socio-economic status, and aggregating over dozens of smaller studies. The resulting picture is relatively clear. As the Handbook of Religion and Health summarizes2, in the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with:
greater happiness and general well-being;
more positive feelings, such as hope and optimism;
a greater ability to cope with adversities like illness or stressful situations;
less depression and anxiety;
greater self-esteem;
more altruistic behavior, including forgiveness and gratefulness;
less substance abuse;
lower mortality, i.e., a longer life;
less delinquency and crime;
greater marital stability;
stronger social connections;
and better “social capital”, i.e., more community participation and membership in community-based, civic, political, or social justice organizations, and more volunteerism, trust, and reciprocity between people.
This picture is supported by other meta-analyses3456.
A big caveat in these studies, however, is that they take religion to mean nearly exclusively Christianity . Islam and Judaism are mentioned only in passing, and the other large world religions such as Shintoism, Spiritism, or Buddhism are almost never considered . (We have previously argued that the inability to perceive other religions as equally important is symptomatic of many religions, and it appears that the authors of these studies have not escaped this spell of their own Christian culture.) Another limitation applies to the geographical scope of the studies: The vast majority were conducted in the United States and are thus representative of only 4% of the world’s population. (Some readers may suspect a similar inability by the studies’ authors to consider the importance or existence of other places.) Findings for other cultures may differ significantly. For example, in some African communities, a person would be considered insane not to believe that the spirits of the dead actively influence an individual’s life, whereas that same conviction would be a sign of a major thought disorder in the United States1. And lastly, all of the studies are concerned with the modern, post-Enlightenment interpretations of religion. The effects of medieval beliefs in demons, exorcism, and physical hellfire, and the social ousting or punishment of nonbelievers are therefore not discussed. So, when the Handbook of Religion lists the positive effects of religion on people’s health, what it means are the positive effects of modern Christianity on people in the United States.
In this chapter, we will not try to prove whether these studies generalize to all religions or all places. Rather, we will explore the positive factors of religion that these studies have identified. We will then give religion the benefit of doubt, and assume that these factors apply also to other religions and other places.
Elements of personal well-being
Personal well-being is a complex concept that encompasses physical and mental health, self-reported happiness and life satisfaction, and a wide array of other components. Consequently, it is hard to measure scientifically what exactly causes each component. However, research has established a number of factors that generally correlate with personal well-being78910. (We have already briefly outlined them.) They are:
and mature mechanisms to cope with life’s ups and downs10.
These components of well-being are well established by scientists independently of religion. Now, we will now see how religion caters exactly to these factors .
Dietary restrictions
Most major religions come with dietary restrictions of some kind. Some of these restrictions may have served a material purpose in antiquity: The prohibition to slaughter an animal that was more important for milk than for meat was clearly useful, as was the prohibition to consume food that was more likely to carry diseases. We have argued before that many religious dietary restrictions no longer serve a health purpose today and function mainly as a costly signalling tool for the believer to show adherence to the group. We have also shown that some of these restrictions are even outright absurd, serving more the survival of the religion than the well-being of the individual.
At the same time, there are cases in which religious dietary restrictions coincide with the scientific mainstream opinion on a healthy diet. For example, some religions prohibit the consumption of alcohol (Islam, Bahai Faith, Buddhism, variants of Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism), and the current scientific consensus is indeed that alcohol should be avoided11. Even for Christians, whose religion does not explicitly prohibit alcohol, religious service attendance often correlates with less heavy drinking1213.
Other religions prohibit the consumption of red meats (beef in Hinduism, pork in Judaism and Islam) or even of meat altogether (Mahayana Buddhism, Jainism, and variants of Hinduism and Christianity). It turns out that red meat, as well as processed meat, is indeed to be avoided for a healthy diet14.
Even the intermittent fasting prescribed by some religions (Islam, Bahai Faith, and Christianity) may have a healthy effect on the body: Studies have found that fasting can lead to lower blood pressure, decreased LDL cholesterol, and weight loss7.
There is also a more general factor at work: Some religious denominations encourage healthy behaviors out of respect for the body as an instrument of God’s service12. As such, they offer an all-encompassing encouragement for believers to take care of their health — which is one of the ingredients of a happy life.
In the past, when doctors believed they could cure a patient by letting him bleed, a religion may have saved lives purely by keeping its adherents in the church and away from the hospital.
And Atheists?
Secular law usually prohibits alcohol for the harm it causes to others15, not for the harm it causes to oneself.
in Trento, Italy
In an atheist worldview, there is no supernatural entity who prescribes what people should eat or drink. Atheists thus must make their own decision on whether to lead a healthy life . We have previously argued that, from a rational perspective, atheists should have every interest in prolonging their life because they believe they have only a single one. However, not all atheists might follow this reasoning, and even if they do, they might be unaware of the factors that contribute to a healthy life, or unable (or unwilling) to implement them.
Humanism, in contrast, strives for “the fullest possible development of every individual”, and encourages people to flourish — and this presupposes a healthy life. Humanism thus proposes several tools to this end: It supports social services and public health care, encourages the use of science to discover and alleviate illnesses, emphasizes the education of the general public, including about healthy life choices, and supports public policies to regulate or restrict the use of harmful substances. It wants all of these strategies to be guided not by belief, tradition, or the hope of supernatural intervention, but by scientific evidence.
This thrust for a healthy life has to be balanced with Humanism’s goal of personal freedom and responsibility: Humanism would not oblige people to lead a healthy life. Such an obligation would be considered patronizing, a restriction of personal liberty, and an intrusion into a person’s life. As Russian-British philosopher Isaiah Berlin argued: “It is a […] dangerous arrogance to believe that you alone are right, have a magical eye that sees the truth, and that others cannot be right if they disagree.” Furthermore, if this obligation to lead a healthy life were to have any value, then an unhealthy life would have to be sanctioned (or at least monitored) by the society — which would put a burden on everyone else. Hence, beyond the preconditions and an encouragement, Humanism considers it everyone’s own business to take care of their life.
And indeed, atheists seem to do that rather well: The few studies that compare the physical health of atheists and believers show that atheists are just as healthy as believers16, or even healthier171819.
You can’t force felicity .
Community
A Hindu community
in Bodhgaya/India
One of the main features of a religion is that it establishes a community among believers. This works through several means:
a common moral framework, such as the 10 Commandments, the duty to give charity, or the call to non-violence;
common beliefs, such as a world model, a set of mythological stories, or shared beliefs about history;
common rituals, such as fasting, joint prayer, church attendance, life event and annual celebrations, or sacrifices;
initiation rites, such as circumcision or baptism;
shared experiences, such as fares, excursions, or concerts;
social services, such as hospitals, kindergartens, schools, or senior citizen homes;
mutual assistance, such as help for the poor, the ill, and the desperate;
a label, such as “Jew”, “Buddhist”, or “Catholic”, together with a sense of pride in the religion and the community; and
the prohibition to venture out of the community, e.g., by the prohibition of interfaith marriage, the shunning of those who decide to leave the religion , the prohibition of criticism, the branding of outsiders as errant, and, more generally, the focus on one’s own faith at the expense of knowledge about the others.
We have previously not stinted with criticism of these religious communities, because their closedness curtails the freedom of the individual, is incompatible with the Humanist ideal of an egalitarian and open society, and bears the risk of amplifying conflicts between adherents of different religions.
That said, the religious community does constitute an important pillar in the believer’s well-being. Indeed, an embedding in a community constitutes the single most important factor for a happy life in general. A Harvard study followed hundreds of people and their descendants over 80 years to measure their happiness and well-being. (It is the longest such study ever conducted.) T he researchers found that the single most determining factor for one’s happiness and well-being is one’s embeddedness in a supportive social structure, such as family and friendships20. It turns out that social relationships are not just important for one’s mental well-being, but are also one of the factors that provably lead to a longer and healthier life7.
Religion does not just establish such communities, it also promotes the values that help to deepen them: Most religions emphasize love of others, compassion, and altruism, as well as encourage communal gathering during religious social events. These prosocial behaviors buffer stress and lead to support in difficult times. Religions typically also promote virtues such as honesty, forgiveness, gratefulness, patience, and dependability, which help to maintain and enhance these social relationships. 213
The religious community can be particularly useful outside one’s home country. If two people find that they both belong to a minority religion, they are likely to feel a bond between them. All other factors being equal, they will be more likely to help each other, trust each other, and promote each other. Sharing the same faith ensures that people abide by the same codes of behavior, adopt the same rituals, and use the same symbolic universe, resulting in a shared identity 21.
These community bonds have benefits that go beyond the individual level. Religious people (as compared to atheists) declare to have more trust in others, in their governments, and in the legal system, and to hold stronger beliefs about the fairness of market outcomes 22. Trust, in turn, is the basic prerequisite for a society that wants to progress beyond the community of a single family clan . Thus, religious communities can play a significant role in creating and maintaining a society.
I sometimes suspect that people just don’t really care if some of their most cherished beliefs are rationally groundless. [...] What many people gain from religious belief, and what they legitimately care about, is the ritual, the community, the shared ethical values, the coffee and donuts.
And Atheism?
Atheism cannot create a community, because atheists generally do not share a moral framework or worldview, nor rituals or scripture. The only thing that connects atheists is their rejection of belief in the supernatural, and this is too weak of a basis to create a community.
Humanists, in comparison, share elements of a moral framework and worldview . And indeed, there are Humanist associations (usually one per country23) that offer a gatherings and celebrations. At the same time, these associations have not achieved the traction of religious communities — in some part also because many people who adhere to the principles of Humanism may not even know they are Humanists.
In general, atheists and Humanists are careful with communities that are based on an ideology. This is because the feeling of belonging that a community can provide is largely independent of the ideology that the community pursues: Joyful get-togethers, music, singing, sharing of experiences, celebrations, competitions, common activities, and comradeship worked just as well in the Hitler Youth and the communist Pioneer Movements as they do in church communities. Hence, these aspects can be (and have been) used to entice people to follow an ideology even if all they seek is a community. Even a casual participant swells the nominal number of adherents of the ideology.
In part also for this reason, atheists usually turn to other, non-creed based communities: This can be foremost the family, but also sports clubs, choirs, benevolent associations, and the like. These communities are then not based on origin or ideology, but on interest or sympathy.
Never adhere to an ideology because you enjoy the community.
Only ever adhere to a community if you share the ideology.
A Reason for Life
One of the factors that contributes to a healthy life is the conviction that one’s life has purpose247.
As it so happens, all major religions can provide such a purpose for life. Religion tells us why we exist and what we should do with our lives. Devout believers have no existential questions to worry about, and thus suffer less from existential angst2. Even negative life events can be given meaning and purpose through religion, and finding such meaning is directly linked to better mental health13.
We have previously complained that religious dogmata do not really provide an answer to the great questions of life because they simply shift the question from us to the deity. For example, a believer may say that she exists because God exists, but she cannot tell us why God exists. However , God’s existence is not a very essential question for people: It is a philosophical, meta-physical, supernatural, out-of-this-world conundrum. People can live their lives very well without worrying why God exists, simply by accepting that he is supernatural. Their own existence, however, is a very tangible experience for them . It is very important for them to know why they are here. By answering the question about an individual’s existence at the expense of neglecting the question about God’s existence, religion answers the question that is more essential for people.
He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.
And Atheists?
Atheists have no means to answer the big questions of life by supernatural entities. They have to find these answers by themselves. If they can’t find the answers, they have to admit that they don’t know them. While the atheist life stance may thus appear less convenient than the believer’s, it usually does not cause much discomfort to the atheist. Humanists, for example, would consider it unbearable to have answers to the questions of life prescribed by someone else, and, on the contrary, take pride in finding their own.
In what way is it comforting to know that God loves you, and that he once deliberately drowned everyone on Earth because they were “full of sin”, and that most people in the world are sinful now — including yourself?
Prayer
Hindu prayers in Bali, Indonesia
We have seen that one of the factors that contributes to the psychological well-being of an individual is the ability to cope with life’s ups and downs10. Religion provides one such mechanism for weathering times of insecurity in the form of prayer (or other ways of approaching the supernatural such as meditation).
We have previously pointed out that prayer has no real-world consequences. You can’t change the world by talking in your head, even if you believe someone is listening. However, prayer can have an effect on the person praying, or at least on their mental state. As American psychologist Paul Emanuel Johnson put it: “A pr ayer cannot replace the wing of an airplane that caught fire — but a prayer can calm the nerves of the person who has to land that airplane”25. The act of praying lets a person think about their day, reflect on their behavior, discover their wishes, and vocalize their fears. In this way, praying contributes to self-awareness. Prayer can also help structure thoughts and prepare a person for upcoming difficulties. As it turns out, the mere planning of the things ahead can already give peace of mind. A psychological experiment showed that students who were asked to plan the things they had to learn had lower levels of anxiety and better concentration than a control group who was planning an unrelated event — comparable to those who had actually studied for the exam26.
Just talking a problem through with someone can also help a person to arrive at a solution. Interestingly, that effect can be achieved even if the other person does not talk at all and merely listens. By just imagining the other person’s reply, one can find a solution. In Christianity, this coping strategy is known as asking: “What would Jesus do?”. By answering this question, the believer finds the solution to the problem. In computer science, the strategy is known as “rubber duck debugging”: The programmer places a rubber duck on the desk and explains the computer code to the duck. By explaining the code, the programmer finds the problem2728. The active intervention of the duck is not needed for this purpose.
Prayer can also give adherents the impression that they can somehow influence their future, granting tahem a subjective sense of control over events2. Even if that control is purely imaginary , it still helps people cope with uncertainty. Psychological experiments show that people can withstand more pain if they have a button nearby that can stop the pain — even if that button does not work. This phenomenon is known as the “Illusion of Control”26. Prayer is thus an effective strategy to lower one’s anxiety.
Finally, just the belief that prayer is effective may already bring about the desired effect. For example, if a person suffers from a psychosomatic illness, and if that person prays for betterment, then the illness may indeed abate. This phenomenon is known as the placebo effect29, and prayer is a classic example. Prayer can thus have effects even beyond mental health.
In cases where prayer is directed to a particular deity, it can also give the adherent the feeling of being heard. The idea that someone is listening can be very reassuring. And indeed, “sharing novel experiences with a loved one” is one of the factors of psychological well-being8. Prayer can take that role, too.
Prayer is thus a powerful coping mechanism that works on several psychological levels at the same time. Interestingly, this mechanism is not lost or impaired with physical disability — unlike other coping strategies such as hobbies, relationships, or work, which are dependent on health2. With this, prayer is an all-encompassing, always-available method of stress relief.
Acts of worship improve the mortal, not the god.
And Atheists?
Atheists have no-one to pray to. They do not believe that there is any help to be expected from supernatural entities, and instead hold that any solution to a problem has to come from humans themselves. Hence, to solve a problem, atheists may turn to rational thinking, to advice from friends and family, or to professional help. They can also hold an imaginary conversation with a loved one, a rubber duck, or (why not?) Jesus. These coping strategies may seem pedestrian. However, the few studies that concern themselves with the mental health of atheists find that they cope just as well in life as believers1819.
What would Jesus do? Wander around the Middle East for a few years, then get nailed to a piece of wood. Not very helpful actually.
Rites
The Fortune Fairy in Chinese Folk Religion. Consider making her an offering!
Hoi Anh, Vietnam
Religions typically come with a set of rites. These include life event celebrations such as baptism and weddings, but also regular activities such as going to the temple, chanting, or communal prayer. Some of these rites appear absurd to all but those who engage in them (and throughout this book we have taken a certain pleasure in enumerating them). Other rites are outright harmful: Consider the damage done by genital mutilation, or the habit of marrying off girls in their puberty, still widespread in many countries. Both practices are supported by religious beliefs, and both are objectively harmful. So is the insistence of some Charismatic Christians to rely on faith healing instead of vaccination, which translates into an immediate health disadvantage for the children concerned.
From an atheist perspective, all rites (the harmful and harmless ones alike) are but an artifact of the centuries-long, erratic search by today’s religions for ways of keeping enough adherents . Rites are a useful means of instilling a religious worldview, of identifying free-riders, and of creating a community of believers. These effects were (and are) needed to heave the religion into the next generation, and so the religions that exist today are those that have such rites . Whether or not the practices are actually useful to the individual is not of concern.
That said, throughout history, some rituals have been useful to the individual. For example, in ancient times, rituals for washing, food preparation, or burial may have implemented sensible basic health recommendations. Still today, some rituals carry value because they can help the believer cope with difficult life events. Consider, for example, the death of a loved one. If a close friend or family member dies, you feel desperate. Religious rites cannot give you the person back, but they can at least tell you what to do: Pray a certain prayer, participate in a certain ceremony, sing a certain song, perform a certain ritual, or say certain words. This ritualized framework reassures people, and allows them to express grief in a socially accepted form. Similarly, rituals can help when you did something wrong and feel remorse. Religion cannot undo what you did, but it can at least tell you what to do: Confess to a certain person, pray a certain prayer, perform a certain ritual cleansing, or say certain words. In this way, religious rites give people something to cling to when their minds are in trouble. They are a coping strategy, and, as we know, having a coping strategy is a necessary ingredient for a healthy and happy life10.
In addition, rites are moments for social gathering. They help build community and bind family members and communities together. And indeed, “rituals during which one meets with family members” are one of the ingredients of a happy life8.
And atheists?
Even atheists can acknowledge the positive effects of rituals. Therefore, there have been several attempts to offer secular rites — most notably in atheist regimes, but also in Humanist circles. In several countries, Humanist organizations offer non-religious ceremonies for birth, marriage, or coming of age. In Norway, 20% of young people choose to participate in a “Humanist confirmation”, and in Scotland, there are more Humanist marriages than Christian marriages30. That said, Humanist celebrations still have a long way to go to achieve the popularity of their religious counterparts.
Thanking God
in the Church of our Dear Lady, Bruges/Belgium
The Abrahamic religions require their adherents to thank God for the good things in life. At the same time, they insist that God is not responsible for the bad things in life. For an atheist, this is but a cheap trick to solidify the position of the deity. However, it does serve an interesting purpose: Since people are encouraged to thank God and discouraged from blaming him, they are forced to come up with good things in their life that they can thank him for. Thinking about the good things in one’s life is a great strategy for finding happiness. Besides, an attitude and practice of gratefulness is, in itself, one of the contributing factors to a happy life8.
And Atheists?
Atheists cannot thank a supernatural being for a positive event. Instead, they would thank the people who made the event come about. For example, if someone recovers from an illness, atheists do not thank God but rather the doctors. Humanists go a step further and praise science for discovering the medicine. However, neither atheism in general nor Humanism in particular has a mechanism that would force people to regularly think of the good things in their everyday life.
Was dir widerfuhr, siehe, es mag verwehn.
Was du daraus machst, Seele, das bleibt bestehen.
(What happened to you — will fade away. What you make of it — will ever stay.)
Family values
In general, religions tend to promote conservative family values — a consequence of the fact that religions are, by definition, old. There is much to criticise about these values: They generally diminish the role of women in the family and in society, they are not sufficiently opposed to child marriage, they demonize homosexuality, they prohibit interfaith marriage, and they promote prudery or even condemn sexual pleasure altogether.
At the same time, religious family values can also have positive effects on the individual. First, the insistence that sexual relations happen only inside the marriage entails that believers are less likely to engage in risky sexual behavior (sex outside of marriage, multiple partners, etc.)2. This, in turn, reduces the risk of venereal diseases such as syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, chancroid, chlamydia, viral hepatitis, and the human immunodeficiency virus (AIDS)13. This reduced risk is one of the factors that contributes to the better health outcomes of religious adherents compared to less religious people. The restriction of sexual relations also has a secondary effect: It channels all sexual energy into the couple, which, we can hypothesize, contributes to the sexual fulfillment of the partners and thus to the strength of their relationship. And indeed, among American Christian couples , religiosity correlates positively with marital commitment, positive couple behaviors, time spent together, avoidance of conflict, and sexual satisfaction31.
Second, religions tend to “sanctify” marriage, i.e., to attribute it an importance with a supernatural dimension . People who believe that marriage has a sacred value are more ready to invest in the commitment, thus reducing the risk of divorce. Religion does not just promote the importance of marriage, it also comes with an entire set of values to foster stable marriages, including forgiveness, love (to one another and to one’s children), commitment, and fidelity. These values are reinforced through religious rituals, myths, and supernatural beliefs. Religion also offers tools for mediation that are unavailable to the atheist: For example, some couples pray together to resolve conflicts. Others practice theistic meditation, a communication strategy whereby God (or another supernatural force) is imagined as a third party mediator. This technique can entice people to disengage from destructive communication patterns and to explore options for compromise or healthy acceptance.32 Through all of these techniques, religion can contribute to the stability of the marriage, which is one of the factors that correlates with a happy life.
Third, most major religions prohibit interfaith marriage. While this is reprehensible from a Humanist perspective, there is some evidence that marriages in which both partners share the same faith are more stable33.
The traditional family values of religion thus contribute to the physical health of believers, to the longevity and stability of their marriages, and to the availability of coping strategies — three factors that objectively correlate with personal well-being
And Atheists?
As atheism is just the rejection of belief in the supernatural, it has nothing to say about sex or marriage. Humanism, however, does: Concerning premarital sexual relationships, Humanism points to scientific evidence that links risky sexual behaviors to transmittable diseases. It then follows that a Humanist moral system, with its overarching goal of avoiding harm, condemns transmitting such diseases. In general, Humanism does not indiscriminately condemn all non-marital sexual behaviors — only those that cause harm. While religion shotguns at everything it does not explicitly approve of (which was arguably the easiest means to avoid sexual diseases in a time when little was known about them), Humanism aims at a minimal, targeted, and evidence-based restriction of liberty (which notably leaves place for pre-marital sex and homosexual relationships).
When it comes to the stability of marriage, Humanism has no sanctification of marriage on offer. It can also not propose any supernaturally inspired toolbox for stabilizing the relationship with one’s partner. It can, however, point out that infidelity is a violation of the pact of marriage, and thus a harm that is to be avoided. Beyond this, Humanism promotes marriage as an institution based on mutual respect and love, built on free consent, friendship, and mutual support34. And indeed, in Scotland, one of the few places where Humanist marriages are legally recognized and where statistics are available, Humanist marriages are least likely to be divorced, compared to all other types of marriages (Catholic, civil, Church of Scotland, other religions)35.
The first of these salutary features of religion is the belief in supernatural entities that care for us. In the Abrahamic religions, this is a loving god. In other religions, these can be the spirits, benevolent deities, or the souls of the deceased. Having such entities around is very comforting. As American author Marshall Brain has argued, the idea that God is listening and responding to you individually can be tremendously satisfying. It means that you are special in God’s eyes36. Scientists, too, suspect that the belief in a personal transcendental force that loves and cares about humans contributes to personal well-being by advancing a generally optimistic worldview.2 One hypothesis is that God functions as an attachment figure — taking a role that is similar to the parent of a child. This figure constitutes a safe haven in crisis and a secure base for exploration. Indeed, more secure attachment to God has been associated with greater life satisfaction, agreeableness, religious symbolic immortality, positive affect, as well as a less neuroticism, loneliness, anxiety, depression, and physical illness12.
And Atheists?
Atheists do not believe that there is a supernatural entity that cares for us. They believe that any care has to come from us humans. To this end, Humanism promotes social security on the institutional level, and mutual care and concern, meaningful human relationships37, respectful co-operation, and a responsibility towards society on the personal level38. And indeed, religion has no monopoly on mutual care and concern: A UN report shows that most people in some of the most atheist countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and the Netherlands) have someone to call on in times of trouble. With 96%, the rate is so high that it must include atheists39.
Nature is what we know. We do not know the gods of religions. And nature is not kind, or merciful, or loving. If God made me — the fabled God of the three qualities of which I spoke: mercy, kindness, love — He also made the fish I catch and eat. And where do His mercy, kindness, and love for that fish come in? No; nature made us — nature did it all — not the gods of the religions.
Belief in Heaven
And if there were more to life than what meets the eye?
in New Zealand
The Abrahamic religions all promise a life after death. In the best case, this life takes the form of an eternal retirement in Heaven. We have argued before that few people actually take the story of Heaven literally: Despite the supposed bliss in the postmortal paradise, almost everyone tries to avoid the transition to this place at any cost. Nevertheless, the idea of an afterlife does seem to tame the fear of death: Psychological studies show that people with a strong belief in the afterlife view death as having more positive and fewer negative implications.40. The eternal life that religion promises is also available for your loved ones. The belief that a deceased family member is still somehow alive, albeit in another place, can help people come to terms with their loss41. The belief in the afterlife is thus a coping strategy to deal with fear of death — and coping strategies are one of the ingredients of a happy life.
I want to be a source of usefulness and joy for the people around me. I want to live on, even after my death.
And Atheists?
Atheists do not believe in life after death. Psychological studies suggest that atheists may consciously override religious concepts of an afterlife when reminded of death. They do acknowledge the desirability of an afterlife, but refuse to believe in it. And when reminded of death, their certainty about their rejection of religion increases, though they also become more ideologically open-minded — perhaps reflecting a search for viable secular beliefs.40
Thus , atheists try to find other ways of dealing with their fear of death. One of them is certainly to procrastinate death as much as possible, and we have discussed ways of doing this in a previous chapter. Beyond that, there are different strategies to deal with one’s mortality, which work to varying degrees for different people. One of them is to achieve what is called “secular immortality”, i.e., a lasting legacy by which one is remembered — by contributions to the future of your family, business, charities, education, healthcare, government, art, or sports40. Another strategy is to try to accept death as an event that belongs to life, just as every book, no matter how good it is, has a last page. Yet another strategy is to try to perceive life not as something that vanishes but as something that persists in its time, even if that time is in the past. This strategy is illustrated by the following quote:
So, now, if I ask myself, where is my childhood? — or, where is the time we spent as a family in the park along the Alster, long before my mother died? Well, physics says that it’s still there. That happy crowd, that sunlit moment, they are where they always were and always will be: in 1967. My mother was born in a place, in a moment, and died in another place, in another moment. Her conscious life connects those two spaces and it always will. That, to me, is a comforting thought.
Belief in Hell
The Abrahamic religions know not just Heaven, but also Hell. There is a lot to criticize about the concept of Hell: It is hard to square with a benevolent god, it justifies violence as a punishment, and it threatens people with eternal suffering in the next life, thus causing them distress already in this one42. If one is interested in the well-being of people, the only positive thing one could possibly see in the threat of Hell is that it purports to make people more well-behaved on Earth.
But does it? It turns out it does. The idea of salvation in the afterlife can help people overcome short-sighted temptations and focus on the long-term goal of moral behavior instead43. Belief in hell is known to curb unethical behavior44. The concept of Hell is complemented by the concept of divine supervision: God sees everything you do and will punish or reward you in the afterlife, accordingly. Again, there is much to criticize about this concept (as it basically establishes an Orwellian regime of surveillance) but nonetheless the idea that God is watching prompts people to behave in ways they think are pleasing to God45. People are much more likely to follow a rule when they believe that someone (even invisible) is watching them46 In the US, perhaps because they imagine God is watching, religious children drink less alcohol, use less drugs, receive higher grades in school, show better attendance records, and complete more years of college than their less religious peers. Their behavior is helped by the fact that it is not just God who watches, but also the adults of the religious community in which the child is embedded.45
And Atheists?
No worries here — atheists also do well in school. In fact, in the US, they do better than the mildly faithful. It is just their motivation that differs: While religious pupils seem to be motivated by God, atheists seem to be motivated by the pursuit of knowledge45. As to moral behavior, we have already seen that, as far as this has been studied, atheists are not more criminally minded than religious believers, even if no supernatural policeman watches them47.
Belief in Supernatural Justice
The name of this church is “Mother of God, soothe my sorrows”
in Saratov/Russia
We have already discussed that most religions offer explanations as to why there is so much suffering in this world: It is a test for the afterlife, it is part of God’s plan, it is a result of bad karma, etc.. We have also not withheld our criticism of this scheme: By explaining the suffering in this world as something ultimately good or something ultimately justified, religions accept rather than oppose it.
At the same time, the belief that suffering is ultimately justified can be very comforting: It relieves us from the weltschmerz that we must feel when we understand how much injustice, illness, hunger, and sadness there is in this world. It can also help us come to terms with our own suffering: When we believe that there is a reason for our suffering, we can more easily accept it. In psychology, the belief that everything in this world ultimately happens for a good reason is known as the belief in the just world (BJW). It is a very popular belief, and psychological studies have shown again and again that most people hold it in one form or another48. There are several reasons why the BJW might have developed: First, it allows people to rationalize unforeseen hardships, thereby helping them establish a (false but comforting) sense of control49. Second, the belief is fundamental for helping people to feel safe and positive and to perceive the world as a predictable and manageable place50. Finally, the BJW appears to have a role in what is known as the “personal contract”: the attempt by children (and adults) to withhold immediate gratification in order to obtain long term benefits. The personal contract can work better if one believes in a causal link between good behavior and good outcomes48.
The BJW generally correlates with religiousness5150, with God being one of the assumed sources of justice52. The BJW is thus, for some believers, a coping strategy to deal with difficult life events or suffering in this world.
Religion complements the BJW by other strategies to reinterpret negative life events as ultimately helpful. For example, a major life crisis can be viewed as an opportunity for spiritual growth, attributed to a loving God who is trying to teach the individual a valuable lesson, or perceived as part of a larger, mysterious, but ultimately benevolent plan53. Religion can also provide role models of persons suffering with the same or similar problems (illustrated in religious scriptures)2.
Should some person cause so much harm that even the “grand cosmic plan” cannot justify it, the major religions promise justice in the afterlife. In the Abrahamic religions, God punishes the wrongdoers in Hell upon their death. In the Indian religions, the role is taken by karma — bad deeds will entail suffering in the coming life. In the Chinese religions, an abstract entity called Heaven watches over injustices and acts accordingly. Thus, should an injustice happen, and should the perpetrator slip away, believers know that the last word has not been spoken. They can trust that the perpetrator will find their just fate in this life or the next. In this way, believers are reassured that any harm in this world is either justified or will be punished in the hereafter. They can have confidence that all suffering will eventually find a “happy ending”54.
All of these considerations do not mean that religion encourages us to stand by when injustice happens. On the contrary, many religions incorporate a strong component of outreach to those in distress. But religion also provides people with strategies to deal with situations where this outreach fails, i.e., with situations of suffering, loss, and injustice — and such strategies are one of the ingredients of a happy life2.
And Atheists?
For atheists, the promise of justice in the afterlife is merely wishful thinking. There is no justice in the afterlife, so any justice has to be administered in the here and now. Atheists also have no supernatural means to justify or explain the suffering in this world. Humanists, in particular, see all suffering as bad and posit that we have to alleviate it rather than justify it. Humanism holds that this alleviation cannot come from supernatural entities, but only from us humans. To this end, it promotes the establishment of liberal democracies, human rights, freedom of religion, social security systems, public health care, public education, evidence-based solution of societal problems, and an effective legal system.
All of us face things we can control, and things we can’t.
Each of us must find ways to work with the hand we're dealt with.
Absolute conviction
We will now speculate about a benefit of religion that is related to its unfalsifiability. As this insistence on unfalsifiability is somewhat idiosyncratic to this book, the thesis we will now discuss has received less coverage in the psychological literature. It may nevertheless have some merit.
We have argued before that people are, to a large degree, exposed to events that they cannot control. In this stream of largely unpredictable events, people are often forced to give up convictions that they previously held dear: a partner may be less faithful than we thought; a politician we trusted may break her promises; and even science has to correct its theories from time to time. This means that we have to revise what we once held true, and this is generally an unpleasant experience filled with insecurity, regret, and embarrassment.
Now suppose that we meet a person who tells us about a worldview that can never be proven f alse. We listen to this person, and indeed, we can find no fault with the worldview. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? We start adhering to this worldview and tell other people about it. No matter what anyone says, they cannot show us we’re wrong. Isn’t that fantastic? And no matter what happens, it never contradicts our beliefs. Nothing that ever happens and nothing that is ever said can prove us wrong. Naturally, we will become so convinced of this worldview that we will never let it go again.
There is, of course, only one type of statement that can withstand any questioning: those that are unfalsifiable. By extension, there is only one type of ideology that can deliver absolute certainty: religion. Nobody can ever prove that God does not exist. Nobody can ever prove there is no life after death. Nobody can ever prove that we are not reborn. Nobody can ever prove that injustice in this life does not ultimately serve a grander purpose. Thus, religion delivers what no other major ideology delivers: absolute certainty.
We can hypothesize that this absolute certainty is highly comforting43. It gives the believer something to cling to, something to trust in even if all other convictions turn out to be wrong. It thus stands to be conjectured that this feeling of certainty contributes to emotional stability and psychological comfort, and, thus, the ultimately happier life of the believer.
And Atheists?
Atheists have no supernatural unfalsifiable claims to cling to. They are thus are frontally exposed to the insecurity that any of their beliefs may turn out to be false — including atheism itself. However, atheists (or at least the Humanists among them) clearly prefer to have no conviction rather than have an unfounded conviction.
Philosophy: While diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be.
Why don’t Atheists convert?
Top banner: “Trust God in difficult times!” Bottom right badge: As for ourselves, we rather trust ADT securities.
in Philippsburgh, Sint Maarten, Dutch Caribbean
We have seen that, for almost every advantage that religion brings, atheists and Humanists can argue that they are doing fine also without it. Still, there is a residuum: There are benefits that believers enjoy and that atheism, and even Humanism, just cannot deliver: a community, a purpose of life, prayer and rites as coping strategies, a positive reappraisal of negative life events, the reassurance of an afterlife, and the absolute certainty of not being proven wrong. Thus, there is still something to gain from religion. Hence, the question is: Why don’t atheists convert to get these additional benefits?
We first note that the current scientific consensus is that all the positive effects of religion are achieved without any supernatural intervention. It is the belief in God, not God himself, that helps the believer. No supernatural mechanisms are known to be responsible for the relationship between religion and health or happiness2. The fact that religion brings benefits is, thus, not proof of the supernatural and will not convince atheists that the supernatural exists. If an atheist was to adhere to a religion for its benefits, she or he would do so not because of true belief.
And this is the first answer to the question of why atheists do not convert: The psychological advantages of religion are bestowed mainly to those who truly believe in it. While one can fake one’s adherence to a religion to obtain the material benefits of its community, it is much harder to obtain true feelings of gratitude, the reassurance of an afterlife, or a purpose of life in this way55. The scientific literature uses the (not uncontroversial) distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic faith: The intrinsic believer “lives” her or his religion and views faith as an ultimate value in and of itself. In contrast, the extrinsic believer “uses” religion in a strictly utilitarian sense to gain safety, social standing, or other secular goals56. If we were to convert to a religion to obtain its advantages, we would clearly be an extrinsic believer — and would thus not obtain them. Furthermore, atheists (and Humanists in particular) would consider it morally wrong to profess adherence to something that they do not really believe in. Apart from its moral reprehensiveness, such a lie would lead to a state of inner incoherence and cognitive dissonance, which would probably annihilate most of the psychological advantages of religion anyway.
The second answer to the question why atheists don’t become religious is that, as we have seen, atheists are actually doing fine. They do not seem to need the dietary restrictions, family values, community, or supernatural coping strategies of a religion to do well in life: According to the few studies we have, atheists are just as physically and mentally healthy as believers, they do well in school, and their marriages last just as long as those of believers. How come then, we may ask, that so many studies show that religiosity is positively related with these desiderata? The answer is that there are so few atheists that most studies that measure well-being and religiosity fail to account for them. The studies are primarily concerned with the correlation of well-being with the importance of religion in one’s life. Atheists, with their minuscule (or even absent) representation at one end of the spectrum, are lumped together with the less serious religious adherents19. However, lower religiosity is not identical with higher atheism19, and thus these studies do not actually address the correlation between atheism and well-being at all. There are very few studies that do, and they conclude that, in their samples, atheists do not differ overall from religious adherents in terms of physical health outcomes16. As we have discussed, some studies also report better physical171819 and mental health for atheists1819, better school performance45 and lower divorce rates35. As far as these findings can be generalized, they suggest a U-shaped relationship between religiosity and well-being, in which both strong belief and strong disbelief grant a better life. (It’s just that one end of the U has been studied so little that it resembles more a J.) One hypothesis to explain this U-shape is that it is the conviction in one’s worldview that predicts overall well-being more than what that worldview is19. And indeed, atheists can use a whole arsenal of methods (that we have discussed before) to increase their chances of a healthy and happy life. They can even appreciate and learn from the positive effects of religion, should they wish to do so. Atheists are thus not devoid of means to achieve happiness, and many arguably do.
A third answer to why atheists don’t convert to a religion is that religions are not a panacea: Their dietary restrictions may overlap with scientific recommendations, but neither do they cover all good advice, nor do are all of them reasonable. Yes, religious communities are helpful for the individual, but they can also foster communitarianism. Religious reasons for life can be inspiring, but they can also be completely disconnected from reality. Prayer is a good coping strategy, but only to deal with one’s own feelings, not to deal with the physical world. Religious rituals can give structure to life, but they can also be restrictive or even harmful. Thanking God can make you aware of the good things in life, but it is also logically inconsistent in face of all the evil in this world. Religious family values can support stable marriages, but they can also stigmatize people who fall outside the narrow frame of the accepted relationships. The belief that God cares for you can be edifying, but it can also be pretentious. The belief in Heaven can be appeasing, but it is also ultimately delusional. The belief in hell can help people focus on the important things in life, but it also trivializes violence. The belief in supernatural justice can reassure you, but it can also descend you into the Belief in the Just World . Absolute conviction in your faith can provide emotional stability, but it can also immure you in your worldview.
Humanists hold that one should never adhere to an ideology just because some of its elements are good. Rather, one should endeavor to construct an ideology whose elements are all good. Humanists believe they have come pretty close with their system. But they also believe that they must continuously work on their worldview: Humans are fallible and so are their ideologies — religious or otherwise.
Happiness is not a goal.
It is a by-product of a life well lived.
Positive effects on society
Moral Values
We now turn to the positive effects that religion has on society. Here, the picture is much less clear than it is for the positive effects on the individual. In fact, we will argue that, from a Humanist perspective, the effects of religion on society are often more harmful than beneficial.
We start with one of the main arguments that is often brought forward in favor of religion: its moral framework. A religious moral framework tells people what to do and what to avoid. This has several advantages: First, it guides society. It instructs people to not steal, kill, or injure. Second, a religious moral framework provides legal security. Religious frameworks typically evolve very little over time. Thereby, they provide a constant that people can rely on. Finally, religious moral frameworks come with a divine authority that no secular framework can hope to obtain. They also usually come with a supernatural supervisor to check compliance (and to dole out punishment in the hereafter if that compliance is lacking). With this, religious moral frameworks are a formidable tool to impose ethical behavior on a society.
A Humanist perspective
Humanists have a different perspective on religious moral frameworks. They first note that the basic moral values that religions promote are not actually uniquely linked to any of today’s religions. The rule not to steal, kill, or injure has existed for millennia, across all regions of this world, before any of today’s larger religions existed . Similar frameworks also arise spontaneously among other groups of people forced to live together — be they stranded sailors, remote fishermen57, prison inmates, or even Mafia gangsters. It would thus be wrong to credit religion for these values.
Beyond these basic instructions to avoid harm, today’s Western values have little to do with the values of any of the major religions: Human Rights, freedom of religion, women’s rights, democracy, republicanism, environmentalism, freedom of sexual orientation, abolition of slavery and cruel punishments, and freedom of speech were not invented by religion. On the contrary, they were often opposed by religion. Only when a sizeable number of people lined up behind these values did religion finally also come to support them — and by no means do all religions support all of these values today. There is thus not much glory for religions to reap here.
On the contrary, throughout history, some religions have supported values that are outright disastrous from a modern perspective. Hinduism has supported (and to some degree still supports) the caste system. The older Abrahamic religions promoted obedience to rules for their own sake rather than for the avoidance of harm, which has allowed Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to lend their weight to slavery; Christianity to support the crusades and the colonization of the Americas and Africa; and Islam to support the conquest of large swaths of land to create an intercontinental empire.
Still today, many religions support moral values that are backward or harmful from a Humanist perspective: Most denominations of Christianity, traditional Judaism, mainstream Islam, the Bahai Faith, mainstream Hinduism, Theravada Buddhism, and mainstream Confucianism give fewer rights to women. The mainstream interpretations of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Confucianism prohibit interfaith marriage. Most major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Bahai Faith, Buddhism, Confucianism) shun homosexuality in their mainstream interpretations. The scriptures of Catholicism, Islam, and Hinduism have nothing to say against child marriage, and most major religions punish or shun apostasy and blasphemy.
Humanists draw two lessons from this: First, any religion that promotes such values today, or that did promote such values in the past, discredits itself as a guarantor of morality in Humanist eyes. How could one delegate moral questions to a religion that once justified slavery, Humanists ask, or that still today advocates values such as the subordination of women or homophobia? Believers can argue that these interpretations of their faith are or were erroneous. Humanists can counter that the divine scriptures of a given religion have always been the same, across all centuries. If these scriptures can be misinterpreted in such a fundamental way so as to justify slavery or the subordination of women, then these scriptures are simply not a good moral guideline. Consider, for example, Article 4 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.”[Human Rights § 4] How can this be misinterpreted to allow for slavery? And if it cannot, then which moral guideline is superior?
In all fairness, slavery was once allowed also in secular systems. And this brings us to the second lesson that Humanists draw: Secular law is what it is today because it evolved. Arriving at the values that we consider fundamental today took centuries of struggle between different philosophies, interest groups, and powers. And it would be pretentious to assume that this struggle is now over — just as it would have been pretentious two hundred years ago to assume that the last word on morality had been spoken. If we cement the values of today, then we risk making the same mistakes that people made two hundred years ago, when they thought women were inferior or homosexuality was perverse. The only remedy against making such mistakes, Humanists hold, is to continuously subject our moral values to questions, critique, and proposals for change. These are, coincidentally, the things that religions, with their insistence on eternal values, are particularly bad at.
All the world’s major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.
Contribution to Culture
A common argument in the West goes that religion has made extraordinary contributions to culture: A large portion of our art is religiously inspired. Much of our finest music was composed by deeply religious people. Churches, temples, and mosques belong to the most impressive architectural achievements of humanity. Most notably, some cathedrals took generations to build. They could never have been completed if people had not believed in something that transcends their own lifespan.
Religion has inspired not just architecture, music, poetry, books, and paintings, but also philosophy, law, individual rights, and our social order in general.
A Humanist perspective
In the “Cusco School” in Peru, Indigenous artists were forced to copy postcards with Christian motives (bottom right).Picture taken in the Museo Pedro de Osma in Lima, Peru
Humanists remark that religious cultural contributions are so prevalent because all other contributions were historically suppressed. In the Christian world, for example, activities outside the religious framework were, for a long time, either unpopular or dangerous or both. It is thus not surprising that all artwork and expression of thought from places dominated by Christianity follows Christian leitmotifs. However, we cannot credit Christianity with these cultural contributions. Instead, we should hold the religion accountable for suppressing all non-religious contributions. The result of this suppression is deplorable, as we have argued before: Most artworks from the Middle Ages focus exclusively on Biblical stories, with Jesus' death being a particularly popular (but actually quite repulsive) motif. In contrast, there are hardly any depictions of the beauty of nature, for example, and all expressions of femininity were channeled into the Virgin Mary and other puritanical women — what a loss!
The situation in Muslim lands was not much better. All historical interpretations of Islam condemned apostates to death. Hence, all artwork took place within the framework given by the religion. And this framework was even more restrictive than Christianity’s: Due to Islam’s rejection of idolatry, it was prohibited to draw people or nature58. Thus, Islamic art concentrated (and still largely concentrates) almost exclusively on patterns, stylized plants, geometric forms, and the calligraphy of Quranic verses. No portraits of people; no drawing of landscapes, villages, or families; no caricatures and not even comic strips. The performing arts, likewise, did not find large-scale acceptance in Islamic culture. The religion took a very dim view on theater plays and dancing shows — mainly because women, leading a life of seclusion, could not play an active part in them59. Traditional interpretations of Islam prohibited (and still prohibit) music and singing altogether, except for religious purposes60, as stipulated by the Sharia[Reliance of the Traveler: r40]. Likewise, expressions of female beauty were, and to a large degree still are6162, unwelcome in public in many Muslim countries. So no female beauty, no music, no dancing, no theater, and no paintings of nature or people — how can one celebrate such restrictions as an advancement of culture?
All of this is not to say that there are no noteworthy Christian or Muslim cultural contributions. Cathedrals and mosques, for example, remain some of the finest architectural feats. Furthermore, religion continues to be an important source of inspiration for composers, painters, architects, and philosophers alike. This inspiration may even reach atheists, as the present book testifies. Religion has thus not lost its inspirational force. It has just lost its exclusive claim to it.
In a world without religion, Michaelangelo might have been free to paint something more interesting.
Charity
Charity is one of the Five Pillars of Islam
in the Blue Mosque in Kazan/Russia
Religions typically reach out to the poor and disadvantaged. In Germany, the US, and Ireland, for example, religious organizations provide social services such as hospitals, senior citizen homes, kindergartens, and social centers. In many countries, religious charities also run soup kitchens, charity stores, rehabilitation centers, homeless hostels, and overnight warming stations. In developing countries, they are often at the forefront of the fight against poverty, warfare, famines, or epidemics — often under the most adversarial of circumstances. In some places, where the state is either not sufficiently wealthy or powerful or entirely absent, religious charities are often the only organizations that provide such services. The people who work in these charities draw their strength also from their faith.
With such services, religion makes a material contribution to the welfare of society.
A Humanist Perspective
Humanists are critical of religious schools and hospitals in Germany and the US , for three reasons: First, while these institutions are religious in nature, they are financed by the government, contrary to public perception. The religious organization thus acts as a paid service provider. This means that the taxpayer’s money de facto pays for an advertising campaign for these religions. The second problem is that these organizations implement the social service in a way that conforms to their religious values, which are often at odds with the values of the state. Take, for example, the debate in Germany as to whether Catholic hospitals can administer the morning-after pill to rape victims63, the case in Ireland when a religious hospital refused an abortion to a woman whose life was in danger64, a similar debate in Germany65, the debate in the US as to whether school vouchers can be used to subsidize religious schools that condemn homosexuality66, the debate in Germany as to whether religious employers may discriminate against employees of a different religion67, or the debate as to whether or not creationism should be taught in school. In such cases, the religious organization does not even fully provide the service it is being paid for.
Finally, religious organizations use their services also to promote their own ideology. Children, people in distress, and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to such advances. Thus, the state de facto supports the proselytism of the religion. This last reproach carries over to other religious charities, which also always promote the ideology of their religion as a by-product of their service. This promotion can be very explicit, as in religious schools or kindergartens, or it can be subtle, as in soup kitchens or disaster relief agencies, where the service is tied to an advertisement of the brand of the religion. Therefore, from a Humanist perspective, it would be better if such charity was provided by a neutral organization.
The red cross symbol has led to so many unwelcome assocations with religion that the Red Cross Movement has adopted an additional, neutral symbol: The Red Crystal (seriously).CC0 Denelson83
Fortunately, there exist numerous such neutral organizations: The largest charity, for example, is the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Despite its allusion to the Christian Cross and the Muslim Crescent, the organization is entirely secular. Nothing in its principles or statutes mentions God, Christianity, or Islam. Even its symbol is not intended to be religious 68. The same applies to the other huge charities : Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, and the charity organizations of the United Nations (like UNICEF) are entirely secular.
For private charitable foundations, the picture is much the same: Of the 10 wealthiest charitable foundations, none is religious69. They are driven mostly by companies or wealthy individuals, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Mastercard Foundation, the Open Society Foundations, and the Ford Foundation. These organizations sponsor education, research, medicine, health, or childcare. In the developed world, the charitable efforts by religious institutions are usually dwarfed by their secular counterparts such as UN efforts. In any case, no religion could have reduced hunger, disease, illiteracy, war, homicide, or poverty on the scale with which the implementation of Enlightenment principles have70.
Thus, religion does not have a monopoly on charity. On the contrary, a large part of charitable work takes place outside religion. There is thus no need to bind charity to a religious organization .
Priests are not primarily concerned with good works. If that were their highest priority, they would become doctors, scientists, teachers, or artists — not priests.
A package
A religion offers not just moral guidelines but an entire package of life principles that include charitable values, a community, a cultural dimension, rites, legends, beliefs, and a meaning of life. In this way, religion offers a coherent whole that covers most aspects of everyday life — literally from the cradle to the grave. The value of this package is greater than the sum of its parts: It is a complete guideline to life. In this system, everything fits together and everything makes sense. There are no moral, metaphysical, or philosophical questions left unanswered.
It is true that some of the metaphysical arguments of religion, and even some of its moral values, are debatable (as we have not hesitated to point out before). However, these are, in the view of believers, necessary and ultimately minor evils. Religion, as a package, has brought moral values, philosophical clarity, and social structure to so many societies that one should not worry about the details of religious dogmata but rather appreciate the work that religion as a whole has done to domesticate mankind.
In this view, religion is just a vehicle to convey a higher message. Rather than explaining ever-changing theories of scientific discovery, moral philosophy, and metaphysics to a person who might not even be able to read, religion is a single package that transmits a simple message that can be understood by everyone. As Demopheles argues in Arthur Schopenhauer’s “Dialog about Religion”71 religion is like a jug, which is just a tool to transport the water. Don’t break the jug if you want to carry the water.
A Humanist perspective
Humanists argue that we should not praise the jug if all we want is the water. That water can very well be carried in any other jug (or in a pipeline, for that matter). Hiding behind the claim of an ultimately helpful message is just a trick to avoid criticism, according to Humanists. Religion should not be allowed to promote its harmful aspects, such as homophobia, subordination of women, or claims of the knowledge of divine will, under the guise of transmitting some higher message. And indeed, in Schopenhauer’s dialog, Demopheles' interlocutor replies: Untruth may never serve as a vehicle for truth. If we permit untruth to be taught, and be it with good intentions, we open the door to malicious abuse at devastating scale — which is indeed what happens with religions/.
Fortunately, Humanism itself is now old enough to also qualify as a coherent whole. Humanism provides moral values, a philosophy of life, a scientific dimension, and a political standpoint, all of which fit together and work in tandem. Together, the core values of Humanism (science, democracy, uninhibited inquiry, Human Rights, and liberal egalitarian ethics) have brought greater equality, knowledge, health, and prosperity to more people than any of the previous systems. This makes Humanism a comprehensive life stance in its own right.
Different from religion, though, Humanism is not a monolithic ideology. Humanism is open to improvement and criticism (as the present book testifies on several occasions). Humanism accepts that values evolve, and holds that it is up to all of us, together, to explore how we can make life better for more people.
Humanism thus refuses to see some people as mere recipients of moral instructions. Rather, Humanism believes that all people have an equal right to participate in the advancement of our societies, and that those who do not have the means to do it shall be given those means. So, rather than finding ways to convey a message to under-educated people, Humanism holds that we should educate these people in the first place.
In the dark, it is good to take a blind man as guide.
But you should let go of him by the day.
Better society
Religions want their followers to be generous, honest, peaceful and healthy. Therefore, we would expect religious people to fare better overall than non-religious people. By extension, countries where religion is considered important should generally be doing better than more secular countries.
This is, however, not the case. With a few notable exceptions (mainly the US and the gulf economies), countries that are more religious are usually less economically developed72. Such countries tend to be more corrupt, poorer, less democratic, and less peaceful than their developed counterparts, and they generally have a lower life expectancy as well. Thus, religious countries fare worse than secular ones on nearly all socioeconomic measures73.
The reasons for this correlation are up for debate. We have argued before that it is not necessarily religiousness that causes poverty but rather poverty that generates religiousness: The less secure one’s environment, the more one feels the need to appeal to the supernatural. Hence, people in crime-ridden, war-torn, and famine endangered places are likely to be more religious than people who spend their life alternating between the office chair and the sofa.
However, we have also observed that religion itself might exacerbate some of the factors that make life difficult: Think of the denigration of women (which has a direct negative impact on 50% of the population) and the focus on rituals instead of health, good government, or literacy. The estrangement that religious beliefs generate between different communities may also be a contributing factor in over half of the world’s most deadly conflicts. And in some religions, the insistence on producing children contributes to overpopulation, and thus ultimately to their undernourishment in economically depressed regions.
This is not to say that a country that is religious necessarily fares badly on all socio-economic accounts. However, it is to refute the idea that if a country is religious, it automatically does well. This link is just not true. Despite all the good things that religion claims to promote, and despite the considerable power that it wields over society, it just does not make society better.
Religions are like wisdom teeth.
Even though they were crucial to our ancestors, today they are unnecessary, and they bring nothing but frustration and pain. Also, they provide us with no wisdom.
Happier society
We have argued that religiousness does not increase socio-economic measures such as longevity, freedom from corruption, or economic development. However, religion makes people happy. This, believers argue, is ultimately what matters.
Unfortunately, this argument does not work either . A UN study measuring happiness across countries in the world39 shows that happiest countries are all non-religious . The unhappiest unhappy countries, in contrast, are all very religious:
Position
Country
Happiness
Religiousness
1
Denmark
7.8
Least religious
2
Finland
7.6
Least religious
3
Norway
7.5
Least religious
4
Netherlands
7.5
Least religious
5
Canada
7.5
Less religious
6
Switzerland
7.5
Less religious
7
Sweden
7.4
Least religious
8
New Zealand
7.4
Least religious
9
Australia
7.4
Least religious
10
Ireland
7.3
Less religious
...
146
Congo (Brazz.)
3.8
Most religious
147
Tanzania
3.8
Most religious
148
Haiti
3.8
?
149
Comoros
3.7
?
150
Burundi
3.7
Most religious
151
Sierra Leone
3.6
Most religious
152
Central African Rep.
3.6
Most religious
153
Benin
3.5
More religious
154
Togo
3.0
More religious
Happiness is the average self-reported happiness on a scale from 0-10 according to the UN World Happiness Report, read off approximately from the graphics provided there 39. Religiosity is ranked on a 5-point scale according to a Gallup poll that asked how important religion is in the participants' lives72.
As the UN report explains, 80% of the inter-country differences in happiness can be attributed to the material, social, and institutional support that the country provides. Comparing the top and bottom four countries, the most stunning difference is average income — which differs by a factor of 40. Thus, in defiance of a common mantra, happiness, quite plainly, correlates with wealth. This is true both on the individual level and on the national level: People who are richer than their compatriots are happier than their poorer fellow citizens, and people who live in richer countries are happier overall that people in poorer places 70. The other differences between the top- and bottom-ranked countries are: Healthy life expectancy is 28 years longer, people are much more likely to have someone to call on in times of trouble (95% vs. 48%) and to have a sense of freedom (94% vs. 63%), and they are less likely to perceive widespread corruption in business and government (33% vs. 85%).
The World Happiness report Report from 2024 paints a similar picture, where the happiest countries are generally the least religious ones (Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, etc.). Notable exceptions are Israel, Mexico, the United Arab Emirates, Belize, and the US, which secure spots in the top 25 happiest countries despite being more religious. The bottom spots, in contrast, are all taken by the most religious places74. Thus, it cannot be true that religion makes people happy.
Happiness will ultimately come from the path you carve for yourself, the people you surround yourself with (and choose to love), and the acceptance of situations you cannot change (i.e., your ability to move on). But none of these can happen if you don’t have enough to eat and adequate shelter, and if you don’t take care of yourself.
More spiritual society
We have seen that religious countries are less happy than secular ones. Furthermore, they are less well developed on nearly all socioeconomic accounts. A common objection goes that religious societies may fare better in aspects that are not so easily measurable, for example, care for the poor, the stability of families, or altruism — criteria that cannot be measured in dollars or on a scale from 0 to 10. Apart from this, religions make people appreciate the grandness of creation, guide them towards a less materialistic life, give them spiritual fulfillment, and bring them closer to God. This, in turn, makes religious societies more aware of the transcendent dimension of life.
All of these items can be considered advantages of religious societies. Yet, even in combination, they do not outweigh the advantages of less religious societies: It may be that elderly people often lead a lonely life in less religious countries, but in return, they also live around 20 years longer. Perhaps religious people are more altruistic, but less religious societies have better socioeconomic indicators and better welfare systems, meaning that less people need other people’s help to survive. In Germany for example, only 0.4% of the general population live on public social support75. As a consequence, very few people in the developed world would want to swap lives with a person in the developing world — notwithstanding all the talk of spiritual fulfilment that poor people in developing countries supposedly enjoy. All the discussion of closeness to God, or a happier, more nature-oriented, or spiritual life in religious countries cannot hide the fact that life in these countries is worse on almost all accounts. This is why many more people emigrate to less religious countries than into religious countries. People vote with their feet.
In view of these facts, the admiration of religious societies appears to be little more than a nostalgic idealization.
A Humanist View
This chapter has drawn up a paradox: Religion can be beneficial for the individual, but it does not lead to healthier or happier societies at the global scale. It can even be impeding or outright harmful for the development of a society.
Humanism offers a simple reply to this paradox: Everyone should be free to practice their religion as long as they don’t harm others, but religion should be kept out of politics. In this way, people can benefit from the advantages of religion at the individual level, while religion is prevented from exerting harmful effects at the societal level. More concretely, people should have every freedom to engage in prayer, join a religious community, practice dietary restrictions, and hold their belief in the afterlife, but religion should not impact the government, laws, or other people, in general. As it so happens, this is the compromise that secular countries have struck: They guarantee freedom of religion but implement the separation of state and church.
Beyond that, the milestones on the way to a happy, healthy, and economically developed society are well known: corruption, cronyism, and crime have to be reduced; people need to be given a voice in the governing of their country so that the government has legitimacy to rule; foreign debt has to be reduced or forgiven; the rule of law has to be established firmly; freedom of speech has to be guaranteed so that people can point out problems in the system; flows of weapons to militias have to be interrupted; red tape has to be reduced; schools, universities, and hospitals have to be built; women have to be given equal rights; foreign companies that extract commodities at the expense of the local environment and local population have to be taxed or booted out; infrastructure has to be built; a viable economy has to be constructed; climate change has to be fought; natural resources have to be protected lest they vanish; and, as this book has argued, regions that do not wish to belong to the central government should be let go as independent countries. A prosperous society thus depends on much more than a religion (or even Humanism) can deliver.
We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done.
