An article in the Daily Telegraph in Britain, written by Sean Thomas, listed some of the reports that link religious belief with health: in 2006, researchers at the University of Texas (it would be, wouldn’t it?) found that the more often people went to church, the longer they tended to live; a Duke University study found churchgoers tend to have lower blood pressure and stronger immune systems. Other recent studies show that believers recover faster from surgery than their “heathen peers”, and have better outcomes from breast cancer and coronary disease, even after adjusting for the fact that they tend to smoke and drink less, and take fewer drugs. They enjoy better mental health, too, as a UCLA study of college students has found. Mr. Thomas ended with a clincher: believers give more to charity than atheists, “who, according to the very latest survey, are the meanest of all”. (reported in The Week).
I think writer misses the point. The point is to avoid mindless consumerism and have something in your life of consuming interest, something that exercises your mind, allows you to keep learning, that gives you feelings of pleasure, excitement and achievment. An objective, a mission in life, these also lower the blood pressure and the stress and strengthen the immune system. Speaking personally, I love creating things: a piece of music that works, a successful drawing, a poem. The lasting pleasure is enhanced if my wife looks at what I’ve done and exclaims, “I love it!”.
But this is only one person’s take. I can see that believing in a physical heaven with angels, where you are reunited with your loved ones, could be a great comfort in this life, even if one wouldn’t necessarily want bet ones last penny on it actually happening. Even devotion to astrology or a Druid cult is better than endless television. Corporations want us to be devoted to spending, a particularly stupid preoccupation in life. As for not being generous and charitable, what the article doesn’t say is that increasingly non-believers are young and have less disposable cash to give to charity. But their wish to help the poor and disadvantaged is undoubted.
Maybe this is because non religious people in America feel marginalised, and so are less likely to feel welcome and included in their communities, making them less healthy. Its far easier to be an evangelical Christian or a Muslim in Denmark or East Germany then it is to be an atheist in Iran, Brazil or even America. When you have a country where there is not a single atheist member of congress, and when all of the presidents have been religious, its understandable that non religious people may be less looked after.
But I really question this study. Whites, and Jews in particular, are less religious than blacks, and yet are generally healthier. Non religious states like Vermont and New Hampshire are healthier than Mississippi or Alabama. America is more religious than western Europe, and yet is far more unhealthy. When you consider the fact that many religions discourage smoking and drinking, the difference is probably negligible.
Moreover, just because a religion may discourage unhealthy behaviour, doesn’t make it true or even beneficial. Religion is a force for social authoritarianism and control of people’s personal lives. It may discourage some bad behaviour, but it often puts undue pressure on people not to ‘sin’, and disregards people’s right to do as they please, even if it is unhealthy.