Dreams have been described as dress rehearsals for real life, opportunities to gratify wishes, and a form of nocturnal therapy. A new theory aims to make sense of it all.
Christmas is approaching, and religious people across the world are preparing with the appropriate prayers, observations, and services. However, a growing proportion of the population is non-religious, and for some of them, Christmas can be a meaningless, empty, and lonely period.
Indeed, a small but growing body of research continues to explore the relationship between religiosity, non-religiosity, and mental health. Much of this includes broad comparisons between the religious and non-religious.
Who Are the Non-Religious?
The "non-religious" is an umbrella term referring to a heterogeneous group of people, often known as the "nones." These can include people who are lapsed, non-affiliated, agnostics, the "spiritual but not religious," and atheists.
Interestingly, Pew Research Center surveys indicate a growth in the "nones" as a proportion of the population. A 2014 survey indicated that 23 percent of Americans identified as a "none," significantly higher than the 16 percent observed in 2007. Within these "nones" are a growing number of atheists.
Indeed, the Pew Research Centre reports that "the share of Americans who identify as atheists has roughly doubled in the past several years," now making up 3.1 percent of the population, compared to 1.6 percent in 2007. Interestingly, young, white, educated men make up a disproportionate number of atheists.
This rise may be related to "the new atheism," a social movement created and led by major public intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, both of whom wrote best-selling books promoting atheism and atheistic worldviews.
Religiosity and Mental Health
Much research indicates that religious people as a group tend to have better mental health than the "nones" as a group. This is manifest in various indicators, including lower rates of depression, anxiety, suicide, self-harm, and substance use among the religious.
The protective mental health effects of religiosity have been attributed to various factors. These include social support in religious congregations, a sense of purpose and meaning offered by religions, and moral codes commanding certain behaviors (e.g. abstinence) within religions. These are discussed in the short video below with Dr. Eric Jarvis, a leading authority on religion, atheism and mental health.
However, the studies leading to these conclusions often collapse a variety of different groups (e.g., agnostics, lapsed, unaffiliated, weak atheists, strong atheists) into a single category of "nones," comparing these to a single category of "religious." This binary "lumping" approach loses granular-level information about the many specific sub-groups within the "nones."
Examining the "Nones"
New research has set out to examine the broad mental health differences in the sub-categories constituting the "nones." Interestingly, a growing number of studies suggest that people possessing strong religious beliefs and convinced atheists tend to share similarly positive mental health. The worst mental health is observed in those with more ambiguous, confused, and weaker religious or spiritual beliefs.
For example, a just-published study by Dr. Joseph Baker at East Tennessee State University indicates that atheists have the best mental health among the "nones," similar to that of the highly-religious. In contrast, "non-affiliated theists" had the poorest mental health.
These findings overlap with a classic British study which found that the "spiritual but not religious" had higher levels of drug dependency, abnormal eating, generalized anxiety disorder, neurotic disorders, and use of psychotropic medication, in comparison with both religious people and people who were "neither religious nor spiritual."
These results tantalizingly suggest that "certainty of belief," rather than the content of the belief itself, may be a key determinant of positive mental health in the groups studied. Contrariwise, uncertainty or inconsistency of belief, as sometimes witnessed in agnostics, the non-affiliated and the "spiritual but not religious" may be a risk factor for poor mental health.
Conclusion
Richard Dawkins himself has joked about atheists possibly being "despairing neurotics driven to suicide by relentless cosmic angst" because they lack the emotional and psychological consolations of religion. However, emerging evidence suggests that convinced atheists may derive consolation from a certainty of belief in their own solidly-held worldview, leading to similar mental health to the highly-religious.
Such consolation may not be present for those with more uncertain and ambiguous beliefs, such as the "spiritual but not religious" and agnostics.
All this implies a need for further research examining the psychosocial and mental health differences between the different categories of the "nones." A "splitting" rather than "lumping" approach is necessary to enrich the scientific literature and avoid false conclusions.
Submitted by Anonymous on December 8, 2018 - 8:31pm
If someone asked me my religion I would say Lutheran. But, that doesn't describe my beliefs. I'm really a skeptic. I never call myself an atheist. Maybe I should say I'm an atheist. I'm certainly not a theist.
The think the survey results measuring the ‘non-religious’ aren't capturing the true number of people that are turned-off by religion. Church attendance is way down and there is no sign that people are ever going to return.
I think the studies have it backwards. People who have better mental health are more likely to be more certain of their positions, religious or atheist. People with poorer mental health, I would say, generally haven't examined their positions and ideas about religion very closely. Of course, the hyper-religious ("Satan caused my shoe to come untied!") still tend to be of poor mental health.
I think the term 'religious' is misleading. Jesus was 'spiritual but not religious'. His greatest enemies were the religious leaders. I would say that people who love Jesus, believe that he died for their sins, and rose again, are 'spiritual but not religious' because they do not rely on their own righteousness. Regarding the 'mental health' of that group, I would guess that they are of the most 'hopeful' of all because they know that they have 'hope beyond the grave'.
Religious or spiritual beliefs? I have been a "none" since the age of nine, as I had discovered that anger in all aspects of "belief" caused friction between all sides on this topic. Deep divide equals wars, misery, conflict, famine, despair, this list is endless. So, where are the positives? I don't see any for myself.
The only positive from my perspective is that religious wars reduces overpopulation...only thing better is birth control by abstinence.
Can't help but wonder though, do either have a better perspective? I just don't let it creep into my mind...for fear of mental health issues.
Peace to all this holiday season but don't let the hype get to you.
Submitted by Dave Miller on January 2, 2019 - 4:52pm
It makes sense not to lump all "nones" together when comparing religious vs. nonreligious groups of people. But it makes even more sense not to lump together the even larger population of "religious" people...or to characterize "religion" as a unidimensional variable. It isn't. Being religious the way Mother Theresa is religious is waaay different than being religious the way Franklin Graham is religious, for example. We need a little more sophistication in the way we think about "religion" and study it.
When was the last time you heard that some atheist beheaded person, or commit suicide to become martyr, or do that or this in the name of god?
As an atheist I can say that we - atheists are free from burden of religion, we are free from tradition and myths, we think with our brains instead of what "book" says. I have no fear of any god/gods, I am not saying please god give me some little more, instead I do my best to provide for myself and my family., if I don't who will? God? I am driving my life the way I want! and not some deity
Atheism was the basis for the bloody French Revolution with multiple decapitations
Stalin led the killing of 100 million people including anybody who wasn't atheist.
In atheist China there's ongoing forced conversions out of Islam as well as punishment for being in certain religions with its horrendous human rights violations. Let's also not forget Mao who also killed tens of millions of people.
Most serial killers tend to be atheist or agnostic (Dahmer, mass shooter at the Baptist church in 2015, Timothy McVeigh, James Holmes the Aurora shooter), I can keep going.
Submitted by Acid Kritana on June 17, 2020 - 5:08pm
I bet you that only one or two was in the name of atheism.
I'm going to respond to each point:
"The New Zealand mass shooter"
Don't know who that is, will check it out; but I bet that the person happened to be atheist, not do it in the name of atheism.
"The Columbine killers"
Still don't know, though I bet that they were just atheists, not people doing it in the name of atheism.
"Atheism was the basis for the bloody French Revolution with multiple decapitations"
Yes and no. Yes, atheism was an important part of the French Revolution, but it was only because religion was seen as oppressive. They realized that the leaders maintained control by using religion, thus turning on it. They didn't decapitate people in the name of religion; they did it to people who were oppressive.
"Stalin led the killing of 100 million people including anybody who wasn't atheist."
The majority of his victims were atheist. And he didn't do it in the name of atheism.
"In atheist China there's ongoing forced conversions out of Islam as well as punishment for being in certain religions with its horrendous human rights violations. Let's also not forget Mao who also killed tens of millions of people."
Ok, I agree with this one somewhat. We should not let one religion or irreligion take over a government and oppress people. But last time I checked, China and North Korea were the only oppressive atheistic governments, and instead of worship of gods, they chose worship of leaders. So they are a different kind of atheism, not the common kind. And I doubt Mao killed in the name of atheism.
"Most serial killers tend to be atheist or agnostic (Dahmer, mass shooter at the Baptist church in 2015, Timothy McVeigh, James Holmes the Aurora shooter), I can keep going."
A couple things. One, when atheists and agnostics end up being criminals/serial killers, it is almost never in the name of atheism. They just happen to be atheists. Two, the vast majority of criminals are religious. While atheists make up about 10 to 20% of the population (maybe even more), we only make up about 0.2% of the prison population is atheist. I estimate that it's closer to 0.6%, due to the fact that many atheists have to hide their atheism, and atheists who come out lose a lot of privileges and rights.
Atheists almost never kill in the name of atheism (China and Korea just oppressed religious folks, not kill them), but there are too many times to count for when religious people killed in the name of religion. Religious people kill other religious people, atheists, and other religious nones.
Submitted by non-atheist on June 29, 2020 - 5:58pm
People were killed in Stalinist Russia because they were religious. Whether or not atheists were also killed also is completely irrelevant, his regime had people killed because they were not atheist as it was a crime against the state, ergo, tens of millions were killed in the name of atheism since that was the only permissible religion allowed. You can say it was socialism but at the end of the day, when religion is removed then humans fill that void with government (i.e. socialism/communism) just as you see happening now.
Rachel Scott was killed by the 2 Columbine shooters precisely because she was a Christian, whereas they were atheist.
Also Chapel Hill murders, I can list many other examples.
Regardless, even your claim that "when atheists and agnostics end up being criminals/serial killers, it is almost never in the name of atheism. They just happen to be atheists." This is absurd, because you not only debunked yourself "it is almost never in the name of atheism" meaning that some people DO kill in the name of atheism per your argument, but on top of that this is the logical fallacy of special pleading, trying to have different rules apply to your side of things. You're assuming that people who are serial killers or commit crime specifically because of their religion but asking for a special treatment.
A GREAT article which I think does a better job explaining the faulty premise of this whole thing though is "The ‘No one kills in the name of Atheism’ Argument" by ABDULLAH AL ANDALUSI (can't link per rules unfortunately)
Submitted by Acid Kritana on June 30, 2020 - 9:57pm
"People were killed in Stalinist Russia because they were religious."
No. As TMM pointed out, most killed by Stalin were atheist.
"Rachel Scott was killed by the 2 Columbine shooters precisely because she was a Christian, whereas they were atheist."
I'll look into that.
"Also Chapel Hill murders, I can list many other examples."
I'll also look into that.
Why don't you list them, then?
"This is absurd, because you not only debunked yourself "it is almost never in the name of atheism" meaning that some people DO kill in the name of atheism per your argument, "
I said, "almost never." I didn't say "never." So I wasn't contradicting my own point.
"You're assuming that people who are serial killers or commit crime specifically because of their religion but asking for a special treatment."
No, not necessarily. Some, for sure, do commit crimes because of their religion; but the most don't. Religious people just tend to be at a higher risk of committing crime.
Only about 0.2% of the prison population is atheist, but make up 10% or higher of the population. I estimate that the prison population number is closer to 0.6%, since atheists can lose certain things if they come out.
"A GREAT article which I think does a better job explaining the faulty premise of this whole thing though is "The ‘No one kills in the name of Atheism’ Argument" by ABDULLAH AL ANDALUSI (can't link per rules unfortunately)"
I will check out that article. And once again, I never said "Atheists never kill in the name atheism!" I just said when atheists do kill, it's most likely NOT in the name of atheism.
(If the article contains Hitler as an atheist, I'm going to disregard it, because Hitler was VERY religious and some even say that he thought he was God [or could play God]).
Submitted by Anonymous on November 5, 2020 - 4:30am
If the substance of your argument is that we do not imagine a typical suicide bomber holding a copy of the God Delusion under his arm, then let us be precise--we don't imagine a typical suicide bomber holding a copy of the Dawkins Delusion either.
To argue, therefore that atheism, leads to tolerance and moderation while theism leads to intolerance and extremism, is at very best, logically sloppy and historically ignorant.
Was it really a coincidence that all of the communist regimes of the 20th century were violently antireligious and antitheist?! Was the atheism of Stalin as relevant to his genocidal policies as was his mustache? You have to be willfully obtuse to buy that.
Of course, merely believing and disbelieving in the existence of a creator says nothing about your proclivity towards violence! The question is whether your religion, position on God threatens the dictators.
The common denominator between the religious and anti-religious extremists is quite obvious: both are threatened by world views that diverge from whatever happens to be their own.
Submitted by Edith Aint on February 15, 2019 - 7:57pm
Maybe you shouldn't lump all "religious" people together. Atheism is just another religion, nevermind how short-sighted religious classification tends to be. We are ALL religious. Atheists can be just as bigoted, zealous, and aggressive as Christians or Muslims. The biggest cause of mental illness is human overpopulation exacerbated by modern medical practices.
Submitted by Alan Tuttle on March 18, 2019 - 4:58am
The reason for the huge increase in atheism is that, 15 years or so ago, many of them stayed underground. I was one of them. When I told people I was agnostic, I would get an ear full - and that's just me being agnostic. The overall secularism movement in the last 15 years has allowed more people to come out as atheists. For many people I know and/or have read about, the events like 9/11, among others have more people doubting, not only that there is no spirituality in existence, but even go as far as doubting their own faiths, as some blame faith for these events. If there was no spirituality, there would have been no 9/11, and that's the honest truth.
I however am one of the very few atheists who, despite my personal feelings, I also recognize the idea that we cannot rely on natural law by itself, and expect natural law to produce civilized societies. There's a reason why the human species is the only species to produce civilized societies, and that's because humans have a sense of spirituality. The civilized society would not exist if humans did not have a sense of spirituality. With that, as I live in a Judeo-Christian society called the United States, I'm not going to attempt to take down every cross or pull religion out of our government. I'd rather instead allow the government to make policy based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and I'll just live with it.
Which then brings up the idea that atheists are smarter. Although this is true, smart people are actually worse for society because too much knowledge leads to socialistic policies, which can in the long term destroy civilized societies. Too much science for example takes away joy in a civilized society. Too much knowledge about global warming, too much knowledge about our health - it really puts a damper on the overall happiness in our society. And this is why I personally would rather live with the mistakes we make and enjoy the one life we have, than an attempt to make ourselves miserable because we know far too much.
Submitted by Acid Kritana on June 17, 2020 - 5:24pm
"Too much science for example takes away joy in a civilized society. Too much knowledge about global warming, too much knowledge about our health - it really puts a damper on the overall happiness in our society."
Now, I'm going to say one thing real quick, as an atheist. Science is not always great, and there are many problems with "global warming science."
Now, I'm not going to disagree, the average temperature of the earth is slowly rising. But is that due to human activity? Yes and no. No, because we are literally getting out of an Ice Age and the earth is warming up naturally. Yes, because we are polluting and cutting down forests and stuff like that.
There's one part I really disagree with on global warming science, though: "water levels will rise as the temperature rises." No, it won't. And there's one reason: water EXPANDS to freeze. Unlike most liquids, water has to expand to freeze, while others have to condense. That's why ice floats: because it's less dense. Ice takes up more room than water does. As ice bergs melt, I can understand that there may be some worry. But here's the thing: the vast majority of the ice berg is underwater. That means, if ice bergs melt, the water level would not rise. In fact, it may even lower some. We should figure out how to save the animals that live on things such as ice bergs, or at least some of them. But we can only do so much. The first would be to remain calm and not make up shit.
I'd never push religion on anyone, and government by religion is insanity. I also do not believe in heaven or hell or a God that would judge and condemn us for stumbling into all the crazy stuff people do just trying to get by in this wild world. But your research doesn't reflect the real world. I've never met an atheist in my life who wasn't struggling with depression, and I talk to a lot of people, I've met thousands.
I believe that the decline in church attendance is greatly attributed to the music that is played in so many Christian churches nowadays.
Guitars, drums, pianos and electronic keyboards DO NOT sing the praise of Our Lord Jesus Christ. They need to bring back the sacred pipe organ. The pipe organ IS the voice of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Until then, more and more churches are going to suffer continuing declines in their congregation unless they let God speak, in song, through the sacred pipe organ.
Submitted by FUretailer on November 5, 2020 - 10:26am
Why did you religious nutjobs had to involve non religious people in the first place, so you could call them names and prosecute/execute them, turn them into a common enemy?
Submitted by Anonymous on January 5, 2021 - 6:15am
The reason why atheism brings only misery and negativity is because it is completely unnatural to the human nature, humans are born with the inner knowledge of God and the desire to worship. Throughout the entirety of history of mankind there has never been a single civilization that ever came to atheism as natural means.
This is also the reason why atheists are always the angriest and most miserable people in the world while being unable to have families like normal people do, because they try to go against human nature out of their own guilt. On the one side they base their entire worldview on a false darwinian narrative which whenever exposed as nonsense they become deranged and emotionally unstable because their religion immediately comes crumbling down and on the other side they are forced to steal concepts from the Judeo-Christian worldview to even be able to argue about their untenable nonsense.
Whenever you have one of these atheist and theist debates, something that is always interesting to me is the demeanor of the two. The theist generally always looks rather comfortable, content, peaceful. The atheist always looks stressed and dejected, as if their whole life depends on convincing others that existence is as meaningless as they've led themselves to believe. There is no peace for the unbeliever. The further someone travels from God, the angrier, more twisted and less able to see they become. What an illustration of where the two beliefs can lead you!