Does religion exert a positive influence on people’s lives? The answer to this question likely depends on how we define the variables. Yet is it truly religion exerting the influence, when we get right down to it, or something more mundane: social values, adopting a meaningful life narrative, community involvement, pleasing rituals, what? A huge problem with the bulk of the studies into the influence of religion is the lack of adequate secular controls. It is assumed that there is religion and then there is nothing. But are there no secular social values, no non-religious community involvement, no god-free pleasing rituals?
Of course there are. To overlook the fact is to practice incomplete science and to perhaps mislead yourself and others.
A recent study purporting to demonstrate a positive influence of religion (religiosity) got me thinking about the topic. Or maybe “stewing” is the more accurate word.
In, Greater religiosity during adolescence may protect against developing problem alcohol use, we learn -
[P]eople with a religious background may be less likely to express alcohol-related phenotypes than those from nonreligious backgrounds.
Sounds quite science-y. But what is meant by religious background? Belief in a god and the strength of that belief? Church attendance? Engaging in religious behaviors such as prayer and Bible reading? Self-reported importance of religion to one’s worldview? What?
Religiosity was measured using the Value on Religion Scale
Aha! I guess. A quick Google search led me to a .pdf that contained details about that scale (in the very same semi-bogus study I critiqued in a Skeptic magazine article a few years back). Subjects rated their strength of agreement with these items:
“To believe in God,” “To be able to rely on religious teachings when you have a problem,” “To be able to turn to prayer when you’re facing a personal problem,” and “To rely on your religious beliefs as a guide for day-to-day living.” [source]
That’s quite a range of thoughts. Total strength of agreement with these statements produced the religiosity measure.
An author of the study went on record with this:
“Our study showed that genetic factors could influence problem alcohol use more in nonreligious adolescents than adolescents with a greater religious outlook,” said Button. “This attenuation in religious participants indicates that religiosity exerted a strong enough influence over the behavior of religious individuals to override any genetic predisposition. [all bolds mine]
Wow! With religion you can overcome any genetic predisposition . . . for alcohol use, anyway. Or at least make it less-likely you succumb to genetic predisposition. As was the actual study finding. (How much less likely is a very good question.) But hey, why quibble?
But then there was this curious element:
The same was not true for young adults, however, for whom the genetic influence was consistent across levels of religiosity.”
Button noted that she and her colleagues had expected to find a similar pattern of effects in adolescents and young adults.
Hmm. Seems to me the religiosity measured was more situational than committed, more environmental than integral to the individual.
My guess is that the researchers actually indirectly measured some effect of parenting or family/home life. Thus, once out of the house — as most individuals experience in the transition from adolescence to adulthood — the effect disappeared. Would a real religious influence evaporate like that between neighboring age groups? I wonder.
Now it’s your turn to exercise your critical thinking skills. See what flaws you can spot in this final article paragraph (and how it relates to the claimed results).
“These findings provide evidence that problem alcohol use in adolescents is subject to controlling influences associated with religiosity, even when genetic risks are present,” said Button. “Thus, adolescents who are raised to value religious concepts are less likely to develop problems with alcohol use, even in the presence of a genetic predisposition for doing so.” [bolds mine]
(Hint: think of a shell game in which a ball is hidden beneath one cup and then, with slight of hand, moved to beneath another.)
Ready, set, think.
—
[simultaneously posted at my home blog: 360 Degree Skeptic]
Sphere: Related Content
Related Posts: