Religion is good for your health? Conservative Christianity bad?

Prevalence Of Religious Congregations Affects Mortality Rates:

....Blanchard found that people live longer in areas with a large number of Catholic and Mainline Protestant churches. He offers two key reasons for these findings.

"First, these types of churches have what's known as a 'worldly perspective.' Instead of solely focusing on the afterlife, they place a significant emphasis on the current needs of their communities," he said. These religions commonly organize outreach efforts for the needy and homeless, invest in the health infrastructures of their town and participate in other forms of public charity.

"Secondly, these congregations tend to create bridging ties in communities that lead to greater social cohesion among citizens," said Blanchard. This enhanced sense of connection between people provides collective encouragement for healthy behavior.

In contrast to Catholics and Mainline Protestant congregations, Conservative Protestant churches have a mixed effect on community health. The "otherworldly" character of Conservative Protestantism leads congregations in this tradition to focus on the afterlife. Conservative Protestantism is also a more individualistic faith, one in which the believer's personal relationship with God is paramount. These types of churches are thought to downplay the importance of using collective action, including human institutions, to improve the world. Communities dominated by Conservative Protestant churches tend to have higher mortality rates.

However, this finding has an important caveat, because there are different types of Conservative Protestant churches, namely, Fundamentalist, Pentecostal and Evangelical.

"We find that a greater presence of Fundamentalist and Pentecostal congregations is associated with higher rates of mortality, but communities with a large number of Evangelical congregations have better health outcomes," said Blanchard. "Evangelical congregations do a better job of engaging the broader community and promoting social connectedness that is so essential for longer life expectancies. Fundamentalist congregations tend to be more reclusive, and this insularity is linked with higher mortality rates."

The original paper is Faith, morality and mortality: the ecological impact of religion on population health in the June issue of Social Forces. If anyone has access to this paper, I'd appreciate it if you sent me a copy via email at contactgnxp -at- gmail.com. (thanks!) I'm going to criticize the reasoning above, but perhaps there's nuance I'm missing from the summary. I'll be quick about my objection: I don't think that these denominational differences are the causal factor behind the longevity variation. Rather, it is more likely in my opinion that denomination is correlated with other factors, or, particular types of individuals who are likely to live longer select particular types of congregations. Below are two maps which might give you a clue as to what I'm hinting at.

i-a06a3e48652e122553e52d96242b812a-regionconmap.jpg

i-3772abf21ea22b09d58f230086e6a832-lifeexpect8americas.jpg

The first map is from the US Religious Landscape Survey. You can see where Mainline Protestants and Evangelical Protestants concentrate; the Upper Midwest and Southeast respectively. I assume that most readers are aware of Catholic concentration in the Northeast and the industrial cities of the Midwest and on the West coast among Latinos, so I didn't include that map. The second map shows life expectancy of white males and females across the United States, the source is a PLoS ONE paper.

What I'm suggesting here is that the authors above might be confusing a denominational difference with a regional one! Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America chronicles how deep-rooted the regionalism in the United States is. There is an enormous difference in social & psychological patterns such as gun ownership & IQ.

So, I have to add: where does stupidity fall into the equation here??? I have posted over and over and over and over the relationship between the sort of denomination an individual chooses and their intelligence or academic production. Intelligent or educated people are more likely to take a proactive role in their own health management and be more fluent advocates within the system. They're also more likely to take their medications properly and stay on a regime. Note also above that Evangelicals don't have as many issues in regards to low life expectancy as Fundamentalists & Pentecostals. Evangelicals are of course far more socioeconomically diversified (in large part because Fundamentalists and Pentecostals are generally just subsets of the broader Evangelical category, manifesting trends which distinguish Evangelicalism from Mainline Protestantism to a more extreme degree).

A bigger meta-issue here is what role a causal religion plays in shaping behavior. I'm sure it does play a role, but too often social scientists simply assume that religion changes people, instead of people being attracted to particular religions, or peoples changing a religion (e.g., when the Irish became Christian they changed the Roman religion in many fundamental ways in the process of indigenizing it). One could imagine a multiplier-feedback loop where Lutheranism does foster more communitarianism on the margins that Baptism, which results in more communitarian oriented Baptists converting to Lutheranism and vice versa. Over time the two religions might diverge sharply because of a sorting process due to these sorts of dynamics rather than the affect of doctrine or institutional structure on the laity. Or, it could be something as exotic as a pathogen which is common in the southern United States that changes personality and makes people susceptible or attracted to Fundamentalist and Pentecostal modalities of worship, while at the same time also shifting psychological profile so as to engage in more high risk behavior that increases mortality rates.

Tags

More like this

This is a follow up to the post yesterday, Religion is good for your health? Conservative Christianity bad?. I finished reading the paper. It's not a bad one really, but its plausibility will be strongly conditioned by theoretical priors. It is a work in the tradition of Emile Durkheim, and…
A few days ago I noted that smart people believe in evolution. And stupid people do not. Inductivist looked at the IQ scores in the GSS for whites and this is what he found for various religions: Mean IQ of whites from General Social Survey by religious affiliation Episcopalian 109.9…
The post below where I show that belief in the literal truth of the Biblical tends to correlate well with IQ scores from the General Social Survey on a denominational scale is getting a lot of response; enough of it is of low quality that I'll close the comment thread soon enough. As I observed the…
Well, today something popped into my RSS which is likely to make many neoatheists somewhat excited; Participating In Religion May Make Adolescents From Certain Races More Depressed: But new research has found that this does not hold true for all adolescents, particularly for minorities and some…

You pegged it. The fundamentalist Bible belt corresponds with the pork rind and moon pie belt. ;-)

The fact that the evangelical map could probably be substituted for a map of obesity in America doesn't help.
Alcohol and tobacco use are the norm down here as well.

I'm not sure why, but evangelicals also seem more prone to refusing to trust someone with all that "fancy book learnin'" and refusing to go to a doctor or ignoring what the doctor tells them when they do.

By JThompson (not verified) on 05 Jul 2008 #permalink

Amplifying Razib's comment: there really is no evidence that the suggested mechanisms of church outreach/ charity etc. has any effect at all on differential mortality statistics.

And, on the contrary, there is a vast literature on the positive correlation of IQ and health e.g.:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004fundamentalcause.pdf

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/329/7466/585

and this may indeed be a fundamental factor in human evolutionary history, maybe driving the increase in IQ both pre- and post- the out-of-Africa event:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2007evolutionofintelligen…

There are a lot of conservative Christians in tobacco-growing areas, and their social conservativism usually does not reach to tobacco, which is the biggest single negative environmental factor affecting mortality. Tobacco use by state. Tobacco is a pretty clear cultural factor, about which different groups give wildly different message (ranging from absolute prohibition all the way to defensive advocacy).

A second factor I've mentioned is that mainline churches are "born churches" rather than "born-again" churches. If you're born a Lutheran, Catholic, Mormon (who are "mainline" for the purposes of this argument), etc., you have to work pretty hard to be expelled. Evangelical churches require you to apply for admission as an adult, and you do get a lot of backsliding into sin. There's a bigger polarity between saved and unsaved than there is between active,inactive, and secular Lutherans or Catholics.

Regarding Minnesota and the Dakotas I'll just report this. The authors find a sort of Lake Wobegon demographic which is healthier than any other American demographic except Asian-Americans: poor white Americans in the upper Midwest. By contrast, poor white Americans in the Southern and Border states are an unhealthy demographic.

And why "poor"? Well-off white Americans in this area are like any other American, less healthy than the poor.

By John Emerson (not verified) on 05 Jul 2008 #permalink

To continue, people from born churches are less likely to switch to some other church when they rise in class, since for them church membership is a given rather than a choice. I believe that this is documented for Catholics, Lutherans, and Mormons. If someone chooses Pentecostal at 18, maybe they'll choose Methodist at 30, if they do well, and maybe Episcopal later on.

By John Emerson (not verified) on 05 Jul 2008 #permalink

I will finally get around to figuring out what the pathogen load looks like in different parts of the US. It should be pretty high in large cities, obviously, but it should also be high in the southeast since that's the only humid sub-tropical climate we have.

Higher bugginess causes lower IQ and higher mortality, as the body must invest more resources during development and across the lifespan to fighting them off.

The study commented on here has such loaded terminology and so many baseless generalizations that its hard for me to imagine they're really funded by institutions of higher education. Makes me wonder, too, if it would be possible to do a meta-analysis of university-funded studies to determine the correlation between the crappiness of a study and the number of degrees obtained by the author.

Anyone have any scientifically accomplished and statistically significant comparisons of atheist longevity compared to major religions? Atheist are supposed to have higher IQ and have better analytical skills than the typical religious person. If that's the case, wouldn't one expect they would have longer life spans? Or, is there some other factor affecting their mortality?

By Mason Hamilton (not verified) on 06 Jul 2008 #permalink

To continue, people from born churches are less likely to switch to some other church when they rise in class, since for them church membership is a given rather than a choice. I believe that this is documented for Catholics, Lutherans, and Mormons

Is this documented for Mormons? I know something like 65% of active Mormons (meaning they go to Church regularly) are converts. Given via self-identification surveys Mormon growth has stabilized the last decade and a half at church slightly above flat something is going on.

Of course maybe Mormons leaving Mormonism just leave organized religion entirely.

To add, one should also account for non-religious regional variations in the life expectancy rate. Such as say the high suicide rate in the west that seems separate from religious correlation. Ditto for higher incidence of depression.

Then there are things like significantly higher incidence of cancers in southern Utah and Nevada due to fun and games in the 50's and 60's by the military. You also have at higher elevations increased radiation exposure due to natural sources.

So it'd be interesting to see the regional variation once you account for these environmental issues. Or a direct correlation by religion unrelated to region.