Spirituality vs. Religion

I recently encountered a (science) news story with the headline that 'Spirituality, Not Religion, Makes Kids Happy' and, needless to say, it piqued my curiousity. The news article goes on to describe research conducted at University of British Columbia by researchers Mark Holder, Ben Coleman, and Judi Wallace in which elements of the overarching concept of spirituality were related to happiness among 8 to 12 year old children. Out of the gate, the story reports:

The link between spirituality and happiness is pretty well-established for teens and adults. More spirituality brings more happiness. Now a study has reached into the younger set, finding the same link in "tweens" and in kids in middle childhood.

When I begin reading a story of this nature, my initial questions involve how imprecise terms 'spirituality' and 'religion' are operationalized. Given the title and the take home message the author seems is focusing on, one might easily draw the conclusion that this study provides evidence for a certain type of religious thinking will make people happier. In the very least, this thinking includes ideas about the existence of human souls, a god or gods with whom we can relate, or the existence some other form of benevolent ethereal entities. Presumably, this research demonstrates a causal link between 'spirituality' and happiness. However, the reporter has committed the cardinal sin of science reporting by overstating the actual findings of the research.

For me, the term 'spirituality' brings to mind the recently popular notion of being 'spiritual, but not religious' which is espoused by a reasonably large segment of North American society. This 'category' of religious thinking seems to be composed of a variety of perspectives, such as people who espouse a hodge podge of religious ideas but don't identify with any specific religion, denomination, or church. However, for me, it also brings to mind people from Evangelical Christian settings who attempt to distance themselves from a variety of dogmatic and political elements of evangelicalism, yet for the most part maintain an evangelical mindset and continue to attend evangelical churches. Given my own evangelical christian background, to me calling oneself 'spiritual' sounds very much like the line I was trained to use as a young person describing my faith as, 'A relationship with God, not religion' as if to suggest that I possessed the one true faith which involved a personal saving relationship with Jesus, and in contrast to all the other 'false' religions or versions of Christianity and their rituals.

Essentially, the author seems to be promoting the idea that this research provides evidence that legitimizes the idea that a 'spiritual' orientation leads to increased happiness. However, in another early paragraph, the author is a little more clear about the operational definitions of 'spirituality' and 'religion' that were used by the researchers:

Specifically, the study shows that children who feel that their lives have meaning and value and who develop deep, quality relationships — both measures of spirituality, the researchers claim — are happier.

It turns out the researchers used a spirituality scale that identifies four subcomponents of spirituality; Personal, Communal, Environmental, and Transcendental. Of the four subcomponents, only Transcendental seems to hint at an orientation towards some form of god(s) or other supernatural entities, and this component was not a useful or statistically relevant predictor of happiness. The components that are useful predictors of happiness include only the Personal (meaning in life) and Communal (quality of interpersonal relationships) which actually have little to do with one's orientation toward the 'spiritual' realm. Even though the elements are reported, the writer of the article has made the mistake of reporting the elements subsumed under spirituality (which wouldn't really hold as part of the colloquial concept of spiritual) as if they provide a sufficient definition for spirituality.  

Perhaps more grievous from a research perspective is that the news author equates this observed correlation with a causal relationship. But, the problem remains that there is no reason to think that perhaps being a happy person leads to a good view of self and healthy attachments to other people or that there might be some other unobserved factor causing both happiness and these subcomponents of the spirituality scale. As it turns out, in the original published study, the researchers are much more tempered in their report of the findings and do not suggest that being more 'spiritual' makes children or adults happier.

Similar to his or her neglect of the distinction between the operational definition of spirituality and actual spirituality, the reporter also expands the measurement of 'religous practice' as 'religion' overall. Which I could write a whole other post about, but for now, I don't have time or interest to do so.

So, what is my point? Am I denying that religion is a source of meaning in people's lives? Am I attacking this article as a person opposed to religion? Absolutely not! The point is that the research does not support the conclusions drawn by the author of the news article, and I presume a number of readers who aren't attending to the fine distinction between spirituality and the subcomponents of spirituality that could stand independently of any religious orientation or pronouncements about the supernatural. While religious faith does provide a source of meaning (and presumably happiness) for many people, the article misleads by suggesting it's a necessary part of a person's life in order to achieve happiness. The research actually demonstrates the importance of a personal sense of purpose and meaning (which can come from religion, but can come from elsewhere too) and the maintenance of quality interpersonal relationships.

Ken Miller on Evolution (Imports)

Ken Miller is a biologist who I became interested in when, by chance, I flipped the channel to C-Span to find him in a debate about the scientific viability of Intelligent Design (ID). His opponent in that debate was Paul A. Nelson of the Discovery Institute which promotes various arguments against Darwinian evolution, the debate can be heard here.

I caught this debate right around the time of the 2005 Dover, PA trial on whether ID should be included in the public school biology curriculum, where it was ruled that ID was actually religious ideology disguised under a thin veneer of scientific language. Miller was one of the key scientific witnesses for the plaintiffs in that case, where he provided critical testimony to demonstrate the unscientific nature of ID by contrasting it with evolution.

Miller is also very open about the fact that he is a devout Catholic who not only accepts evolution as the scientific explanation for how life came to be the way it is, but also rejects the notion of ID because it not only represents bad science, but bad theology as well. One of the things I find most intriguing about Miller is the fact that he's open about his Catholic faith and he clearly asserts that a person of faith need not deny the science behind evolution.

I came to find out that Miller had a book out in which he discusses Evolution, ID, and faith called Finding Darwin's God, which preceded the Dover trial by about a year. In my estimation, this book is an essential read for anyone interested in understanding evolution and recent 'challenges' to evolution.

Last summer I organized a reading group to work our way through Finding Darwin's God and I tried to stimulate online discussion in preparation of a face-to-face discussion of the book. I'm creating this post to coordinate those online notes and discussion points in a single place. Below are links to each of the posts discussing Finding Darwin's God.

Introduction: My introduction to the book.

Part 1: covering chapters 1 and 2.

Part 2: covering chapters 3, 4 and 5.

Part 3: covering chapters 6 and 7.

Part 4: covering chapters 8 and 9.

Videos: a couple of videos of Ken Miller.

Post Discussion: listing some further resources.

[Update: January 16, 2009 - I came across this video recently of a presentation by Ken Miller from summer 2008. In the video he discusses evolution and ID, the 2005 Dover trial and other recent 'challenges' to evolution in the US, his ideas about the compatibility between theology and evolution, and his 2008 book Only a Theory. The video is about an hour long, but I think he does a great job presenting the case for evolution by discussing some of the more recent scientific findings that he doesn't discuss in Finding Darwin's God. ]

Kevin Padian discusses evolution, science, education, and religion

I became familiar with Kevin Padian as a scientist through the NOVA special Judgment Day about the Dover, PA trial over the proposed inclusion of Intelligent Design as part of the high school biology curriculum. In that case, Padian provided testimony regarding the evidence in support of Evolution, particularly the 'transitional fossils' ostensibly marking speciation over long periods of time. In Judgment Day Journalist Lauri Lebo suggests that Padian's testimony astonished journalists who were present in the courtroom that day. While many of them had tacitly accepted evolution, they had been unaware of the great depth of scientific evidence that did exist. Padian currently retains posts as Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, Curator of Paleontology at the Univeristy of California Museum of Paleontology, and President of the National Center for Science Education. I recently came across this video at fora.tv in which Padian discusses a variety of issues related to the broader science-faith discourse:



In my view he strikes all the right chords when adressing issues of faith and science. Aside from his ability to deal with the subject of religion respectfully while also firmly stating that religious thinking is not scientific thinking and therefore should not be part of science curricula, I found his discussion of methodological naturalism compared to philisophical naturalism (at 14:30 or so) to be well stated and enlightening. I also appreciate his statements about fundamentalism (at 17:00 or so) and the implication that fundamentalist thinking is not reserved for the religious. Overall, the discussion is about an hour long in total, but can be watched in segments here and is well worth the hour.

Book: Darwin's Cathedral

An evolutionary concept that hasn't received much attention over the years is that of Group Selection, which is the idea that natural selection favors certain variations that lead to differential rates of survival and reproduction between groups. This differntial success rate results in adaptations that benefit the group rather than just the individual. More simply put; a group that possesses a particular group trait or behavior would be more likely survive (and reproduce) over the long term than another group that does not possess the group trait or behavior. Part of the reason for this inattention is because it has been thought to play only a minor role in evolutionary processes compared to the faster and more effective individual selection. Another piece is likely the strong arguments made for individual (genetic) selection and against group selection in books such as The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins and Adaptation and Natural Selection by George C. Williams. While my understanding of the arguments against group selection have always been limited at best, and I am unlikely to do them any real justice here, I have understood evolution as a process that takes place at the individual, level rather than as a group process. However, the idea of group selection also maintained some degree of intuitive credibility in my mind; I simply understood that it could result entirely from variation between individuals, on the genetic level.

In Darwin's Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson argues that the rejection of group selection as a major component in the story of evolution was premature and a 'wrong turn' (p. 12), and insists that the arguments against group selection are overstated. He indicates that the flaw in these arguments lies in their assumption that group selection is simply a part of individual selection. He presents a new model for evolution which maintains group selection and individual selection as separate processes that work in conjuncture with one another. This model, called 'Multilevel Selection Theory' purports to reintegrate group level selection with individual selection. In this context, behaviors that are generally understood to increase individual fitness despite their appearance of being generous or altruistic remain such, but other behaviors that require and promote large scale group cooperation to the extent that they increase the likelihood of group survival compared to other groups can be understood in terms of group selection. In the book he focuses on the example of Religion as just one social institution that has provided the type of variation between groups which leads to differential survival at the group level.

Wilson examines a variety of perspectives throughout the social sciences that have been used to explain the phenomenon of religion, particularly those posited by Emil Durkheim and Rodney Stark. He makes two major observations which provide the theme and tone of the book. First, he points out the fragmentary nature of the social sciences, sociologists rely on a different overarching structure to explain behavior than psychologists or anthropologists might. The various disciplines within the social sciences never really bother to ensure that their frameworks are consistent with one another. He argues that they ought to work towards some sort of unification, so that our sociological explanations for group behaviors are not contradictory to what we know about human psychology or our anthropological understanding. As a social scientist myself, this point is well taken, as I've often felt the various silos can and do overlap a great deal. The second observation/statement he makes is that an evolutionary explanation may be the type of framework needed to facilitate such an integration of disciplines. I also found this to be an intriguing proposition.

Wilson tests the various social sciences explanations of religion alongside his multilevel selection theory by examining several modern and historic denominational cases studies to determine which explanation offered the most comprehensive understanding. Using examples of behaviors and ideas from early Christianity, Calvinism, the Gospels, Balinese tribal religion, Judaism, and modern Christianity he demonstrates how religions possess characteristics that seem to be adapted specifically to their temporal, geographic, and societal environments based on the survival advantage they provide for groups of individuals rather than just individuals or cultural memes. This survival advantage offered to groups by certain aspects of religion does not depend on whether the religion's doctrines about the supernatural are actually true, but rather on their ability to provide the group of adherents with some survival advantage over other religious groups.

It must be understood that the survival advantages offered by particularly religious ideas are not necessarily the result of intentional human decisions, but as a natural occurrence in the evolution of religious ideas. Every new idea or twist builds upon an existing religious framework; the group who adopts this new iteration is then subject to a variety of environmental pressures which can lead to either the flourishing survival or the decimation and extinction of the group. Thus it is an evolutionary process that is subject to natural selection.

My understanding of some of the arguments presented in this book is limited, and thus my ability to truly critically assess the arguments is limited. However, I did think that multilevel selection made intuitive sense, but the difference between it and the standard individual level selection is perhaps too subtle for me to nail down. It does seem reasonable to view groups as an additional adaptive unit whose survival can be enhanced or limited by their social institutions. As such, religion would be a natural outgrowth of our biological evolution. The survival or our religious ideas is tied to the ideas' ability to provide an environmentally specific adaptive advantage to the group who adopts that idea. I'm not entirely certain however whether this is best understood as a multilevel process or an individual level process.