The Scientific Case for the Health and Well-being Benefits of Religious Belief and Practice

Dr. David DeSteno, a professor of psychology, challenges the common perception that science and religion are mutually exclusive. He argues that the question of God's existence is not a scientifically useful one, as it cannot be empirically proven or disproven through experimentation. Instead, DeSteno focuses on the robust data demonstrating significant mental and physical health benefits derived from engaging with religious practices and faith. He clarifies that his approach is purely scientific and unbiased, aiming to understand the mechanisms by which belief and practice positively impact individuals and groups, rather than promoting any specific religion.

The discussion delves into key distinctions and nuances, such as the difference between merely believing in God and actively participating in religious practices, noting that even atheist Jews can find profound benefits in their traditions. Pascal's Wager is introduced as a rational framework for belief, especially when religion offers tangible benefits in the present life. The podcast addresses methodological critiques of early cross-sectional studies on religion and health, highlighting the importance of longitudinal data, particularly the work of Tyler VanderWeele, which tracks individuals over time. It also differentiates the health benefits of religious community from general social clubs, showing that religious communities often yield a larger effect size, suggesting unique elements at play within faith-based groups.

Practical insights and recommendations emerge from the data, indicating that active engagement with religion can cut all-cause mortality by 30% and reduce deaths from cancer and cardiovascular disease by 25%. It also significantly lowers anxiety and depression while increasing an individual's sense of meaning and flourishing. Even private practices like prayer and meditation are shown to buffer against mental health issues, especially among young adults. DeSteno proposes the concept of "religiospecting," advocating for a scientific investigation of traditional religious practices, akin to bioprospecting for medicinal compounds, to uncover their potential for human well-being.

The broader implications of this research suggest a paradigm shift in how science views religion, drawing parallels to the historical acceptance of meditation and psychedelics from fringe practices to subjects of rigorous scientific study. The episode posits that science and religion are not inherently antagonistic but can be complementary forces in understanding human flourishing. This perspective is presented as particularly relevant in the current era of rapid technological advancement and social media, underscoring the need for a data-driven, open-minded approach to exploring all avenues that contribute to individual and collective health and well-being.

Many people, perhaps most people actually, view science and religion as mutually exclusive. Today, Dr. Denno explains why that view is actually incorrect.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This question of does God exist is one science can't answer. I mean, I'm happy to say as a scientist, I see no empirical evidence that God exists. But without being able to run an experiment to prove it, it's beyond the realm of science.

God created the human mind so that we could learn about the wonders of God's creation and how the world works. They don't need to be intention.

If you keep creating a carve out to explain something, it becomes very difficult to make a strong case, right? I mean, scientists live by falsifiability.

Religion is about belief, but it's also about what you do.

Epidemiological data show that people who engage with religion, not just say I believe in God, but actually engage with faith over a 15 to 20 year period, it cuts all told all cause mortality by 30%.

The effect size... Being in in community, joining clubs, having tighter social networks makes you healthier and happier. But the effect size is larger for religious community, right? They're doing something in those communities.

An overbelief is a belief for which the evidence is lacking. Not it's not disisconfirmed, right? But it's lacking, but which nonetheless feels right and leads to positive outcomes.

It's why I think scientists need to stay in their lane. You know, even Richard Dawkins, right, the most famous atheist around, will say he cannot be absolutely sure that God doesn't exist.

Instead of boprospecting, I call it religiospecting. Right? We should go back to these traditions, find these practices, do exactly what you're saying, study them in terms of the scientific method... and see what they do.

The Buddha said, 'I I teach one thing and one thing only,' which is the end of suffering. And meditation was a tool that the Buddha believed would help people do this.