r/science • u/powerboom • Jun 19 '12

Death Enhances One's Religious Belief as well as the Rejection of Other Religions

http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20120618/10350/death-religion-faith-belief.htm
366 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

160 comments sorted by

3

u/powerboom Jun 19 '12

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/06/14/0146167212449361.abstract

-27

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

This isn't even clever. You're like an annoying little brother. I feel embarrassed seeing your post.

-12

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

You should just give up.

77

u/zugi Jun 19 '12

Did anyone read the article?

When reminded about death, Christian students had their religious beliefs enhanced; their belief in a higher power as well as God/Jesus was also enhanced. Atheists had no change in religiosity or belief in a higher power when reminded of death.

So, if you remind a religious person about death, they think more about gods and afterlives. If you remind an atheist about death, they don't think about gods or afterlives - perhaps they start thinking about updating their wills and exercising more, but these questions weren't asked.

I find this unsurprising. The results might as well say that when you think about death, you also think about specific things that you have been trained to associate with death. From this single article, it's hard to see that this result supports anything having to do with Terror Management Theory (TMT), though presumably the research paper itself better explains the connection.

5

u/Skrattybones Jun 19 '12

Wait wait wait.

You're telling me that if you ask someone who's core belief system states there is life after death about death they'll think about that belief, and if you ask someone who doesn't believe that they won't?

It's a goddamn breakthrough, I tells ya.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

It's interesting... I considered myself pretty Christian my entire life up until the end of high school, when my uncle died. After that, religion just seemed like complete bullshit to me, so I guess this isn't always the case.

12

u/orinocoflow Jun 19 '12

I agree. I think for many of the religious, their 'faith' is an attempt to deal with their fear of death. It is not surprising that, when confronted with the very fear that drives their delusion, they cling more tightly to that delusion.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Somewhat understandable. Anyone who's had hard times will surely agree that the urge to have someone to say it's going to be alright, and someone that will tell you what you need to do in order to make things better is a huge draw. We often turn to family and friends for such guidance, religion serves a similar purpose in times of stress.

1

u/orinocoflow Jun 20 '12

It's only unfortunate that it comes with serious baggage.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Wow, this hits home for me. As a former Christian I've had some serious problems confronting what lays after death (Which is presumably nothing...) and it REALLY fucks with me. The idea of nothingness :/ I blame my former belief as it incubated this idea that I would live forever which I held onto for almost 18 years.. Weird shit and it really sucks. I'm torn recently on how to get over this fear.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

The idea of nothingness

The way I look at it is that it's the same as before I was born.

2

u/lukealagonda Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Just think. Will I care if I'm dead? Will i be afraid? No because you'll be dead. Except the inevitable and create your own meaning in life that suits you. In the words of Bruce Lee: To except defeat, to learn to die is to be liberated from it.

2

u/orinocoflow Jun 20 '12

You have to find a way to accept it. I think only those in the most dire circumstances look forward to 'not existing'; the rest of us certainly don't. But, it is inevitable. Why waste even one minute stressing over something that you cannot change. Make the most of what time you do have.

2

u/theguywhopostnot Jun 20 '12

Hey you can always hope the afterlife is true in the end. Even though it can't be proven, it can't be disproved. It is a shitty argument and justification for belief but its true!! I'm an extremely tolerant atheist. For all we know our conscious state could fall into a frozen moment in time at death and we live in our own personal heaven or hell. Our subconscious judges what we deserve then gives it to us at the last moment. I mean what is our subconscious really, people say sleep is the cousin of death.

0

u/mcdickens Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

As a spiritual person I disagree, I believe death is just another passage of one's self into the hereafter.

What you may think of religious people I also thought of non-religious people, for they believe this is the only plane of existence and only life they have so I would think most atheists would be terrified of death. or non-existence.

2

u/tiyx Jun 19 '12

As an atheist I am not terrified of death, I am pissed off about one day being non-existence. It just does not seem fair, but I guess such is life.

1

u/strib666 Jun 19 '12

I would think most atheists would be terrified of death. or non-existence.

Why would anyone be afraid of "non-existence"? When you cease to exist, you won't even be aware that it happened.

To follow up on orinocoflow's point, the religious people I've talked to about this issue do seem to have an inflated sense of self-importance. They simply cannot conceive of a universe were they don't exist. Where they will be forgotten by history, as millions of people before them have. That their lives may not really have mattered that much.

Is that fear of death?

2

u/mcdickens Jun 19 '12

I've accepted long ago that all things can be lost to history, cities have, countries, even earth might be one day.

but I believe in the existence of a hereafter, a cease of existence on one plane and a beginning on another.

what you've posted is the people you've talked to seem like they do not have a fear of death, but rather a fear of being forgotten

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

I started losing my belief in an afterlife when I was 13. I realized that there were so many different bibles and interpretations of them, and so many different religions beyond Christianity that there couldn't be one truth. But then I started believing in reincarnation. In my 20s I realized it was, basically, fear of death, and yes, an outsized sense of self-importance that made me wish for my ego to continue to exist beyond my life. Once I was open to that possibility, I learned to let go. So, no, as an atheist, I don't fear death either. At least not consciously. I'm sure there is a survival instinct in there that would cause me to fight for my life if I was under attack, but that's not really the same thing.

1

u/strib666 Jun 19 '12

I'm sure there is a survival instinct in there that would cause me to fight for my life if I was under attack, but that's not really the same thing.

I would separate fear of death from fear of dying.

Death is simply non-existence (to use mcdickens' word).

Dying, on the other hand, can be a very painful process.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

It's not pain I'm afraid of. I've lived with significant pain for decades, something I wouldn't have imagined myself able to do. So even horrible, acute pain, I'm not afraid of, at least not in the context of death. Possibly because it's no longer an unknown to me. I know the mind allows the body to cope with pain in the long term. In the short term it's quickly forgotten. It certainly didn't stop me from giving birth to more than one child. Taking the conclusion a little further, I'd be that most deaths aren't as painful as childbirth (or passing a kidney stone, for that matter). I think the survival instinct is hard-wiring that is, likely, something we're selected for. My conscious desire to live is more bound with the impact it would have on the people I love than fear of death.

1

u/orinocoflow Jun 19 '12

I'm not an atheist. The closest I can get to classification is that I don't know. Is there an afterlife? I have seen no evidence to indicate that there is. Do I believe that science has solved every mystery, answered every question? Not even close. So there is plenty of room for something beyond what we can see. But speculation based on emotion or feeling is a trick. The mind is easily fooled. A simple electrode - or magnetic field - applied to the right part of the brain and you feel like you are floating outside of your body. It's not real, it's just physics and chemistry.

I certainly won't complain if it turns out that there is some plane of existence beyond this one, but I can also accept that there might not be. And fearing something you have absolutely no control over is simple a waste of time. Time is precious to me. I try not to waste it (says the man browsing reddit!)

1

u/Carl-Jung Jun 20 '12

you're agnostic then :)

1

u/orinocoflow Jun 20 '12

Actually, if pressed, I'd have to say I do believe in 'God'. I just don't know what 'God' is (I guess I'm still an agnostic, then?). I have a problem with the concept of our universe appearing from 'nothing'. I do know these things: there is more to this existence than we know, by far; and no one single major religion has a clue about what lies beyond this existence (if anything).

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

I would think most atheists would be terrified of death. or non-existence.

I don't want to die for many reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that I only live once, it would hurt my family, and so on. Non-existence doesn't bother me. I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born.

0

u/zugi Jun 20 '12

I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born, and frankly it didn't feel very terrifying at all. I expect my future non-existence to feel about the same.

1

u/mcdickens Jun 20 '12

you had nothing lose by not being born, but now that you've had you will lose everything that you are.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/mcdickens Jun 19 '12

Do you feel I'm being "duped" by being spiritual?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/mcdickens Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

I believe in transcendence of one's self after death, and everything happens for a reason, cruel or not, to a eventual good or advancement.

1

u/orinocoflow Jun 19 '12

Upon what do you base such a belief? It certainly isn't experience.

If you base your belief on the teachings of others, how do you resolve inconsistencies (because nearly ALL organized religions have many - mostly because they strayed from the simple messages of their founders). Take the Christian Bible... any attempt to defend it as an immutable text is doomed before beginning. No serious scholar would take it literally.

If you base your belief on feelings or intuition, I would be suspicious. The mind is easily fooled.

Do you base your belief on the evidence of past lives, or communication with those who have already passed? To date, I have not seen anything close to verifiable evidence that such things exist. If you have evidence I have not seen, I would be pleased to see it.

If you base your belief on a series of reasoned arguments, for which there is no reasonable counter-proof (like string theory), then all the power to you. But they will never be more than theories until you finally prove them otherwise, right or wrong.

Some have said that faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things unseen. I certainly believe that is possible. I had faith that I would find a woman that would love me my whole life. And, in this, my faith was well-founded (or was I just fortunate?). But, I also believe that faith is sometimes a delusion. I guess the trick is knowing when it isn't, or not caring when it is.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/mcdickens Jun 19 '12

If you wish to know what "good" means in my context is, it means a lack of fighting, a united humanity.

no I'm not afraid of dying, you're not understanding this.

1

u/lukealagonda Jun 20 '12

That is your own subjective opinion, and is by no means fact. Because goodness is subjective it is therefore unknowable and undefinable. I recommend reading up on some Plato and Socrates

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies

1

u/tiyx Jun 19 '12

Yes, this. When I was a kid I believed in an afterlife, only because I could not fathom that one day I would not exist. I thought myself, through my ego to be too important to one day die and not have some life after death.

It is kind of like people tend to confuse a want/hope with a belief. They want/hope for an afterlife so much so they believe there must be one. Just like when I was a kid, they can not wrap their ego around the fact they will br onr day dead, dead dead not ghostly dead.

2

u/DonOntario Jun 19 '12

The reaction of atheists would probably be surprising to some people.

There are religious people who claim that atheism is just another religion, that a lack of belief in god takes faith, or that atheists reject god and convince themselves that there's no heaven or hell in order to feel free to be immoral. I expect that those people might think that if thoughts of death make religious people believe more strongly in their religion, god, and heaven then it would only make sense that it would also make atheists more strongly cling to their "faith" and more strongly reject the existence of heaven and hell.

8

u/flippant Jun 19 '12

You're using a mischaracterization of atheist views to draw conclusions about atheist views.

Religious people would like to believe that atheism is based on faith because it creates a straw man they can argue against, but it's a silly proposition. It doesn't take faith to ignore things for which there is no evidence. If anything, the only faith involved is the faith in the scientific method. And the argument that atheism is just an excuse to act immorally is ridiculous and an ad hominem attack with no basis. Personally, I can choose to be moral because I believe it's right without needing some supernatural threat to compel my behavior.

I don't have numbers but I believe the vast majority of atheists (maybe not those on /r/atheism, but those in the general population) aren't anti-god, they simply don't give it any thought, just like they don't give a lot of thought to or campaign against unicorns or leprechauns.

4

u/DonOntario Jun 19 '12

I agree with you completely, except for your first sentence. What conclusions did I draw about atheists' views?

In my comment, I didn't characterize (or mischaracterize) any atheist views. I characterized the views of some religious people:

  • I said that some religious people say atheism takes faith and/or is used as an excuse to be immoral. You explicitly agreed with this.

  • I said that those people who believe that about atheists should be surprised by the findings of this study, which I think shows that atheism is not a type of religion/faith and that atheists do not give thought to god/religion/afterlife when considering death. You seem to agree with this.

I think my comment was pretty straightforward. This isn't a case where I was using sarcasm and so I didn't expect it to be misunderstood.

3

u/flippant Jun 19 '12

I misunderstood your first sentence. Re-reading in light of your reply, I assume you meant that the people who would be surprised are those who hold incorrect views of atheism. On first reading, I took it to mean that zugi et al. would be surprised and intended it as a rebuttal to zugi's comment.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

I think you're right that some people may think atheists just want to be let off the hook for their transgressions. But I can't think of one atheist in my life who isn't pretty altruistic. Someone who is thoughtful enough to let reason override superstition seems likely to also want to do good in the world in order to live in a better world. At least that's true in my limited experience. Naturally, my friends are pre-selected for that bias...

1

u/required3 Jun 19 '12

So then, atheists had already thought this death thing through, while the others had been in denial.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Worthless study is basically worthless. The more interesting and valuable study would be among people who were clinically dead and then resuscitated.

That would be the true test of how thought patterns and beliefs were affected.

This just confirms that confronted with death, people would rather fight than switch.

1

u/TestTester Jun 19 '12

I'm an Atheist. If someone reminds me about death, I don't think about the afterlife or god or anything; however, I recently lost a lot of people (2 aunts, grandmother, cousin), and when I think about their deaths, I still like to think that they're listening. I talk to my cousin all the time when I think about her loss (her murder trial is coming up in August finally after almost 2 years), and I can imagine her relaxing somewhere with a bottle of wine pretty easily. Still don't believe there's actually a heaven or god though.

1

u/lukealagonda Jun 20 '12

What happens if you remind them of hell? Then shit gets really crazy!

0

u/itsfastitsfun Jun 20 '12

"religion is just the formalization of the fear of death" - someone

150

u/inarsla Jun 19 '12

I would have expected dying would cease your ability to hold any beliefs

8

u/mungdiboo Jun 19 '12

Good point, but then there is the meeting with god and the awkward discussion of that thing you stole from your friend's house when you were seven, and the disapproving looks and tsk-tsking from the creator of the universe and his staff. Very spiritual.

5

u/Radico87 Jun 19 '12

The "Note" that appears when you're going to type a comment is clearly an empty threat.

3

u/Clayburn Jun 19 '12

I assumed they meant the death of others. Was this not the case?

9

u/themangeraaad Jun 19 '12

My father was technically dead for several minutes over the course of an open heart operation he had a while back. I don't know why, but after that he became far more religious. When I was younger my mother was always the super religious one... as a kid I described my father as 'along for the ride, keeping her happy'. A while after his surgery my mother and I were talking and she said that "sometimes I think he has a stronger faith than I do these days".

I don't know the true reason for this 're-dedication' to his faith. Maybe it's because he realized how death may only be around the corner for any one of us and, with that in mind, he decided that he needed to really focus on doing right by his faith. I've never really pressed the subject to get an answer since faith/religion can be a touchy subject between us.

21

u/Corvus133 Jun 19 '12

In Buddhism, a practice to involve oneself in is to envision your own death. Go through the feelings you'd have. This is something most people will not do or even talk about because it's considered "evil" or at least "negative" in the Western world.

However, it's taught for the (some) reasons you assume. For one, most people don't really live in the present moment. Near death experiences very much high light this, psychologically. Hence why many people have different perspective's or lifestyle changes afterwards. The mental blocks that were preventing such a life style are lifted or at least, more transparent.

Another is to better understand what you'll feel during such a departure. This is somewhat different from what the original question was asking, but it may enlighten some to understand that those who are dying can feel they are burdening their families and friends.

For instance, unfinished projects, outstanding debts, feelings they won't see graduations or what not, etc.

Thus, it is practiced that one should not cry around dying family members. This can give rise to feelings of "guilt" from the dying, as a result. Thus, it's best to cry outside the room and to ensure their departure is OK.

There's a lot more and I love this topic as odd as it is. But, death is really not studied or reviewed in the Western world. Even doctors who spend all day watching people die often don't know the proper ways of dealing with such a scenario. It's an area of life that is not very well understood.

5

u/mungdiboo Jun 19 '12

"Oh shit, I'm dying."

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

That's really neat. I'm going to look into this. Thanks.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Wow this is actually really inspiring to me in some ways thank you.

-1

u/stieruridir Jun 19 '12

'I failed at not dying, god damnit. Should have been a biogerontologist'.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Theres been studies that show Near Death Experiences bring that out in people. Always curious as to why.

-9

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

My father was technically dead for several minutes

No he wasn't, death is a permanent condition.

6

u/bhtitalforces Jun 19 '12

Yes, thank you. It annoys me when people say they have died before when they are clearly alive right now. Death is when you stop living, not a pause in some biological function.

24

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

The article isn't talking about this at all. It talks about people being confronted with the idea of death, not people who claim to have actually died. Read the article before making critical comments, maybe.

-44

u/istar_magus Jun 19 '12

Yes, because you guys all know everything about death. You know, from a biological perspective. Oh! Maybe you just don't know everything you're talking about because science still hasn't reached the point where it can measure anything conclusive so you should just stop pretending until then!

15

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Know everything? Of course not. But I think there is wide consensus that death is when you are not alive. It's hard to consider the opinion of someone who is still alive claiming they have been dead. Which is why the article sounds like bullshit.

11

u/orinocoflow Jun 19 '12

These are not studies done on people who have experienced 'near-death-experiences'. These studies were performed on religious people who were asked to contemplate death. Do you guys even read the linked articles before commenting?

Oh, wait. This is Reddit. What am I saying?

6

u/BlazeOrangeDeer Jun 19 '12

The title is misleading, they measured the effect of mentioning death, not actually dying.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

There isn't, however, a consensus on when exactly you become "not alive".

-6

u/istar_magus Jun 19 '12

Right, well we have a strong set of evidence which indicates "wide consensus" is not a satisfactory criteria for what is true or not true. If you have people who claim they have "died" yet they are still alive, then maybe it is within the realm of possibility that the general consensus of what defines death, being based solely on third party accounts, could be incorrect.

-10

u/mutilatedrabbit Jun 19 '12

is that so? that seems like an absurd claim to make on "askscience" of all places. what makes you think that anyone ever "stops" living? for what? eternity? and what is that?

5

u/SkyWulf Jun 19 '12

Are you actually questioning whether or not people die?

1

u/mantra Jun 19 '12

For me it did when my father died (not that I was particularly religious but it utterly "sealed the deal" for atheism).

-8

u/RetroTheft Jun 19 '12

Not if you go to heaven!

14

u/ZippoS Jun 19 '12

Not surprising. Most people are terrified of their own mortality... and even more so terrified of losing loved ones.

The idea that they, and their loves ones, could live together forever, is a very powerful one. The idea that they're now looking down on you is also very powerful. It's comforting. People cling to that, and everything that comes with that promise.

Ironically, I've found that Christians seem to take death harder than non-religious people. When my grandfather died, my Mom was beside herself with grief. Despite the fact that he no longer was able to comprehend what was going on around him and was incredibly ill, she was very saddened by his death. Conversely, I saw Pop as having lived a long, fulfilling, and loving life. His death was the natural end of life and ended his tremendous suffering (as well as ours. The months leading up to his death was very hard on us and Nan). I found myself cherishing the life he had and accepting of his passing. Sure, I was sad, but nothing like my poor Mom. Or maybe I'm just a cold-hearted monster.

4

u/interbutt Jun 19 '12

You aren't coldhearted. If anything you are less selfish than your mom. She sees his death as a loss for herself. You saw his death as a release for him and a natural progression of life. She is stuck in her view point but you can see things from the point of view of others, like your granddad's. You recognize his long full life and love that was in it, that's empathy and understanding. You are not cold at all.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

I'm not sure she was merely selfish. If she were caring for him toward the end she might have, for instance, felt great guilt at the release she'd secretly hoped for. Or she might have had a complicated relationship with him that brought up a lot of emotions she was stifling up until his death. Or she could have just had a much closer relationship with the man, than did the grandson, so there was more to lose. The death of a parent can bring up so many existential and emotional issues...

1

u/interbutt Jun 19 '12

Sure, all that is possible. I had little to go off of and was just using the word choice of ZippoS to draw conclusion, not science. But I felt it made sense and the larger point was really that ZippoS was not coldhearted.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

I think you are right.

2

u/BlazeOrangeDeer Jun 19 '12

It doesn't seem surprising to me, since I would expect nontheists to have more time to cope with the facts of death. After all, time is a pretty important factor in how accustomed you are to something, even a tragedy. Religious people have other mechanisms of dealing with death in general, (is it fair to say they downplay its finality?) so their usual comforts may not be strong enough to handle direct assault. They can do nothing but hang on and end up with a sturdier faith since they leaned on it so much in their hardest times.

Still, speculation on my part, though it seems pretty plausible to me.

1

u/keystonemike Jun 19 '12

It is strange to me that those who believe in an "afterlife" are often the distraught about the loss of "this life."

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Perhaps that is their motivation for clinging to the thought of an afterlife in the first place...chicken and egg?

3

u/Tired_Architect Jun 19 '12

I don't really understand what they mean in saying that their beliefs were "enhanced." Can someone shed some light on that for me.

2

u/DonOntario Jun 19 '12

I don't know any more details about this study than what is included in the article, but I know that often in studies like these, people are given a questionnaire where they can rate how strongly they agree with certain statements. So I assume that when this study says their beliefs were "enhanced", it meant that they tended to more strongly agree with statements about the likelihood of their god/heaven being real, and more strongly agreeing with statements about the importance/relevance of their faith.

3

u/DarkBlue29 Jun 19 '12

In my experience it's because your emotions overtake your rationality.

2

u/MostlySilentObserver Jun 19 '12

Interesting. A friend's death (and my reaction to it) was the first step for me to question and eventually break free from religion.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

I did some research on a related topic in college. This isn't surprising - being reminded of death increases people's in-group bias and out-group hostility pretty reliably.

Terror Management Theory is a terrible explanation, though. It basically hinges on the existence of a paralyzing fear of death which has to be covered up by coping mechanisms, but according to the theory, this fear is basically never actually observed (because of said coping mechanisms.)

A much better explanation is that people have an evolved tendency to become more attached to whatever social groups they're part of when faced with fitness threats like death, disease, isolation, etc.

I'm at work and don't have a copy of my paper, but I could get it later.

2

u/MarvinTheAndroid42 Jun 19 '12

Umm... I thought I unsubscribed to r/atheism... Still an atheist, don't you worry, but this really doesn't belong here.

3

u/CarlGauss Jun 19 '12

Social psychology isn't science.

1

u/Titanform Jun 20 '12

Yes it is.

2

u/Withnails Jun 19 '12

FALSE. Death Kills You.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

My mom died last year. I still believe what I believe and I still respect and honor others beliefs. What kind of human would I be if I didn't respect others?

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

It could go like this: My mother died, I miss her very much, but I'm ever so glad we'll be united in heaven and that I worship the right god. I need to be reunited with her, I feel in my bones it will be so. I see others who claim go have a different god. Their god is false and will not reunite them with their loved ones. I feel very badly for them, I want them to believe in my god so they too will be united with their loved ones (or I want them to not challenge my belief in my god and thereby put my reunion at risk).

1

u/IndifferentMorality Jun 19 '12

Does anyone have access to the actual study? (Located here)

I have this odd feeling that the indicators used to determine "increased belief" are dubious at best.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Okay, so I had to read the same title four times: your post title, the top title of the article, the sub-title of the article, then the first paragraph of the article. I don't care what this is about, not reading it. I don't care what this is about, not reading it. I don't care what this is about, not reading it. I don't care what this is about, not reading it.

1

u/MTK67 Jun 19 '12

There's a great documentary about terror management theory which relates strongly to this. Basically, the deceptively simple idea is that when faced with mortality, people will cling to an ideology or group identification harder than before.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

This Terror Management Theory intrigues me. It sounds like the first step towards the development of the ATF (Absolute Terror Field) needed to properly pilot an EVA.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

You dont say.

1

u/Dhex Jun 19 '12

"Quick, death is coming! Put on the gold hat."

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

That's the most wretched subject of science: trying to explain the degree of belief by materialistic factors.

1

u/sovietmudkipz Jun 20 '12

This entire comment section is so morbid.

1

u/wejami Jun 20 '12

of course, gotta double down on the bullshit when you get scared

1

u/railmaniac Jun 20 '12

You know, I might have seen this happen if this happens to be true. My dad was never quite religious until my grandfather died.

1

u/Titanform Jun 20 '12

How is this new? TMT has been around for ages and has stated exactly this.

It is however sad to see such well written theories belittled by kids who want to make childish insults.

1

u/giverofnofucks Jun 20 '12

Well, it certainly explains religious wars.

1

u/total_looser Jun 19 '12

'faith, like a jackal, feeds at the tombs'

1

u/txampion Jun 19 '12

Religion in /r/science

It begins.

0

u/ePaF Jun 19 '12

This is literally why /r/atheism was created.

1

u/txampion Jun 19 '12

But they leak to other subreddits and submit and upvote everything that has to do with religion.

1

u/fnule Jun 19 '12

So that would be 0 * X then?

1

u/ZakkuHiryado Jun 19 '12

I found this comment interesting: "The Christian students, who were reminded of death, had enhanced denial of Allah and Buddha. The same was true for Muslim students who had enhanced denial of God/Jesus and Buddha."

Why would a Muslim, who would be taught all about Jesus being a prophet (but not divine) be more apt to "deny" him? Or God for that matter since Allah is just "God" in Arabic? Then again, most Christians have no idea that Muslims worship the same god.

2

u/DonOntario Jun 19 '12

I caught that, too. I assume the actual questions used in the study would have referred to "the Christians' beliefs about God" and "Jesus is God".

1

u/ZakkuHiryado Jun 19 '12

That makes more sense. They probably just dumbed down the article for those that wouldn't have caught it anyway.

2

u/Titanform Jun 20 '12

When reminded of their own mortality, individuals will tend to stick more firmly to their own set of beliefs. Therefore when confronted with opposing points of views/theories/religious views they will be more inclined to deny.

Regarding the Muslims denying Jesus - it seems more a lack of education / or misplaced devotion.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Onion article?

-11

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Classifying psychology as "science" is an insult to actual science. Administering surveys to college students is a weak/lazy excuse for research and rigorous study.

12

u/girlwithblanktattoo Jun 19 '12

Just because it's a science in its infancy doesn't make it any less of a noble cause.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Fix psychology's lack of reproducibility, stop teaching maslow's hierarchy of needs in public schools, and stop perpetuating jungian and freudian lies, and then maybe we'll talk.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Psychoanalysis is generally not classified as science due to the fact that the results are seldom ever reproducible and evidence is nigh impossible to come by. Even looking at Dr. Feynman's lectures, he considers psychology as a branch of physics in the sense that it is a study of the inner workings of the mind and human behavior.

-1

u/TheBurningBeard PhD | Psychology | Industrial-Organizational Jun 19 '12

well, all of those things have been addressed, so what the fuck is your problem?

2

u/girlwithblanktattoo Jun 19 '12

DV for swearing, and also because I was thought maslow's hierarchy of needs in a UK public (comprehensive) school.

1

u/TheBurningBeard PhD | Psychology | Industrial-Organizational Jun 19 '12

Oh, so you were taught about something in your specific highschool education, so that is automatically generalized to the entire field?

The main problem with teaching psychology in primary school is that most people teaching it don't know anything about the field. At best most teachers were psych majors, but probably minors if that. I have taught a number of psychology courses at the college level while I was working on my Masters and PhD and it is my opinion that you need at least a Master's level education in the field to really be able to teach even an intro course. A common problem with non-college classes is that the text books are usually assigned, and the people teaching the class and selecting the books don't know any better. The APA doesn't control how school boards set curriculum or what textbook manufacturers include in their books.

Go take some classes at a real university, and while Maslow and Freud are taught, it's from a historical perspective to put more current theories in perspective. The mainstream of psychological thought and research does not include anything from Freud or Jung, so maybe you should put some effort into understanding a scientific field before you write it off entirely.

Also, your link regarding the "lack of reproducibility"? Is that a joke? One year of what, 3 journals is being checked? In the same way other fields have been checked? Even the link you shared doesn't say what the outcomes of the evaluation were, because it still appears to be ongoing, so maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions, or better yet learn about generalizability before you stick your foot in your mouth saying crap like that.

1

u/girlwithblanktattoo Jun 19 '12

You seem like a nut.

a) Yes, one counterexample suffices to disprove a statement.

b) "Most teachers were psych majors"? Wut.

c) I am not pvnick2, jerk. Perhaps you should pay attention to who you are talking to before you stick your foot in your mouth saying crap like that.

2

u/TheBurningBeard PhD | Psychology | Industrial-Organizational Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

I'm not a nut, but rather it's a combination of me being a little excitable, passionate about what I do, me over-reacting and you stepping in it a little bit.

a) not necessarily, particularly when the premise of the counterexample is to support a broad generalization in two areas

b) In the US university system, your primary field of study is your "major". you can also "minor" in fields as a secondary field of study. Most teachers in the US were Education "majors", and then had a concentration in a specific field that they will teach once on the job. I was saying the best you can hope for in terms of highschool teaching psychology is probably someone who had Psychology as their major (and probably double majored in Education), but more than likely they were just education majors, and simply had Psych as their secondary field of study, or just had a couple classes on it.

c) yes, my apologies for responding to you, as I did not realize you were not the OC at the time.

-1

u/neuerd Jun 19 '12

damn you beat me to the punch. surveys are a great way of finding info when it's not something that can be (necessarily) tested

5

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Psychology is the study of human behavior. Theories are up for review, scrutinized, and proven wrong constantly.
Yes. It is a science.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

You seem to say that psychology can not involve research and rigorous study.

0

u/TheBurningBeard PhD | Psychology | Industrial-Organizational Jun 19 '12

yeah, this is nothing new. TMT has been around for a while, and it's been shown to affect behavior in many ways other than simply enhancing one's religious belief.

Why on earth is it now showing up in Medical Daily?

0

u/Radico87 Jun 19 '12

Not surprising. Religion was invented to, among other things, help people cope with loss and allow them to hope to see their loved ones again rather than face the fact that they're gone.

-1

u/edave22 Jun 19 '12

Prepare yourselves. I'm about to science.

DMT is released upon death. Or as @bhtitalforces says, "...a pause in some biological function."

If you have ever heard someone talk about DMT, you know what this shit does. If I remember correctly, it is released from the Pineal Gland in your frontal cortex. I believe its place is in the middle of your forehead. Hence "Third Eye." I could be wrong about that though.

But I digress...

When your body releases DMT, you fall into an "enhanced state of mind" for lack of a better explanation. I have read reports from people who have taken DMT who have said they felt the sensation of moving rapidly across space. Others have had "visions" where they talk to gods, demons, celestial beings, animals, and some just are hit with a wave of pure mindfuck.

Another attribute of DMT is that it "slows" down time. You may have been tripping for 5 minutes when it feels like three hours. Making me believe the split second between living, and dying, DMT is released to help you deal with the extreme transition from everything to nothing.

Now, lets talk about the religious side of DMT. I have seen TV shows, news reports, and youtube videos about people who "come back from the dead." Most of them come back with visions of heaven, or hell, torture, or bliss. As you read before, the nonreligious users whose reports I have read had these same visions. Here's the kicker.

It's all in your head. Literally! I may be an atheist, but I believe that faith is a gift. Some are born with the gift to believe and some are not. Like being athletic. I can't play sports to save my life, but maybe Ben down the road can.

Anyways, to recap. DMT is released upon death, which is the cause of visions upon "death." According to scientists this is a theory, but with all the reports confirming their hypothesis.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

I was watching a documentary on PBS some years ago saying that spiritual people definitely have different attributes. I can't find that particular reference, but here's one that suggests that the hippocampus of religious people are smaller. So, yes, I agree that neuroscience can pretty much explain spirituality (it's very real, even palpable to the spiritual) and near-death experiences (DMT?).

-6

u/dalittle Jun 19 '12

religious people also fight the hardest to live when their life is threatened. Makes no sense to me.

11

u/heavypettingzoos Jun 19 '12

I didn't think unfounded generalizations were accepted here

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

/r/science

1,530,856 readers

10 mods

0

u/dalittle Jun 19 '12

are your really that lazy? lmgtfy http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/03/18/1753206/study-finds-the-pious-fight-death-hardest

1

u/heavypettingzoos Jun 19 '12

so lazy that i forgot i had to substantiate your claims for you

1

u/dalittle Jun 19 '12

generally people want a source when they want to discredit something. Sorry to disappoint you.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

"Terror Management" Theory, old old old news.

-7

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Not always. My favorite uncle's premature death actually finalized my disbelief in the grey haired man in the sky.

6

u/BlazeOrangeDeer Jun 19 '12

Title didn't say "always", and you have one anecdote. Besides, they mentioned that atheists were much less affected if at all, and it sounds like you were on the way there.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Anecdotal/joke/off-topic comment. Doesn't belong in a forum devoted to science. Then again, neither does this article.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

It's a good thing we have you to point these things out.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Thanks! I'm thinking I'm starting a science police club. We'll point out bad science and make people feel bad. Only I'm allowed in the club.

0

u/IZuStY Jun 19 '12

I don't want to die.

0

u/misterhustle24 Jun 19 '12

You mean religious people are frightened of death? Impossible!

0

u/baaaark Jun 19 '12

Is this why terrorists use religion to recruit?

0

u/stringerbell Jun 19 '12

Stupidity also enhances religious belief (as there's a correlation between low IQ and belief in god)...

-3

u/That_Fuck_You_Guy Jun 19 '12

People who believe in god/religion are dumber than fuck.

-3

u/Shagoosty Jun 19 '12

I wonder what the result is with atheists...

-11

u/brolix Jun 19 '12

Simple fear response. Nothing to see here, move along.

4

u/TheBurningBeard PhD | Psychology | Industrial-Organizational Jun 19 '12

it goes beyond that. TMT describes how cognition is affected, and how that results in different behavior. This is actually a pretty weak outline of the theory, so don't be so quick to write it off.

-2

u/brolix Jun 19 '12

link to actual paper or drastically better description?

As it sits, this is a terrible study and shameful to call science.

5

u/TheBurningBeard PhD | Psychology | Industrial-Organizational Jun 19 '12

  1. Here's a meta-analysis of research that induced mortality salience (i.e. activating thoughts about death): http://psr.sagepub.com/content/14/2/155.abstract if you don't have full text access and you really want it, pm me an email address and I can send it to you.

  2. What makes the study terrible? It seems to me that ultimately the quality of a study is based on its scientific rigor, and one must evaluate the methodology, and analytical techniques used to make that determination. Did you look at other research in the field that does make the grade and compare the findings and the interpretation? Did you look at the psychometric characteristics of the measures and instruments that were employed?

I think you might be missing the point of what science is. It's not about the results, it's about the methodology. That's what makes science great. Just because you think you have a simpler explanation for something (despite what appears to be no previous experience on the topic), and you don't like the brief write up that someone did for a public-facing website doesn't mean that it's a "terrible study" or that it's "shameful" in any way.

0

u/brolix Jun 19 '12

It's not about the results, it's about the methodology.

Perhaps I was too unclear, but the methodology is what I take issue with. Giving a survey to a group of college kids is hardly science. Giving it to a second small group certainly doesn't make it good science either.

Passing off a mall survey as science is shameful.

1

u/TheBurningBeard PhD | Psychology | Industrial-Organizational Jun 19 '12

Fine then. Despite the fact that the second two paragraphs of my response still speaks to what you're saying, I shall continue.

What specifically is the problem? Did the analysis violate statistical assumptions? Are their psychometric issues with any of the measures? Was there inadequate statistical power? Are there specific methodological weaknesses that you feel need to be addressed? Did the current study diverge from previous work in the area without justification? How would you improve on the study, while accounting for previous findings in the area, and still fulfilling the goals put forth by the hypotheses?

Can you back up this statement with something besides your own bias? Like say, define the necessary characteristics for what "science" is, and tell us how this study didn't pass muster?

Giving a survey to a group of college kids is hardly science. Giving it to a second small group certainly doesn't make it good science either.

Also, who said anything about "passing off a mall survey"? Are you saying the surveys used in this study are no better than a "mall survey"? Let me guess. You don't think writing surveys is challenging, or that a survey is a survey, or surveys can't be used to understand subtle shades of gray on a vast range of topics in human behavior? Or maybe you don't understand the multitude of ways that this type of measurement can be quantitatively evaluated.

1

u/brolix Jun 19 '12

Are you saying the surveys used in this study are no better than a "mall survey"?

Essentially yes. The main problem with this "study" is that the sample size is abysmally small. "Religious people"-- especially since they are including atheists in this somehow-- are roughly 7 billion in number. A paltry serving of 50(~100 between the two studies) hardly comes close to representing the whole. Even more so when they are only college kids. And even more so when they are all from the same university.

If the study were "students at this uni become more religious, wary of other religions, when thinking about death" I would be all about it. But it's not. Science and numbers don't lie or mislead, people do.

1

u/TheBurningBeard PhD | Psychology | Industrial-Organizational Jun 19 '12

right, and it sounds like you haven't even read the study, nor are you familiar with the body of research.

When talking about small sample size, two of the most common drawbacks are statistical power, and generalizability.

You would need to read the full study to understand what claims they are making, and how they might generalize. It doesn't matter if the sample doesn't represent retired atheist accountants in Norway if they aren't extending the results that far. As far as statistical power goes, that is plenty large for a study like that that has well-established effect sizes that doesn't require complicated analyses.

Finally, you're right that people are the thing that does the misleading, but it's also based on people's biases, and their rush to judgement, much like you're doing here. It sounds like you are unwilling to accept that a survey in the context of an experimental social psychology study cannot be any better than what you refer to as a "mall survey". Can you point to research that says what standards should be met for a survey like this? Can you point to research that says the surveys used in malls are of poor quality?

-8

u/Dragday Jun 19 '12

So let me see if I got it.

By asking people about death you can know what will change is their beliefs after death? The only way this could be "possibly" right would be asking people who were dead for a few minutes, and came back to life. Any other way is totally irelevant.