EP44. 23 June 2006.
Copyright 2005 by Kevin Sharpe. All rights reserved.
Journal of Implicit Religion 8 (2)
July 2005, pp. 118-132.
by
Kevin Sharpe
Graduate College, Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, Ohio
Harris Manchester College, Oxford University, Oxford
kevin.sharpe@tui.edu
www.ksharpe.com
ABSTRACT.
Scientific studies of happiness (as subjective
well-being) provide a lot of information about it: a persons level of happiness
usually stays within a certain genetically determined range despite lifes ups
and downs, happiness relates to activity in specific parts of the brain and to
the presence or absence of serotonin and dopamine, and we have evolved to
pursue happiness. Raising happiness within the set range can involve high self-esteem, a sense of control over
life, and an outgoing, optimistic personality. In addition, the persons view
of the world influences his or her level of happiness. Flow, personal
relationships, and having values and goals can also contribute.
Pursuing happiness and seeking to remove unhappiness appear to be primary human motivations, biologically based. The study of implicit religion, therefore, ought at least to look at happiness and ask about the relationship between it and implicit religion.
KEY WORDS.
Evolutionary psychology, happiness, implicit religion, neurochemistry, social psychology, subjective well-being.
CONTENTS.
Happiness
and the Ups and Downs of Life
The
Biochemistry and Neurology of Well-Being
How might we secure a job that will satisfy and fulfill us? How might we find a
partner with whom we can happily share the rest of our lives? How might we
ensure that we spend our leisure time pleasurably and constructively? We all
desire happiness and devote considerable time to seeking it.
On the other hand, surveys of
Oh happy days, Oh happy days.
When Jesus washed all our sins away.
How does religion relate to happiness? In particular, how does implicit religion relate to happiness? This paper will explore the nature of happiness as various sciences see it, and then discuss its relationship with religion.
For each of us, our happiness (defined as subjective
well-being) fluctuates within a small range called a set point or set range
that our genes largely determine. So concludes Dean Hamer in his review of
studies on the role of genes in happiness or misery.[3]
The set range represents a kind of preset value with which we are born and to
which our level of happiness inevitably returns. This notion resembles the
metabolic set range that some scientists claim governs our weight; no matter
how many cakes or chocolates we eat, the bodys metabolism readjusts to
maintain its preset weight. This could explain why some people find it so hard
to shed excess pounds, while others are lucky enough to have figures like
supermodels Claudia Schiffer and Kate Moss. Studies showing that body mass is
Support for the genetic set range comes from a series of
twin studies conducted by David Lykken and Auke Tellegen.[5]
Twins provide an excellent base from which to study the degree of heritability
of behavioral traits because identical twins share identical genes whereas
fraternal twins share genes as do ordinary siblings (roughly
Identical twins attain the same level of happiness
Heritability raises even higher for happiness in the long
term. Lykken and Tellegen administered the same questionnaire to a subset of
the twins five to ten years later and then performed cross-twin, cross-time
calculations, comparing the score of one twin at
With heritability this high, wealth, education, or social status says surprisingly little about a persons happiness.
Different types of research similarly show that a persons
level of happiness remains stable over many years. In a study of
The study by the National Institute on Aging in America also shows that changes we naturally associate with major emotional upheaval like starting a new job, getting married, or moving house make no difference to happiness levels; scores for people who had experienced these changes remained as stable as for people whose situation stayed much the same.[12] Maybe our happiness sticks at roughly the same level in an average everyday life. So, the momentous events winning the lottery or giving birth to a first child and the desperately tragic events losing a spouse or becoming permanently paralyzed do these not have a long lasting effect?
Consider Rose Marie Lajoie, a Michigan Lottery winner. She
says: If you are a negative person to start off, if you are a dull person to
start off, youll be the same way [after winning the lottery].[13] Momentous
events alter our level of happiness for a short time the
The sting of tragedy disperses equally as fast. Research by Diener and Carol Diener indicates that even quadriplegics and others with severe disabilities describe themselves as happy. In their more objective reports, they can remember more good than bad events in their lives, and say they experience more positive than negative emotions day to day. Reports from friends, family, and interviewer ratings corroborate these findings.[15] A study of car accident victims reports that, only three weeks after suffering a paralyzing spinal cord injury, victims feel happiness as the overriding emotion.[16] Another study compares a sample of lottery winners, individuals who had suffered crippling accidents, and a control group that had escaped both fates. The lottery winners generally feel less happy than the control group, and that the disabled people feel much more happy than expected.[17] All this evidence supports Lykkens prediction that, Christopher Reeve [the movie star paralyzed by falling from a horse] is probably as happy now as he was before his accident.[18]
Diener puts a time on how long it takes people to adapt to relatively minor events like gaining a promotion or losing a lover. The effect on peoples mood is gone by three months, and theres not a trace by six months, he says. Expect the effect to have dispersed within a year.[19]
For more serious events like divorce, bereavement, or unemployment, the effects can last longer, of course. This tends to indicate a clinical disease, such as depression, which overrides the customary set range. Its because in some sense, says Diener, the bad event continues to happen there are reminders every day.[20]
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune clearly influence mood, summarizes Greg Carey, but long-term equilibration to lifes ups and downs is partly a function of the slings and arrows of genetic fortune.[21]
The genetic view of happiness has implications for our understanding of the cause of our feelings of well-being, because our genetic code translates directly into how our neurology (nervous system) behaves.
Hamer directs our attention to two of the more than
Hamer describes serotonin as the brains punishment chemical; with its reduced activity, misery appears.[23] Scientists associate lack of serotonin with depression, suicide, and anxiety. These are symptoms of a modern malaise. As Elisabeth Wurtzel describes in her book, Prozac Nation: Young and Depressed in America, doctors now prescribe the drug Prozac (which prolongs the action of serotonin produced by the brain) as a matter of course to counter these negative emotions.[24]
Neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin work by passing information from the synapse or junction between a nerve cell and another nerve cell or a muscle. The nerve cells bulbous end releases them from storage when an electrical impulse moving along the nerve reaches it. They then cross the junction to dock at a receptor on the other nerve cell, like spacecraft docking at a space station, and either prompt or inhibit the impulses along the second cell. The first nerve cell reabsorbs excess neurotransmitters, but not necessarily all of them. Those that remain free-floating, according to biology, help create our happy or miserable states of being.
Genes carry the instructions for the construction of
neurotransmitters, their receptor and reabsorption portals. They also impart
Some scientists think they have located the part of the brain that registers happiness and where the set-range mechanism works. Davidson has found that people with more activity on the left prefrontal area of the brain experience greater happiness, while those with greater activity on the right prefrontal area experience more negative emotions.[26] People with the greatest right prefrontal activity suffer from clinical depression and claim that life holds no pleasure for them. Even very young children appear to fit the pattern: babies of ten months tend to cry less easily when separated from their mother for short periods if they exhibit more active left prefrontal lobes. Further evidence derives from the work of Richard Lane and his colleagues. Their preliminary research indicates that feelings of happiness, sadness, and disgust all co-occur with increased brain activity in the thalamus and medial prefrontal cortex. Greater activity near the ventral medial frontal cortex distinguishes happiness from sadness, while happiness correlates with significant increases in bilateral activity near the middle and posterior temporal cortex and hypothalamus. Lane concludes that spatially distributed brain regions participate in each emotion.[27]
The science of
evolutionary psychology (also known as sociobiology) aims to explain human
goals, beliefs, and theories in Darwinian termsat least in part. The urge to
survive and reproduce determines even the ways in which we think, the ways in
which our minds work. Michael Ruse words the point bluntly: Those proto-humans
who believed in
Evolutionary psychology has something to say about happiness too. Donald Campbell describes us as condemned to live on a hedonic treadmill.[29] We fanatically pursue happiness yet, no sooner do we reach one goal, than the satisfaction fades away and we commence reaching for the next rung on the ladder of enjoyment. As the environment becomes more pleasurable, subjective standards for gauging pleasurableness will rise, he explains, adding, habituation will produce a decline in the subjective pleasurableness of the input.[30] This, of course, restates the idea of a genetic set range for happiness, as discussed earlier. Weve seen the scenario before: we feel ecstatic on gaining a pay rise, but soon find that our material situation feels little different from before. We no longer feel happy. Perhaps we can live the high life more frequently, but we soon get used to that. We want another rise. Weve habituated and feel the need to strive once more.
In an evolutionary scheme, what adaptive advantage did seeking happiness bring to our forebears, if frustration and dissatisfaction constitute the net outcome? Campbell suggests the beginnings of an answer: maybe only those people who live in oppression and without hope of motivation have given up entirely on the search for happiness.[31] Other proponents of evolutionary psychology take Campbells suggestion further: We are built to be effective animals, not happy ones....Of course, were designed to pursue happiness; and the attainment of Darwinian goals sex, status, and so on often brings happiness, at least for a while. Still, the frequent absence of happiness is what keeps us pursuing it, and thus makes us productive. So argues Robert Wright in his book, The Moral Animal.[32]
The search for happiness, therefore, plays the key role. From the point of view evolutionary psychology, our desire for pleasure keeps us on our toes. The activity expands our horizons, our resources, and our skills. Parents employ much the same catch-it-if-you-can psychology when encouraging their offspring to walk; brandishing a favorite toy lures the child into stepping toward it, moving the toy further away means that the child progresses a few steps nearer. As the toy recedes ever further, the childs walking ability improves proportionally.
A limit blocks how far the pursuit of happiness benefits us, though, just as a limit prevents how far the child can chase the toy before keeling over. As Steven Pinker points out in his book, How the Mind Works, The problem is, how much fitness is worth striving for? Ice Age people would have been wasting their time if they had fretted about their lack of camping stoves, penicillin, and hunting rifles, or if they had striven for them instead of better caves and spears.[33] We need to decide what we can reasonably attain. We can gauge this in two ways, according to Pinker: by noticing what others have attained and by noticing how well off we are at the moment. What others have attained provides an insight into what we might attain for ourselves. This kind of comparison gives rise to the keeping up with the Joneses mentality: when Mrs. Smith glances over the fence and sees that Mrs. Jones has a glittering new Mercedes, she feels she must have a vehicle just the same or better. We want what others have. The second way that helps us gauge what we can reasonably attain involves our taking stock of how well off we are. We can then aim to achieve just that little bit more, and more, and more....These two standards of comparison help ground evolutionary theorys forecast that our reach should exceed our grasp, but not by much.[34]
Other sciences beyond behavioral genetics, neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology contribute to this discussion. Social psychology explores activities that activate our happiness: sharing in stellar sex or consuming delicious dinners, perhaps. Myers lists four character traits that make for happiness:[35]
1. Happy people have high self-esteem; they like themselves. Eighty-five percent of US residents voted having a good self-image or self-respect as very important, and zero percent voted it unimportant, according to a Gallup poll.[36] These kinds of feelings help cushion us against the demons of anxiety and depression, and so bolster our happiness levels.
2. Happy
people feel optimistic; they exude hope and feel able to succeed at tasks they
undertake. Increased optimism means better health, which in turn leads to
greater happiness. A study of Harvard University graduates shows that those
people who felt the most pessimistic in
3. Happy people are extroverts; they feel self-confident and mix easily with others. Extroverts are more likely to marry, find good jobs, and make close friends, according to research by Diener and Keith Magnus. These achievements lead to greater satisfaction with life.
4. Happy people feel in control of their lives. Allowing prisoners, nursing home patients, and employees to make decisions about their environment and its running results in increases in happiness. Controlling our own time also leads to happiness. Michael Argyle comments that happy people are punctual and efficient, while unhappy people postpone things and are inefficient.[37] Good time management provides a sense of control.
The happy farms scattered across the US provide commercial counterparts to psychological descriptions of what leads to happiness. Here you can learn about inner wisdom, self-confidence, personal empowerment, motivation, reconciliation with the past, and greater vitality,[38] all for a substantial weekly sum. Our determination to find true happiness has turned it into a multi-million dollar industry.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi discusses another road to happiness. In his book, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, he writes of when we find ourselves absorbed in an activity and time flies.[39] We then experience flow, he says. Life flows when we engage our skills and talents optimally, avoiding underchallenge (which results in boredom) and overchallenge (which results in stress). When in a state of flow, we feel happy, satisfied, a sense of meaning, purpose, and control. Csikszentmihalyi first observed this state when studying artists who spent hours absorbed in their work. They concentrated purely on their creation, toiling for the sake of the art alone, not for money, fame, or other extrinsic reward. Numerous other activities besides artistic creation can result in flow: climbing a mountain, writing a book, weaving a rug, playing tennis, for example. Any of us can experience flow, so long as a challenging activity absorbs us. We report more positive feelings when in this state than when we laze around, bored, doing nothing much. Flow promotes happiness.
Other factors, like
cultural worldview, can affect happiness. Some cultures look at the world as a friendly
and manageable place. Some cultures approach the world with negative emotions,
like guilt, anxiety, and anger. Different cultural frameworks contribute to
differing levels of happiness, even in the face of similar life situations.[40]
Values and goals also
contribute to happiness levels. Possessing objectives, progressing toward them,
and avoiding conflict among themall occur with higher happiness, according to
Robert Emmons.[41]
Diener and Frank Fujita also found that assets like money,
intelligence, and ability to get along socially go along with high happiness if
they bear on an individuals goals.[42]
(This helps explain why income levels predict happiness in poor countries and
why self-esteem levels predict happiness in wealthy countries that prize individualism.)
Happiness isnt a passive reaction to an amiable situation; it arises from
engagement in worthwhile activities and from striving to achieve personal
objectives.
Individualistic cultures
allow personal control, a chance to enact the inner self in the outer self, and
to express opinion, ability, and feeling. These possibilities encourage
happiness, but risk isolation and detachment. Martin Seligman
contends that the current epidemic of depression stems in part from poor social
bonds. Twenty-five percent of U.S. residents now live alone as compared to
eight percent
More than nine out of
ten people find marriage still the best alternative to living alone. Three in
four married people profess their spouse as their best friend, and four in five
would choose the same person were they to marry again. These facts illuminate
the National Opinion Research Centers finding that
This result doesnt
depend on the gender of the married person. European surveys and a review of
The link between
marriage and happiness can work the other way, not just from marriage to
happiness. Those of us who are happy make for more attractive partners and so
become better marriage candidates. Perhaps happier people tend to marry more
than less happy people.
Marriage can also lead
to unhappiness; says Henry Ward Beecher: Well-married a person
is winged; ill-matched, shackled.[47]
Marriages that break up can cause much misery too. Even afterwards, only
Overall, the plusses of
close relationships with family and friends tend to outweigh the stresses and
strains that such relationships can produce. A close, stable relationship
provides strong support, and brings joy. Happy people characteristically have close
personal relationships.
What, therefore, does a
higher level of happiness come from? It involves high self-esteem, a sense of
control over life, and an outgoing, optimistic personality. In addition, our
view of the world influences our level of happiness. Flow, personal
relationships, and having values and goals can also contribute.
The above tells us what constitutes happiness (as subjective well-being) and on what it may depend. Research on happiness and implicit religion might next address the following questions:
1. How important is the search for happiness in our lives? Studies suggest that its very important, that most of us pursue happiness (and shy away from unhappiness) more than just about anything else.
2. How do contemporary religious beliefs and practices function with regard to the pursuit of happiness?
3. How do contemporary implicit religions function with regard to the pursuit of happiness?
I will briefly address the second and third of these questions. If we do pursue happiness more than just about anything else, it should show up, blatantly or subtly, in religions both explicit and implicit.
Contemporary orthodox Christianity loses sight of the here and now, focusing instead on happiness lying someplace else a land of original bliss and innocence (the Garden of Eden) or of future joy (Heaven, our eternal and happy home where we will see God face-to-face, or the Promised Land where we will find happiness and complete satisfaction). Heaven is destination and reward, writes David van Biema, succor and relief from earthly trials.[49] Adds Jeffrey Russell, [Heaven] is an endless dynamic of joy.[50] A friend with a staunch Roman Catholic upbringing talks of her constant sinning because she fails to say grace before every meal, pray every night, and attend church as often as possible. She feels she must overcome this tendency through acts of penance to achieve happiness in the afterlife.
Modern spiritual leaders like Robert Schuller prefer to focus on happiness in the present. He writes about The Be Happy Attitudes: Eight Positive Attitudes that Can Transform your Life.[51] Such charismatic and Pentecostal movements assume that the spiritual intends for happiness. Happiness is nearness to God. We move close to God through the happy clappy world of human togetherness, epitomized by hallelujah crying and hymn singing.
And todays believers do stand out as prime examples of
happy people. The highly spiritual declare themselves very happy at twice the
rate of those with the lowest spiritual commitment, according to a recent
Gallup survey. A study of
Why do religious people feel so happy? Not only does Christian doctrine emphasize the state of happiness, but its practices help make its adherents feel happy. The various factors mentioned above that can promote happiness point to this: flow, relationships, values, and goals. The social aspect of the religious group may provide relationships, for instance, and both the beliefs and practices may provide a sense of meaning and purpose. Thus, espousing certain religious beliefs and following certain religious practices can and do help believers feel happy. No wonder religious people so often declare themselves very happy.
How do implicit religious beliefs function with regard to happiness?
The pursuit, attainment, and maintenance of happiness appears to be a, if not the primary human quest.[53] It is something people hold very dear, even if they at times have to forgo it in the short term for other key goals (fighting a war or looking after dying loved ones). Implicit religion has to do with commitment and integrating foci for life,[54] with what people deeply sense as sacred. It probably ought, therefore, to move its holders toward greater happiness.
Popular culture teaches that we ought to move up the social ladder, make ourselves look younger, gain further education, and obtain more money and possessions. Such things, the myths, beliefs, and values of our culture tell us, constitute the road to happiness. An implicit religion of many modern westerners is consumerism.
Compare this with what social psychology tells about things
that fail to make people happy. Happiness doesnt rely significantly on
external factors: economic class, age, gender, education, or race. Wealth
doesnt correlate with happiness, except in the very poorest countries. Despite
the fact that, Compared with
The implicit religious belief that money buys happiness is wrong; the consumer behaviors of the west dont lead overall to greater happiness. This implicit religion of consumerism thwarts developing happiness long-term and is therefore limps as an implicit religion.
The above discussion of happiness also leads to two issues related to how scholars study implicit religion.
Increasing happiness constitutes a primary human quest and therefore ought to relate to peoples deepest longings and their sense of the sacred; their implicit religion should tell them how to increase their happiness. The study of implicit religions might therefore analyze them in this and similar ways, and a critique of an implicit religion might ask how well it achieves such goals. After all, what are the functions of an implicit religion socially and individually? They may or may not be the same as for an explicit religion.
Second, scholars of implicit religion might want to look at their own objectives. Is the study of implicit religion only the phenomenological examination and analysis (including a functional delineation) of social and psychological phenomena, or might it also proactively try to promote particular norms and values? The authors of statistical studies on declining attendances at particular churches may intend their work as evangelical wakeup calls to fill those pews. Similarly, the authors of studies of implicit religion could intend their work as calls to help guide and mold the implicit religious beliefs so that the adherents generally feel happier or behave more justly. If so, the study of implicit religion might also ask about the formation, maintenance, and direction of implicit religions: through what mechanisms do they come into being and change? How might someone guide them? Then another set of questions arise having to do with values: why are one persons normative commitments (the person seeking to guide implicit religion) better than anothers (the person whose implicit religion the first person seeks to guide)?
Pursuing happiness (as subjective well-being) and seeking to remove unhappiness appear to be primary human motivations, biologically based. The study of implicit religion, therefore, ought at least to look at happiness and ask about the relationship between it and implicit religion. A rich study and critique may await.
Bailey, E. I. 1997. Implicit Religion in Contemporary Society. Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House.
Brickman, P. and Campbell, D. T.
Corelli, R.
Costa, Jr., P. T., McCrae, R. R., and Zonderman, A. B.
Csikszentmihalyi, M.
Diener, E. and Diener, C.
Goleman, D.
Gose, B.
Grantham, R.
Hamer, D. H.
Holden, C.
Howe Colt, G.
Lane, R. D., Reiman, E. M., Ahern, G. L., Schwartz, G. E.,
and Davidson, R. J.
Lykken, D. T. and Tellegen, A.
Myers, D. G.
_________.
Myers, D. G. and Diener, E.
_________.
Phillips. H. 2003. The Pleasure Seekers. New Scientist 180: 2416 (11 October), pp. 36-40.
Pinker, S.
Ruse, M.
Schuller, R.
Sharpe, K.
_________.
van Biema, D.
Wright, R.
Wurtzel, E.
[1]I
acknowledge the help of
[2]Myers and
Diener
[3]Hamer
[4]Howe Colt
[5]Lykken
and Tellegen
[6]Lykken
and Tellegen
[7]Hamer
[8]Lykken and
Tellegen
[9]Hamer
[10]Costa et
al.
[11]Lewis and
Joseph
[12]Costa et
al.
[13]Grantham
[14]Gose
[15]Diener and
Diener
[16]Myers
[17]Grantham
[18]Gose
[19]Goleman
[20]Goleman
[21]Holden
[22]Hamer
[23]Hamer
[24]Wurtzel
[25]Goleman
[26]Goleman
[27]Lane et al.
[28]Ruse
[29]Brickman
and Campbell
[30]Brickman
and Campbell
[31]Brickman
and Campbell
[32]Wright
[33]Pinker
[34]Pinker
[35]Myers
[36]Myers
[37]Myers
[38]Corelli
[39]Csikszentmihalyi
[40]Myers
[41]Myers
[42]Myers
[43]Myers
[44]Myers
[45]Diener
and Diener
[46]Diener
and Diener
[47]Myers and Diener
[48]Myers
[49]van Biema
[50]van Biema
[51]Schuller
[52]Myers and
Diener
[53]Phillips 2003.
[54]Bailey 1997: 8.
[55]Myers and
Diener