Religious believers and strong atheists may both be less depressed than existentially-uncertain people

A Systematic Review on Alcohol Consumption among Non-Religious and Religious Adults

Background: Research has suggested that religiosity is a protective factor in alcohol use, but this is an area that could be further explored. Objective: To undertake a systematic review of the literature on drinking patterns and their relationship with religiosity and non-religiosity in adult populations. Methods: We searched for relevant studies using the PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus, and Psych-INFO databases. This review included only studies of people aged 18 and over which had a non-religious group as a comparison measure. Results: Fifty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The present review showed that religious people tend to have lower alcohol consumption compared to those with no religion. However, this difference appears only when religions are analyzed together without differentiating between religious affiliations (Catholicism, Buddhism, Evangelicalism, etc.). Some religious affiliations, such as Buddhism, Catholicism and Lutheranism, appear to be risk factors for alcohol consumption. Definitions of risk consumption showed high heterogeneity, ranging from eight to 21 or more doses per week, a difference of 13 doses of alcohol between studies. Conclusions: The present review showed that religious people tend to have lower alcohol consumption compared to non-religious people. However, the results are contradictory when religious affiliations are analyzed separately and compared with non-religious participants. Adequately understanding which dimensions of religiosity and non-religiosity (e.g., group processes, engagement, meaning, rules of behavior) are protective in adulthood is fundamental to the construction of more effective interventions in this age group.

Secularity, religiosity, and health: Physical and mental health differences between atheists, agnostics, and nonaffiliated theists compared to religiously affiliated individuals

Extensive literature in the social and medical sciences link religiosity to positive health outcomes. Conversely it is often assumed that secularity carries negative consequences for health; however, recent research outlining different types of secular individuals complicates this assumption. Using a national sample of American adults, we compare physical and mental health outcomes for atheists, agnostics, religiously nonaffiliated theists, and theistic members of organized religious traditions. Results indicate better physical health outcomes for atheists compared to other secular individuals and members of some religious traditions. Atheists also reported significantly lower levels of psychiatric symptoms (anxiety, paranoia, obsession, and compulsion) compared to both other seculars and members of most religious traditions. In contrast, physical and mental health were significantly worse for nonaffiliated theists compared to other seculars and religious affiliates on most outcomes. These findings highlight the necessity of distinguishing among different types of secular individuals in future research on health.

Importance of Religion or Spirituality and Mental Health in Canada

Using the latest mental health cycle of the Canadian Community Health Survey (N = 20,868), this paper examines how the importance of religion or spirituality in one's life associates with mental health. Based on this question, the population is divided into three groups of high religiosity, average religiosity, and secularized. Secularized individuals are shown to have large deficits in all the psychological markers suggested to mediate the relationship between religiosity and mental health, compared to the two other groups. In spite of these deficits, the secularized and the highly religious are found almost equally more likely to rate their mental health as excellent, than the individuals with average religiosity. Interestingly, these two groups are also more likely to rate their mental health as poor. Considering the ability to deal with day-to-day demands and unexpected problems in life as the dependent variable yields comparable results. Various explanations are explored.

Religion, spirituality, and mental health: current controversies and future directions

Although studies examining religion, spirituality, and mental health generally indicate positive associations, there is a need for more sophisticated methodology, greater discrimination between different cultures and traditions, more focus on situated experiences of individuals belonging to particular traditions, and, in particular, greater integration of theological contributions to this area. We suggest priorities for future research based on these considerations.

Psychological distress among religious nonbelievers: a systematic review

Studies of religious belief and psychological health are on the rise, but most overlook atheists and agnostics. We review 14 articles that examine differences between nonbelievers and believers in levels of psychological distress, and potential sources of distress among nonbelievers. Various forms of psychological distress are experienced by nonbelievers, and greater certainty in one's belief system is associated with greater psychological health. We found one well-documented source of distress for nonbelievers: negative perceptions by others. We provide recommendations for improving research on nonbelievers and suggest a model analogous to Pargament's tripartite spiritual struggle to understand the stresses of nonbelief.

Extending religion-health research to secular minorities: issues and concerns

Claims about religion's beneficial effects on physical and psychological health have received substantial attention in popular media, but empirical support for these claims is mixed. Many of these claims are tenuous because they fail to address basic methodological issues relating to construct validity, sampling methods or analytical problems. A more conceptual problem has to do with the near universal lack of atheist control samples. While many studies include samples of individuals classified as "low spirituality" or religious "nones", these groups are heterogeneous and contain only a fraction of members who would be considered truly secular. We illustrate the importance of including an atheist control group whenever possible in the religiosity/spirituality and health research and discuss areas for further investigation.