About 90% of my thoughts is response to this podcast could be summed up by:
But posting a .gif and walking away doesn’t make an especially compelling blog post so…
Tommy Coleman and Dr. David Speed hit on some of the biggest problems lingering within the overlap of health psychology and the psychology of religion:
- Far too many studies select on the dependent variable
- Conflating “low religiosity” with “nonbelief” is rampant
- Work jumps from academic journals to policy recommendations too readily
- Specific mechanisms of the relationship between religiosity and health are generally left undefined.
Tommy and Dr. Speed do an excellent job defining and discussing these points. I’m going to elaborate on #4 a bit further.
Most of the health psychology of religion sub-sub-field suffers less from a God-shaped hole and more of a God-shaped elephant sitting in the room that usually goes undiscussed. The most important, but always implicit, mechanism in these studies is God. When participants go to church or have the kinds of beliefs which lead to them getting high scores on religiosity measures, God gives them better health. Or maybe the causality is flipped and God gives people better health which then allows them to go to worship services more often? Either way, the causal chain of religiosity and health implicitly assumes both God’s existence and benevolent intervention for the “good” or “strong” believers (i.e. high religiosity/attendance) and not for the “less-good” or “weak” believers (i.e. low religiosity/attendance). This mechanism doesn’t need to be discussed because believers know it’s true. It’s inherently part of the belief set. I think the prevalence of this underlying assumption, at least among Americans, is why a prescription of chess club attendance for increasing health screening behaviors seems odd whereas one for increased religious adherence doesn’t.
Within the sub-sub-field, the lack of discussion of the God-elephant isn’t a major problem, at least right now. Researchers studying both health and nonreligion/nonreligious populations seem to be more likely to dig into this assumption and seriously consider mechanisms like social support. In addition, as God rarely responds to survey requests, there’s no way to actually gather information about this assumed causal pathway within a scientific framework. Instead, we focus research on constructs like supernatural attributions and worldviews. This allows for a sort of Gentleperson’s Agreement among those of us in the sub-sub-field to get along while working in ecumenical environments without looping into arguments about God’s (non)existence. In general, I think this is a great way to go.
Unfortunately, as Dr. Speed discussed, within the context of the United States the implicit God < > Health assumption is endemic among people who make major policy decisions. The example he and Tommy discussed in the podcast was the US Department of Defense. It’s within these policy environments that the sub-sub-field’s lack of discussing the elephant becomes more problematic. To the extent that policymakers base intervention programs on the extant literature, without an explicit discussion of causal mechanisms within this literature they’re left with the over-simplified “more religion = more better” paradigm. However, this can improve when researchers are willing to acknowledge the God-elephant. In the case of the US DoD’s Spiritual Fitness program, researchers such as Dr. Ian A. Gutierrez are working to develop a more holistic view of “spirituality” that incorporates discussion of causal pathways toward improved well-being aside from God < > Health. Hopefully, as the viewpoint diversity within the sub-sub-field continues to increase we’ll see more discussion of testable causal pathways that don’t rely on an implicitly assumed elephant in the room.
 See also: pontificate
 Including within this podcast
 …in a deity which has a bunch of associated “omnis” in addition to caring about and intervening in the world and etc. This varies person to person
 Yes, this is inflammatory and isn’t true for everyone, see also footnote #2.