Mortality salience for atheists
From today’s Boston Globe comes this interesting snippet about an experiment or experiments (it’s not clear) showing that thinking about one’s own death reinforces faith in the notion of progress. And denying the idea of progress prompts people to think more about their own death. As I mentioned in a comment to Bob the other day, “when people are reminded of their mortality they become emotionally invested in institutions, like religion or nation, that could be thought of as providing a kind of immortality.” The idea of progress would seem to provide a similar function, in that the individual can see his or her life as being part of a larger pattern involving an onward march to a better world.
For many people, faith in a higher power gets them through dark times. But for those who are less spiritual, is there a comparable source of comfort? Maybe so, according to research suggesting that faith in progress has many of the same psychological effects as spiritual faith. For example, people who were first asked to think about their own death were then less likely to agree with an essay claiming that progress is a myth. Alternatively, people who first read an essay claiming that progress is a myth were then more likely to think about their own death. Also, after having their faith in progress reinforced, people were more able to resist thoughts about death and less defensive about their own worldview.
Rutjens, B. et al., “Things Will Get Better: The Anxiety-Buffering Qualities of Progressive Hope,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (forthcoming).
I don’t necessarily think it’s a good thing that “progressive hope” makes us “more able to resist thoughts about death,” although it’s good when people are less defensive about their worldview. The idea of “progress” is just that — it’s an idea, and not one that’s well-rooted in reality. If we pick certain timescales and then within those timescales ignore much of what was happening in the world, we can have the idea that overall things are getting better. But this is a very selective view. While the living standards of many people improved in the 20th century, for example, we also got “better” at killing millions of people. We’re getting better at exterminating species, making massive changes to the biosphere, and (in the US) making less fuel-efficient vehicles as well. The idea of “progress” may be comforting, but maybe we don’t actually need to be comforted right now. Maybe a bit more discomfort would be good for us.
Nevertheless, these comments have nothing directly to do with the researchers’ findings, which are fascinating. I wonder what research into the Six Element Practice would show? In that practice we contemplate our own impermanence, but we also see that within the wider context of an ever-changing and interconnected world, and we practice letting go. Normally reminders of death make us more conservative, and make us cling more to religion and to group-identity. The Six Element practice encourages us to take a reminder of death and do precisely the opposite — cease clinging to the things we identify with.
(The picture, by the way, is called “The Drunkard’s Progress, from the First Glass to the Grave.” You can click on it for a full-size image.)
6 Responses to “Mortality salience for atheists”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “Mortality salience for atheists,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Mar 29 2009
Tags and categories
Tags: mortality salience, psychology
Category: Apropos of nothing, Meditation & practice, Religion & Society
It’s about time you blogged about me!
I’m a teetotaler though because the drunkards progress is what would probably happen to me when I start drinking.
The six element practice sounds interesting, but if I were to have any use for it, it would be modified not to let go of just any connections but rather to examine them, let go of the bad and strengthen the good. Not knowing what those six elements are, I suppose my modification might not amount to all six of the elements.
Hi Rob. There’s a description of the Six Element meditation here. It’s not that we’re regarding any of the attachments as bad or good, but recognizing that fundamentally it’s impossible to hold onto anything. Life flows. In the Element practice we take each of the elements in turn (earth, water, fire, air, space, consciousness) and reflect that each of them simply flows through “us.” We observe that we can’t in fact hold on to the elements, and that there’s no fixed “us” to hold on to the elements anyway. It’s a very cool practice.
Well, from the evidence that you provided, I don’t believe that the study that you’ve mentioned is completely valid in making a direct correlation between an economic and political philosophy, and thoughts about death. These are completely different subjects areas and, maybe its me, but the significant evidence seems to escape my eyes. Although the Progressive movement was largely an American philosophy, I believe it can still be a strong contender for other third world nations as well. I’m not implying that materialistic dependence will coincide with spiritual freedom, really it will be quite the opposite, but I would like to see someone tell Ethiopian children that what we need is more “discomfort.” Americans are saturated in material wealth, but not because of a progressive philosophy, but because they choice to “worship” these materials. The things we’ve owned end up owning us. But things such as “exterminating species, climate change and less efficient vehicles”… all these things are more prevalent in less “progressive countries.” And if you even want to point fingers, China produces more green house gases than the United States by ten fold. I don’t advocate America’s unhealthy addiction of filling spiritual need with material wealth, but with all do respect, your conclusions seems a bit stretched in my eyes.
Hi Shawn,
I’m not sure what you find unclear about the evidence presented: “people who were first asked to think about their own death were then less likely to agree with an essay claiming that progress is a myth” seems straightforward enough, as does “Alternatively, people who first read an essay claiming that progress is a myth were then more likely to think about their own death.”
I didn’t anywhere suggest that we don’t need genuine progress (whether political, material, environmental, etc), which is what you seem to be think I’m putting forward. What I’m suggesting is that much of what we call “progress” isn’t actually progress at all. To take your point about Ethiopian children (and by that I presume you mean “poor Ethiopian children”) it’s arguable that some of the drought that struck their country in the early 1980s and even last year was caused by “progress” in the developed world. We fly more and drive more, the climate changes, and they suffer. It’s conceivable, in fact, that we as a species could “progress” our way to global catastrophe.
The “discomfort” I was talking about was not material discomfort, as I think you were suggesting, although it’s not clear. I was talking about the existential discomfort of recognizing what’s really happening in the world. The idea of “progress” may be comforting because it connects us to something bigger than ourselves and therefore gives our lives meaning, but as I’ve already suggested, the idea of progress may well be an illusion.
I’m puzzled by your closing statements. China, per capita, produces a fraction of the greenhouse gases that the US does. Even as a whole, bearing in mind that they have a population three times that of the US, they produce only slightly more CO2 than the US. None of this is “pointing fingers” — it’s just recognizing what actually happens. Playing a blame game may also be comforting, but ultimately it’s a distraction. Blaming developing nations is merely a way of diverting ourselves from doing what we can actually do to make things better.
I was merely suggesting that the connection made between “progress” and “death” seems, although accurate within this study, a bit far-fetched in my opinion. And there possibly are some blind variables that help make this connection.
Whether or not Climate change is a taking place, or if it exists at all, (honestly, I no one can honestly KNOW, because if we KNEW we would already being doing something about it), it still makes sense not to pollute and hurt this planet. I was not playing the blame game, nor would it make sense because I hold my own skepticism on the subject.
However, I do agree with most of you conclusions. Although due to some misunderstandings and foggy connections, I assumed that the concept of progress what directly related to progress on an economic level. It is essentially correct, we have come – what appears to be – miles from where we have started. Yet, we still seem to be facing some of the same core frustrations about your existential “self’s.” But as soon as we are able to accept our death, our existence will shift for the better (which I believe was the point you were trying to expose.)
It’s interesting, Shawn, that sense of something being “far-fetched.” Sometimes of course it’s right and it helps us to probe deeper into results that just don’t look quite right. Other times it’s just that our preconceptions have been assaulted. By coincidence, Roger Hyam posted a link on Twitter to a Guardian article that starts with the following:
“If there is one great joy to be derived from scanning the scientific literature over a week, it is the barrage of studies that challenge your beliefs and preconceptions, demonstrating the weakness of intuition: because if we knew all the answers to start with, there’d be no point in doing research.”
I don’t think we should ignore intuition, because it can be useful, but in this particular case my own “spidey senses” aren’t tingling. Perhaps that’s because I’ve read some of the other stories about mortality salience. It’s a very interesting field.