The Religion Factor

An article in this month's Atlantic takes a brief look at a long-known sociological truth: religious participation correlates with "lower levels of criminality, better health, greater marital stability, and greater self-reported well-being." The article says that an MIT economist has undertaken studies to determine whether these good results are produced by religion itself or by other factors. The finding?

Religious activity in particular is the salient factor. Link.

The MIT economist offers explanations:

He posits four ideas that might explain his findings: participating in religious activities may increase social interaction, and therefore social capital, in ways that participating in, say, ethnically oriented activities does not; religious institutions may provide greater emotional and financial resources than others during hard times; attending religious schools may bring some as-yet-unidentified extra benefits; and finally, religion may improve well-being directly, perhaps by reducing stress.

It seems to me that he missed the most obvious explanation: Religious activity improves the soul and, therefore, the person. Such an explanation, though, would lead to the conclusion that religious activity is objectively good for us, which leads to the further conclusion that there must be something about our nature that innately calls for religious activity. And that, of course, would point to God--the ultimate goal of all properly religious activity. Such a finding would turn the MIT economist into an object of derision. Scholars, after all, look at important things, like charts and factors. They don't look at stupid stuff like questions of being, virtue, and other metaphysical truths.