Atheism, Social Networks and Health: A Review and Theoretical Model

Abstract

Introduction From an evolutionary standpoint, social networks have been critical in the biological and cultural development of human beings (Pinker, 2010; Hrdy, 2011; Price & Johnson, 2011). Cooperative hunting and food sharing, alloparenting of kin and nonkin, reliance on others during times of sickness or during periods of pregnancy and potential tribal warfare are all staples of the sort of foraging existence within which the human mind evolved (Tooby & Cosmides, 2015). The ultimate punishment meted out by foraging groups is social abandonment, which is certain to result in death (Boehm, 2012), and today in modern societies, socially isolated people experience greater subjective pain and higher rates of mortality (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2004; Lieberman, 2013; Holt-Lunstad, Smith, Baker, Harris & Stephenson, 2015). Fundamentally, then, humans are a social species, relying on social capital, or the support emanating from social networks, to survive. Secondarily, from a cultural standpoint, the material security hypothesis suggests that in societies that are unstable or impoverished, people will tend to seek out dense, homogeneous social networks that help to meet needs for food, shelter and protection (Hruschka et al., 2014). Regarding religiosity, this indicates that material insecurity will tend to motivate people to embed themselves into dense, homogeneous religious communities in order to seek safety and material support (Norris & Inglehart, 2011; Barber, 2011). On the other hand, the expansion of impartial and well-funded social welfare institutions will reduce material insecurity and, thus, commitment

Hidden in plain sight: Working class and low-income atheists.

“…Some atheists find a connection in secular groups and communities and organized nonbelief has similar social capital benefits, including prosociality and well-being, as well as meeting needs for belonging and community, to engagement in religious congregations (Galen, 2015). However, strongly identified atheists are more likely to engage in such organizations, and class-privileged atheists who hold other privileged identities (e.g., White men) are more likely to self-identify as atheists (McCaffree, 2019). Therefore, atheists with less class privilege may be less likely to identify strongly as atheists and, in turn, less likely to participate in secular groups.…”

(Non)Religious Coping with a Natural Disaster in a Rural U.S. Community

“…In a study of church and secular group members, Galen and Kloet (2011) found high certainty in participants' belief or nonbelief in god(s) was associated with higher emotional stability and life satisfaction as compared to participants' with less certainty in their (non)belief, even when controlling for demographic (e.g., age, gender) and social (social support) variables. Indeed, social support appears to confound the relationship between religiousness and well-being, such that organized nonbelief can offer similar benefits to health and eliminate differences between the wellbeing of religious and nonreligious people (Galen, 2015;McCaffree, 2019). Therefore, examinations of associations between aspects of religiousness and psychological wellbeing, broadly, and trauma response to natural disasters, specifically, must include nonreligious people and use measures of (non)religiosity that capture the nonreligious experience.…”

“…Further, the current study, like previous examinations of trauma (Koenig, 2012;Moore & Leach, 2016), natural disasters (Aslam & Kamal, 2015;Aten et al, 2019), and religiousness, suggested higher levels of institutional religiousness may provide some protection against negative trauma-related outcomes and religiousness and spirituality may facilitate posttraumatic growth at higher levels of trauma intensity. However, the relationship between positive outcomes and religiousness may be driven by active participation in a personal belief system, rather than strength of identification alone (Berthold & Ruch, 2014) or social engagement (McCaffree, 2019). Secular community involvement among atheists appears to minimally influence mental health outcomes (Brewster et al, 2019); but, secular involvement may often occur online (Abbott et al, 2020).…”

Psychotherapy with nonreligious clients: A relational-cultural approach.

“…Conversely, nonreligious individuals, especially those who are strongly identified as nonreligious, often find connection they may lack or lose among family with other nonreligious people in local secular groups, organizations dedicated to secular activism, or, often, in digital communities comprised of nonreligious participants (McCaffree, 2019). Such group involvement is associated with benefits to self-esteem (Brewster et al, 2020) and may be particularly important for nonreligious people in geographic locations that are very religious and/or rural.…”