Community is nice. Having people that care about each other is nice. Not worrying so much about politics (i.e. not having much money) is nice, on some levels. Having a home, where you know you and your offspring belong and will be welcome in, is good. Why would any of that surprise anyone?

pangloss, don't you think that it kind of eliminates your explanation when it says that the researchers "analyzed other factors—education, fertility rates, individualism, and social support (having relatives and friends to count on in troubled times)—to see if they could explain the findings, but in the end it came down to religion."

It seems like individualism and social support would cover what you're talking about, but those were controlled for. Thoughts?

I think that it is necessary to have social ties and a community in order to develop any sense of "meaning" in your life. Whether that community be religion or another unifying trait, people need each other. My position on this is simply that communities are a necessary precondition for "meaning".

When I read that the researchers "analyzed other factors [...] to see if they could explain things, but in the end it came down to religion", I understood that to be "the other factors could not explain their findings as well or as clearly as religion". I don't see this as something "controlled" for. I see religion as one method of attaining meaning--and indeed, a popular and common one--but certainly not the only one.

I don't think it runs contrary to my "explanation" to say that religion is the main deciding factor between countries of rich and poor. What it tells me instead is that the necessary preconditions for a meaningful life are less present in richer countries than in poor.

wait, how does affluence make one's life less meaningful?

that would seem to me to define the meaningfulness of life around material acquisition/wealth (or the lack therein), but I don't see how one can constrain such a broad question with such a narrow parameter

if anything, wouldn't being wealthy (especially REALLY wealthy, think American 1%) help not hurt? since you no longer have to worry about working to meet material needs you have more time to devote to finding meaning with your life or doing what makes your life meaningful

@President Eden
I'm not arguing that you'll have less meaning in your life if you're rich, I'm arguing that in order to achieve meaning, you need a set of preconditions of which community is one. Richer countries and people may be able to find meaning, or they may not. The deciding factor is whether or not they have communities.

Also, the researchers probably didn't survey the 1% because, well, they're only 1% of the population.

it's directly relevant to their thesis though -- if the argument is that being poor correlates with finding more meaning in life, you should look to see if the contrapositive (that being rich correlates with finding less meaning in life) also holds

and that's fine if the deciding factor is communities -- I can definitely buy that -- but then why is wealth brought in at all? there are rich communities and poor loners. it may be true that community ties and communal strength increase with being poor, but if the direct cause is community, then adding wealth to the equation when it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition seems logically flawed

@President Eden
Well, one cynical answer might be that the readership of The Atlantic is almost entirely composed of people living in wealthier countries, and a subject that tells them they're living wrong might draw more clicks (and ad revenue, since that's where they make their money on their website).

It also seems like she (the author) is implicitly saying that wealth and less religion have a common cause that also leads to less meaning. The article is written somewhat cautiously and ends abruptly, so the author doesn't take a very hard stance on the issue. She just writes what they found and doesn't present any analysis or reasoning behind why that might be the case. Maybe she just wants us to derive our own meaning from her words?

i'm trying to avoid the cynical answer, which is that the atlantic's readership is largely of the liberal-progressive persuasion, generally disdainful of substantial wealth acquisition, and also considers itself "spiritual-but-not-religious," which means the article, which doesn't take a firm stance and leaves it to the reader to make his/her own conclusions, fits right into their confirmation biases -- and the attention-grabbing headline makes it effective clickbait

i am genuinely interested in the idea because i can theoretically see merit to where it's coming from, i'm just not sure the article really does it justice

so let's do justice for it. why might wealth correlate with weaker/less effective communities? this is a crucial question not only for this subject but for several others

@President Eden
Perhaps the fact that we're having this conversation online is an indication. In countries with more stuff, people don't have to meet each other face to face--interact physically--in order to form a community. Furthermore, it's easier to join and leave a community if your connection is only electronic. I think this weakens social ties: I can leave here any time I want and never interact with any of you again.

Now, not all communities are online, but an accumulation of property might make it so that people are less willing to go and form communities. What are friends compared to television?

In poorer countries religious leaders are even more corrupt than in richer countries, Many of them fraudsters and sexual predators. Where there is no well established legal system and police system peoples civil and human rights are undervalued and disrespected by the govt and the church.
To draw some positive conclusions out of this puts you god-botherers on very shaky ground.
The reason for less suicides amongst the poor is the fact that they spend a lot of time trying to survive, every day can be a struggle, if you stop fighting you will probably die anyway, a better comparison is seeing how many poor actually die of curable diseases due to lack of food, water, medicine and access to basic healthcare.
I'm guessing you haven't met many religious leaders in poor countries, many of whom would be criminals in a modern Western civilization.
Naivety is not a crime but if you are looking for your own meaning to your life you'll need to dig a bit deeper than this.

@PE, I can give you a very simplistic answer but that answers your question. Generally people that are richer do not invest so much time in religion, and without a God to guide them they lack meaning in life.

"Generally people that are richer do not invest so much time in religion, and without a God to guide them they lack meaning in life."
That depends on how you define a god ..... for some people money is their god.
You god-botherers are so ignorant and arrogant, but I suppose by definition that makes sense, what came first, the ignorance/arrogance of the belief in god.

God is not necessarily the hinge of this argument. I'd say spirituality, which is what I think you're all going for, can come easily without a god-figure.

pangloss,

Typically, language such as that on the part of scientists does indicate that they used control variables to eliminate the factors in question as the cause of the effect.

@pangloss i think the conclusion i take from your (true) observation re: online communities is that the strength of a community is tied to how dependent its members are on its continuation and success -- communities which depend on each other more stay together more, and communities that depend on each other less stay together less. for example, very few people here on webdiplomacy truly have a lot of "skin in the game" so to speak -- outside of some donors and the mod/admin team, no one really works hard in any material sense (time/money) to keep webdiplomacy going, so it's easier for them to detach and go

so in that sense it seems fair to say that communities in poorer countries -- on which their individual members tend to rely more frequently out of material necessity -- are stronger than those in richer countries, in which they tend to be more luxuries, relatively speaking

i'm not completely sure what that implies for meaningfulness in life; principally i'm not convinced that community is a prerequisite per se

This hardly comes as a surprise.

After religion largely lost (e.g. gave up) it's roles in government and epistemology (to be supplanted by science), spirituality became it's foremost province.

In essence, if you were following a religion that *didn't* add meaning to your life, I'd really hope that you would consider finding a different religion.