In previous posts over at the evolving mind I have explained why I have a beef with using spirituality as a scientific variable. In brief, the term is usually poorly defined, vague, has widely different meanings to different people AND via its associations gives legitimacy to a whole host of completely non-scientific concepts. (See Unscientific Science & Including Voodoo in Medicine.)
As you might imagine an article with the following title caught my attention: Spirituality is key to kids’ happiness
See if the logic of the piece likewise strikes you as problematic.
Let’s start with the title. Spirituality is key to happiness. Two variables related in a strong way. Key.
First sentence states:
“To make children happier, we may need to encourage them to develop a strong sense of personal worth according to Dr. Mark Holder from the University of British Columbia in Canada and his colleagues Dr. Ben Coleman and Judi Wallace.” [bold mine]
Um, personal worth, have the researchers veered off track?
Second sentence:
Their research shows that children who feel that their lives have meaning and value and who develop deep, quality relationships – both measures of spirituality – are happier. [bold mine]
And there you have it, the bogosity in a nutshell. The researchers go from more precise variables found to be associated with happiness to slapping a less precise but apparently more favored term: spirituality.
Ironically, but quite relevantly, the researchers also noted that:
It would appear, however, that their religious practices have little effect on their happiness.
Divorce spirituality from religion and what have you got? Good question. Some people try to do it, but I don’t think the two can be completely separated. But that’s a topic for another post. Here’s how the article attempts to divorce the two concepts:
Both spirituality (an inner belief system that a person relies on for strength and comfort) and religiousness (institutional religious rituals, practices and beliefs) have been linked to increased happiness in adults and adolescents. [bold mine]
So just thinking the talk is spirituality while walking the talk is religion?
By the way, the “have been linked” should be qualified with this information: in some studies of poor quality design lacking adequate secular controls.
And speaking of secular controls, that is perhaps my primary concern with all of this: the assumption that all meaningful beliefs are religious/spiritual. Please, please, please include secular controls in these studies. Then we could better make sense of this final, logic-abusing quote:
According to the authors, “enhancing personal meaning may be a key factor in the relation between spirituality and happiness.” [bold mine]
While the title touts spirituality as key, in the body of the piece we see it is personal meaning. Oh, but it’s key to the other variable. But is it? Here’s where the logic gets bent:
1) personal meaning found to be associated with happiness
2) personal meaning must then be a key factor in the relation between spirituality and happiness
What?! Why inject spirituality? My guess: to keep alive and promote the cherished assumption that spirituality is key to happiness. Yet the real issue is personal meaning — something that non-religious and non-spiritual people can and do have in their lives.
2 Comments to “Research on Spirituality Misses the Point”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Reply