Why are secular liberals so unhappy? This question is provocatively discussed in Arthur Brooks' new book Gross National Happiness. Brooks is a sociologist and statistician at Syracuse University. I am reading his book while vacationing with my lovely wife on the beautiful island of Santorini. So it's natural for me, watching the most beautiful sunsets in the world, martini in hand, to think about the question of happiness.
Brooks' book is full of interesting data. We learn, for instance, that money does buy happiness, but only upto a point. Poor people and poor countries are unhappy, and by the self-description of the people involved. So the movement from grinding poverty to the comfortable middle-class brings a huge gain in happiness. But interestingly economic improvement at this point brings diminishing marginal returns. This is not to say that rich people aren't happier: they are. But not by very much.
Brooks also shows that, in his own words, "people who say they are conservative or very conservative are nearly twice as likely to say they are very happy than are people who call themselves liberal or very liberal. Conservatives are much less likely to say they are dissatisfied with themselves, that they are inclined to feel like a failure, or to be pessimistic about their future." Conservatives' mental health is far better than that of liberals.
Equally fascinating, Brooks notes that "faith is an incredible predictor, and cause, of happiness. Religious people of all faiths are much, much happier on average than secularists." Specifically, 43 percent of those who attend church weekly or more call themselves "very happy," versus 23 percent who attend seldom or never. Observant Jews and Christians are by Brooks' measure the happiest people in America.
So why are secular liberals in general so miserable? I offer two reasons. The first is that liberals are political utopians. They consider human nature to be wonderful, and they expect freedom to be used wonderfully well. So they are always bitterly disappointed when they discover that this is not the case. Conservatives, by contrast, have a dimmer view of human nature. So their expectations are more modest. When things don't turn out half-badly, conservatives are pleasantly surprised. They are happier because it takes less to make them happier.
It's not too hard to figure out why religious people are happier. Belief in God gives people a powerful sense of higher purpose in life. It assures people that the universe is in the benign hands of a omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate higher power. It offers people a code for how to live. It gives us a reason to hope in cosmic justice, which is better than the imperfect justice of our terrestrial world.
By contrast, secular people have little to hope for. They are sure that they came from nowhere--the chance product of random mutation and natural selection--and are going nowhere. They know that terrible things happen, and they don't believe there is any purpose in this. No wonder that secular people have so few children: they have much less reason than religious people to believe in the future.
So why is an atheist like Richard Dawkins so frequently wearing a conspitated scowl? And why am I usually smiling? Some may attribute these differences to our genetic temperaments. Others may put it down to the fact that I live in sunny California, eating healthy nouvelle cuisine and going on walking tours in Santorini. Dawkins, by contrast, lives in dank, rainy England and eats abominable English food. ("May I offer you some more kidney pie, Professor Dawkins? It's somewhat bland, I know, but perhaps it will work as a laxative.")
But Arthur Brooks would probably say that our temperaments are also the consequences of two very different worldviews, one producing the wholesome optimism of What's So Great About Christianity, the other the angry bitterness of The God Delusion. Read Brooks' new book yourself to see if he's right.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 42)
1. Is this even worth commenting?
Just another Cotton candy piece.
JefFlyingV at 11:10AM on May 23rd 2008
2. So the lesson is that martinis and belief in god can lead to happiness.
Obviously, a martini will make your situation seem nicer, fuzzier, and just plain better without actually changing your situation.
The same is true of belief in god.
Ryan Anderson at 11:22AM on May 23rd 2008
3. Are secular liberals unhappy, because they are not on vacation humping your wife?
Kuni Linqvist at 11:24AM on May 23rd 2008
4. This is a good point, Dinesh.
The danger is that as Christians have increasingly cooperated with the secular concept of being religiously silent in public and government, this has given important industries over to the Godless world view exclusively, such as the mental health industry, the mainstream media, and academia. The result being that these Godless yet influential voices have been trashing religion and conservative views, even to the point of saying religious and conservative views are the new mental illnesses and delusions, while the traditional illnesses, such as homosexuality, have been newly enshrined as enlightened thinking and it is even a mental illness to criticize this new enlightenment, hence concepts like "homophobia."
Why isn't Christophia a word that everybody has heard as much as homophobia? Fear of Jesus goes against the secular agendas of the Godless academia, mental health, and mainstream media.
I know this to be correct because I used to think and believe in a Godless and secular way, before I got Saved by Jesus Christ, a decade ago.
Some say that those who speak out the most against cigarette smoking are former smokers. Ditto that with me, a former Godless secularist.
Rev 3:16 at 11:32AM on May 23rd 2008
5. That was a good one Ryan. Now go back and finish off the donkey.
Eric at 11:32AM on May 23rd 2008
6. "Religious people of all faiths are much, much happier on average than secularists."
sorry dinesh, this is wrong. religious people tend to NOT be happier. it is SPIRITUAL people who tend to be happier.
and if you are sooooo happy then why do you focus so much on the unhappiness of others? it seems like you're trying to convince yourself that you are happy when you are truly miserable. because, you see, that's what miserable people do. try to focus on the "unhappiness" of the people they consider their rivals.
get counseling, dinesh. while you're at it, get a lobotomy.
Richelle at 11:34AM on May 23rd 2008
7. Rebutting this particular post is far too easy.
IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
rabidmccain at 11:34AM on May 23rd 2008
8. Richelle; in 4 or 5 short sentences you seem to typify the very unhappy people DD refers to in today's blog. Followed by Rabid who, based on his response, should be deliriously happy. Surely there are more imaginative questions like, for instance: DD are you truly as happy as you claim, absent Drixie, Santorini and martini? Take away your earthly pleasures and how high is your happiness barometer then?
fanmanaf1 at 11:54AM on May 23rd 2008
9. I guess being on an island drinking makes conservatives like D'Souza realize just how blissfully in love with himself he really is.
David S. at 12:00PM on May 23rd 2008
10. Sorry DD, I meant Dixie, not Drixie.
fanmanaf1 at 12:01PM on May 23rd 2008
11. I'm speechless. You're more of a dope than ever.
America's Most Gangsta at 12:12PM on May 23rd 2008
12. fanmanaf i wouldn't expect you to get the point.
misery loves company
Richelle at 12:15PM on May 23rd 2008
13. Or it could just be that people who like the way things are going don't want things to change, and so are conservative. That can be good or bad - slaveowners were pretty conservative, after all. Correlation is not causation.
Ray Ingles at 12:21PM on May 23rd 2008
14. How does one quantify happiness?
Is Pat Robertson Happy, he looks happy, but being one with the lord does not guarantee happiness. Maybe maninthewilderness or observant can say different.
JefFlyingV at 12:27PM on May 23rd 2008
15. Actually, given that there's a chance that I can FINALLY get married to my love, this has been the happiest I've been in years. Funny how the closer we secular liberals get to that "political utopia" the happier we get.
But really, this is just another fluff piece by Dinesh. It has two not so subtle thrusts: if you believe in God and conservative values you will be happy; if you are a secular liberal then you are a miserable fool. Thus with two great generalist brush strokes he maginalizes the myriad nuances and subtle differences that make individuals unique.
And I have to agree, liberals are generally dissastified with the world at large? Why? Because we still recognize the manifest unfairness, selfishness, and hatred holding humanity back from its full potential. We went to the moon, folks. When we truly applied ourselves we went to another world. Not with prayer and promises but by the simple focus and application of will that we were able to muster. Walking away from the moon because it was boring is like a doctor saving a life and then deciding it is too routien and quitting. Of course being a liberal is frustrating, because as far as we have come we have so much further to go.
The irony is that Dinesh calls liberals like me a political utopian, with snide insinuations that we are unrealistic and deluded in our desire to see a more perfect union, world piece, economic responsibility, and personal discipline. Yet for theists to recieve their utopia, all they have to do is die believing the right god. And how wonderful for them that their god is, of course, the right one. Dinesh mocks secular liberals for our Utopia desires? At least we don't have to die to make it a reality. And sure, we might not ever make a truly fair and truly responsible humanity. But making it isn't the goal. Trying. Striving. Working to improve and advance the species to something better, more compassionate, more responsible and enlightened... that is it point of secular humanism.
Somber at 12:33PM on May 23rd 2008