# God and Positive Thinking **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 16, 2016, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312 "2016-01-16T06:08:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/41 "2016-01-17T14:31:44Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > There is a difference between optimism and “positive thinking”. An optimistic person thinks things are going to work out because of rational reasons X, Y, and Z. As in, “I’ve studied hard for this test, so of course I will do well.” Or "I’ve got a team of the world’s best doctors treating me. So of course my cancer prognosis is good. Hmm. Oddly enough, that’s pretty close to what the author of [the cover article](http://www.nytimes.com/section/magazine) in today’s NYT Sunday Magazine says. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/42 "2016-01-17T18:43:20Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Of course, they do. But 99.99% is almost 100%, isn’t it? Call me stubborn, but I refuse to accept that the religious faith of inveterate violent robbers/burglars, rapists, kidnappers, torturers, active shooters, gangsters and the like is a genuine one. Although I lack specific data, I don’t think they account for a negligible proportion of criminals. Drug offenders are the largest category. Can you elaborate on your thinking here? Why would a criminal be any more or less likely than anyone else to be religious? They aren’t a different species. > [@UY Scuti](#): > > Okay, they’re sociopaths or worse. They consider themselves innocent of the crimes they have committed but society doesn’t. In their opinion, they may regard themselves as religious people, but they fail to satisfy the social standards of a true believer. Besides, I think a specialist (a psychiatrist, that is) could identify numerous phony believers among them as well. Not innocent, but justified: perhaps they stole because they needed money, or killed someone they felt deserved it, or took drugs because they were addicted. Think of immoral things you’ve done in your life: at the time, you had a reason, did you not? What are the social standards of a true believer? > [@](#): > > I have to agree that community involvement and a rewarding, engaging career can make great positive thinking boosters, but. > > 1. Obtaining them (especially the latter, but not only) may necessitate the initial existence of positive thinking - a vicious cycle. > 2. Personal tragedies tend to wear off people’s confidence and enthusiasm despite the great jobs and social environment they enjoy. > 3. Failures in other aspects of life (such as love) and the difficulty of maintaining a satisfying level of community involvement or receiving the professional recognition one expects may undermine one’s positive thinking. > > Faith in a benevolent god does not characterize all religions. But but did you see my answer to a similar question somewhere before? Here it is: "But if you read the article I’ve mentioned, you will notice that positive thinking stems exactly from focusing on comforting emotional input and obstructing discomforting stimuli. Religious belief comes with a personal version of reality which stands for fact in the believer’s mind. This is the reason why no matter what negative aspects you may point out as evidence of a less-than-perfect creation the believer will always claim that you fail to see the big picture, which of course is one of harmony and perfection. " People can delude themselves, of course, to varying degrees. As a society, I’d rather we focus on material improvements to people’s lives than expecting people to invent a comforting lie. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/43 "2016-01-17T20:53:52Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > What is the middle position to “Execute all the Syrian refugees!” and “Let’s try to assimilate the law-abiding ones into our society and deport those who break the law!” The middle would be something like “Let’s deport all of them!” Which is not as monstrous as the far-far right position, but it is still pretty tragic. > > Choosing the middle presumes that both sides are equally extreme and reasonable. This is rarely the case. If you’re addressing me these questions, you’re making use of a straw man. My words were that “I practice universal conciliation” and **Bryan Elkers** mentioned the pitfalls of the “middle position”, a notion that I wanted clarified through a rational argumentation so that I could understand both the notion and his standpoint. I for one assumed **Bryan Elkers** meant by his phrase the standing of an unbiased person, who takes neither side in an argument between two parties and whose neutrality allows him to view things rationally. The way you seem to describe my method is caricature of my conciliatory position, which I find highly disagreeable. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/44 "2016-01-18T10:20:43Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Can you elaborate on your thinking here? Why would a criminal be any more or less likely than anyone else to be religious? They aren’t a different species. > > […] > > What are the social standards of a true believer? Humans do belong to the same species but they can be [more or less religious](http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx). Inmates make a particular category of people in that they are incarcerated, but their group is not homogenuous when considering the crime they have been convicted for. This is the reason why their incarceration time varies, they are suspended certain rights during and/or after imprisonment, etc. My opinion is that when an man’s crimes show an increased disregard for the values of the religion he claims to hold, it’s safe to think that man is not really as religious as he claims to be. For example, according to [this book](http://www.jstor.org/stable/3511418?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) people’s religiousness can be assessed by considering their faith, commitment and behavior. But the issue of inmates came in this thread while discussing the terrible quality of religious fundamentalists’ character, which in my opinion resembles the abjection of inveterate violent irreligious inmates. My observation was that violence does not stem from either religiousness or irreligiousness but it is an embedded trait or our species. Thus, religion is just as acceptable as any other source to prompt positive thinking. N.B. I’m willing to further discuss the issue of inmates’ religiousness only inasmuch as it is related to the topic of religion working as the best source of positive thinking. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/45 "2016-01-18T10:53:21Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > People can delude themselves, of course, to varying degrees. As a society, I’d rather we focus on material improvements to people’s lives than expecting people to invent a comforting lie. Your remark raises the two following questions, in my opinion: the question of lies and that of good governance. 1. Lies is an intricate issue. With no acceptable absolute truth, everything can be a lie. A person’s view on reality can be regarded as a lie by his peers because it is a subjective construct and more or less contravenes to other people’s views. Moreover, many beliefs do not originate in reality or rational argumentation – instead they’re purely emotional and lack any factual foundation. Any propositions that are built on such beliefs can be considered lies too. Thus, a large proportion of any person’s discourse and mass media content is a sort of lie due to bias, omissions, absence of factual information, etc. Plus, white lies are not incriminated in the Western world – quite on the contrary. And any lie that can save a life or help somebody boost his confidence and chance of success is encouraged. 1. Good governance is about both material and immaterial things. A good government will not only make sure that people are doing well in terms of wealth but also focus on immaterial issues such as education, lawfulness, equality of opportunity, solidarity, etc. A good government’s goal is that citizens are law-abiding people whose training and confidence allows them to lead successful lives both as separate individuals and society. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/46 "2016-01-18T13:42:06Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Look at the beginning of the American colonies when people believed they were establishing a new Kingdom of God. To say that their confidence was exaggerated would be an understatement, but the fact that the United States is here and doing well may be evidence of the fact that religion can indeed work as the ultimate source of positive thinking. Where did _you_ learn American history? People came over here for many reasons-profit, religion_s_, slavery, escaping their sordid past and an untold number of others, and I don’t think religion can claim to be the ultimate source of positive thinking in this country-there are more religious countries out there that aren’t doing a tenth as well. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/47 "2016-01-18T21:16:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Where did _you_ learn American history? Nowhere special. I have frequented the same places where everybody else goes. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > People came over here for many reasons-profit, religion_s_, slavery, escaping their sordid past and an untold number of others, and I don’t think religion can claim to be the ultimate source of positive thinking in this country-there are more religious countries out there that aren’t doing a tenth as well. No, my remark was about the beginning of the American colonies, a moment associated with the Pilgrims. The Puritan colonization of New England was an attempt to establish the New Jerusalem, a notion that had been inspired by the passages in Revelation on this issue and would become the foundation of American nationalism. Among the ideas that Manifest Destiny originated in was the conviction that Americans were divinely elected to control North America. It is possible that religion can be the ultimate source of positive thinking across the world, not just in the USA. The Pilgrim Fathers’ disproportionate confidence in their attempt to build a New Jerusalem is just an example of how successful religion can be in prompting the type of positive thinking that makes visions become reality. Don’t you find it interesting, though, that the USA is the only affluent nation in which religion plays an important role? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/48 "2016-01-18T21:30:16Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > No, my remark was about the beginning of the American colonies, a moment associated with the Pilgrims. The Puritan colonization of New England was an attempt to establish the New Jerusalem, a notion that had been inspired by the passages in Revelation on this issue and would become the foundation of American nationalism. Among the ideas that Manifest Destiny originated in was the conviction that Americans were divinely elected to control North America. > > It is possible that religion can be the ultimate source of positive thinking across the world, not just in the USA. The Pilgrim Fathers’ disproportionate confidence in their attempt to build a New Jerusalem is just an example of how successful religion can be in prompting the type of positive thinking that makes visions become reality. Don’t you find it interesting, though, that the USA is the only affluent nation in which religion plays an important role? The “pilgrim” colony at Plymouth Rock was only one of many at that time-there was plenty of other colonizations from other countries such as France, Spain, the Netherlands etc., so I don’t think the straight-line from “Puritan Founding of America” to “Manifest Destiny” to “American Greatness” is really there. I think you give those “pilgrims” just a bit too much credit. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/49 "2016-01-18T22:28:30Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > 1. Do you believe that 99.99% of the jail population is religious? > > 2. Is belief in god(s) the ultimate source of positive thinking or not? Explain. 1. Of course not. It’s more like 95%. 2. No. You can think positively and do good things without believing in God. You can think (and act) very negatively while being quite religious. See answer #1. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/50 "2016-01-18T22:58:46Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > My opinion is that when an man’s crimes show an increased disregard for the values of the religion he claims to hold, it’s safe to think that man is not really as religious as he claims to be. That’s a definition of religion I’ve never before encountered, then, than excludes people who commit sins as having ever been religious. Certainly Christianity, the most common religion in America’s prisons, doesn’t hold that view. Is there a particular religion you are thinking of that does? > [@](#): > > For example, according to [this book](http://www.jstor.org/stable/3511418?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) people’s religiousness can be assessed by considering their faith, commitment and behavior. It’s unclear from the abstract what behaviors they are talking about. > [@](#): > > But the issue of inmates came in this thread while discussing the terrible quality of religious fundamentalists’ character, which in my opinion resembles the abjection of inveterate violent irreligious inmates. My observation was that violence does not stem from either religiousness or irreligiousness but it is an embedded trait or our species. Thus, religion is just as acceptable as any other source to prompt positive thinking. > > N.B. I’m willing to further discuss the issue of inmates’ religiousness only inasmuch as it is related to the topic of religion working as the best source of positive thinking. Er, are you not arguing that religiousness precludes violence, since you’re arguing that criminals, some of whom are violent, aren’t really religious? > [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Your remark raises the two following questions, in my opinion: the question of lies and that of good governance. > > 1. Lies is an intricate issue. > > With no acceptable absolute truth, everything can be a lie. A person’s view on reality can be regarded as a lie by his peers because it is a subjective construct and more or less contravenes to other people’s views. The definition of “lie” I’m familiar with is [“to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive”](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie). A genuine but mistaken opinion on the aspects of reality does not qualify. > [@](#): > > Moreover, many beliefs do not originate in reality or rational argumentation – instead they’re purely emotional and lack any factual foundation. Any propositions that are built on such beliefs can be considered lies too. Thus, a large proportion of any person’s discourse and mass media content is a sort of lie due to bias, omissions, absence of factual information, etc. See above. > [@](#): > > Plus, white lies are not incriminated in the Western world – quite on the contrary. And any lie that can save a life or help somebody boost his confidence and chance of success is encouraged. This varies, based on the nature of the lie and the individuals concerned. Some, myself included, believe that the truth has an innate value and that lying is never moral. And if I may refer back to an earlier statement of yours: > [@UY Scuti](#): > > This is the reason why no matter what negative aspects you may point out as evidence of a less-than-perfect creation the believer will always claim that you fail to see the big picture, which of course is one of harmony and perfection. You just described the [just-world fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis), which is, in my opinion, one of the two or three most harmful ideas extant in the world today. Telling people that there’s a divine plan and everything is working out as per God’s will has very negative real-world consequences. > [@](#): > > 1. Good governance is about both material and immaterial things. > > A good government will not only make sure that people are doing well in terms of wealth but also focus on immaterial issues such as education, lawfulness, equality of opportunity, solidarity, etc. A good government’s goal is that citizens are law-abiding people whose training and confidence allows them to lead successful lives both as separate individuals and society. Education, rule of law, and equal opportunity _are_ material things. Solidarity isn’t, but government attempts at solidarity often means demonizing a minority. > [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > It is possible that religion can be the ultimate source of positive thinking across the world, not just in the USA. Ultimate as in “final”? Plainly not, as irreligious people are demonstrably capable of positive thinking. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/51 "2016-01-19T10:28:04Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Ultimate as in “final”? Plainly not, as irreligious people are demonstrably capable of positive thinking. No, not final. I mean the best or the most effective. The OP mentions a psychology researcher whose work shows that people who make use of positive thinking have better chances to envision opportunities and open their minds up to options and the way to do this is to focus on the pleasant aspects of life while blocking the dark reality. I tend to agree with Barbara Fredrickson’s findings. Even if I didn’t, I would lack the knowledge to prove her wrong. Yet I’ve long noticed that positive thinking is usually based on a false perception of reality, which emphasizes the good to the detriment of the bad. Although this mechanism of building positive thinking can be enacted on every occasion one needs a boost of self-assurance, I have the hunch that evolutionarily groups of humanoids and, more recently, homo sapiens were able to build a social system of beliefs and practices that gave every individual member a general sense of safety, confidence and élan while dealing the hardships of survival, settlement, re-settlement, inter and intra-species competition, etc. Although people benefit from the advances of science and technology, they are generally unfamiliar with the knowledge behind it and its logical consequences. My opinion is that the situation will not ameliorate in the future and people will always prefer the narrative knowledge to the scientific one, which leaves us with the conclusion that for the average person the best or most effective way to build positive thinking will always be religion. This is what I think at the moment, but it’s just an opinion and I want to test it here against other people’s well thought out views. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/52 "2016-01-19T11:52:58Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The definition of “lie” I’m familiar with is [“to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive”](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie). A genuine but mistaken opinion on the aspects of reality does not qualify. > […] > This varies, based on the nature of the lie and the individuals concerned. Some, myself included, believe that the truth has an innate value and that lying is never moral. > […] > You just described the [just-world fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis), which is, in my opinion, one of the two or three most harmful ideas extant in the world today. Telling people that there’s a divine plan and everything is working out as per God’s will has very negative real-world consequences. Lying is a common practice and lies are quite ubiquitous. Just like you (and ironically enough the biblical text itself), I’m not a supporter of lying, but we live in an ocean of lies. It happens everywhere, all the time. For a thousand reasons and in a thousand different ways. A crusade against lies would be a quixotic endeavor. A crusade against lies may harm the crusader himself. If a lie is an untrue statement made with the intent to delude, the crusader will have great difficulty in proving intent, which will lead to social stigma on this type of crusade. A crusade against lies may harm everyone. Telling white lies is encouraged in a wide range of situations, and giving up this practice may lead to stress and dysfunctions at individual and social levels. Moreover, psychology experts believe that turning a blind eye to certain aspects of life can endow people with positive thinking whereas accepting to be flooded with negative information leads to apathy and pessimism. I haven’t changed my stance on lies. I’m just saying that fighting lies seems to me futile and impractical. Especially inconsequential lies or lies meant to prompt something good, such as positive thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/53 "2016-01-19T16:38:51Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > No, not final. I mean the best or the most effective. It’s possible. More likely, it varies by person. We know there are biological factors that contribute to religiosity, factors which vary by person. Certainly for me, religion isn’t and never has been a comfort, were any religion I’m aware of to be proven true, I’d be horrified. > [@](#): > > The OP mentions a psychology researcher whose work shows that people who make use of positive thinking have better chances to envision opportunities and open their minds up to options and the way to do this is to focus on the pleasant aspects of life while blocking the dark reality. > > I tend to agree with Barbara Fredrickson’s findings. Even if I didn’t, I would lack the knowledge to prove her wrong. Yet I’ve long noticed that positive thinking is usually based on a false perception of reality, which emphasizes the good to the detriment of the bad. Although this mechanism of building positive thinking can be enacted on every occasion one needs a boost of self-assurance, I have the hunch that evolutionarily groups of humanoids and, more recently, homo sapiens were able to build a social system of beliefs and practices that gave every individual member a general sense of safety, confidence and élan while dealing the hardships of survival, settlement, re-settlement, inter and intra-species competition, etc. > > Although people benefit from the advances of science and technology, they are generally unfamiliar with the knowledge behind it and its logical consequences. My opinion is that the situation will not ameliorate in the future and people will always prefer the narrative knowledge to the scientific one, which leaves us with the conclusion that for the average person the best or most effective way to build positive thinking will always be religion. > > This is what I think at the moment, but it’s just an opinion and I want to test it here against other people’s well thought out views. I see that the original paper describes foundational methods for building positive thinking, and I see that religious belief isn’t among them. Indeed, none of them reduce down to merely “believe in x”. They are, instead, pro-active techniques (meditation, writing, play). Further, as I mentioned before, any benefit from religion vs. other methods must be measured against the detrimental effects of religion, such as the just-world fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/54 "2016-01-19T16:39:52Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Lying is a common practice and lies are quite ubiquitous. Just like you (and ironically enough the biblical text itself), I’m not a supporter of lying, but we live in an ocean of lies. It happens everywhere, all the time. For a thousand reasons and in a thousand different ways. A crusade against lies would be a quixotic endeavor. > > A crusade against lies may harm the crusader himself. If a lie is an untrue statement made with the intent to delude, the crusader will have great difficulty in proving intent, which will lead to social stigma on this type of crusade. > > A crusade against lies may harm everyone. Telling white lies is encouraged in a wide range of situations, and giving up this practice may lead to stress and dysfunctions at individual and social levels. Moreover, psychology experts believe that turning a blind eye to certain aspects of life can endow people with positive thinking whereas accepting to be flooded with negative information leads to apathy and pessimism. > > I haven’t changed my stance on lies. I’m just saying that fighting lies seems to me futile and impractical. Especially inconsequential lies or lies meant to prompt something good, such as positive thinking. I don’t have the time or energy for a crusade, but I can make moral choices in my own life. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/55 "2016-01-19T17:31:35Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Odd that you would take religion as a source for love, contentment etc. :rolleyes::dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312/56 "2016-01-19T21:16:49Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > I think that even among those born to be optimistic there are a lot of people who find it hard to maintain their confidence and enthusiasm in the face of reality and may instinctively resort to belief in the divine so that they will be able to fuel their positive thinking and cope with life thrivingly. I’ve seen studies showing that optimistic people who are relatively poor are happier than pessimistic people who are rich. As for religion, I agree with those who say it is genetic to a certain extent, but I also think it is orthogonal to optimism and pessimism. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-positive-thinking/743312.md?page=2)