essay about faith in pandemic

The Importance of Faith in Times of Crisis

Saint Joseph’s religious leaders and experts reflect on how the quarantine can serve as an opportunity to connect virtually, contemplate God’s will and strengthen our faith and humanity

Written by: Erin O'Boyle

Published: April 28, 2020

Total reading time: 5 minutes

In times of crisis and uncertainty, many people look to religion for guidance and consolation. But the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in physical distancing across the country and world in recent weeks and months, has made even the most common displays of faith more complicated.

For religions in America and abroad, the pandemic has necessitated a rethinking of how to worship, and many churches, synagogues and mosques have halted their public services to stop the spread of COVID-19. The timing of the pandemic in April was particularly difficult for faith leaders and congregants to determine how to observe Easter, Passover and the start of Ramadan.

We asked three faculty members from the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Saint Joseph’s University to tell us how worship and expressions of faith have changed for different populations – including Christians, Jews and Muslims – during the quarantine.

Philip Cunningham, Ph.D., professor of theology and the director of the Institute for Jewish-Catholic Relations, wondered about the physical interactions of Easter week in the Catholic Church, such as receiving communion, or the washing of the feet during Holy Thursday mass. “What does it say about the ability to celebrate [rituals] and Christ’s example of befriending others and being of service, when you’re in an empty building?”

On the topic of serving others, professions such as nursing and medicine and supply chain industries have elevated the ideal of service at a time when it’s needed most, he says. “We should be thanking the people who stock grocery shelves, deliver mail and deliver food. There are now elements of risk in doing the ordinary, mundane tasks that deserve people’s gratitude. It has made us aware of things taken for granted, dismissed as mundane and pedestrian. We in the West aren’t used to having our lives interrupted, so this makes us value the everyday ordinariness more.”

Human connection is also a fundamental part of expressing one’s faith, and it is manifesting in new ways. Cunningham noted that the coronavirus quarantine has changed the way people celebrate religious holidays with family and friends. “When we have to physically distance, there’s a greater sensitivity that we miss being physically together,” he observes. “The internet is serving as a way to have conversations you wouldn’t normally have when physically with someone. On Easter, I Zoomed with several relatives in England whom I wouldn’t have seen under normal circumstances.”

Umeyye Isra Yazicioglu, Ph.D., associate professor of theology and religious studies, also spoke of how online experiences have changed the way people interact with each other. “Coronavirus has opened conversations about faith and religion, more so than had there been no virus,” she notes.

When we have to physically distance, there’s a greater sensitivity that we miss being physically together.”

Philip Cunningham, Ph.D.

Yazicioglu’s weekly Quran study ordinarily consisted of about four members, but that number has increased to about a dozen since transitioning to Zoom, she reports. Likewise, online lectures and discussions with spiritual scholars that she frequents have doubled or tripled in participation.

Muslims may also use this time for soul-searching, Yazicioglu explains. “There is an Islamic belief that everything happens with divine will and wisdom. How noble are we as creatures, that we might forget that we’re dependent beings and don’t have self-sufficiency? We’ve done so many grand things, like landing on the moon and on Mars. But this tiny virus has put us in our homes. We need to recognize we’re vulnerable, we took God’s blessings for granted, and we don’t have control.”

In times of crisis, Muslims are encouraged to ask forgiveness from God. “It’s a time to reflect on how we may be abusing our powers,” Yazicioglu says. “It’s time to notice mistakes. To wake yourself up because you’re missing your priorities.” She explains that asking forgiveness for complacency is important. “Maybe on a collective level, in a larger scheme, things are going wrong and you’re complacent. You should ask forgiveness. You can also ask forgiveness for others.”

Rabbi Abraham Skorka, Ph.D., visiting university professor, addressed the much larger question of why this global disaster is happening. “Pain leads us to ask things about God and His behavior toward human beings,” Skorka says. “For many people, this is a time of suffering. Not having the possibility to see your family and loved ones – that is suffering. And some have actually lost loved ones.” The Book of Job in the Hebrew Bible is devoted entirely to suffering, he notes. “The most important lesson we can learn from this book is that we cannot absolutely understand the ways of God, and it is forbidden to try to explain. Pain is part of our lives. It’s a reality. We cannot ascribe motives to God as an explanation.”

Skorka says our current condition is an opportunity to spend some time in silence, so that we may hear the voice of our conscience. “Silence is a great element in Jewish spirituality. God appeared to Moses in silence and solitude. God revealed himself to the people of Israel in the desert and wilderness,” he says, adding that sound provides people an escape from difficult questions including the meaning of life.

In the end, he urges people to remember that everything we receive from God is for good.

“When this pandemic is over, hopefully humanity will have learned something,” Skorka reflects. “And if you are scared, you will always have one thing to face fear: hope. Hope that God will help, and hope that a better time will come.”

Saint Joseph’s President Joins Philadelphia Mayor’s Eds and Meds Roundtable

As one of a dozen leaders, Dr. McConnell will advise on major Philadelphia sectors.

Heading Down the Shore? Saint Joseph’s PharmD Candidates Explain Why You Should Think Twice When Selecting Sunscreen

Colleen Huzinec, PharmD ’25, and Luz Rosario, PharmD ’25, discuss key factors consumers should consider when choosing sunscreen.

How Inflation, Online Shopping and Artificial Intelligence Will Impact This Holiday Shopping Season

Saint Joseph’s faculty experts weigh in on various factors impacting both consumers and businesses this holiday season.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• More Americans Than People in Other Advanced Economies Say COVID-19 Has Strengthened Religious Faith

Nearly three-in-ten U.S. adults say the outbreak has boosted their faith; about four-in-ten say it has tightened family bonds

Table of contents.

• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

This analysis focuses on views of religious faith and family relationships around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic . It builds on research released in the fall of 2020 about responses in 14 countries to the coronavirus outbreak and U.S. public perceptions of how the pandemic has affected religious beliefs and family situations .

Data for this report is drawn from nationally representative telephone surveys conducted from June 10 to Aug. 3, 2020, among 14,276 adults in 14 advanced economies: the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan and South Korea.

Face-to-face interviews were not possible in many parts of the world due to the coronavirus outbreak, so the study includes only countries where nationally representative telephone surveys were feasible.

The pandemic situation has changed substantially since the survey was conducted. In many European countries, for example, the number of coronavirus cases and deaths was relatively low during the survey period but subsequently spiked in the fall and winter . On the other hand, cases began to rise during the fielding period in Australia , Japan and the U.S. ; more recent surges in Japan and the U.S. have since eclipsed those summer outbreaks.

Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and the survey methodology .

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to cause deaths and disrupt billions of lives globally, people may turn to religious groups, family, friends, co-workers or other social networks for support. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in the summer of 2020 reveals that more Americans than people in other economically developed countries say the outbreak has bolstered their religious faith and the faith of their compatriots.

Nearly three-in-ten Americans (28%) report stronger personal faith because of the pandemic, and the same share think the religious faith of Americans overall has strengthened, according to the survey of 14 economically developed countries.

Far smaller shares in other parts of the world say religious faith has been affected by the coronavirus. For example, just 10% of British adults report that their own faith is stronger as a result of the pandemic, and 14% think the faith of Britons overall has increased due to COVID-19. In Japan, 5% of people say religion now plays a stronger role in both their own lives and the lives of their fellow citizens.

Majorities or pluralities in all the countries surveyed do not feel that religious faith has been strengthened by the pandemic, including 68% of U.S. adults who say their own faith has not changed much and 47% who say the faith of their compatriots is about the same.

Some previous studies have found an uptick in religious observance after people experience a calamity. And a Pew Research Center report published in October 2020 showed that roughly a third (35%) of Americans say the pandemic carries one or more lessons from God.

When it comes to questions about strength of religious belief, the wide variation in responses across countries may reflect differences in the way people in different countries view the role of religion in their private and public lives.

European countries experienced rapid secularization starting in the 19th century , and today, comparatively few people in Italy (25%), the Netherlands (17%) or Sweden (9%) say that religion is  very  important in their lives. 1 East Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea have low rates of religious affiliation and observance – at least by Western-centric measures.

The state of the pandemic during the summer 2020 survey period

Pew Research Center’s survey was conducted June 10 to Aug. 3, 2020, when all of the countries surveyed were under social distancing and/or national lockdown orders due to COVID-19. Even though the coronavirus is a global pandemic, not all countries have experienced the disease in the same way. During the fielding period, Australia , Japan and the United States had rising numbers of infections, while Italy and some other European countries had started to recover from the large number of cases reported in April and May. Nearly all countries surveyed experienced significant spikes in infections and deaths in the fall and winter.

The worsening of the pandemic, including tightening restrictions after the survey was conducted, may have affected views of faith and family since the summer of 2020. Attitudes also may continue to shift as the pandemic evolves. Nevertheless, if the differences between the U.S. and other economically developed countries on religion-related questions have deeper roots, they may persist even as the pandemic wears on, and the same may be true of differences between demographic groups within countries.

The United States recently has experienced some trends toward secularization , including a growing share of the population that does not identify with any religion and a shrinking share of people who say they regularly attend a church or other house of worship. Still, religion continues to play a stronger role in American life than in many other economically developed countries. For example, nearly half of Americans (49%) say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 20% in Australia, 17% in South Korea and just 9% in Japan.

In nearly every country surveyed, those who say religion is very important in their lives are more likely to say both their own faith and that of their compatriots has grown due to the pandemic. Americans’ greater proclivity to turn to religion amid the pandemic is largely driven by the relatively high share of religious Americans (In several countries, those who say religion is somewhat, not too or not at all important to them personally are less likely take a clear position either way on how their faith has been affected by the pandemic.)

Religion is just one of many aspects of life that have been touched by the pandemic. Family relationships, too, have been affected by lockdowns, economic turmoil and the consequences of falling ill. Many in countries that were hit hard by initial waves of infections and deaths in the spring say their family relationships have strengthened. That is the case in Spain (42%), Italy, the UK and the U.S. (41% each). In the U.S. and in several other countries, younger adults are especially likely to say they feel a stronger bond with immediate family members since the start of the pandemic.

These are among the findings of a Pew Research Center survey conducted June 10 to Aug. 3, 2020, among 14,276 adults in 14 countries.

Americans most likely to say COVID-19 bolstered religious faith, though majorities around world see little change

In 11 of 14 countries surveyed, the share who say their religious faith has strengthened is higher than the share who say it has weakened. But generally, people in developed countries don’t see much change in their own religious faith as a result of the pandemic.

A median of 10% across 14 developed countries say their own religious faith has become stronger as a result of the coronavirus outbreak, while a median of 85% say their religious faith had not changed much.

Among the countries surveyed, the U.S. has by far the highest share of respondents who say their faith has strengthened, with about three-in-ten holding this view.

By contrast, in Spain and Italy, two of Western Europe’s more religious countries, roughly one-in-six people say their own religious faith has grown due to the pandemic.

In Canada, 13% say their religious faith has become stronger because of COVID-19. And in other countries surveyed, one-in-ten or fewer report deeper faith due to the coronavirus outbreak.

The pandemic has led to the cancellation of religious activities and in-person services around the world, but few people say their religious faith has weakened as a result of the outbreak. Across the countries surveyed, a median of just 3% say their own religious faith has decreased, including 4% in the U.S. In South Korea, 9% say their personal faith has become weaker as a result of the coronavirus outbreak, making it the country where people are most likely to hold this view.

Perceptions about the pandemic’s influence on faith are tied to people’s own levels of observance – those who are more religious are more likely than their less religious compatriots to say COVID-19 has strengthened their faith and that of others in their country.

In Spain, for example, 49% of those who say religion is very important in their lives say their own religious faith has been bolstered because of the pandemic, compared with 6% among those who say religion is less important. A similar pattern occurs in the U.S.: 45% of those who say religion is very important in their lives say the pandemic has made their faith stronger, compared with 11% who consider religion less important. Overall, 24% of Spanish adults say religion is very important in their lives, as do 49% of Americans.

Wealth and education also play a role: In some countries, people with lower incomes and less education are somewhat more likely than others to say the pandemic has bolstered their religious faith.

When it comes to income, the largest gaps appear in the U.S. and Spain, where people at or below the national median income are 12 percentage points more likely than the rest of the population to say their religious faith has become stronger. There are also significant differences by income group in Canada, Italy, the UK, the Netherlands, France, South Korea and Japan.

People with less education are significantly more likely than those with a secondary education or higher to say their personal religious faith has deepened in five of the countries surveyed: Spain (those with less education are 11 points more likely to say this), Italy (8 points), the U.S. (7 points), France (5 points) and Japan (3 points).

There are few differences on this question by gender, even though women are generally more religious than men, particularly in Christian-majority countries . Two exceptional cases in this survey are Italy and South Korea, where women are more likely than men to report that their faith has been bolstered by the pandemic.

Americans most likely to say country is more religious because of pandemic

The survey also asked people if the strength of religious faith in their country as a whole has changed due to the pandemic. Responses largely mirror how people answer the question about their own religious faith, although respondents may additionally be taking into account their views on the role of religion in their nation’s public life.

Majorities in nearly every country surveyed say that the religious faith of people in their country has not changed much as a result of the pandemic. A 14-country median of 66% say the religious faith of people in their country is about the same as before the pandemic, while 15% say faith in their country has become stronger and 8% say it has become weaker.

Among Americans, about half of adults surveyed (47%) say the religious faith of people in the U.S. has not changed much, while 28% say the country has become more religious. A relative handful of Americans (14%) think that religious faith in their country has weakened as a result of the coronavirus outbreak.

In some countries, significantly more people say their country has experienced religious renewal than say they  themselves have greater religious faith. In the Netherlands, 17% say their country has become more religious, even though just 7% of Dutch adults say they, personally, are now more religious. In Sweden, 15% say the religious faith in their country is stronger, compared with 3% who say they themselves have experienced stronger religious faith.

In the U.S., White evangelicals most likely to say COVID-19 boosted faith

White evangelical Protestants in the U.S. – one of the most religious groups in the country , by a variety of standard measures – are among the most likely to see stronger faith due to the coronavirus outbreak. Nearly half (49%) say their own religious faith has grown, while 43% say the same about the faith of Americans as a whole.

Three-in-ten U.S. Catholics say Americans’ religious faith has strengthened, while roughly a third report that their own religious faith has become stronger. Non-evangelical (mainline) Protestants show a similar pattern: Roughly two-in-ten say their own faith has deepened, while another 21% offer a similar assessment of other Americans’ religious faith.

Just 5% of Americans who report no religious affiliation say their religious faith has increased due to the coronavirus outbreak. However, 20% of unaffiliated people say they see deeper religious faith among Americans in general.

Family bonds have strengthened for many in countries surveyed

Religion is by no means the only way people cope with crisis. Family relationships are often a bulwark of support. And as many families in countries surveyed remain confined to their homes because of mandated work from home and closed or virtual schools , more people say their relationships with immediate family members have become stronger than say these relationships have weakened. A 14-country median of 32% say relationships have grown stronger, while just 8% say the opposite. Majorities in 11 countries say the coronavirus outbreak has not changed their relationship to immediate family much.

About four-in-ten adults surveyed in Spain, Italy, the U.S. and the UK say their relationship with immediate family has strengthened. By contrast, only about two-in-ten in Germany, Japan and South Korea say they now have deeper relationships with their family.

Record numbers of younger adults in the U.S. have moved home since the start of the pandemic, and young Americans are more likely than their older counterparts to say their relationships with immediate family members have strengthened. Half of U.S. adults ages 18 to 29 say their family bonds have tightened, compared with 38% of those ages 50 and older. Similar age gaps appear in Spain and Belgium (both 20 points), as well as Australia and Sweden (13 points).

• Chadwick, Owen. 1975. “The Secularization of the European Mind in the 19th Century.” ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Religious Commitment

How Americans View the Coronavirus, COVID-19 Vaccines Amid Declining Levels of Concern

Online religious services appeal to many americans, but going in person remains more popular, about a third of u.s. workers who can work from home now do so all the time, how the pandemic has affected attendance at u.s. religious services, mental health and the pandemic: what u.s. surveys have found, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Faith in a time of crisis

Psychologists’ research shows why some people can find peace during the COVID-19 pandemic, while others may be struggling with their faith.

• Belief Systems and Religion

Kay Bajwa, a real estate agent in Washington, D.C., spends her time in quarantine praying five times a day and working with members of her mosque to find ways to help the less fortunate during these difficult times. “This whole ordeal is bringing us closer together and closer to Allah,” she says. “Spending time praying and being with him is comforting.”

Bajwa is not alone in turning to her faith to weather life’s storms. Religion and belief are now seen by many researchers and clinicians as an important way to cope with trauma and distress thanks to research over the last three decades.

“Religion was largely looked upon as an immature response to difficult times,” says Kenneth Pargament, PhD, professor emeritus of psychology at Bowling Green State University, who since the 1980s has been on the forefront of the research on religion and resilience.

Despite the attitudes he faced at the time, Pargament and a handful of others pressed on, conducting research on the impact of religion on people’s mental health. That research identified positive and negative forms of religious coping — as well as evidence that how people experience and express their faith has implications for their well-being and health. “People who made more use of positive religious coping methods had better outcomes than those who struggled with God, their faith or other people about sacred matters,” Pargament says.

Positive and negative aspects

What are those positive effects? Research shows that religion can help people cope with adversity by:

• Encouraging them to reframe events through a hopeful lens. Positive religious reframing can help people transcend stressful times by enabling them to see a tragedy as an opportunity to grow closer to a higher power or to improve their lives, as is the case with Bajwa.
• Fostering a sense of connectedness. Some people see religion as making them part of something larger than themselves. This can happen through prayer or meditation, or through taking part in religious meetings, listening to spiritual music or even walking outside.
• Cultivating connection through rituals . Religious rituals and rites of passage can help people acknowledge that something momentous is taking place. These events often mark the beginning of something, as is the case with weddings, or the end of something, as is the case with funerals. They help guide and sustain people through life’s most difficult transitions.

“It is extremely important that people use their beliefs in a way that makes them feel empowered and hopeful,” says Thomas Plante, PhD, a professor of psychology at Santa Clara University. “Because it can be remarkably helpful in terms of managing stress during times like these.” 

Unfortunately, religious beliefs may also undermine healing during stressful times. These negative religious expressions include:

• Feeling punished by God or feeling angry toward a higher being. Trauma and tragedy can challenge conceptions of God as all-loving and protective. As a result, some people struggle in their relationship with God and experience feelings of anger, abandonment or being punished by a higher power.
• Putting it all “in God’s hands.” When people engage in “religious deferral,” they believe God is in charge of their well-being and may not take the necessary steps to protect themselves. One example of this deferral is church leaders who say God will protect their congregations as they hold church services in defiance of physical distancing guidelines aimed at reducing the spread of COVID-19.
• Falling into moral struggles . People can have difficulty squaring their behavior with their moral and spiritual values. For example, health-care providers who are on the front lines of treating coronavirus patients may describe the anguish they feel as they are being forced to decide how to allocate limited life-sustaining resources, decisions that put them in the uncomfortable role of playing God.  

Takeaways for people of faith — and those without

Even though you cannot congregate due to physical distancing rules, there are many ways to lift your spirits right now, says Plante. “You can play a spiritual or uplifting song, you can join fellow congregants on Zoom or you can decide to help other people by giving to those in need.” Bajwa says she is inspired by both the practical and spiritual information she is getting during Zoom calls with members of her mosque.

“We are inviting doctors and financial advisors to hold seminars on key topics during our Zoom meetings, and they are giving us a lot of information that is helping us with all of the issues that are popping up during this difficult period,” she says. “Our leaders are coupling the seminars with emotional and spiritual support, which is really helpful.”

Plante says that the benefits of religion are not exclusive to believers. “There are so many religious practices that are now used by non-believers,” he says. “Yoga comes from Hinduism and mindful meditation from Buddhism, yet agnostics, atheists and people of all belief systems now take part in these traditions.”

Plante says atheists and agnostics can seek inspiration in literature, nature and by connecting with others, but he notes that the world’s religions are ready-made for when the world is turned on its head.

“Religion has been helping people get through hard times for thousands of years,” he says. “It’s tested and ready to go at a moment’s notice. Just read the psalms and you will see that it is all about people turning to God during troubled times.”

Further Reading

Religious coping among diverse religions: Commonalities and divergences. Abu-Raiya, H., & Pargament, K. I., Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2014,

Positive and negative religious coping styles as prospective predictors of well-being in African Americans Park, C. L., Holt, C. L., Le, D., Christie, J., & Williams, B. R., Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2017.

Religious struggle as a predictor of mortality among medically ill elderly patients: a 2-year longitudinal study. Pargament, KI; Koenig, HG; Tarakeshwar, N; Hahn, J., Archives of Internal Medicine, 2001.

Religious coping methods as predictors of psychological, physical and spiritual outcomes among medically ill elderly patients: a two-year longitudinal study. Pargament, KI; Koenig, HG; Tarakeshwar, N; Hahn, J., Journal of Health Psychology, 2004.

Two Sides of the Same Coin: The Positive and Negative Impact of Spiritual Religious Coping on Quality of Life and Depression in Dialysis Patients. Vitorino, L.M.; Lucchetti, L.G; Cortez P.J.; Soares, RDC; Santos, AE; Luchetti, AL; Cruz, JP; Cortez, PJ; Journal of Holistic Nursing , 2001.

• Psychological impact of COVID-19
• When COVID-19 meets pandemic hope: Existential care of and in the impossible

You may also like

Coronavirus Disease 2019

Keeping the faith: the power of prayer during covid-19, research reveals the value of faith-based positive living..

Posted July 12, 2020

Faith sustains when circumstances fail. Christians have celebrated this reality the world over, but perhaps never in recent times in quite the way we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Calling the virus “novel” also characterizes the way society has responded, with unprecedented measures, quarantines, laws, and regulations that have seriously disrupted life to try and contain the spread of the disease.

Faith and Health

Many have written about the power of faith, and how it impacts well-being. Harold G. Koenig (2020), in a piece specific to the pandemic entitled “Maintaining Health and Well-Being by Putting Faith into Action During the Covid-19 Pandemic,”[i] discusses a variety of different faith traditions but tied the discussion to the adverse impact of negative emotions on the body.

Koenig notes that emotions like fear and anxiety adversely impact our physiological systems that are designed to protect us from infection. Consequently, he notes that practicing our religious faith can help protect us from contracting COVID-19 and manage the symptoms if, God forbid, we become infected.

He notes that emotions such as anxiety and fear can actually heighten susceptibility to contracting the virus due to the adverse effects such emotions can have on immune functioning. On the other hand, he notes that positive emotions have the opposite effect on the immune system—supporting the goal of remaining hopeful and optimistic .

Koenig notes that positive emotions generated by religious activity such as reading Scripture and practicing faith actually benefits the immune system, a finding that he notes is increasingly corroborated by scientific research. He identifies religious faith as an important resource that many people use to maintain health and well-being.

Faith and Agency

Other researchers have tied positive mental health to the type of religious beliefs held. Yingling Liu and Paul Froese explored this issue in “Faith and Agency: The Relationships Between Sense of Control, Socioeconomic Status, and Beliefs About God” (2020).[ii] They found that although a person’s sense of control differs depending on degree of religiosity , the relational direction appears to vary based on a person’s image of God, as well as social status. Types of religious beliefs appear to explain how religion positively or negatively impacts sense of control.

Specifically, they found that “secure attachment to God and belief in divine control will compensate for social and economic deprivation.” In addition, they found believing in a judgmental God to be negatively related to agency, finding a “traditional fire‐and‐brimstone God” to be associated with a lower sense of control, in contrast to people who have more contemporary and individualized beliefs about God—which were associated with a sense of greater agency. This was particularly true for believers who were in need.

Liu and Froese explain that prior research establishes that sense of control, which is a measure of mental health and human agency, depends on a person’s socioeconomic status (SES) as well as religiosity. They also note that because it is a fundamental human need, a sense of control is a significant factor contributing to both mental and physical well‐being, and it also overlaps with other mental health measures “such as agency, internal locus of control , and mastery.”

A stronger sense of self-control appears to have other benefits as well. The authors note that it is linked with lower mortality rates, less symptoms of depression , and quicker recovery from illness.

Relational Closeness

In explaining their results, Liu and Froese note that secure attachment to God resembles other psychological measures of relational closeness—such as closeness to others, and accordingly, produces a variety of social and psychological benefits. They recognize that in terms of being a measure of theology or religiosity, secure attachment to God “highlights the positive aspects of belief—those feelings of security and love that can come with faith.” They note that consequently, secure attachment to God reflects individualized and therapeutic benefits of faith.

Liu and Froese note that people who experience low secure attachment to God, even though they may be “highly religious,” do not receive the same benefits. They explain that subscribing to a belief in a judgmental God reflects a very different type of religiosity, reflecting a system of beliefs based on “moral strictness and fear of retributive justice,” which is very different from the comfort and closeness experienced through a sense of secure attachment to God. It is this latter type of attachment that Christians would explain represents the relationship they have with Jesus Christ.

The Power of Prayer

Both research and experience reveal the power of faith and prayer to positively impact believers both physically and psychologically. Especially during uncertain times, faith sustains, comforts, and provides a sense of control in an otherwise uncertain, seemingly unpredictable time in history.

[i] Koenig, Harold G. 2020. “Maintaining Health and Well-Being by Putting Faith into Action during the Covid-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Religion and Health, May. doi:10.1007/s10943-020-01035-2.

[ii] Liu, Yingling, and Paul Froese. 2020. “Faith and Agency: The Relationships between Sense of Control, Socioeconomic Status, and Beliefs about God.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 59 (2): 311–26. doi:10.1111/jssr.12655.

Wendy L. Patrick, J.D., Ph.D., is a career trial attorney, behavioral analyst, author of Red Flags , and co-author of Reading People .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Faith in the time of Coronavirus

The coronavirus pandemic is confusing and frightening for hundreds of millions of people. That is not surprising. Many around the world are sick and many others have died. Unless the situation changes dramatically, many more will fall ill and die around the globe. This crisis raises serious medical , ethical and logistical questions. But it raises additional questions for people of faith. So I would like to offer some advice from the Christian tradition, Ignatian spirituality and my own experience.

Resist panic. This is not to say there is no reason to be concerned, or that we should ignore the sound advice of medical professionals and public health experts. But panic and fear are not from God. Calm and hope are. And it is possible to respond to a crisis seriously and deliberately while maintaining an inner sense of calm and hope.

St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, often talked about two forces in our interior lives: one that draws us toward God and the other away from God. The one that draws us away from God, which he labeled the evil spirit, “causes gnawing anxiety, saddens and sets up obstacles. In this way it unsettles people by false reasons aimed at preventing their progress.” Sound familiar? Don’t lend credence to lies or rumors, or give in to panic. Trust what medical experts tell you, not those who fear monger. There is a reason they call Satan the “Prince of Lies.”

Panic, by confusing and frightening you, pulls you away from the help God wants to give you. It is not coming from God. What is coming from God? St. Ignatius tells us: God’s spirit “stirs up courage and strength, consolations, inspirations and tranquility.” So trust in the calm and hope you feel. That is the voice to listen to.

“Do not be afraid!,” as Jesus said many times.

Do n o t demonize . The other day a friend told me that when an elderly Chinese man got onto a subway car in New York City, the car emptied out as people started shouting slurs at him, blaming his country for spreading the virus. Resist the temptation to demonize or scapegoat, which increases in time of stress and shortages. Covid-19 is not a Chinese disease; it is not a “foreign” disease. It is no one’s “fault.” Likewise, the people who become infected are not to blame. Remember that Jesus was asked about a blind man: “Who sinned, that this man was born blind?” Jesus’ response: “No one” (Jn 9:2). Illness is not a punishment. So don’t demonize and don’t hate.

Many things have been cancelled because of the coronavirus. Love is not one of them.

Care for the sick. This pandemic may be a long haul; some of our friends and family may get sick and perhaps die. Do what you can to help others, especially the elderly, disabled, poor and isolated. Take the necessary precautions; don’t be reckless and don’t risk spreading the disease, but also don’t forget the fundamental Christian duty to help others. “I was sick, and you came to visit me,” said Jesus (Mt 25). And remember that Jesus lived during a time when people had no access to even the most rudimentary medical care, and so visiting the sick was just as dangerous, if not more, than it is today. Part of the Christian tradition is caring for the sick, even at some personal cost.

And do not close your hearts to the poor and those who have no or limited healthcare. Refugees, the homeless and migrants, for example, will suffer even more than the general population. Keep your heart open to all those in need. Don’t let your conscience become infected, too.

Pray . Catholic churches around the world are closing, with Masses and other parish services cancelled by many bishops. These are prudent and necessary measures designed to keep people healthy. But they come at some cost: For many people, this removes one of the most consoling parts of their lives—the Mass and the Eucharist—and isolates them even more from the community at a time when they most need support.

What can one do instead? Well, there are many televised and livestreamed Masses available, as well as ones broadcast on the radio. But even if you can’t find one, you can pray on your own. When you do, remember that you’re still part of a community. There is also the longstanding tradition in our church of receiving a “spiritual communion,” when, if you cannot participate in the Mass in person, you unite yourself with God in prayer.

Remember that you’re still part of a community.

And be creative. You can meditate on the Sunday Gospel on your own, consult a Bible commentary about the readings, gather your family to talk about the Gospel or call friends and share your experiences of how God is present to you, even in the midst of a crisis. The persecuted Christians in the early church prayed and shared their faith in the catacombs, and we can do the same. Remember that Jesus said, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (Mt. 18:20). Remember too that the church is not a building. It is the community.

Trust that God is with you . Many people, especially those who are sick, may feel a sense of isolation that compounds their fear. And many of us, even if we’re not infected, will know people who are sick and even die. So most will naturally ask: Why is this happening?

Many people, especially those who are sick, may feel a sense of isolation that compounds their fear.

There is no satisfactory answer to that question, which at its core is the question of why suffering exists, something that saints and theologians have pondered over the centuries. In the end, it is the greatest of mysteries. And the question is: Can you believe in a God that you don’t understand?

At the same time, we know that Jesus understands our suffering and accompanies us in the most intimate of ways. Remember that during his public ministry Jesus spent a great deal of time with those who were sick. And before modern medicine, almost any infection could kill you. Thus, lifespans were short: only 30 or 40 years. In other words, Jesus knew the world of illness.

Jesus, then, understands all the fears and worries that you have. Jesus understands you, not only because he is divine and understands all things but because he is human and experienced all things. Go to him in prayer. And trust that he hears you and is with you.

Trust in my prayers, too. We will move through this together, with God’s help.

[Explore all of America’s in-depth coverage of the coronavirus pandemic]

The Rev. James Martin, S.J., is a Jesuit priest, author and editor at large at America .

Most popular

Your source for jobs, books, retreats, and much more.

The latest from america

Renewing faith, or losing it, in the time of COVID-19

• Copy Link URL Copied!

One roamed for hours through an oak preserve asking God to speak to her through the silence.

Another spent her days in meditation, using each exhale to send relief to her son, who had, by then, slipped out of consciousness. Not long before, a third woman had awakened in the middle of the night to what became a terrifying, recurring dream about descending into hell.

Each woman — members of three generations — went through a spiritual journey that had been sparked, sped up or heightened by the pandemic.

The last two years have transformed the stability of our families, our jobs and our collective understanding of science and sacrifice. But, for many of us, COVID-19’s reach also rewired something more elemental: our faith.

A Pew survey conducted early in the pandemic , found that nearly 3 in 10 Americans said their religious faith had become stronger since the coronavirus outbreak.

For others, this time has fundamentally changed their place within their religious traditions or led them to question long-held beliefs altogether — processes of introspection and transfiguration that can be, at once, painful and deeply fruitful.

“Suffering,” one of the women said, “sometimes forces us to look at the gold mine we’re sitting on.”

During the first fall of the pandemic, as she was clawing her way through a blinding depression, Esther Loewen told her wife, Paige, something she’d long feared would end both her marriage and her career as a Seventh-Day Adventist pastor.

“I’m afraid I might be trans.”

They sobbed and hugged and Paige made a promise: “I’m not going anywhere.”

A few months later, Loewen emailed her mother to explain that the person she’d long thought of as her eldest son was, in fact, her daughter. Her new name was Esther Elizabeth.

The revelation was hard for her mother. But Loewen, now 40, said her mother has come far in a short time, switching from using her deadname to “Elle,” a short version of her new middle name. Next, Loewen and her wife told their two sons, then 9 and 6, who quickly settled on a nickname of their own: Mapa.

In many ways, she said, the pandemic shutdowns provided the framework she needed to come out. For the first time ever, she was isolated from the social pressures and fears that had prevented her from transitioning. From her home in Redlands, she connected with other transgender Christians in Zoom support groups, which provided some relief from the bone-deep exhaustion that had come with pastoring a congregation with split views on masking and other COVID-19 safety measures.

Loewen knew her denomination had a longstanding record of barring LGBTQ people from church leadership, but because she was preaching remotely at the time, she’d felt comfortable to begin growing out her hair, keeping her beard closely cropped and painting her toenails. But she hadn’t yet decided whether to take hormones.

Before she took that step, she wanted to hear a blessing from God — and it finally came in January 2021 while at a retreat for church leaders at an oak preserve in Yucaipa.

During several hours of solitude, she prayed — “What do you want to tell me today?” — then she rounded a corner and saw hundreds of monarch butterflies. Like many trans people, she sees the caterpillar-to-butterfly transition as a beautiful analogy and, in that moment, she burst into laughter and then tears.

“It shifted from being like, ‘Can I do this?’” she said, “to ‘I have to do this in order to be faithful to God.’”

It felt just as clear as the calling, years earlier, to a life of ministry — a vocation born out of the faith she’d clung to as a teenager after surviving a house fire that killed her younger brother. It was a job she loved dearly, but also one that often made her think about privacy and secrecy.

“Don’t put your trash in the can out front,” an older pastor once had advised her, explaining that church members had interrogated him after finding an empty carton of ice cream, which would be off limits to the strictest Adventists, who are vegan.

She wouldn’t lie outright, but Loewen decided that church members didn’t need to know everything about her private life, including the time she wrote a letter to a friend, who is a lesbian, telling her she was loved by God exactly as she was and that the church was wrong on this issue.

She never dared say such a thing publicly, a reality that made her feel complicit then and guilty now. She sometimes thinks about times she sat around boardroom tables, listening to church leaders say hurtful, exclusionary things and didn’t speak up. And yet, she tries to welcome God’s grace, understanding that deep down, even then, she knew she was trans.

Last summer, as her depression deepened, she sat down with fellow church leaders and told them she was trans. She desperately hoped she could keep her job, she told them, suggesting they move her to a church in a more liberal area. The leaders handled the situation about as generously as they could have given church rules, she said, but it was clear she had to resign.

It was one of the heaviest losses of her life, she said, but still she feels closer to God than ever.

On a recent afternoon, Loewen, who is studying to become a therapist, picked up her younger son from school and took him to a park. A little girl on the swing next to him looked over at Loewen and then turned to her grandmother.

“What’s wrong with that lady?”

Her son turned confidently toward the girl.

“She’s transgender and she’s my Mapa.”

The ‘exvangelical’

One day, when she was 9, Hasasha Hasulube-George recalls sitting on her bed sobbing.

“I’m such a bad girl,” she’d written in her journal.

She can’t remember what she got in trouble for that day — forgetting to clean her room, perhaps. But she vividly recalls her mother assuring her that if she asked Jesus into her heart, he would help her. So she prayed and relief washed over her.

By 12, she had pored through the Bible and soon after she read “I Kissed Dating Goodbye,” a purity culture classic during the early aughts. She proudly wore a silver promise ring inscribed with “True Love Waits” and woke up early on schooldays to pray.

And yet, a countervailing force buffeted her spiritual life: a dawning awareness that her family’s racial identity — her father is Black, her mother white — set them apart from the rest of their worship community in suburban Chicago.

Hasulube-George, now 24, recalls a church picnic where members of their congregation repeatedly told her brothers to only take what they could eat and not go back for seconds. They said nothing to the other teenagers in line, who were white.

So often, she said, conversations about race in white, evangelical circles — when they happened at all — quickly pivoted to the same line: “One day we’ll all go to Heaven and color will not matter.”

Still, she found deep community among fellow believers. When she thought about her few friends who weren’t Christians, it filled her with dread. What if she never tried to convert them and they died? Going to hell, she’d learned, was like getting stuck in a dark cave, separated from God for eternity and surrounded by deafening silence.

It was that same image that had haunted her dreams during the first summer of the pandemic.

By then, her then-fiancé, Hunter George, whom she’d met in college in Indiana, had been laid off from his job at a nonprofit and the cleaning job she had lined up after graduation fell through. The couple moved into Hunter’s parents’ basement in Rochester, N.Y.

She could almost always hear Fox News on the TV upstairs, with rotating headlines about the impending presidential election and mask mandates, or talking heads framing the social justice protests after the killings of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd only in the context of property damage. Family members sent her and Hunter, who is white, emails suggesting that Black Lives Matter was against God and Trump was ordained by the Lord.

That’s when the nightmares started.

Like Arbery, who was shot to death by a white man while out for a jog, in her dreams Hasulube-George would be running when someone, often a neighbor, would shoot her dead. She’d then descend into the quiet-cave version of hell and be trapped there until she woke up in a panic.

She told Hunter she needed to get rid of her Bible. She couldn’t stop thinking about verses she’d underlined years earlier that she now felt condemned by. He understood.

In the weeks that followed, she remembers sitting on Zoom calls for Christian premarital counseling with a longtime mentor and thinking it felt like a farce. She and Hunter were actively trying to get pregnant, but she knew she couldn’t be upfront about that. She was trying to hold onto the final shreds of her faith until her wedding day in September 2020.

“My farewell party to my old life,” she came to think of it.

Soon after, she started having conversations, sometimes painful ones, with friends and family about her decision. A verse she’d once memorized — “ Children, obey your parents in the Lord” — now felt like a dagger.

Her mother initially responded with deep fear, she said, but time has softened the situation.

Since moving to North Hollywood last summer, the couple has continued to deconstruct their faiths. Hunter has vowed off organized religion and she has begun researching African spiritualism, specifically traditions from her father’s native Uganda.

She misses the structure her faith offered — for years, she relied on prayer as a tool to regulate her anxiety — but she has, again, found community in an online book club for fellow “exvangelicals.”

While she thinks she probably would have left her faith eventually, she said that watching the trifecta of pandemic-era scenarios play out in 2020 — the “don’t-wear-a-mask-God-will-protect-you” comments, the evangelical fervor for Trump and the response she saw from many Christians during the social justice protests — both crystalized and sped up her decision.

“That pushed me to decide, ‘I’m done.’”

The religious studies professor

Fran Grace clearly remembers the origin point of a twisting spiritual pathway that has helped guide her through the pandemic.

It was four decades ago and her high school English teacher was reading aloud from “The Scarlet Letter.” Only half-listening to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s tale of sin and repentance, she saw a pillar of light slice down, as if piercing through the ceiling, and felt as if she melted into the incandescence.

She interpreted it, at first, as a sign that something infinitely loving existed inside of her. But the revelation calcified into fear after her mother took her to see the pastor of a small Protestant church in her Florida town.

“You’ve got the devil inside you, young lady,” he proclaimed.

Now, further along in a journey that has included joining and leaving a fundamentalist Christian church, divorcing her husband, falling in love with a woman for the first time, drinking herself to near-death, finding sobriety and traveling to study world religions, Grace — a professor of religious studies at the University of Redlands — looks back fondly on that day in high school as the start of a lifelong quest that has buoyed her during the hardest times in her life.

At the tail end of last summer, Peter Boyko — her partner Diane Eller-Boyko’s son, whom she’d come to think of as her own — was hospitalized with COVID-19. Before long, the 29-year-old father of three was struggling to breathe.

Restricted from frequent visits, Grace and Eller-Boyko, who both follow the Sufi path, dug into spiritual tools they’d long relied on: meditation, dream work and paying attention to small signs.

Soon after Peter died, a letter addressed to him showed up at the couple’s home. The note from a children’s charity included a line about accepting people just as they are — a trait that was exceptionally true of Peter. It was a hint, Grace believed, from the inner world.

She felt more tuned into the kindness of others, often reflecting on the proverb about how suffering often points us to the goldmine beneath us. And as the pandemic lingers, she has tried to help others find that spiritual gold.

One Wednesday in December, Grace, 57, sat cross-legged in front of a camera inside the Meditation Room, an airy, carpeted space adjacent to her office at the University of Redlands.

A showcase for compelling storytelling from the Los Angeles Times.

For years, Grace has led free, weekly meditation sessions for students and other members of the community and although she’d returned in person by December, most of the attendees were still joining virtually. One by one, their smiling faces popped up in small squares as they joined from San Diego, Tucson, Canada.

Grace asked everyone to close their eyes.

“Relax, relax, relax,” she guided them.

Sense your right leg, she said, and then your left. Let your belly fall open and relax the muscles in your throat. Open your heart and offer yourself in service to others. Think of a stranger and send them love.

Later, they went around the virtual circle, sharing about their weeks and whom they had selected as their “stranger” while meditating.

A 91-year-old from San Diego had thought of the volunteer who drove her to a dentist appointment a few days earlier. An Iowa State University student pictured the cafeteria employee who handed her ice cream on her birthday. A Presbyterian minister recalled a man on Death Row at San Quentin who had started as a pen pal and became a close friend ; during the meditation, the minister said, she had prayed for the women he killed.

“Wow,” Grace whispered.

When it was his turn to share, a man from British Columbia, who was sitting cross-legged on his floor, told the group that his father had died a week earlier. He began to cry, resting his forehead on the ground.

Grace closed her eyes. As she inhaled, she focused on breathing in his suffering. With her exhale, she sent out hope.

More to Read

Young Latines are leaving organized religion. This divided family is learning to cope

April 30, 2024

Letters to the Editor: Losing your religion could be the start of a new search for faith

March 27, 2024

In ‘The Exvangelicals,’ Sarah McCammon tells the tale of losing her religion

March 20, 2024

Start your day right

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Marisa Gerber is an enterprise reporter at the Los Angeles Times. A finalist for the Livingston Award, she joined The Times in 2012.

More Column One Storytelling

The desperate hours: a pro baseball pitcher’s fentanyl overdose

June 27, 2024

He crossed the Atlantic solo in a boat he built himself

June 26, 2024

World & Nation

She sang for ‘El Chapo.’ Now the cartel kingpin’s lawyer wants to be a ranchera star

June 20, 2024

A Ukrainian ‘King Lear’ comes to Shakespeare’s hometown. Its actors know true tragedy

June 19, 2024

A draft resister, a judge and the moment that still binds them after 54 years

June 14, 2024

Can money conquer death? How wealthy people are trying to live forever

June 4, 2024

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Faith and science mindsets as predictors of COVID-19 concern: A three-wave longitudinal study ☆

Kathryn a. johnson.

a Arizona State University, USA

Amanda N. Baraldi

b Oklahoma State University, USA

Jordan W. Moon

Morris a. okun, adam b. cohen, associated data.

The COVID-19 pandemic allowed for a naturalistic, longitudinal investigation of the relationship between faith and science mindsets and concern about COVID-19. Our goal was to examine two possible directional relationships: (Model 1) COVID-19 concern ➔ disease avoidance and self-protection motivations ➔ science and faith mindsets versus (Model 2) science and faith mindsets ➔ COVID-19 concern. We surveyed 858 Mechanical Turk workers in three waves of a study conducted in March, April, and June 2020. We found that science mindsets increased whereas faith mindsets decreased (regardless of religious type) during the early months of the pandemic. Further, bivariate correlations and autoregressive cross-lagged analyses indicated that science mindset was positive predictor of COVID-19 concern, in support of Model 2. Faith mindset was not associated with COVID-19 concern. However, faith mindset was a negative predictor of science mindset. We discuss the need for more research regarding the influence of science and faith mindsets as well as the societal consequences of the pandemic.

1. Introduction

In the early months of 2020 and beyond, people's lives around the world were changed due to the spread of a novel coronavirus (SARS-COV-2) and the disease it causes (COVID-19). Arguably the most significant global health crisis in the past century, the virus had spread to every continent by June 2020, with over 9 million cases and 400,000 deaths worldwide. In the U.S. alone, COVID-19 had caused economic hardship, stressed supply chains, exacerbated levels of depression, heightened the anxiety of individuals already experiencing poor physical health, and led to the death of over 100,000 individuals. Historically, the uncertainty, danger, and existential crises associated with non-normative events of this magnitude have compelled people to try to make sense of, and cope with, their circumstances—often turning to natural resources such as science and/or supernatural resources such as religion ( Legare, Evans, Rosengren, & Harris, 2012 ; Legare & Gelman, 2008 ; Rutjens & Preston, 2020 ; Sibley & Bulbulia, 2012 ). In the present research, we conducted a longitudinal investigation of the potential causal relationships between science and faith mindsets and COVID-19 concern in a sample of individuals living in the U.S. during the early months of the pandemic.

There has been considerable interest in contrasting the characteristics, psychological profiles, and associated outcomes of reliance on science and religion in human experience. Science and religion are both multi-dimensional constructs with similar features such as their own vocabulary, orienting behaviors, norms, values, communities, and practices. However, at their respective cores, science and religion are two different approaches to making sense of and responding to events in the world ( Murphy, 2007 ). The global beliefs ( Park, 2005 ), knowledge networks ( Murphy, 2007 ), worldviews (Johnson, Hill, & Cohen, 2011), or mindsets associated with science and religion are critical for meaning-making as people perceive, interpret, navigate, and respond to life events and environmental stressors. Although religious groups can serve as rich sources of social support in times of crisis, in the present research, we focused on religious beliefs— a religious mindset—in comparison with a scientific mindset. Henceforth, we refer to the religious mindset as “faith” or a “faith mindset” to emphasize our focus on beliefs rather than religion more broadly construed.

In the present research, we conducted a longitudinal, quasi-experimental study during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S., focusing on the mindsets of science and faith. Our goal was to investigate whether COVID-19 concern shapes science and faith mindsets—mediated by disease avoidance and self-protection motivations; or, instead, whether science and faith mindsets influence the degree of COVID-19 concern. (The response to COVID-19 quickly became politicized in the U.S. Therefore, we control for political leanings in our analyses.)

1.1. COVID-19 concern as an influence on science and faith mindsets

As belief systems or mindsets, science and faith each have core tenets. The faith mindset generally includes beliefs that God or other supernatural beings exist; that religious group teachings or sacred writings are authoritative; and that God can provide comfort, protection, or help in meeting the challenges of life. The science mindset includes beliefs that logic must be used to generate testable hypotheses; empirical evidence is imperative for understanding; natural events can (eventually) be accurately explained and predicted by the community of scientists; and scientific knowledge is useful (or ideal) in addressing life's challenges.

However, science and faith—and the reliance on science and faith mindsets—have both been subject to change and reconceptualization and, at the cultural level, those changes often co-occur ( Barbour, 1998 ; Kuhn, 1996 ; Wootton, 2016 ). At the individual level, many factors, including environmental stressors and the challenges a person faces, may also bring about personal change in reliance on science and/or faith ( Farias, Newheiser, Kahane, & de Toledo, 2013 ; Jong, Halberstadt, & Bluemke, 2012 ; Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016 ; Rutjens, van der Pligt, & van Harreveld, 2010 ; Sinatra, Kienhues, & Hofer, 2014 ; Sinatra, Southerland, McConaughy, & Demastes, 2003 ). We expected that one such stressor would be the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, pathogens have presented one of the most pressing ecological threats to humankind, and SARS-CoV-2, and the disease it causes (COVID-19), is no different.

In the present research, we were primarily interested in whether COVID-19 concerns affect disease avoidance and self-protection motivations, which in turn, influence changes in individuals' reliance on science and faith mindsets. A large body of research has shown that diverse motivational systems (e.g., self-protection, disease avoidance, coalition formation, status-seeking, mate acquisition, and parenting) affect a swath of cognitive process, including what people attend to, how they reason, and their social perceptions ( Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg, & Schaller, 2010 ). These fundamental motives are theorized to be distinct systems designed to promote behavior that solves adaptive problems. For example, when motivated by self-protection, people become wary of outgroups perceived as dangerous, whereas people who are motivated to find a romantic partner focus more on others' attractiveness and, at least for men, become more risk-prone ( Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2006 ). In the present research, we consider the fundamental motivations of disease avoidance and self-protection to explain why COVID-19 concern, specifically, might lead to an increase in reliance on science or a faith mindset.

1.1.1. Disease avoidance

We expected that high levels of concern regarding COVID-19 would increase disease avoidance motives (see Makhanova & Shepherd, 2020 ). Pathogen prevalence and the motivation to avoid disease are often associated with traditionalist thinking, including conservativism and ingroup-oriented psychology ( Boyer, Firat, & van Leeuwen, 2015 ; McCann, 1999 ), and past research has linked the threat of disease to shifts in religion, as well as personality and values ( Fincher, Thornhill, Murray, & Schaller, 2008 ; Gelfand et al., 2011 ; Schaller & Murray, 2008 ; Varnum & Grossmann, 2016 ). High pathogen levels have also been linked with religiosity at the country level ( Fincher & Thornhill, 2012 ). Additionally, many of the rituals associated with religion promote cleanliness, such as emphases on health ( Reynolds & Tanner, 1995 ), ritual washings, and safety-minded food restrictions ( Johnson, White, Boyd, & Cohen, 2011 ). These rituals (e.g., hand washing) might carry over to better health practices.

However, there are reasons to think people living in Western cultures (such as the U.S.) might turn to science instead of faith when motived by disease avoidance. First, some religious practices actually increase the risk of disease. For instance, communal cups and certain religious rituals (e.g., touching surfaces, hymn books, etc., in common areas) may expose people to higher pathogen levels ( Reynolds & Tanner, 1995 ). To the extent that people intuit these dangers, they may avoid religious gatherings, and their faith may deteriorate ( Exline et al., 2020 ). Second, given the enormous impact COVID-19 has had on daily life, we expected to find that people were more likely motivated to seek medically accurate information and look to science to develop technologies, treatments, preventative health practices, or vaccines ( Murray, 2014 )—resources which would not necessarily be available from sacred texts or religious engagement. Thus, a hypothesized mediated pathway from COVID-19 concern to disease motivation to reliance on a science mindset is shown in the upper half of Fig. 1 .

Hypothesized model of changes in science and faith mindsets as outcomes of COVID-19 concern.

Note: Positive sign (+) indicates a hypothesized positive association. Correlated residuals are included because it is expected that factors outside of the model would also contribute to shared variation between disease avoidance and self-protection and between science and faith. We had no a priori hypothesis regarding the strength and direction of the correlated residuals between science and faith. In all analyses, we control for age, sex, and political conservatism.

1.1.2. Self-protection

In addition to the motivation to avoid germs, molds, contagion, and natural pollutants from contact with objects, humans possess suites of adaptations known as the “behavioral immune system,” which facilitates the avoidance of people as potential sources of pathogens ( Schaller & Park, 2011 ). Notably, disease avoidance and self-protection motivational systems are distinct (i.e., they use distinct inputs, are assessed differently, and promote distinct behavioral patterns; Neuberg, Kenrick, & Schaller, 2010 ). Therefore, in addition to an increase in disease avoidance motives, we also expected levels of self-protection to increase during the pandemic as a result of a more zero-sum psychology ( Van Bavel et al., 2020 ), perceiving other people to be potential carriers of the virus as well as competitors for resources ( Olivera-La Rosa, Chuquichambi, & Ingram, 2020 ).

We reasoned that self-protection motives would be especially likely to prompt a faith mindset. Such a reaction might reflect the fact that, when threatened, people become especially attuned to group membership ( Boyer et al., 2015 ). Indeed, people are more likely to form coalitions when mortality is made salient ( Wisman & Koole, 2003 ). Given the daily reports of worldwide deaths, we expected that COVID19 concern would increase self-protection motives and, in turn, increase seeking social support from familiar, trusted groups as well as via faith in God and prayer. The hypothesized mediated pathway from COVID-19 concern to self-protection motivation to faith is shown in the lower half of Fig. 1 .

In sum, we expected that the circumstances of COVID-19 would lead people to increase both reliance on a science and a faith mindset to provide different but complementary benefits. For example, science provides epistemological value, practical solutions for treating disease, and people may be particularly motivated to rely on science to regain a sense of control ( Rutjens, Van Harreveld, Van Der Pligt, Kreemers, & Noordewier, 2013 ) as they seek to avoid disease; whereas faith can provide a sense of comfort, meaning, and hope in times of crisis ( Laurin, Schumann, & Holmes, 2014 ; Pargament, Magyar-Russell, & Murray-Swank, 2005 ; Pargament, Smith, Koenig, & Perez, 1998 ).

1.2. Alternative model: science and faith mindsets as interpretive frameworks

However, it is possible that an individual's tendency to rely on science and faith might change very little, even in the face of an ecological crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, an individual's worldview may be firmly entrenched and resistant to change. For instance, Lewandowsky and Oberauer (2016) found that many people reject scientific findings despite educated warnings of climate change, particularly if they viewed these findings as conflicting with their religious worldview. Likewise, despite repeated findings that religious faith is associated with better health and well-being ( McCullough, Hoyt, Larson, Koenig, & Thoresen, 2000 ), many people reject theism.

Instead, science and faith may function as meaning-making systems or interpretative frameworks in thinking about and making sense of the pandemic. Meaning-making has been conceptualized as a psychological need “to perceive events through a prism of mental representations of expected relations that organizes … perceptions of the world” ( Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006 ). In that sense, meaning-making refers to the cognitive process of restoring global meaning—the coherence of one's beliefs and goals and the subjective sense of satisfaction that life is at least headed in the right direction ( Park, 2005 ). If people employ science or faith to understand, learn about, and interpret life experiences, then science or faith mindsets may, instead, influence individuals' thoughts, feelings, and attitudes about COVID-19.

Thus, the alternative model of science and faith providing coherent frameworks for making sense of the COVID-19 crisis would predict that reliance on science (i.e., the belief that science is the best source of knowledge and that the science mindset is capable of solving humankind's problems) would lead individuals to seek out scientific and statistical information (e.g., mortality rates, number of cases, potential treatments—or the lack thereof). Information about the pandemic was plentiful in the early months of the pandemic, and actively seeking this information could have elevated concerns and fears about infection, intubation, and death. The alternate pathway of science increasing COVID concern and, thereby, disease avoidance and self-protection, is shown in Fig. 2 .

Alternative model of science and faith as meaning-making systems.

Note: Positive sign (+) indicates a hypothesized positive association; a negative sign (−) indicates a hypothesized negative association. The bivariate relations between science and disease avoidance and between faith and self-protection was expected to be positive. However, these paths may be reduced to non-significance in the model after accounting for COVID-19 concern as a mediator; thus, no hypotheses for these paths were made.

In contrast, people with a robust faith or religious worldview may have had long-term experience with religious coping, trusting God to provide protection, comfort, and care ( Laurin et al., 2014 ; Pargament et al., 1998 ; Park, Cohen, & Herb, 1990 ). Indeed, monotheists are repeatedly instructed to trust in God and “fear not” in the scriptures. Thus, contrary to the predictions in our hypothesized model ( Fig. 1 ), faith may have mitigated concern about COVID-19, indirectly reducing disease avoidance and self-protection, as shown in Fig. 2 .

1.3. Science and faith mindsets

Research shows that some people see the belief systems of science and faith as conflicting domains, often in terms of an epistemological divide ( McPhetres, Jong, & Zuckerman, 2020 ; McPhetres & Nguyen, 2018 ; O'Brien & Noy, 2015 ). Consequently, much of the previous research has focused on investigating differences between science and faith in terms of cognitive style ( Farias et al., 2017 ; Gervais & Norenzayan, 2012 ; Pennycook, Cheyne, Seli, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2012 ), differing knowledge structures ( Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016 ), or as hydraulic cognitive processes ( Preston & Epley, 2009 ).

However, science and faith mindsets do not necessarily conflict. People can and often do rely upon both religious and scientific beliefs ( Ecklund, Park, & Sorrell, 2011 ; Nelson, 2009 ; Pew Research Center, 2015a , Pew Research Center, 2015b ; Scheitle, 2011 ; Watts, Passmore, Jackson, Rzymski, & Dunbar, 2020 ). Indeed, until about the 16th century, science and faith were indistinguishable ( Barbour, 1998 ; Wootton, 2016 ). Today, people often utilize both systems to understand and deal with illness and death ( Clegg, Cui, Harris, & Corriveau, 2019 ; Cui et al., 2020 ; Davoodi et al., 2019 ; Legare & Gelman, 2008 ). Thus, in our hypothesized model, we expected both science and faith mindsets to increase, with science providing practical treatments and a sense of control; and faith providing a source of comfort and care.

2.1. Participants

We conducted a naturalistic study, surveying a panel of Amazon Mechanical Turk workers in the U.S., across three time periods, in March, April, and June 2020. We report all measures, manipulations (none), and exclusions below. Sample size was determined before data collection began.

2.1.1. Time 1

Participants at Time 1 (T1; March 15–29, 2020) were 858 MTurk workers recruited using Cloud Research ( Litman, Robinson, & Abbercock, 2017 ) (IRB # 00011534). All participants had completed one of the authors' studies during the past five years and had been informed that they might be invited to participate in subsequent studies. Participants at T1 were recruited over one week, as concern regarding COVID-19 was increasing daily, and the number of cases and deaths continued to rise. More detail regarding the data collection strategy is provided in the Supplemental Materials (Table S1).

There were 384 males and 474 females, M age  = 44.84, SD  = 13.72. There were 121 Atheists, 176 Agnostics, 177 Mainline Protestants, 150 Catholics, 124 Evangelicals, 91 Spiritual but not Religious, 13 Jews, and 6 Muslims. The percentages of participants who identified as spiritual or religious (66%) and non-religious (34%) in our study were similar to the percentages of these groups in the U.S. (77% religious, 23% non-religious; Pew Research Center, 2015a , Pew Research Center, 2015b ) but with somewhat more non-religious participants as is typical of the MTurk population ( Lewis, Djupe, Mockabee, & Su-Ya Wu, 2015 ). There were 79.7% Euro-Americans, 7.5% Blacks, 4.9% Asians, 4.8% Hispanics, and 3.1% of people reported multiple races/ethnicities.

We were interested in individuals' perceptions of COVID-19 rather than the actual threat. However, as a proxy for an objective measure of disease prevalence, we also grouped participants by geographic regions corresponding to the degree of lockdown orders across the U.S. Specifically, we estimated the degree of pathogen prevalence for each area of the country by comparing participants' latitude and longitude to a map of states under no, partial , or total lockdowns (Mazziota, March 26, 2020). There were six geographically oriented groups: North central west (e.g., Montana, North Dakota)/Southwest (8.9%; no orders), South (e.g., Texas, Florida) (21.7%; partial orders), Colorado and New Mexico (2.7%; total orders), North Central and East Central (38.9%; total orders), West Coast (15.2%; total orders), and East Coast (12.7%; total orders). Thus, the majority of participants in our sample were under total lockdown orders.

2.1.2. Time 2

By mid-April, all or nearly all city and state governments in the U.S. had fully initiated stay-at-home orders forcing the closure of non-essential businesses, restaurants, bars, and places of worship. There were over 600,000 active cases in the U.S., and over 36,000 deaths had been attributed to COVID-19. Following the initial data collection in March, we conducted a second survey (IRB # 00011835) on April 17–18, 2020, recruiting participants from T1 via invitation emails generated by Cloud Research ( Litman et al., 2017 ).

To preserve the naivete of one-half of our original T1 sample for later, unrelated studies, we used a design that purposefully incorporated missing data. Specifically, the T2 survey was offered to all 858 previous participants, but recruitment was capped at N  = 400. Seven participants missed one or more of four attention checks or failed to complete the study. These cases were incorporated into analyses as missing data, yielding a sample of 393 participants with observed data at T2.

2.1.3. Time 3

We conducted a third survey on June 4, 2020. On that date, the total number of deaths in the U.S. due to COVID-19 had surpassed 107,000. Although the number of active cases in the U.S. had more than doubled since April, cases were no longer rising exponentially, and most of the stay-at-home orders had been lifted or partially lifted across the nation. Moreover, news of COVID-19 was overshadowed by protests over the death of George Floyd.

We recruited participants from the previous waves via Cloud Research ( Litman et al., 2017 ). Again, intentionally only incorporating a subset of the original participants, we recruited the same 393 Mechanical Turk workers from T2. However, due to attrition ( n  = 54), we failed to reach our goal of 400 participants who also completed T2. Therefore, we invited the additional participants from T1, with recruitment capped at 60. One participant failed to pass the attention checks, so the sample size at T3 was 398.

2.1.4. Participant summary

Of the 858 participants at T1, 406 participated at T1 (March) only (as designed), 54 at T1 and T2 only (March and April), 59 at T1 and T3 only (March and June), and 339 participated at all three time periods (T1, T2, and T3). By comparison, participants who completed T2 and/or T3 were significantly older than participants who had completed the survey at T1 only ( M Longitudinal  = 46.45, SD  = 13.97 vs. M T1_only  = 43.03, SD  = 13.21), t (855) = −3.67, p  < .001, 95% CI for the difference [−5.25, −1.59]. However, Chi Square tests of independence revealed that the 452 participants who had completed follow-up surveys at T2 and/or T3 were not significantly different from the 406 non-included participants from T1 in terms of sex X 2 (1) = 0.055, p  = .814; religion X 2 (9) = 12.97, p  = .164; geographic location X 2 (5) = 8.58, p  = .127; ethnicity X 2 (4) = 5.17, p  = .270; or marital status X 2 (2) = 2.82, p  = .244. The two groups also did not differ in political conservatism t (856) = −0.25, p  = .806, 95% CI for the difference [−0.27, 0.21].

In terms of the main study variables at T1, the 452 who completed the surveys at T2 and/or T3 were not significantly different from T1-only participants for science mindset.

( M T2,3  = 4.97, SD  = 1.41 vs. M T1  = 4.99, SD  = 1.33), t (856) = −0.13, p  = .895, 95% CI for the difference [−0.20, 0.17]), or faith mindset ( M T2,3  = 3.81, SD  = 2.26 vs. M T1  = 3.96, SD  = 2.16), t (856) = 0.99, p  = .323, 95% CI for the difference [−0.15, 0.45]). The two groups did not differ in self-protection motivations ( M T2,3  = 4.79, SD  = 1.28 vs. M T1  = 4.83, SD  = 1.23), t (856) = 0.55, p  = .583, 95% CI for the difference [−0.12, 0.22]). However, the 406 who completed only the T1 survey, had higher scores in COVID-19 concern ( M T2,3  = 5.37, SD  = 1.16 vs. M T1  = 5.52, SD  = 1.15), t (856) = 1.97, p  = .049, 95% CI for the difference [0.00, 0.31]) and disease avoidance.

( M T2,3  = 4.95, SD  = 1.34 vs. M T1  = 5.12, SD  = 1.31), t (856) = 1.89, p  = .059, 95% CI for the difference [−0.01, 0.35]).

To address the potential bias associated with missing data due to both study design and attrition, we used Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimation or Multiple Imputation (MI) as noted in each analysis( Baraldi & Enders, 2020 ). When used properly, these analysis methods can reduce non-response bias associated with some forms of systematic missingness. In the main analyses that included timepoints T2 and/or T3, we used FIML in M plus version 8.4 or MI (with 30 imputed data sets) in SPSS to account for the missing data. In the preliminary analyses, we report the results for the 858 participants (no missing data) at T1.

In the Supplemental Materials, we provide the results of the following analyses using the data from only the 339 participants who completed all waves of data with no missing data (i.e., with no missing data techniques). There are, not surprisingly, some minor differences in the strength (but not the direction) of the coefficients, p -values, and effect sizes. However, the conclusions drawn from the analyses with versus without the use of FIML and MI do not change.

2.1.5. Power and sensitivity analyses

As previously discussed, the present research was part of a more extensive set of preregistered studies to investigate the distinct influence of specific fundamental social motivations on religion and science as meaning-making systems. As part of that larger project, we aimed for a final sample size of N  = 800 at Time 1 and a smaller sample size of N  = 400 in each of the follow-up studies. These estimates were based on the statistical analyses we had planned, which assumed statistically significant correlations between the model variables and estimated mediational effects.

We also used G*Power to conduct a sensitivity analysis for the present study to determine the minimum correlation that could be detected at 80% power, α  = 0.05, with our full sample of N  = 858. We found we had sufficient power to detect a correlation of r  = 0.09. Our longitudinal study included 339 participants who had completed all three waves. A second G*Power analysis suggested the minimum correlation that could be detected at 80% power, alpha = 0.05, with a sample size of N  = 339 (without regard to the potential increase of power from using larger sample sizes with FIML or MI) is 0.15.

2.2. Measures

Participants at each time period completed a survey assessing COVID-19 concern, disease avoidance and self-protection motivations, and the endorsement of science and faith mindsets as well as other measures to be reported elsewhere (e.g., health practices, well-being). A summary of all study measures and the order of presentation at each time period is summarized in Table 1 .

Summary of data collected and order of presentation across three waves.

Note: Of the 858 participants at T1, 406 participated at T1 only (as designed); 54 at T1 and T2 only; 59 at T1 and T3 only, and 339 participated at all three time periods (T1, T2, and T3).

2.2.1. COVID-19 concern

At Time 1, a published measure of COVID-19 concern was not available. Therefore, we developed a 3-item measure tapping into compulsive checking and perceived danger regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. 1 Participants rated the items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 =  strongly disagree to 7 =  strongly agree ). The three items were: “I am very worried I will be infected by COVID-19;” “I search for daily updates about COVID-19;” “People must protect themselves from COVID-19” (α T1  = 0.67; α T2  = 0.70; α T3  = 0.71). The COVID-19 concern measure was assessed in all three waves of the study, but it was assessed at the end of the survey at T1 and the beginning of the T2 and T3 surveys.

2.2.2. Fundamental social motivations (FSM)

We administered the full FSM measure ( Neel, Kenrick, White, & Neuberg, 2016 ), which includes six items for each of ten sub-scales: Disease Avoidance, Self-protection, Coalition formation, Exclusion concern, Preference for being alone, Status, Mate Acquisition, Mate Retention, Mate Guarding, and Kincare. Motives relevant to the present study were Disease Avoidance (α T1  = 0.89) and Self-protection (α T1  = 0.89). Sample items are: “I avoid places and people that might carry diseases” (Disease avoidance) and “I think a lot about how to stay safe from dangerous people” (Self-protection). The fundamental motives measure was assessed in all three waves of the study using a 7-point Likert scale (1 =  strongly disagree to 7 =  strongly agree ).

2.2.3. Science and faith mindsets

We assessed science (α T1  = 0.91) and faith (α T1  = 0.97) mindsets using a 10-item measure developed by Kitchens and Phillips (2018) . The items are: “I trust that Science [God] can solve the major problems of humanity,” “Relying on information from Science [God] is a great way to really understand the universe,” “Ultimately, Science [God] is the only infallible source of knowledge and truth,” “Science [God] offers excellent explanations for reality,” and “Humanity has Science [God] to thank for the good things in life we enjoy.” The science and faith measures are assessed on the same page of the survey and in all three waves of the study using a 7-point Likert scale (1 =  strongly disagree to 7 =  strongly agree ).

2.2.4. Other measures

We also assessed attributes of God (including belief in a loving God), trust in God and institutions, and self-directedness at T1, T2, and T3. Additional topics measured at T1 and T2 only, and used in our preliminary analyses, included religiosity (Religious Commitment Inventory; Wood et al., 2010 ) and Interest in Science and Scientific Logic ( Johnson et al., 2019 ). Additional measures assessed at T2 and T3 only were participants' estimates of mortality rates, financial hardship due to COVID-19, and subjective well-being. Exploratory measures assessed at T2 only were opinions about the origins of COVID-19, afterlife beliefs, death anxiety, and locus of control. Additional measures assessed at T3 only were participation in religious activities, engagement with science activities, disease uncertainty, aggression, and compliance with preventative health practices. Each survey also included four attention checks embedded in the questionnaires, demographic questionnaires, and a 3-item measure assessing political conservatism ( Frimer, Gaucher, & Schaefer, 2014 ). Except as indicated above and as shown in Table 1 , the presentation of all measures (including the main study variables) was randomized.

Our data analysis plan involved several types of analyses. In preliminary cross-sectional analyses, we used the data from T1 ( N  = 858) to validate our science and faith measure, to ascertain whether our variables differed by geographic location or degree of lockdown (stay-at-home) orders, and to examine the bivariate correlations between the main study variables and control variables. Contrary to expectations, disease avoidance motivation was uncorrelated with science mindset at T1.

In a preliminary longitudinal analysis, we examined changes in the means of our five main study variables from T1 to T2 and from T2 to T3. This analysis also provided descriptive information on the magnitude of changes over time in the means for our main study variables.

The main analyses examined the longitudinal data in two different ways. The first set of analyses was conducted to probe the relations between the model variables over time (thus comparing the hypothesized and alternative models; Fig. 1 , Fig. 2 , respectively), using autoregressive cross-lagged (ARCL) models. We concluded that the alternative model ( Fig. 2 ) was more consistent with the data with one modification to our alternative model; that is, we found that faith mindset was a negative predictor of science mindset. Finally, to provide a visual summary of our findings, we conducted mediation and path analyses, fitting the data at T2 and again at T3 to our respecified model.

3.1. Preliminary analyses using cross-sectional (T1) data

We conducted preliminary analyses to (1) validate the measure of science and faith, (2) examine any differences by geographic region for the five variables in our models, and (3) examine the bivariate correlations between the five model variables. (A comparison of available pre-test and T1 scores for a subset of participants regarding science and faith mindsets, and an analysis of the full range of fundamental motives as they relate to science and faith mindsets, are provided in the Supplemental Materials.)

3.1.1. Science and faith

The science and faith mindset measure ( Kitchens & Phillips, 2018 ) is relatively new. Therefore, we conducted a principal components analysis, which yielded two factors, accounting for 83.41% of the variance (faith Eigenvalue = 6.64 and science Eigenvalue = 1.70). To further validate the measure, we found the Faith subscale was strongly, positively correlated with religiosity (Religious Commitment Inventory; Wood et al., 2010 ) and belief that God exists (single item), but negatively correlated with measures of Interest in Science and commitment to Scientific Logic ( Johnson et al., 2019 ). In contrast, the Science mindset subscale was positively correlated with Interest in Science and Scientific Logic but negatively correlated with religiosity and belief in God. The correlations are shown in Table 2 .

Correlations between alternate measures of faith and science mindsets.

Notes: 1 ( Wood et al., 2010 ); 2 ( Johnson et al., 2019 ); 3 ( Kitchens & Phillips, 2018 ).

N  = 858; ⁎⁎⁎ p  ≤ .001.

The magnitude of the negative correlations was unexpected because science and faith are seen as complementary by many religious people ( Ecklund et al., 2011 ; Legare et al., 2012 ; Longest & Smith, 2011 ; Pew Research Center, 2015a ). However, our results seemed to suggest that many of the study participants viewed religion and science as conflicting–regardless of the measures used to assess faith and science mindsets. Nevertheless, we concluded that the Kitchens and Phillips (2018) measure was valid for assessing science and faith mindsets.

3.1.2. Differences by geographic region and lockdown severity

Our subjective measure of COVID-19 concern may or may not have been related to more objective indicators of perceived disease prevalence (e.g., areas with government-issued stay-at-home orders). Therefore, we conducted a MANOVA to examine whether there were significant differences by geographic region (North and Southwest, South, Colorado/New Mexico, North Central and East Central, West Coast, and East Coast) for the five variables in our model and found there were no significant differences at the multivariate level, Wilks' Lambda = 0.979, F (25, 3151) = 0.723, p =  .839. There were also no significant differences for any of the variables at the univariate level, p 's ranging from 0.413 to 0.876.

A second MANOVA, focusing only on potential differences by the degree of lockdown severity (i.e., no lockdown, partial lockdown, and total lockdown) in the region in which the participants lived. The effect of lockdown severity was non-significant at the multivariate level, Wilks' Lambda = 0.994, F (10, 1702) = 0.533, p =  .868. There were also no significant differences related to the degree of lockdown for any of the variables at the univariate level, p 's ranging from 0.337 to 0.940.

3.1.3. Bivariate correlations at T1

Our goal was to understand whether and to what extent perceived pathogen threat was associated with science and faith mindsets. To investigate the hypothesized associations at T1 between COVID-19 Concern ( M T1   =  5.44, SD  = 1.16), Disease Avoidance ( M T1   =  5.44, SD  = 1.16), Self-protection ( M T1   =  5.44, SD  = 1.16), Science ( M T1   =  5.44, SD  = 1.16), and Faith ( M T1   =  5.44, SD  = 1.16), we computed the correlations between these variables, as well as their association with age and sex as demographic variables ( Table 3 ).

Bivariate correlations among the study and control variables at T1.

Note: COVID = COVID-19 Concern, DA = Disease Avoidance, SP = Self-protection; N  = 858.; ⁎⁎⁎ p  ≤ .001.; ⁎⁎ p  ≤ .01.

⁎ p  ≤ .05.

Because concern over COVID-19 would later become increasingly politicized, we also examined the association between COVID-19 concern and political leanings as a potential control variable. The correlations among the five main study variables were mostly consistent with our hypothesized model except that Disease Avoidance was not significantly correlated with Science, and Faith was uncorrelated with COVID-19 concern.

We had not expected to find the strong, negative correlation between science and faith mindsets. To probe whether the negative correlation between faith and science mindsets depended upon religious affiliation, we examined the partial correlations, controlling for political conservatism, between science and faith mindsets, at each of the three time periods, for each of six religious groups with n  > 30 (i.e., Atheists, Agnostics, Catholics, Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, SBNRs). Our measure of science and faith mindsets ( Kitchens & Phillips, 2018 ) is presented on a single survey page. Therefore, as a supplement, we also examined the correlations between religious commitment ( Wood et al., 2010 ) and Interest in Science ( Johnson et al., 2019 )–our similar, multi-page measures of faith and scientific commitments ( Table 4 ).

Partial correlations between science and faith mindsets, by wave, by religious group, controlling for political conservatism.

Note: 1 ( Kitchens & Phillips, 2018 ), 2 ( Wood et al., 2010 ), and 3 ( Johnson et al., 2019 ).; ⁎⁎⁎ p ≤  .001.; ⁎⁎ p ≤  .01.; ⁎ p ≤  .05.

There was a negative correlation at each timepoint, for each of the six religious groups, with only two exceptions (a non-significant correlation between science and faith among Evangelicals at T2 and SBNRs at T3). These results indicate that the negative correlation between science and faith is robust across religious groups.

3.2. Preliminary analyses of longitudinal data

Analysis of the longitudinal data began with an investigation of changes in the means of our five model variables over time. We had intentionally assessed COVID-19 concern at specific time points: Time 1 when the extent of the pandemic first became apparent, Time 2 as cases and deaths escalated daily with nationwide stay-at-home orders, and at Time 3 after the exponential increase in cases had leveled off for the time being and many nations around the world—including the U.S.—had fully or partially lifted lockdown orders. To examine the change in the means of each of the variables in our model between March and April (when cases escalated daily) and between April and June (when cases had plateaued or declined), we conducted a series of paired-samples t -tests, using a multiple imputation data file created in SPSS with 30 imputed data sets to address the missing data.

In calculating the paired samples t -tests and effect sizes (i.e., Cohen's d s), we compared (1) T2 scores with T1 scores and (2) T3 scores with T2 scores. We found significant differences but all effect sizes were small except for COVID-19 concern, which had a medium, positive effect size (T3 versus T2). The results can be seen in Table 5 . Similar results without using multiple imputation can be found in the Supplemental Materials, Table S5.

Differences in means for COVID-19 concern, motivations, science and faith mindsets at three time periods.

Note: The t -test values and Cohen's d s are positive when the mean increased from the earlier to the later wave, and they are negative when the mean decreased from the earlier wave to the later wave. ⁎⁎⁎ p ≤  .001, ⁎⁎ p ≤  .01, ⁎ p ≤  .05.

We found that COVID-19 concern in March (T1) did not differ from April (T2), suggesting that the subjective perceptions may have differed from the objective circumstances with the number of cases and deaths increasing daily. Additionally, as cases leveled off in June, COVID-19 concern decreased significantly.

Disease Avoidance increased significantly from March to April but then declined to March levels in June. Self-protection increased significantly from March to April and remained elevated in June—possibly due to the civil unrest following the death of George Floyd. Science mindsets increased significantly from March to April and remained elevated in June. In contrast, faith mindsets declined during the early months of the pandemic from T1 to T2 and remained lower at T3.

3.2.1. Changes in faith and science mindsets by religious group

To investigate the possibility that the decline in faith mindsets depended on religious group, we conducted a mixed ANOVA with time (T1 vs. T3) as the within-subjects variable and religious affiliation as the between-subjects factor for 391 participants who had completed the study in both March (T1) and June (T3). In these analyses, we included only the religious groups with n  > 30. There were 59 Atheists, 88 Agnostics, 70 Catholics, 51 Evangelicals, 76 Mainline Protestants, 47 SBNR.

As would be expected, there was a significant main effect of religious type, F (5, 385) = 141, p  < .001, partial η 2  = 0.646, with Atheists' and Agnostics' scores being significantly lower than the other groups on Faith, all p 's < 0.001. There was also a significant within-subjects main effect of time, F (1, 385) = 7.84, p  = .005, partial η 2  = 0.020, with Faith declining from T1 to T3. However, the interaction of time x religious group was not significant, Wilks' Lambda = 0.979, F (5, 385) = 1.69, p  = .137, partial η 2  = 0.021, suggesting that the six religious groups did not differ significantly in Faith decline.

In a second mixed ANOVA with Science mindset as the dependent variable, there was a significant main effect of religious type, F (5, 385) = 50, p  < .001, partial η 2  = 0.397, with Atheists' and Agnostics' scores being significantly higher than the other groups in terms of Science mindset, all p 's < 0.001. There was also a significant within-subjects main effect of time, F (1, 385) = 4.13, p  = .043, partial η 2  = 0.011, with Science mindsets increasing from T1 to T3. However, the interaction of time x religious group was not significant, Wilks' Lambda = 0.981, F (5, 385) = 1.50, p  = .188, partial η 2  = 0.019, suggesting that the six religious groups did not differ significantly in increasing reliance on science.

3.3. Main analyses of longitudinal data

To investigate the effects of COVID-19 concern and its association with reliance on science and faith mindsets, we analyzed the changes and most likely direction of effects in each of our model variables across the three waves using autoregressive cross-lagged (ARCL) models. We conclude with a mediation analysis and a final, revised model illustrating our overall findings.

3.3.1. Directional effects of COVID-19 concern, science, and faith

Path models for both the hypothesized and alternative models provided an adequate fit for the data (Supplemental Materials, Table S6). However, it is not appropriate to compare the fit of the two models because they are non-nested, almost fully saturated, and a particular causal direction cannot be inferred by comparing model fit.

To further probe the relationships (and infer causality based on temporal precedence) one strategy would be to run multiple regression models predicting scores on a variable, Y , at a later time period from scores on a variable, X , at an earlier time period, while controlling for scores on variable Y at the earlier time. So, for example, if we wanted to understand the extent to which COVID-19 concern can be predicted by Science mindset, we could carry out a multiple regression analysis in which COVID-19 concern at T3 is the dependent variable, Science at T2 would be the predictor variable, and COVID-19 concern at T2 would be the control variable (covariate). Indeed, the standardized beta coefficients for this model suggest that Science at T2 was a positive predictor of COVID-19 concern at T3, β = 0.13, p  = .003. COVID-19 concern at the earlier period (T2) was also a positive predictor of COVID-19 at T3, β = 0.72, p  < .001. These coefficients are shown in the upper right corner of Fig. 3 .

Standardized path coefficients for the autoregressive cross-lagged model.

Note: CV = COVID-19 concern. Correlations between COVID-19 concern and Faith were not significant in March, β = −0.01, April, β = 0.02, or June, β = 0.01, and are not shown here. Dashed lines indicate non-significant pathways. ⁎⁎⁎ p  ≤ .001, ⁎⁎ p ≤  .01, ⁎ p  ≤ .051, † p  = .057. The model specified age, sex, and political conservatism at T1 as control variables.

However, we would need to compare a series of multiple regression analyses to tell us whether the alternate hypothesis may (or may not) be more accurate (i.e., that COVID-19 concern at T2 predicts Science mindset at T3 controlling for Science mindset at T2). Also, we could not tell from multiple regression analysis whether there might be cross-lagged effects because we cannot specify two dependent variables in a single regression analysis. (Cross-lagged effects occur when a variable, X , at T1 predicts a variable, Y , at T2, but also that same variable, Y , at T1 predicts that same variable, X , at T2.) Multiple regression analyses are also insufficient because we could only analyze one time period in each analysis (e.g., T2 predicting T3 but not T1 predicting T2 in the same analysis). Therefore, we would be unable to account for differences in the effects across time in a single regression model . For example, any effect of science mindset on COVID-19 concern might be negligible in an early period but significant in a later period (as was the case), or vice versa. What is needed is a strategy to simultaneously solve a set of multiple regression analyses, incorporating all possible effects for the given set of variables over time.

3.3.1.1. Autoregressive cross-lagged models

Therefore, to investigate the hypothesized and alternative directional effects, we used autoregressive, cross-lagged modeling (ARCL). An ARCL modeling strategy can be understood as a set of regression models to provide complete information about the relations between variables over time. ARCL analyses sequentially compare models with no effects between variables (no cross-lagged pathways; e.g., the effect of Science at T2 on COVID-19 concern at T3) to models with hypothesized, alternative, and cross-lagged paths, controlling for all possible associations between the variables and across time (and any control variables). Thus, an ARCL model can provide information about: (1) the effects of a predictor variable on the hypothesized outcome variable (e.g., COVID-19 concern at T1 ➔ Science at T2); (2) the alternative pathway, from the hypothesized outcome variable to the predictor variable at the later time period (e.g., Science at T1 ➔ COVID-19 concern at T2; (3) cross-lagged effects such that the hypothesized and the alternative pathways are equally robust; (4) the stability of effects within each variable across time (referred to as the auto-regressive pathways); (5) the correlations between the variables at the prior time period; and (5) the correlations between the variables at the later period. Models with significantly improved goodness of fit to the data relative to baseline (or less complex) models are deemed the best representation of the associations between the variables.

Because COVID-19 concern, Science, and Faith may have mediated effects, we compared the fit statistics in three separate ARCL analyses to isolate these effects, with one analysis for each pair of variables. Analysis 1 investigated the effects between COVID-19 concern and Science, Analysis 2 investigated the effects between COVID-19 concern and Faith, and Analysis 3 investigated the effects between Science and Faith. In each of the three analyses, we examined four models specifying (1) no cross-lagged effects (i.e., the baseline model assuming no effects between the two variables), (2) the hypothesized effects of COVID-19 concern ➔ Science (or COVID-19 concern ➔ Faith; or Science ➔ Faith), (3) the alternative hypothesized effects of Science ➔ COVID-19 concern (or Faith ➔ COVID-19 concern; or Faith ➔ Science), and (4) a model with cross-lagged effects. All ARCL models used FIML estimation. We included age, sex, and political conservatism measured at T1 as time-invariant covariates by including them as exogenous predictors of the T1 variables; all other control is indirect thereafter ( Little, 2013 , p. 196–197). The correlation matrix for the model variables for all three time periods can be found in the Supplemental Materials (Table S9).

For ARCL Models 2 and 3, we tested whether the model fit was improved over the baseline Model 1. Model 4 was compared to what we had found to be the best fitting of Model 1, 2, or 3. Comparisons of the fit statistics for the ARCL models are shown in Table 6 .

Fit statistics for competing autoregressive cross-lagged models.

3.3.1.2. Science and COVID-19 concern

A comparison of the fit statistics for the four possible models of the association between Science and COVID-19 concern across three time periods was shown in the upper section of Table 6 . The best-fitting model indicated that science mindset might be better conceptualized as a predictor of COVID-19 concern. Thus, our original hypothesis was not supported. Instead, it appears more likely that science mindset functions as an interpretive framework influencing COVID-19 concern.

3.3.1.3. Faith and COVID-19 concern

A comparison of the fit statistics for four possible models of the association between Faith and COVID-19 concern across three time periods is shown in the middle section of Table 6 . The best fitting model suggested that Faith had a greater effect on COVID-19 concern than vice versa. However, the cross-sectional bivariate correlations at T1 indicated that the association between Faith mindset and COVID-19 Concern was non-significant, calling into question whether Faith is a predictor of COVID-19 Concern.

3.3.1.4. Faith and science

Both the path from Faith to Science mindset (Model 2) and the path from Science to Faith mindset (Model 3) were significant. However, the improvement in goodness of model fit relative to the baseline model was substantially larger in Model 3 (Chi Square change = 64) as compared to Model 2 (Chi Square change = 23). This suggests that Faith mindset may be a predictor of Science mindset.

3.3.1.5. Full ARCL model

In the preceding analyses, we found that the best fitting models were Science ➔ COVID-19 Concern, and Faith ➔ COVID-19 concern, suggesting that our alternative model ( Fig. 2 ) may explain the relations between the variables better than our hypothesized model ( Fig. 1 ). However, it was less clear which was the best fitting model in the third analysis investigating the associations between science and faith mindsets. Moreover, we had observed the non-significant correlation between Faith mindset and COVID-19 concern in the cross-sectional data. The ARCL models summarized in Table 6 explored the relations between pairs of variables. Thus, these models ignored the relations among the three variables. To address this issue, we investigated the relations among Faith mindset, Science Mindset, and Covid-19 Concern in a single ARCL model. We examined autoregressive effects (associations within variables across time), the prospective effects (i.e., Science ➔ COVID-19 Concern; Faith ➔ COVID-19 Concern; and Faith ➔ Science), and the reciprocal effects (i.e., COVID-19 Concern ➔ Science; COVID-19 Concern ➔ Faith; and Science ➔ Faith), accounting for all three variables, across all three time periods, with age, sex, and political conservatism at T1 as exogenous control variables. The model provided a good fit for the data, X 2 (27) = 251; RMSEA = 0.10; CFI = 0.95; SRMR = 0.04. The standardized path coefficients for the model are shown in Fig. 3 .

As indicated in Fig. 3 , Science was a predictor of COVID-19 concern and this effect was amplified between T2 and T3. Perhaps, from April to June, the availability of scientific information about the disease increased as scientists, medical professionals, and the media became better informed. Thus, in terms of a direct association between science mindset and COVID-19 concern, the alternative model was supported.

The results of the full ARCL model indicate that the association between Faith mindset and COVID-19 concern was non-significant suggesting that Science mindset may mediate the effect of Faith on COVID-19 concern. Thus, in terms of a direct association between faith mindset and COVID-19 concern, neither the hypothesized nor alternative models were supported.

Although the association between Science and Faith mindsets was cross-lagged in the later period ( Fig. 3 ), the prospective paths showing Faith as influencing Science were stronger in both time periods. The increase in science mindset coupled with the apparent decline in faith, and the results of the final ARCL model suggest that the decline in faith mindset may have facilitated the increase in science mindset during the early months of the pandemic.

3.3.1.6. Disease avoidance and self-protection

Additional ARCL models (not shown here) confirmed that COVID-19 concern was a significant predictor of disease avoidance and self-protection motivations. However, despite the moderate correlations between Faith mindset and Self-protection observed in the cross-sectional data at T1, the ARCL analyses showed that the cross-lagged pathways were non-significant. Cross-lagged pathways for Faith mindset and Disease Avoidance were also non-significant. The cross-lagged pathways for Science mindset and motivations were also non-significant. Contrary to our predictions, we conclude that the two motivations were not mediators of the effects of COVID-19 concern but, instead, were better conceptualized as outcomes of COVID-19 concern.

3.3.2. Final revised path model

Thus far, we have shown that there were small but significant changes over time in each of the variables in our hypothesized model (see paired samples t -tests). As predicted, the bivariate correlations between the five model variables at T1 showed that disease avoidance and self-protection motivations were positively associated with COVID-19 concern. However, contrary to our predictions, Disease Avoidance was not correlated with a Science mindset, and COVID-19 concern was not correlated with a Faith mindset. Moreover, ARCL analyses suggested that Faith mindset negatively predicted Science mindset and that Science mindset positively predicted COVID-19 concern (T2 to T3).

Taken together, these results provide converging evidence that the alternative (interpretative framework) model of Faith and Science as predictors of COVID-19 concern appears to be a more accurate representation of the directional effects between the five variables in our model, with the caveat that a Faith mindset only influences COVID-19 concern indirectly, via Science, if at all. Thus, the associations between the variables in our alternative model would need to be respecified with no direct effect of Faith mindset on COVID-19 concern.

3.3.2.1. Science mediates effects of faith on COVID-19 concern

To further investigate the relations between Science, Faith, and COVID-19 concern, we focused on the proposed mediational pathway, testing the indirect effect of Faith (at T1) on COVID-19 concern (at T3) via Science (at T2) (i.e., Faith T1 ➔ Science T2 ➔ COVID-19 concern T3 ). In the model, we also controlled for prior period scores (i.e., COVID-19 concern at T2, Science at T1), age, and political conservatism at T1. There was a significant, negative, direct effect of Faith at T1 on Science at T2, β = −0.14, p  = .004, Bootstrapped 95% CI [−0.23, −0.05] and a significant direct effect of Science at T2 on COVID-19 concern at T3, β = 0.16, p  = .010, Bootstrapped 95% CI [0.04, 0.28].

We used bias-corrected bootstrapping and the corresponding asymmetric confidence interval to assess the mediated effect ( Fairchild & Mcdaniel, 2017 ; Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007 ; Hayes, 2013 ). Thus, we explicitly do not provide exact p -values for the mediated effect and instead interpret the confidence intervals. There was a significant ( p  < .05) negative indirect effect of Faith at T1 on COVID-19 concern at T3 via Science at T2, β = −0.02, Bootstrapped 95% CI [−0.05, −0.00]. The direct effect of Faith at T1 on COVID-19 concern at T3 was not significant when partialling out the effect of Science at T2, p  = .174, β = 0.07, Bootstrapped 95% CI [−0.03, 0.17]. The total effect of Faith on COVID-19 concern was not significant, β = 0.05, Bootstrapped 95% CI [−0.05, 0.14], reflecting the cancellation of the significant negative indirect effect of Faith mindset on COVID-19 concern via Science mindset by the nonsignificant, but positive, direct effect of Faith mindset on COVID-19 concern.

3.3.2.2. Final path model

To illustrate the results of our study, the structure of the final path model, and the strength of the associations between the variables, we specified two final path models. In the first model, we used T2 (April) scores and in the second model we used T3 (June) scores. In both models, we controlled for the demographic variables, age and political conservatism at T1. (Due to convergence issues stemming from incorporating missing data with FIML, we removed the binary control variable, sex, from the models.) The standardized path coefficients for the two models are shown in Fig. 4 .

Standardized path coefficients for the final path model at T2 [T3].

Notes: Coefficients for the associations between variables at T2 are shown without brackets; coefficients for the associations between variables at T3 are shown in [brackets]. Scores at T2 [T3] for all variables were also regressed on age and political conservatism as control variables, not shown in the diagram. ⁎⁎⁎ p ≤  .001, ⁎⁎ p ≤  .01, ⁎ p ≤  .05.

The model for T2 (April) provided a good fit for the data, X 2 (5) = 23; RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.98; SRMR = 0.03. The model for T3 (June) also provided a good fit for the data, X 2 (5) = 17; RMSEA = 0.05; CFI = 0.98; SRMR = 0.03. Together, the two models illustrate the structure of the relationships between (1) Faith and Science mindsets; (2) Science and COVID-19 concern; and (3) COVID-19 concern and Disease Avoidance and Self-protection. Similar results using only the data from the 339 participants who completed all three waves can be found in the Supplemental Materials, Fig. S5.

Taken together, the results of the paired samples t- tests showing changes in the model variables, the autoregressive cross-lagged models showing the relative strengths of the directional pathways between the model variables from prior periods to later periods, and the analysis of the mediated effects of Faith mindset on COVID-19 concern via science mindset, provide converging evidence consistent with the path model structure shown in Fig. 4 .

However, we acknowledge that the final structural model specified in Fig. 4 can only represent an approximation of reality because it is not possible for the fit of such a model to “prove,” for example, that a faith mindset influences a science mindset; nor that a science mindset elevates COVID-19 concern. There are undoubtedly many other factors and confounding variables not accounted for in our final model. While the longitudinal nature of our study allows us to establish the temporal precedence required for causality, because this was not a true randomized experiment our conclusions about causality require further research. Additional studies, including randomized experiments, are needed to investigate further the isolated effects for each of our model variables.

4. Discussion

The worldwide threat of the COVID-19 pandemic has created social and psychological dilemmas that people must solve in order to survive and flourish ( Van Bavel et al., 2020 ). The purpose of the present research was to investigate whether people turn to their science and faith mindsets in the face of COVID-19 concern and/or whether science and faith mindsets affect the level of concern that people have about COVID-19. To that end, we asked participants to rate the extent to which they believed that science and faith in God were generally valuable for providing information, explaining reality, solving humanity's problems, and bringing good things to life ( Kitchens & Phillips, 2018 ). We had expected that concern about the pandemic would increase both a science mindset (see also Luna, Bering, & Halberstadt, 2021 ) and a faith mindset, mediated by two related fundamental motivations, disease avoidance and self-protection. Specifically, we reasoned that the activation of disease avoidance would lead people toward science in a search for preventative health practices, treatments, or cures, whereas self-protection would lead people to turn to faith in God in search of protection and comfort.

We also acknowledged the possibility of an alternative model whereby science and faith affected perceptions of COVID-19 concern (i.e., science and faith mindsets functioned as interpretive frameworks or meaning-making systems ( Park, 2005 ). Specifically, reliance on science may have increased concern about the disease, whereas faith in God may have reduced COVID-19 concern. As in our hypothesized model, COVID-19 concern was, in turn, expected to activate the fundamental motivations of disease avoidance and self-protection. In analyses of data collected from three surveys administered in March, April, and June of 2020, we found that this alternative model provided a better explanation for the changes we observed in the five model variables. That is to say that science mindset predicted COVID concern.

Analysis by religious groups showed a small but significant increase in a science mindset in the early months of the pandemic. Indeed, in a subsample of participants with pre-test scores for interest in science, we found that interest in science had also increased as our study began (see Supplemental Materials). A likely explanation is that when people (at least people living in the U.S. in the 21st century) are exposed to pathogen threat, they are likely to first look to science for practical and accurate information about the disease, available treatments, and potential cures. 1 Consistent with the interpretative framework model, we found that people who looked to science for information and understanding were subsequently more likely to have elevated COVID-19 concerns.

However, the results of our naturalistic, longitudinal study were somewhat more complicated than either model would have predicted in terms of a faith mindset. First, we had not expected faith to decline (across all religious groups), which contrasts with other studies showing that self-reports of faith increased during the pandemic ( Gecewicz, 2020 ). A post hoc examination of pre-test scores available for a subsample of participants revealed that scores for belief in a loving God (a proxy for our measure of faith) were also higher before our study began (see Supplemental Materials). Thus, the decline in faith from April to June in the present research may simply reflect a more general decline in religiosity that was already occurring before the pandemic began ( Cooperman, Funk, & Smith, 2019 ; Pew Research Center, 2015b ).

Another possibility for the decline in faith mindset is that, as the pandemic worsened, people found this interpretative framework less helpful in coping with their circumstances; when religion is no longer helpful or salient, faith wanes in importance ( Krause & Pargament, 2017 ). It is also possible that there may have been some level of dissatisfaction with U.S. religious leaders' response in addressing the threat of COVID-19, which included the cessation of religious services during the early months of the pandemic or, in some cases, downplaying the severity of the pandemic. More research is needed to investigate whether faith continued to decline during the pandemic or whether faith returned to pre-lockdown levels once religious services resumed.

4.1. Faith and science

An additional, unexpected finding was the strength of the negative correlation between science and faith mindsets ( r  = −0.61 at T1). This is surprising in light of previous research showing that scientific and religious explanations are often seen as complementary ( Ecklund et al., 2011 ; Legare et al., 2012 ; Pew Research Center, 2015a ), orthogonal ( Jackson et al., 2020 ), or in many ways overlapping ( Watts et al., 2020 ). There are several possible explanations and important implications. First, the larger than expected negative association may be attributable to the religious composition of our sample. Our participants were Mechanical Turk workers who had completed prior studies for our lab. Although MTurk samples are similar to other more representative samples in the U.S. in terms of most demographic variables, MTurk workers are, on average, less religious ( Lewis, Djupe, Mockabee, & Su-Ya Wu, 2015 ). We had accounted for this in previous research by using quotas to limit the number of non-religious participants. However, the present study included 34% non-religious compared with 23% in the U.S. population ( Pew Research Center, 2015b ). Therefore, the negative association between science and faith mindsets may not generalize to a more religiously representative sample.

Second, we demonstrated that the measure we used ( Kitchens & Phillips, 2018 ) to assess science and faith as distinct mindsets or meaning-making systems is reliable and valid. However, the items are presented together in one questionnaire and may invoke perceptions of science and faith as conflicting. Although religious individuals are often able to reconcile scientific and religious beliefs ( Ecklund et al., 2011 ; Evans & Evans, 2008 ; Longest & Smith, 2011 ), there is some evidence that many people think of science and faith as in automatic opposition ( McPhetres & Zuckerman, 2018 ; Preston & Epley, 2009 ; Preston, Ritter, & Hepler, 2013 ) and our measure may have activated these beliefs resulting in an unusually high negative correlation.

We note that the increase in a science mindset was significant but with a small effect size. Given the negative correlation between science and faith mindsets, one interpretation is that faith may have suppressed what would have been even more significant increases in reliance on science. We can speculate that to sustain the sense of well-being and a strong belief in a loving God, theists were (and possibly are) less inclined to seek out or accommodate negative information about the pandemic as a form of worldview defense. This would be consistent with previous research showing that people often reject information that would challenge their worldview ( Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016 ; Preston & Epley, 2009 ).

Another explanation is that the pandemic led to or exacerbated religious struggles. Most people represent God as benevolent ( Johnson et al., 2019 ), yet experiencing adverse events can lead to views of God as distant or punishing accompanied by the distress of religious struggles ( Aten et al., 2008 ; Krause & Pargament, 2017 ; Wilt, Exline, Grubbs, Park, & Pargament, 2016 ). Again, when faith fails to provide comfort and God seems distant, people may focus on other beliefs, belief systems, or ideologies to make sense of the world's events. However, another, perhaps more likely, explanation for the small changes in science and faith mindsets is that both belief systems are accessible and relatively stable across short periods of time.

4.2. Fundamental motives

Consistent with our hypotheses, COVID-19 concern led to significant increases in disease avoidance and self-protection (see also Makhanova & Shepherd, 2020 ; Olivera-La Rosa et al., 2020 ). The activation of these motivations is likely to influence intrapersonal, interpersonal, and societal outcomes not examined here. For example, social upheaval has been shown to activate apocalyptic perspectives ( Dein & Littlewood, 2005 ).

Moreover, perceived vulnerability to disease is associated with changes in ethnocentric attitudes, sociosexuality, and personality traits such as extraversion and openness to experience ( Fincher et al., 2008 ; Park et al., 2003 ; Schaller & Murray, 2008 ). Additionally, when self-protection motives are high, outgroup members are likely to be viewed as potential threats, and aggression is expected to increase as an evolved response to perceived threats ( Doty, Peterson, & Winter, 1991 ; McCann, 1999 ; Schaller & Neuberg, 2008 ). More research is needed to assess what may be the short- and longer-term effects of COVID-19 concern and future pandemics due to increases in disease avoidance and self-protection motivations.

4.3. Limitations

In addition to the limitations previously discussed regarding MTurk samples and the need for additional randomized experiments, there are several other noteworthy limitations. First, we assessed changes in the variables within three months. We may have found stronger (or weaker) effects with a longer lag time. Additionally, there are surely other motivations, individual experiences, moderating traits, cultural norms, and historical trends that influence whether individuals and groups find science and/or faith more (or less) relevant in making sense of the world and life events. For example, theologian and scientist Ian Barbour (1998) has posited that individualism and self-reliance contributed to the scientific revolution in the 17th century. Today, the increased social isolation during the pandemic may have made science more appealing as an interpretative framework for self-reliant people.

Secondly, despite the seemingly hydraulic effects of faith and science that we found in the current study during the early months of the pandemic, others have found more complementary relationships between science and faith historically ( Barbour, 1998 ), currently among scientists ( Ecklund et al., 2011 ), among the clergy ( Colburn & Henriques, 2006 ), and in the general population ( Pew Research Center, 2015a ). Both science and faith in God can provide explanations, a sense of control, and meaning—although perhaps in different ways ( Rutjens & Preston, 2020 ). Like the two rails required for a train track, it may be that a balance of science and faith is most advantageous for navigating ecological threats and the vicissitudes of life. Future research should continue to test hydraulic versus complementary models of science and faith mindsets by examining how perceptions about the relationship between science and faith might influence people's willingness to draw on both sources for comfort, care, and control.

Nevertheless, pathogen prevalence may pose a unique kind of threat that leads people to turn toward scientific thinking in a search for very practical solutions and medical innovations ( Rutjens et al., 2013 ). We note that, during the pandemic, science information was readily available, and the need to “follow the science” to find practical solutions was often mentioned. The news media regularly presented statistics, symptoms, mortality rates, discussions of possible treatment options, images of hospital settings, and reports of a search for a cure. In contrast, religious groups generally ceased gatherings, perhaps contributing little to the conversation. COVID-19 was novel, the origins were unknown, and there is limited information for fighting pandemics provided by sacred writings or religious leaders. Thus, the salience and availability of scientific information in U.S. culture, coupled with the lack of religious information relevant to the pandemic, may have created unique circumstances explaining our findings.

A further limitation in the present study is that we have not accounted for the effects of scientific misinformation as scientists learned more (e.g., the efficacy of medical face masks or ventilators) or contradicted one another (e.g., the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine), or as people produced scientific-sounding misinformation (e.g., links between COVID-19 and 5G technology) ( Gregory & Mcdonald, 2020 ). Perceptions of misinformation may have undermined reliance on science, thus dampening the turn to science for guidance and effective treatments.

Finally, “science” is a very broad term encompassing a wide range of interests, concerns, and methodologies. It may be that people are quite likely to endorse medical science—possibly even more so during a pandemic—but still reticent to accept other scientific theories or endeavors. For instance, research shows that religious people are generally knowledgeable about and open to scientific information but reject evolutionary theory or anthropogenic explanations of climate change ( Pew Research Center, 2015a ). Thus, the broad claim that a science mindset was more salient or increased at the expense of faith should be interpreted with caution as this result may be due to the interpretation of the term “science” in our study or (to some extent) the over-inclusion of non-religious individuals in the MTurk sample, and the cultural and political context in the U.S.

Similarly, we have limited our focus to faith in God, but religion is a multidimensional construct that entails social norms, practices, communities, etc. ( Saroglou et al., 2020 ). More research is needed to investigate how the perceptions of the pandemic may have influenced, or been influenced by, other dimensions of religion or other beliefs about the divine. For example, faith in God may depend on individual differences in beliefs about God's attributes or God's engagement in the world ( Kay, Gaucher, Napier, Callan, & Laurin, 2008 ).

5. Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic is a worldwide threat that has spawned social dilemmas requiring everyone's coordination and cooperation ( Johnson, Dawes, Fowler, & Smirnov, 2020 ). To solve health concerns, people must have access to accurate medical and scientific information. We found that, to the extent that people looked to science as a meaning-making system or mindset, concern about COVID-19 increased significantly with corresponding increases in disease avoidance and self-protection motives.

We also found that faith as a meaning-making system—a system of beliefs also helpful in understanding events in the world and finding solutions to problems—had often decreased for theists and non-theists alike. It remains to be seen whether this trend will continue and what effect a decline of faith might have on society or on individuals' future subjective well-being.

Today, there is still some disagreement about best medical practices, the social situation remains fluid, and the SARS-CoV-19 virus continues to flourish and mutate. We hope our findings might help guide future research and public policy-making as we wind our way, as a nation and as a global community, in overcoming the novel coronavirus.

Open practices

The longitudinal study in this article earned Open Materials and Open Data badges for transparent practices. Materials and data are available at https://osf.io/ q4rau.

Acknowledgment

This study was funded by a sub-grant (#FP21991) to the first author from The Issachar Fund through a grant from the Templeton Religion Trust.

☆ This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Dr. Kristin Laurin.

1 A 36-item measure of COVID-19 stress became available in May 2020 ( Taylor et al., 2020 ). However, due to our survey's length and the need to repeat our same measure across all three time periods, we continued to assess COVID-19 concern using just these three items. In later studies not reported here ( N  = 685), we found that our 3-item measure was positively correlated with Concern, r (673) = 0.78, Compulsive Searching, r (673) = 0.57, and Fear of Contagion, r (673) = 0.58, three relevant subscales of the longer new COVID-19 stress measure.

Appendix A Supplementary information for this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104186 .

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary material

• Aten J.D., Moore M., Denney R.M., Bayne T., Stagg A., Owens S.…Jones C. God images following hurricane Katrina in South Mississippi: An exploratory study. Journal of Psychology and Theology. 2008; 36 (4):249–257. doi: 10.1177/009164710803600401. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baraldi A., Enders C.K. In: Cambridge handbook of research methods in clinical psychology. Wright A., Hallquist M., editors. Cambridge University Press; 2020. Missing data; pp. 444–466. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour I.G. SCM Press Ltd.; 1998. Religion and science: Historical and contemporary issues. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyer P., Firat R., van Leeuwen F. Safety, threat, and stress in intergroup relations: A coalitional index model. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2015; 10 (4):434–450. doi: 10.1177/1745691615583133. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clegg J.M., Cui Y.K., Harris P.L., Corriveau K.H. God, germs, and evolution: Belief in unobservable religious and scientific entities in the U.S. and China. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2019; 53 (1):93–106. doi: 10.1007/s12124-019-9471-0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colburn A., Henriques L. Clergy views on evolution, creationism, science, and religion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2006; 43 (4):419–442. doi: 10.1002/tea.20109. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooperman A., Funk C., Smith G.A. “Nones” on the rise: One-in-five adults have no religious affiliation. Sociology of Religion. 2019; 202 :28–49. doi: 10.4324/9781315177458-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cui Y.K., Clegg J.M., Yan E.F., Davoodi T., Harris P.L., Corriveau K.H. Religious testimony in a secular society: Belief in unobservable entities among Chinese parents and their children. Developmental Psychology. 2020; 56 (1):117–127. doi: 10.1037/dev0000846. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davoodi T., Jamshidi-Sianaki M., Abedi F., Payir A., Cui Y.K., Harris P.L., Corriveau K.H. Beliefs about religious and scientific entities among parents and children in Iran. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2019; 10 (7):847–855. doi: 10.1177/1948550618806057. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dein S., Littlewood R. Apocalyptic suicide: From a pathological to an eschatological interpretation. International Journal of Social Psychiatry. 2005; 51 (3):198–210. doi: 10.1177/0020764005056762. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doty R.M., Peterson B.E., Winter D.G. Threat and authoritarianism in the United States, 1978-1987. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991; 61 (4):629–640. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.629. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ecklund E.H., Park J.Z., Sorrell K.L. Scientists negotiate boundaries between religion and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2011; 50 (3):552–569. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01586.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans J.H., Evans M.S. Religion and science: Beyond the epistemological conflict narrative. Annual Review of Sociology. 2008; 34 (1):87–105. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134702. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Exline J.J., Van Tongeren D.R., Bradley D.F., Wilt J.A., Stauner N., Pargament K.I., Dewall C.N. Pulling away from religion: Religious/spiritual struggles and religious disengagement among college students. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 2020 doi: 10.1037/rel0000375. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fairchild A.J., Mcdaniel H.L. Statistical commentary best (but oft-forgotten) practices: Mediation analysis 1,2. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2017; 105 :1259–1271. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.117.152546. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farias M., Newheiser A.K., Kahane G., de Toledo Z. Scientific faith: Belief in science increases in the face of stress and existential anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2013; 49 (6):1210–1213. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.008. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farias M., Van Mulukom V., Kahane G., Kreplin U., Joyce A., Soares P., Oviedo L., Hernu M., Rokita K., Savulescu J., Möttönen R. Supernatural belief is not modulated by intuitive thinking style or cognitive inhibition. Scientific Reports. 2017; 7 (1):1–8. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14090-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fincher C.L., Thornhill R. Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2012; 35 (2):61–79. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11000021. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fincher C.L., Thornhill R., Murray D.R., Schaller M. Pathogen prevalence predicts human cross-cultural variability in individualism/collectivism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2008; 275 (1640):1279–1285. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0094. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frimer J.A., Gaucher D., Schaefer N.K. Political conservatives’ affinity for obedience to authority is loyal, not blind. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2014; 40 (9):1205–1214. doi: 10.1177/0146167214538672. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fritz M.S., MacKinnon D.P. Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science. 2007; 18 (3):233–239. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gecewicz C. Few American say their house of worship is open, but a quarter say their faith has grown amid pandemic. Pew Research Center. 2020 https://pewrsr.ch/3eZZw8V [ Google Scholar ]
• Gelfand M.J., Raver J.L., Nishii L., Leslie L.M., Lun J., Lim B.C.…Yamaguchi S. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science. 2011; 332 (6033):1100–1104. doi: 10.1126/science.1197754. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gervais W.M., Norenzayan A. Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science. 2012; 336 (6080):493–496. doi: 10.1126/science.1215647. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gregory J., Mcdonald K. Trail of deceit: The most popular COVID-19 myths and how they emerged. 2020. https://www.newsguardtech.com/covid-19-myths/#5gtechnology NewsGuard, June.
• Griskevicius V., Goldstein N.J., Mortensen C.R., Cialdini R.B., Kenrick D.T. Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006; 91 (2):281–294. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.281. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes A. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press; 2013. Methodology in the social sciences. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heine S.J., Proulx T., Vohs K.D. The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2006; 10 :88–110. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson J.C., Jasko K., Abrams S., Atkinson T., Balkcom E., Kruglanski A.…Halberstadt J. 2020. Religion does not inhibit belief in science, but non religious people think it does. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson K.A., Moon J.W., Okun M.A., Scott M.J., O’Rourke H.P., Hook J.N., Cohen A.B. Science, God, and the cosmos: Science both erodes (via logic) and promotes (via awe) belief in God. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2019; 84 (June):103826. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103826. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson K.A., White A.E., Boyd B.M., Cohen A.B. Matzah, meat, milk, and mana: Psychological influences on religio-cultural food practices. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2011; 42 (8) doi: 10.1177/0022022111412528. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson T., Dawes C., Fowler J., Smirnov O. Slowing COVID-19 transmission as a social dilemma: Lessons for government officials from interdisciplinary research on cooperation. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration. 2020; 3 (1):1–13. doi: 10.30636/jbpa.31.150. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jong J., Halberstadt J., Bluemke M. Foxhole atheism, revisited: The effects of mortality salience on explicit and implicit religious belief. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2012; 48 (5):983–989. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kay A.C., Gaucher D., Napier J.L., Callan M.J., Laurin K. God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008; 95 (1):18–35. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.18. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenrick D.T., Griskevicius V., Neuberg S.L., Schaller M. Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2010; 5 (3):292–314. doi: 10.1177/1745691610369469. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitchens M.B., Phillips R.E. A curvilinear relationship between clear beliefs about god and self-concept clarity. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 2018 doi: 10.1037/rel0000181. Advance online publication. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krause N., Pargament K.I. Losing my religion: Exploring the relationship between a decline in faith and a positive affect. Applied Research in Quality of Life. 2017; 12 (4):885–901. doi: 10.1007/s11482-016-9495-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn T.S. 3rd ed. University of Chicago Press; 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laurin K., Schumann K., Holmes J.G. A relationship with god? Connecting with the divine to assuage fears of interpersonal rejection. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2014; 5 (7):777–785. doi: 10.1177/1948550614531800. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Legare C.H., Evans E.M., Rosengren K.S., Harris P.L. The coexistence of natural and supernatural explanations across cultures and development. Child Development. 2012; 83 (3):779–793. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Legare C.H., Gelman S.A. Bewitchment, biology, or both: The co-existence of natural and supernatural explanatory frameworks across development. Cognitive Science. 2008; 32 (4):607–642. doi: 10.1080/03640210802066766. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewandowsky S., Oberauer K. Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2016; 25 (4):217–222. doi: 10.1177/0963721416654436. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis A.R., Djupe P.A., Mockabee S.T., Su-Ya Wu J. The (non) religion of Mechanical Turk workers. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2015; 54 (2):419–428. doi: 10.1111/jssr.12184. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Litman L., Robinson J., Abbercock T. TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2017; 49 :433–442. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Little T.D. Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford Press; 2013. Specifying and interpreting a longitudinal panel model; pp. 180–208. [ Google Scholar ]
• Longest K.C., Smith C. Conflicting or compatible: Beliefs about religion and science among emerging adults in the United States. Sociological Forum. 2011; 26 (4):846–869. doi: 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2011.01287.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luna D.S., Bering J.M., Halberstadt J.B. Public faith in science in theUnited States through the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health in Practice. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.puhip.2021.100103. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Makhanova A., Shepherd M.A. Behavioral immune system linked to responses to the threat of COVID-19. Personality and Individual Differences. 2020; 167 (June):110221. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110221. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCann S.J.H. Threatening times and fluctuations in American church memberships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1999; 25 (3):325–336. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025003005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCullough M.E., Hoyt W.T., Larson D.B., Koenig H.G., Thoresen C. Religious involvement and mortality: A meta-analytic review. Health Psychology. 2000; 19 (3):211–222. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.19.3.211. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McPhetres J., Jong J., Zuckerman M. Religious Americans have less positive attitudes toward science, but this does not extend to other cultures. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2020:1–9. doi: 10.1177/1948550620923239. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McPhetres J., Nguyen T.T. Using findings from the cognitive science of religion to understand current conflicts between religious and scientific ideologies. Religion, Brain and Behavior. 2018; 8 (4):394–405. doi: 10.1080/2153599X.2017.1326399. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McPhetres J., Zuckerman M. Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy. PLoS One. 2018; 13 (11):1–21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207125. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphy N. In: Philosophy of Religion: Selected readings. 3rd ed. Peterson M., Hasker W., Reichenbach B., Basinger D., editors. Oxford University Press; 2007. Theology and scientific methodology; pp. 563–580. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murray D.R. Direct and indirect implications of pathogen prevalence for scientific and technological innovation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2014; 45 (6):971–985. doi: 10.1177/0022022114532356. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neel R., Kenrick D.T., White A.E., Neuberg S.L. Individual differences in fundamental social motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2016; 110 (6):887–907. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000068. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nelson J.M. In: Psychology, religion, and spirituality. Nelson J.M., editor. Springer; 2009. Science, religion, and psychology; pp. 43–75. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neuberg S.L., Kenrick D.T., Schaller M. In: Handbook of social psychology. Fiske S.T., Gilbert D., Lindzey G., editors. John Wiley & Sons; 2010. Evolutionary social psychology; pp. 761–796. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien T.L., Noy S. Traditional, modern, and post-secular perspectives on science and religion in the United States. American Sociological Review. 2015; 80 :92–115. doi: 10.1177/0003122414558919. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olivera-La Rosa A., Chuquichambi E.G., Ingram G.P.D. Keep your (social) distance: Pathogen concerns and social perception in the time of COVID-19. Personality and Individual Differences. 2020; 166 :110200. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110200. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pargament K.I., Magyar-Russell G.M., Murray-Swank N.A. The sacred and the search for significance: Religion as a unique process. Journal of Social Issues. 2005; 61 (4):665–687. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00426.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pargament K.I., Smith B.W., Koenig H.G., Perez L. Patterns of positive and negative religious coping with major life stressors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 1998; 37 (4):710. doi: 10.2307/1388152. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park C., Cohen L.H., Herb L. Intrinsic religiousness and religious coping as life stress moderators for Catholics versus Protestants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990; 59 (3):562–574. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.3.562. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park C.L. Religion and meaning. Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 2005; 1969 :357–379. [ Google Scholar ]
• Park J.H., Faulkner J., Schaller M., Duncan L., Ho K., Messmer R., Neuberg S. Evolved disease-avoidance processes and contemporary anti-social behavior: Prejudicial attitudes and avoidance of people with physical disability. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 2003; 27 (2):65–87. doi: 10.1177/1368430204046142. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennycook G., Cheyne J.A., Seli P., Koehler D.J., Fugelsang J.A. Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition. 2012; 123 (3):335–346. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pew Research Center . 2015. Religion and science: Highly religious Americans are less likely than others to see conflict between faith and science. (Issue October) [ Google Scholar ]
• Pew Research Center U.S. public becoming less religious. 2015. http://repositorio.unan.edu.ni/2986/1/5624.pdf
• Preston J., Epley N. Science and god: An automatic opposition between ultimate explanations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2009; 45 (1):238–241. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Preston J.L., Ritter R.S., Hepler J. Neuroscience and the soul: Competing explanations for the human experience. Cognition. 2013; 127 (1):31–37. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.12.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds V., Tanner R. Oxford University Press; 1995. The social ecology of religion. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rutjens B.T., Preston J.L. The science of religion, spirituality, and existentialism. Academic Press; 2020. Science and religion: A rocky relationship shaped by shared psychological functions; pp. 373–385. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rutjens B.T., van der Pligt J., van Harreveld F. Deus or Darwin: Randomness and belief in theories about the origin of life. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2010; 46 (6):1078–1080. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rutjens B.T., Van Harreveld F., Van Der Pligt J., Kreemers L.M., Noordewier M.K. Steps, stages, and structure: Finding compensatory order in scientific theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2013; 142 (2):313–318. doi: 10.1037/a0028716. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saroglou V., Clobert M., Cohen A.B., Johnson K.A., Ladd K.L., Van Pachterbeke M.…Tapia Valladares J. Believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging: The cognitive, emotional, moral, and social dimensions of religiousness across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2020; 51 (7–8):551–575. doi: 10.1177/0022022120946488. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaller M., Murray D.R. Pathogens, personality, and culture: Disease prevalence predicts worldwide variability in sociosexuality, extraversion, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008; 95 (1):212–221. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.212. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaller M., Neuberg S.L. In: Foundations of evolutionary psychology. Crawford C., Krebs D.L., editors. 2008. Intergroup prejudices and intergroup conflicts; pp. 399–412. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaller M., Park J.H. The behavioral immune system (and why it matters) Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2011; 20 (2):99–103. doi: 10.1177/0963721411402596. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scheitle C.P. U.S. college students’ perception of religion and science: Conflict, collaboration, or independence? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2011; 50 (1):175–186. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sibley C.G., Bulbulia J. Faith after an earthquake: A longitudinal study of religion and perceived health before and after the 2011 Christchurch New Zealand earthquake. PLoS One. 2012; 7 (12) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049648. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sinatra G.M., Kienhues D., Hofer B.K. Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist. 2014; 49 (2):123–138. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2014.916216. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sinatra G.M., Southerland S.A., McConaughy F., Demastes J.W. Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2003; 40 (5):510–528. doi: 10.1002/tea.10087. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor S., Landry C.A., Paluszek M.M., Fergus T.A., McKay D., Asmundson G.J.G. Development and initial validation of the COVID stress scales. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2020; 72 (April):102232. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102232. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Bavel J.J., Baicker K., Boggio P.S., Capraro V., Cichocka A., Cikara M.…Willer R. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour. 2020; 4 :460–471. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Varnum M.E.W., Grossmann I. Pathogen prevalence is associated with cultural changes in gender equality. Nature Human Behaviour. 2016; 1 :003. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watts J., Passmore S., Jackson J.C., Rzymski C., Dunbar R.I.M. Text analysis shows conceptual overlap as well as domain-specific differences in Christian and secular worldviews. Cognition. 2020; 201 (March):104290. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104290. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilt J.A., Exline J.J., Grubbs J.B., Park C.L., Pargament K.I. God’s role in suffering: Theodicies, divine struggle, and mental health. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 2016; 8 (4):352–362. doi: 10.1037/rel0000058. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wisman A., Koole S.L. Hiding in the crowd: Can mortality salience promote affiliation with others who oppose one’s worldviews? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 84 :511–526. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood B.T., Worthington E.L., Exline J.J., Yali A.M., Aten J.D., McMinn M.R. Development, refinement, and psychometric properties of the attitudes toward god scale (ATGS-9) Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 2010; 2 (3):148–167. doi: 10.1037/a0018753. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wootton D. 2016. The invention of science: A new history of the scientific revolution. (Harper Perennial) [ Google Scholar ]

• Burning Man
• Food & Drink

What has COVID-19 taught us? | Faith Forum

Many will list the lessons learned from COVID-19 as the need to embrace spirituality; that faith can be expressed in nontraditional ways; that faith provides comfort, hope, reassurance, a sense of security and solace during crisis; that we should find meaning in religion; that we should engage in flexibility and adaptability in delivery of religious services. For some it was a lesson in humility and a call to practice prayer. Others found that religion can bring positive change; that religion is a balm for the soul. Some found the need to serve the vulnerable, express solidarity with others and stay connected by creative means. Many found that spirituality is powerful.

Some other voices and lessons were that believers and nonbelievers suffer equally; COVID-19 did not spare adherents of any religion/belief; faith has been strengthened by COVID-19 — or, conversely, that God does not seem to care for our troubles anymore — we have to come up with our own solutions. Others say that God is still with us and has not left us; God is teaching us a lesson; God should treat us gently and not harshly; it is a test of humanity; medical experts are new prophets sent by God — listen to them; the virus is natural and not supernatural.

There are some who question: Why would an all-powerful and loving God do this to His own creation or allow COVID-19 to happen? Is He not supposed to protect us? Is He really in control?

Is it a punishment from God? many ask. Some are expecting a spiritual renewal.

The ancient Prashna Upanishad tells us:

Be kind to us with your invisible form,

Which dwells in the voice, the eye, and the ear.

And pervades the mind. Abandon us not.

We asked our panel: What has COVID-19 taught us?

We are not in control

Steve Bond, co-lead pastor, Summit Christian Church, Sparks

One of the most important lessons we learned from COVID is that, in general, we are not in control. Most of us live under the illusion that we are in control of our lives. But the reality is most of what happens to us is beyond our control. For example, we do not control the parents we have, where we are born, many of the opportunities we have and much more.

COVID crashed into our lives as a stark reminder that we are rarely in control. In times like these, a wise person will look toward God who is ultimately in control. Trusting God allays our fears when things seem to spin out of control.

God’s Word says, “So do not fear, for I am with you. Do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you with my righteous right hand” (Isaiah 41:10).

No man is an Island

Kenneth G. Lucey, philosophy/religion professor emeritus, University of Nevada

Every religious leader should have a serious interest in human health. The arrival of various vaccines has caused considerable talk about the U.S. reaching “herd immunity.” More recently it has come to be understood that such a result is highly unlikely. The reason for that is that there is a sizeable minority in the U.S. that are vaccine-hesitant and, as a result, there will continue to be a large portion of the U.S. population that remains unvaccinated. As a consequence, “herd immunity” is likely unachievable.

What COVID-19 should have taught us is that “no man is an island;” i.e., the overall well-being of humanity requires that each of us behave in such a way as to maximize the good of the whole society. As long as a sizeable minority of the population remains skeptical of the best scientific recommendations, COVID-19 has not taught us its most important lesson.

Few mentioned

Sherif A. Elfass, president, Northern Nevada Muslim Community

To Muslims, the COVID-19 pandemic served as a reminder for how mighty Allah (SWT) is and how truly weak we are. Who would have even imagined that in a matter of few months the world stayed home, wore masks, and people could not say goodbye to their loved ones? The pandemic also taught us that the virus did not discriminate; the rich, the poor, the strong, the weak, men and women all contracted the virus. However, we discriminated in how treatment was distributed. Indeed, the poor and the weak who suffered the most. The pandemic pointed out that regardless of our technological advances, our knowledge is still limited; we do not know why the virus affected people differently. The pandemic reassured how fragile human life is and that we should not take things for granted. We should focus on the blessings in our lives and cherish our relationships with each other.

To love our neighbor

Pamela A. Pech, creator of discovery of Self Programs

The COVID experience has given religious leaders a real-life example of how important it is to love your neighbor. Being shut in and void of physical connection with others has caused emotional stress for many. It has been an opportunity to remind us of the importance of looking in on those who may not be able to care for themselves. Not just the elderly or the ill … but also those working parents and care givers who are trying to work from home and at the same time educate their children. A reminder to think of those who have family far away. Those seeking work. Those scared and lonely. All are our neighbors. It has also been an opportunity to reawaken in us the importance of God’s gift of human touch, gratitude for the ability to reach out and hold someone in distress, to comfort our neighbor by holding their hand.

We need more gratitude

Matthew T. Fisher, resident priest, Reno Buddhist Center

The pandemic has taught us that we are so vulnerable and understand little. Across the world people have been dying in great numbers from the pandemic. It is not that they die primarily because of the pandemic. It is because of determinate karma that has been settled from the first moment of our births. We should not be so deeply surprised by this. And yet when people die at this time, everyone thinks it strange. It is really quite reasonable.

Our wise and compassionate Universe unfailingly saves those who single-heartedly rely on it — ordinary people of this late Dharma age and people like myself, burdened by deep unskillful karma. At a time like this, we should trust all the more deeply in the Buddha, realizing that we will be reborn in the Land of Clarity. Cast off doubt, steadfastly and single-heartedly acknowledge our gratitude to the Buddha.

Micheal L. Peterson, northwest Nevada media specialist, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

As we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, we can hold on to many lessons taught us. The first is how easy it is to lose our individual freedoms such as freedom of religion. Our freedom to unite in congregations or participate in religious events was taken from us. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, our prophet had perceived challenges ahead and had members prepared to continue to study organized curriculum at home and share by Zoom technology. But for many without such advantages there was isolation and depression. Many may never again fully participate in their religion.

We learned that our human needs are much the same wherever we live and whatever our religion. We learned the importance of becoming one and caring for one another. Christ put it bluntly: “If ye are not one, ye are not mine” (Doctrine and Covenants 38:27).

Blessed are they who Zoom

Anthony Shafton, author and atheist thinker

Someone who doesn’t belong to a congregation, isn’t a religious leader himself, and hasn’t discussed the question with those who are, can only surmise what COVID-19 has taught them on the basis of the news. The impression made by reports is that religious leaders have learned to be themselves, only more so. To sacrifice in-person services and/or hold them to numbers advised by health experts not only bespeaks humility and compassion, it may well enhance those qualities: It’s a sacrifice for someone attracted to the podium to forego it in favor of Zoom, a leveling medium. Good for them. Then what to say of defiant leaders who’ve treated health guidelines as if they infringe on religious freedom? These leaders seem to put an agenda bespeaking pride and disregarding compassion ahead of the well-being of their congregations. Whose greater glory are they serving?

Who we really are

Karen A. Foster, minister, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Northern Nevada

That being spiritual community together is not about the building. Our building has been closed but our community has been as open as ever staying connected, looking after each other, and continuing our work to change the world.

That we are stronger than we think, and more resilient than we imagine. We have learned that we can indeed do hard things.

The importance of human connection and our intense need for community. Never again will we take the simple but profound act of hugging for granted.

That we can create innovative solutions to needs and problems. Even folks who considered themselves “technically challenged” have learned to navigate online platforms successfully.

That racial and socioeconomic disparities in health care access are even worse than we thought.

That while frontline workers went from expendable to essential, many employers still do not pay them a living wage.

In this together

ElizaBeth Webb Beyer, Jewish rabbi

This crisis reminds us whatever happens in one corner of the world impacts the entire planet. We are reminded of the consequences from only considering ourselves, and failing to help or protect our neighbors. If we fail to be good stewards and neighbors, the effects are devastating. We must respect nature, including the animals, rather than be greedy and exploit it. We must compassionately share the planet with all living creatures. People must have proper housing, food, clothing and medical assistance —  and animals must be cared for because their well-being impacts our well-being.

Many religious organizations have found new ways to bring spirituality to their congregants. There are new ways to engage spiritually; being especially grateful for spiritual community and singing together. We spend time outdoors appreciating nature and worshiping. We must always make time for those we cherish. We are resilient and we are better together.

Turn to the Lord

Stephen R. Karcher, presiding priest, Saint Anthony Greek Orthodox Church

In Isaiah 26 the Lord advised his people to lock themselves in their homes until the evil passed by, but before that he said its cure will be the refreshing coolness — the dew — that comes from Him. In the same way, this past year has become a season for turning to the Lord. Often when in trouble, we’re inclined to pray and ask God to help, which is a good result that can come out of a difficult situation. Similarly, any acute crisis can lead us to reflect on the deeper questions of life. It’s good to reassess our lives and lifestyles. New situations often produce opportunities for us to see things from a vastly different perspective, like how humans are very fragile, vulnerable and certainly mortal, but also how God, who is eternal and the source of life, gives us the sure and reliable way to overcome all these.

Humanity is one

Nancy Lee Cecil, Baha’i teacher

Our founder, Baha’u’llah, explained, “… The earth is one country and mankind its citizens.” His son, Abdu’l-Baha added, “… The earth has one surface. God has not divided this surface by boundaries and barriers to separate races and peoples.”

COVID has underscored these truths, as we have experienced the interconnectedness of humanity as never before: We can now see that the world is connected by supply chains, communication technology, and travel. The oceans and vast land masses of this planet no longer protect us from the negative impact of human behavior. COVID taught us that a disease which arguably jumped from animal to human in one country can lead to illness and death in every corner of our planet. As a result, I pray the world has begun to accept, as the Baha’i Writings tell us, that all of humanity is one. We are, first of all, citizens of the world!

Next week’s topic: Do congregants act on messages in sermons?

Faith Forum is a weekly dialogue on religion produced by religious statesman Rajan Zed. Send questions or comments to [email protected] or on Twitter at @rajanzed.

• Subscriber Login

Since 1900, the Christian Century has published reporting, commentary, poetry, and essays on the role of faith in a pluralistic society.

© 2023 The Christian Century.

Contact Us     Privacy Policy

What Christian hope looks like during a pandemic

Living into the desired new creation is our work—and god’s promise..

There was a profusion of rainbows in Montreal this spring. During the first weeks of social distancing and stay-at-home orders, an array of multicolored artwork soon covered the apartment windows in my neighborhood. Many were accompanied by the same slogan: “Ça va bien aller,” roughly, “It’s going to be fine.”

Perhaps it is only principals of theological colleges who think this way, but the slogan reminded me of Julian of Norwich, the 14th-century English mystic. Julian knew pandemic: as a child, she lived through the Black Death, which killed about a third of the people in her city. At age 30, sick and near death, she had a series of mystical visions (“shewings”) of Christ. She survived and went on to write Revelations of Divine Love , an account of these visions. 

In chapter 27 of Revelations , Julian finds herself perplexed by the nature of sin in the world. She asks, “If sin had not been, we should all have been clean and like to our Lord, as He made us.” She continues: “I wondered why by the great foreseeing wisdom of God the beginning of sin was not letted: for then, methought, all should have been well.”

In her vision, she hears Christ say, “It behoved that there should be sin.” Nonetheless, he continues, turning her subjunctive statement into an indicative, “all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.” Julian concludes the chapter with an eschatological vision: “And in these words I saw a marvellous high mystery hid in God, which mystery He shall openly make known to us in Heaven.” Julian may not fully understand the nature of sin now, but she asserts with confidence that God will act to bring full understanding. In light of that, she too can affirm that all will be well.

In recent generations, eschatology has been relatively muted in mainline Protestant churches. The primary way that many Protestants have spoken eschatologically has been through the language of the kingdom of God. Much of this can be traced to theological debates in the 1950s about the language of missio Dei , the mission of God. In this period, the focus of mission shifted from the church to the kingdom, which God was believed to be revealing in our midst. The role for Christians was to find out where God was working in the world and to join in. More recently the emphasis is often on what human action in the world can do to bring about the kingdom of God.

This is a relatively narrow understanding of Christian eschatology. It doesn’t fully account for the brokenness and fallenness of Christians, and it fails to see a role for God’s action to fulfill all things in the future.

It is this latter eschatological vision that has motivated Christians across centuries. The community reading the prophet Isaiah heard a clear promise of restoration and renewal: “I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind . . . for I am about to create Jerusalem as a joy, and its people as a delight” (Isa. 65:17–18). Readers of the book of Revelation suffering under an oppressive empire could draw hope and confidence from the belief that God would act and that one day they too could say, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!” (Rev. 18:2). The belief in God’s action in the world was the ground of their hope for the future. It also provided an orientation for their living: directed toward the future, believing in God’s fulfilling action, and seeking to live now like they believed the future would one day be.

Seen in this way, eschatological living is, as Sam Wells puts it, about persisting in a cause that may seem hopeless now but will ultimately succeed, rather than participating in a cause that seems successful now but which will ultimately fail. Another way of affirming this eschatological conviction is, “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.” Or, in contemporary Montreal parlance, “Ça va bien aller.”

The change of lifestyle forced on many of us by the COVID-19 pandemic has been unusual and unsettling. I am not used to spending so much time at home, to educating and entertaining my children throughout the day, to communicating with so many people through a computer screen. Part of the difference of this time, I have begun to realize, is that the pandemic is eschatological time. As a citizen, I am called to live now in a way—socially distant—that will one day succeed, even if it is painful and difficult now. To do so, I need to give up many common habits and patterns of life and relationship—no matter how appealing they may be—because I know they will not curtail the spread of this virus and reduce its devastation.

The fundamental eschatological virtue is hope, the belief expressed in confident action that God will act to transform our world. But hope is not easy or simple, certainly not when your family is crawling up the walls of your home. “Ça va bien aller” sounds like pious advice given by those without children at home (notwithstanding that many of these rainbows show clear signs of being children’s handiwork). But this is paradoxically the time when Christians can be most hopeful and pray, “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.” 

Eschatological living not only gives Christians hope for the future, it also allows us to cast a critical eye on the way we live now. If we know how God will act to fulfill all things, we are called to live now like we believe the future will one day be. It is a future of new creation, right relationship, and the overthrow of oppressive regimes.

In both Canada and the United States, this pandemic has revealed the deep imperfections of our social structures. We have seen who is “essential”—and that the pay and rewards for many of these essential workers are far below the value of their role in society. Long-term care providers, long-distance truck drivers, grocery store stockers: we have realized their essential nature more clearly than ever before. We have begun to recognize that decisions about work conditions—sick pay, overtime—need to be decided as a society and not outsourced to gig economy employers. We’ve spent trillions of dollars in the blink of an eye to respond to immediate economic catastrophe—even as we continue to show deep reluctance to spend similar amounts to combat the gathering impacts of climate change and the economic damage it will wreak.

Thinking eschatologically brings these issues to the fore. It allows Christians to think clearly and act boldly in rebuilding our devastated communities.

Julian heard Christ say, “It behoved that there should be sin.” It is a bold statement to make: that through the pain and suffering caused by sin in the world, we are able to see God’s action at work leading to all manner of things being well. In the midst of this pandemic, I cannot yet affirm that “it behoved that there be COVID-19.” There is simply too much struggle and suffering now to say that.

But I can recognize this time as eschatological. I can live in hope and confidence. I can look in fresh and critical ways at the way my community is structured. I can use the lessons learned in this time to help rebuild a new community that moves us toward that eschatological vision in our scriptures as we await God’s final fulfillment of all things. In all of this I can affirm: All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well. Ça va bien aller. 

A version of this article appears in the print edition under the title “Shall all be well?”

Jesse Zink is principal of Montreal Diocesan Theological College and canon theologian of the Anglican Diocese of Montreal.

We would love to hear from you. Let us know what you think about this article by writing a letter to the editors .

Most Recent

Iranian american wrestling champion leads effort to develop singlet for conservative muslim women, grace and peace (ephesians 1:3-14).

by Marilyn McEntyre

Phoning home

How a perfect storm sent church insurance rates skyrocketing, most popular.

A church politics of nondomination

July 14, ordinary 15b ( mark 6:14–29).

Climate catastrophe is here

OncoMouse and me

• Find your local Age UK

• Site search Search term
• Back Information and advice
• Back Money & legal
• Back Benefits and Entitlements
• Attendance Allowance
• Benefit rates 2024-25
• Benefits Calculator – what are you entitled to?
• Bereavement Support Payment
• Carer's Allowance
• Benefits for mixed age couples
• Changes to the benefits system
• Cold Weather Payment
• Council Tax Reduction
• Disability Living Allowance
• Employment and Support Allowance
• Free bus pass and transport concessions
• Free prescriptions for over 60s
• Housing Benefit
• How to apply for a Blue Badge
• How to challenge a benefits decision through mandatory reconsideration
• How to get help with urgent or one-off expenses
• How your benefits are means tested
• Income Support
• Jobseeker's Allowance
• Pension Credit
• Personal Independence Payment
• Returning to the UK after living abroad
• Support for Mortgage Interest
• TV licence concessions
• Universal Credit
• Warm Home Discount
• Winter Fuel Payment
• More money in your pocket information guide
• Back Debt and savings
• Debt help and advice
• Energy advice for the home
• Financial jargon checker
• How to reduce your water bills
• How to trace lost money
• Using credit wisely
• Back Income and tax
• What is equity release?
• Ways to reduce Council Tax
• Inheritance tax
• How to boost your income in retirement
• Equity release information guide
• Back End of life planning
• Back Legal issues
• Finding legal advice
• How to be an executor information guide
• Making a will
• Power of attorney
• Power of attorney information guide
• Thinking about end of life information guide
• What is a living will (advance decision)?
• What to do when someone dies
• Wills and estate planning information guide
• Back Pensions advice
• Annuities explained
• Finding old pensions
• Pension calculator
• Pensions scams and fraud
• State Pension
• What are workplace pensions?
• What pension options do I have?
• Back Scams and fraud
• How to spot a catfish
• Spotting TV Licence scams
• Doorstep scams
• Postal scams
• Phone scams
• What to do if you're the victim of a scam
• Investment scams and fraud
• Avoiding scams information guide
• Help with the cost of living
• Back Consumer advice
• Changes to landline telephones
• Back Health & wellbeing
• Back Conditions and illnesses
• Bladder and bowel problems information guide
• Bowel problems
• Coronavirus
• Depression and anxiety
• Hearing loss
• High blood pressure
• Influenza (flu) prevention
• Malnutrition
• Osteoporosis
• Seasonal affective disorder (SAD)
• Urinary incontinence
• Urinary tract infections (UTIs)
• Back Health services
• Dental services for older people
• 9 health tests that could save your life
• Getting the most from your medicines
• Getting help when feeling unwell
• NHS continuing healthcare
• Your hospital stay
• GP services for older people
• Leaving hospital
• Complaining about NHS services and hospitals
• What standards you should expect from NHS services
• Your hospital stay information guide
• Back Being active
• Getting active when you find exercise difficult
• Getting active but not sure where to start
• Helping someone to get active
• Preventing falls
• How to look after your feet
• Walking tips
• Physical activity videos to use at home
• Staying steady information guide
• Back Mind and body
• 10 tips for ageing better
• 5 tips to boost your mood
• Getting a good night's sleep
• Your mind matters
• Mindfulness
• Staying cool in a heatwave
• Staying sharp
• Preventing and treating burns
• Back Loneliness
• A Life Less Lonely
• Caring for someone who's lonely
• Feeling lonely
• Back Keep well this winter
• Keeping warm and well in winter
• Keep your spirits up
• Look after each other
• Cold weather advice and tips
• Managing money in winter
• Winter wrapped up information guide
• Winter illnesses
• Back Relationships and family
• Financial and legal tips before remarrying
• Planning for end of life
• Protection from abuse and neglect
• Dating in later life
• Sex in later life
• How to deal with grief after a bereavement
• How to adjust to living alone
• Top tips for grandparents
• Worried about someone?
• Back Care & support
• Back Finding and arranging social care
• Care needs assessment
• Home care: how to find the care you need at home
• Back Paying for care
• Financial assessment explained
• Where do I start in arranging care?
• Paying for homecare
• How much does care cost?
• Back Help for carers looking after a loved one
• Carer's assessment
• Financial support for carers
• Balancing working and caring responsibilities
• Caring for someone with dementia
• Looking after yourself as a carer
• Respite care: having a break from caring
• What to do when your caring role changes or ends
• Carer's checklist
• Back Housing options in later life
• Assisted living and extra-care housing
• Safety in the home
• Home adaptations to simplify home tasks
• Specialist housing options
• Renting and social housing
• Homelessness
• Moving in with children and family
• Park homes (mobile homes)
• Sheltered housing
• Back Problems with care
• How to complain about care to your local council
• Problems with homecare
• Back Work & learning
• Back Making the most of the internet
• Computer training courses
• Glossary of online terms
• Getting started on the internet
• Staying safe online
• Keeping in touch using a video call
• Making your device easier to use
• How to download apps
• Email essentials
• What's WhatsApp?
• Using social media
• Is online banking safe?
• How to transfer money and make payments
• Shopping safely online
• Online password security
• Age UK's digital instruction guides
• Back Discrimination and rights
• EU citizens and settled status after Brexit
• Help for Ukrainian nationals in the UK
• Human rights
• The Equality Act
• Windrush Compensation Scheme information guide
• Windrush Scheme
• Your rights at work
• Back Education and training
• Build up your skills
• Classes and courses
• Higher education and university
• u3a – Later life learning
• Back Looking for work
• Be your own boss
• CVs and job applications
• Job interview tips
• Back Retirement
• Preparing emotionally for retirement
• Paul Lewis: Retirement planning advice
• Living abroad after retirement
• Retirement age
• Back For professionals
• Benefits hub for professionals
• Mental health hub for professionals
• Winter hub for professionals
• Information guides and factsheets

Age UK Advice Line 0800 678 1602

Free to call 8am – 7pm 365 days a year Find out more

Telephone friendship

Get a free weekly friendship call. We'll match you with one of our volunteers. Our service is flexible to suit the different needs of everyone who takes part.

• Sign up for telephone befriending
• Find services near you
• Find charity shops near you

Popular services

• Age UK Advice Line
• Befriending services
• The Silver Line Helpline
• Day Centres
• Exercise and physical activity
• Handyperson services
• IT Training
• Social activities
• Back Services
• Back Get involved
• Back Donate
• Make a donation
• Back Leave a legacy donation in your will
• How to leave a gift in your will
• Making and amending your will to include a gift to Age UK
• Information for executors
• The difference a gift in your will could make
• Ways to write your will
• Free Wills Month 2024
• Will Aid November 2024
• Back Donate to our shops
• Age UK and The Wombles join forces
• Age UK's eBay store
• Sustainability
• Back Donate in memory
• Make a donation in memory
• Fundraise for Age UK in memory of your loved one
• Make a one-off donation
• Funeral donations and collections
• Set up a Tribute Fund
• Meaningful ways to remember your loved one
• Make a major gift
• The difference your money makes
• Our professional fundraisers
• Back Fundraise
• Back The innocent Big Knit – get knitting for charity
• innocent Big Knit updates
• Back Sporting events
• Run for charity
• Skydive for charity
• Cycle for charity
• Charity walks and treks
• Charity triathlon events and obstacle courses
• Do your challenge for Age UK
• Back Fundraising ideas
• Most popular ideas
• Sporty ideas
• Fundraise at work
• Fundraise at school
• Fundraise while you celebrate
• Fundraise as a community
• A-Z of fundraising ideas
• Get your free fundraising guide
• Pay in your fundraising
• Fundraising resources
• Leeds Abbey Dash
• TCS London Marathon
• Back Stream for Ages
• Your free downloads
• Back Lottery and raffle
• Play the Age UK lottery
• Tuesday Treat Draw
• Play the Age UK raffle
• Gift the Lottery
• Player Zone
• How every entry helps
• Are you a winner?
• Lottery and Raffle rules
• Back Volunteering
• Telephone Friendship Service volunteering
• The Silver Line Helpline volunteering
• Connect and Support Service volunteering
• Age UK shops volunteering
• Local Age UK volunteering
• Support our campaigns
• Back Corporate partnerships
• Why partner with Age UK
• Back Ways we could work together
• Can your company support the Age UK Telephone Friendship Service?
• Help Age UK become Morrisons’ next charity partner
• Latest jobs with Age UK

Age UK. Know what to do. 

Last year, over 10 million people trusted us to help them with some of the biggest issues in their lives. Learn more about how we help.

How your support helps

Here's how, with your support, Age UK is supporting older people through the cost of living crisis.

• See the difference your donations make

Making older people's voices heard

• Age UK know what to do
• Campaigning with older people
• Discover - news, stories and features
• Media Centre
• Policy and research
• Wellbeing programmes
• Politics and government
• Back Our impact
• Back Buy products
• Back Over-50s Insurance
• Car insurance
• Home insurance
• Motor breakdown cover
• Travel insurance
• Travel insurance with medical conditions
• Back Independent living
• Bathing Solutions
• Stairlifts and Homelifts
• Personal Alarms
• Back Financial services
• Funeral Plans
• Legal services
• Back Healthcare
• Incontinence products

The role of faith during the coronavirus pandemic

Having faith

As the coronavirus pandemic continues, faith remains an important part of some older people’s lives. But what impact is the pandemic having on beliefs and communities?

Published: 10th November 2020

This article was originally published in November 2020 for Inter Faith Week, which aims to raise awareness of different faith communities and strengthen relations.

We spoke to 5 older people about how their faiths have been affected by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

An estimated 63% of people aged 65+ in England and Wales say they have a religion. For many people who identify as part of a faith, their beliefs - and the community of people with whom they share those beliefs - are an important part of who they are and how they connect with the world.

However, in a year where our connections with the people and support systems we usually rely on have been fractured by lockdowns and social distancing, people’s faiths have also been impacted.

“For the wider community, it’s had a big impact,” says Radha, who is a practising Hindu. “Obviously, gatherings can’t happen any more as they would have done. My sister was the president of the Mauritian Association and she did a big prayer once a month; that's now cancelled.”

Painful changes  

Coronavirus restrictions have forced places of worship to stop or limit services, with many moving to online worship. Weddings and funerals have been curtailed.

"Funerals have been something which have been really affected in our community, “ says Talat, 72, who is one of the founders of the Muslim Community Education Centre at the Palmers Green Mosque, London. “We do not cremate and we normally wash plus shroud the bodies before burial.But in these times, we could not wash the bodies and they had to be taken straight to the cemetery with limited numbers being able to attend. It was painful. Very, very painful.” 

Two major Christian festivals have been impacted already, Easter and Pentecost, and now, Christmas might be thwarted.  Janet

Fears for festivals

Religious festivals and observances have not been spared either. In August, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, received criticism for reinforcing lockdowns in parts of Northern England the night before many muslims were due to celebrate Eid with their families - a move which was likened by some to ‘cancelling Christmas’. Now, as England enters a second lockdown, it’s likely that winter festivals such as the Sikh Day of Liberation Bandi Chhor Divas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Christmas and Kwanzaa will be very different for observers.

“I’m really sad now that we've got this second lockdown,” says Janet, 79, who is a practicing Methodist. “Particularly as we didn't have a proper Easter celebration in the churches. Two major Christian festivals have been impacted already, Easter and Pentecost, and now, Christmas might be thwarted. I'm just hoping that we will come out of lockdown by Christmas but, if we don't, we'll have to make the best of it. We’ll just have to demonstrate to the outside world that the church is not really closed, the church is still alive.”  

Adapting to the ‘new normal’

Many faith groups have turned to digital technologies to allow them to connect with their communities and pray together. But that’s not always as easy as it sounds.

“All of our regular worship and all our regular activities had to be rethought,” says Doreen, 69, who identifies as Orthodox Jewish. Our synagogue was unable to move its Sabbath services and festival services online because we don't use technology on Shabbat so that was a huge problem for us. A lot of rabbis, supported by the professional staff at head office, began moving other services and communal activities online so that people could feel that they still had a link.”

Talat has noticed both positives and negatives from the move to online technology. “A positive impact of all of this has been for the older ladies. They are using technology I never expected them to be able to use. They’re having regular Zoom sessions with the education team and they’re loving it. OK, it’s not face to face, but at least it's virtually face to face over a screen. For the men, it’s been different. Men have a different style of communication. They are not as openly chatty as the ladies. For them, it’s been quite difficult.”

“No one knows what will happen going forward,” says Rajinder, 74, a Sikh. “But COVID is here and will be here in the future. We need to adapt, be sensible and support one another through love and being kind. Keep the faith, pray and meditate. God will look after us and we will get through this.” 

Finding comfort and connection in uncertain times

As the UK heads into winter, many people - particularly older people - are feeling apprehensive. Lockdowns and social distancing have caused widespread loneliness and isolation. But could faith help counter these feelings?

“I think there have been lots of good things to come out of this situation,” says Janet. “A lot of people are trying to find ways that they can help. It’s been a great opportunity for people to show their love for each other and for their neighbourhoods. Whether that’s standing on somebody’s doorstep to have a conversation, sending little gifts, or phoning up someone you know is on their own.”

Doreen agrees: “I think we have to find more and different, innovative ways of making people feel connected and helping people to overcome the loneliness and despair that they're feeling now. It’s going to be much harder in the winter. We have to do more and be better to contact those who feel particularly isolated.” 

Lack of knowledge leads to fear. The less you understand, the more stories your mind conjures up. Talat

The importance of Inter Faith Week

Talat believes it’s vital for people of all faiths, and none, to learn more about each other. “Lack of knowledge leads to fear. The less you understand, the more stories your mind conjures up.”

Rahda agrees: "To understand someone else’s religion and faith, means that you get rid of any assumptions or misunderstanding. I wouldn’t criticise anyone else’s religion because, at the end of the day, we all pray to one God. Just do good to people. Whether they’re atheist or a believer, just do good things for other people.”

“We are all in the same boat with a lockdown and COVID,” says Rajinder. “We are all part of one human race and we should learn from one another’s faith and belief, and celebrate them.”

Share this page

• Share on Facebook

Last updated: Feb 22 2023

Become part of our story

• Please enter a valid email address

Back to top

Trusting God During the Coronavirus Pandemic

• RSS this blog
• Contributors

Originally published Monday, 16 March 2020.

Last week my daughter reminded me we ran out of hand soap, so I took a quick trip to Target after getting her to school to replenish. To my surprise, there was only one family size of antibacterial soap left. I was aware of the growing concerns of the coronavirus, but I wasn’t quite sure of its effects on people’s buying decisions quite yet until I started looking for toilet paper. Each day after that, I watched the serious efforts governments, organizations, businesses, and individuals were taking to prevent the spread of this disease.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization announced the coronavirus (or Covid-19) a pandemic. A pandemic is an outbreak of a disease that spreads across a vast region such as continents or worldwide. On March 13, 2020, the United States President Donald Trump announced the coronavirus pandemic to be a national emergency. Within hours entire state school systems closed, employees mandated to work from home, businesses closed, and grocery stores emptied. 

As plans increased to combat the spread of this disease, anxieties increased as well. I became laser-focused to pray against this disease and the many people it’s affecting all around the globe. 

Everyday challenges can be a test of our faith, no less a global pandemic. Not only are people worried about their health; as schools and jobs close, people are also concerned about childcare, elderly family in nursing homes, and bills. This pandemic is not only a threat to our health but our trust in God. 

To help strengthen your faith in such an uncertain time, I’m sharing some encouraging reminders on how to keep your trust in God during a global pandemic.

CHOOSE FAITH OVER FEAR

First, let’s remember to let faith rule our hearts and not fear. I absolutely believe we should take this pandemic seriously, use precaution and exercise wisdom. At the same time, we can do so while keeping our faith in God. 

If God took care of us before this pandemic, please know that He has not changed. Although everything is changing at rapid speed, God is not. He is the same faithful God before this outbreak that He will be once it passes. Our faith can be steady because our God is faithfully unchanging. This truth alone can strengthen us not to give in to fear. 2 Timothy 1:7 tells us:

For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. ( 2 Timothy 2:1-7 NKJV)

Fear can rob us of three essential gifts from God that we desperately need at this time. Power enables us to live a life of faith when it’s not easy. Love enables us to share and sacrifice when it’s not convenient. A sound mind allows us to experience peace, even when everything seems to be going wrong. 

There is too much at stake to give in to fear during this season. Now more than ever, we need power, love, and a sound mind. Fear is too costly. Choose faith. 

CHOOSE WISDOM OVER WORRY

While we can still maintain our faith because of our unchanging God, it is still important to exercise wisdom instead of becoming paralyzed by worry.

If there is an action you can do to protect yourself, do it. Use wisdom and listen to sound advice. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has offered many ways people like you and I can do our part to slow the spread of this disease at  www.cdc.gov .   

It is also wise to ensure the sources of the information we consume are credible. There is a lot of false information circulating about the coronavirus that can be harmful by leading people to make unwise decisions based on information that is simply untrue. Read credible news outlets and gain information from the  CDC ,  World Health Organization , and your state or local health department.

CHOOSE PRAYER OVER PANIC

While some may give in to cynicism and think there is nothing we can do, let’s not forget the power of prayer. 

Prayer is the exact prescription the Bible gives us to  cure anxiety . It’s easy to want to look at all the news outlets and overthink all the possible negative outcomes that can take place. All that will do is rob us of the peace God promises us for today. Philippians 4:6 tells us:

“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” ( Philippians 4:6 ESV)

We can panic, or we can pray, but we can’t do both. Jesus called His church a house of prayer ( Matthew 21:13 ), and now is our time. It’s time to pray for God’s intervention to stop the spread of this disease. It’s time to ask for healing. It’s time to ask for peace and comfort for those who have lost loved ones. It’s time for us to ask for direction and discernment for our leaders and our homes. Prayer is powerful and effective, and if we are too busy panicking instead of praying, we forfeit our greatest strength. 

In the face of the coronavirus pandemic, we have the power to choose our response. When we choose faith over fear, wisdom over worry, and prayer over panic, we can experience the “peace of God, which surpasses all understanding” that we read about in Philippians 4:7 . In doing so, we become the light of Christ in a very dark situation.

Popular Today

Losing my religion: The pandemic is causing many to lose faith in God

New research published in the Journal of Religion and Health has found faith in God and trust in a higher power declined across the course of the pandemic. The German survey found the longer the pandemic went on, the more people seemed to lose their faith in God.

It is generally thought that belief in God and reliance on religious institutions increase during times of trauma and crisis. Prior studies have indicated faith-based beliefs can help people make sense of traumatic events that can initially seem meaningless or random.

“… trauma challenges so many assumptions about who we are, what our purpose is and how to make sense of a traumatic event,” wrote theologian Danielle Tumminio Hansen, in a piece for The Conversation last year. “Faith-based beliefs and practices offer meaningful resources to help navigate those questions. This is why spiritual beliefs and practices across various religions can often lead to faith strengthening rather than weakening, following a trauma.”

A Pew Research poll conducted in the summer of 2020 found, in the United States at least, the pandemic was strengthening many people’s religious faith.

“Nearly three-in-ten Americans (28 percent) report stronger personal faith because of the pandemic, and the same share think the religious faith of Americans overall has strengthened, according to the survey of 14 economically developed countries,” the Pew poll found after the first few months of the pandemic.

This new study focused more on temporal changes to religious belief over 18 months, beginning June 2020 and running up until November 2021. Nearly 5,000 people in Germany were surveyed at various points over the 18-month period, and the researchers found the longer the pandemic went on, the more people were losing their faith in God or a higher power.

“Analyses revealed that with the 2nd wave of the infection and its 2nd lockdown, trust in a Higher Source, along with praying and meditation decreased,” the researchers wrote in the new study. “Also, the sharp increase in corona-related stressors was associated with a decline of wellbeing and a continuing loss of faith. These developments were observed in both Catholics and Protestants, and in both younger and older persons.”

In June 2020, at the beginning of the study, only three percent of survey respondents indicated they had lost faith in a higher power due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Across six more surveys over the next 18 months this percentage consistently increased until the final survey conducted between August and November 2021 found 21.5 percent of people reporting a loss of faith due to the pandemic.

Loss of faith responses were consistent across not only Catholics and Protestants but also those more agnostic respondents classified as religiously non-affiliated. But the researchers hypothesize this general loss of faith trend during the pandemic is most likely due to a severing of the social bonds many religious communities rely upon.

“It seems that, due to the long course of social distancing and related restrictions, more or less vital social and religious bonds between people and local religious communities were affected and even disrupted,” the researchers hypothesized. “… when sacred spaces (i.e., the churches) are not easily accessible, people may lose access to the center of their public religious life, and thus they may either develop new forms of spiritual practices in privacy or simply get used to the loss.”

A recent survey from the Pew Research Center suggests this pandemic-related decline in religious belief may not translate to the United States. Although Pew has found a consistent decline in general religious affiliation over the past 15 years, it has not detected any unusual drop over the past 24 months.

While the pandemic has unsurprisingly led to decreases in US church attendance over the past 18 months, it is believed this should pick up as the coronavirus subsides. And many religious organizations are indicating a need to modernize their accessibility to make better contact with younger demographics.

The new study was published in the Journal of Religion and Health .

Most Viewed

Scrap metal sets sail as 55-ft solar-electric catamaran, fire-spitting pulsejet engine delivers bulk thrust at low cost, cork-clad tiny house takes inspired approach to maximizing space.

Faith during the Covid pandemic – photo essay

Photographer Suki Dhanda documents how different religious beliefs have helped people come through the coronavirus crisis and lockdown restrictions in England

Reading from the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book, and (right) my mum bows down to the book

My parents outside their local temple, Ramgarhia Sikh gurdwara, in Slough. Behind them is the Khanda flag, a sign for all Sikhs and people from other faiths that they can come here and pray

My parents are Sikhs and before the pandemic they would go every Sunday to their local gurdwara (temple), a two-minute walk from our home. It’s a place to meet other people, friends in the community and above all listen to prayer and kirtan music.

They would also participate in the langar activities. This involves serving and distributing food to the congregation as part of seva (selfless service). For Sikhs, eating together is an important means of expressing oneness of belonging regardless of an individual’s background.

Our temple recently reopened its small hall for brief services. For my mother this has been really important as it has given her some hope in these challenging times. My mother prefers the quietness and calmness of solitude and prayer. My dad, on the other hand, has taken refuge in his daily hour-long walks.

The Rev Al Gordon on stage at St John at Hackney church and (right) a member of the congregation in prayer

Sophie Howard at St John at Hackney church

Sophie is a Christian and would regularly attend her local church before lockdown restrictions. “Church is the moment in my week when I reset, gain perspective and refuel to tackle the week ahead,” she says.

During lockdown there were online services available on the church’s website, to which Sophie had access. “Online church was great, but with a toddler watching cartoons on a screen next to me, it was only a partial refresh.”

When the church opened its doors in March for the first time I photographed Sophie with her family. “I believe that something powerful happens when people come together, sharing a faith together, it encourages one’s own beliefs and spirituality.”

Sophie Howard’s daughter Pearl draws at St John at Hackney church

Eleanor Soar, my mother-in-law, visits All Saints church in Holbrook, Suffolk

My mother-in-law, Eleanor Soar, lives on her own in a small village in Suffolk. She was raised as a Quaker and describes herself broadly as a Christian but leans more towards spirituality.

During lockdown she began regular visits to her local church, which was open twice a week for private prayers. It was a different place from being at home and even the walk to the church gave her a sense of purpose. She found the church “quiet, peaceful and a calming place to sit and have time for reflection”. “I never felt alone sitting in the church, knowing its history of people coming here for hundreds of years.”

The sitting granthi reverently fans the scripture of the Guru Granth Sahib

Sophie and Pearl embrace outside St John at Hackney church and (right) Eleanor leaves All Saints church

• The Guardian picture essay
• Coronavirus
• Christianity

Most viewed

Fear and Faith in a Pandemic

“Religion as psychology” may have something to offer the secular man, which could improve religion’s relationship with secular society.

Many religious people feel themselves to be under assault. Restaurants have been allowed to open; mass protests have been tolerated. But in the name of public health, many state governments have maintained strict limits on religious gatherings. Yet religious people are also being a little paranoid. Many secular policymakers do not hate religion; they simply do not understand it. They do not understand religion as something known through inner experience, but simply as an external phenomenon that produces behavior they cannot relate to. Even attending a church that socially distances makes little sense to them, as the slightly increased risk of getting infected comes with no apparent benefit.

Ironically, just when religious people feel put upon, an opportunity exists to improve religion’s reputation in the secular world, as the pandemic has concentrated secular people’s minds on death like no other event. If religion can calm their minds —and opinion polls suggest it can , as religious people have less fear of living in a COVID-19 world than secular people do—then the secular world may re-think its dismissive attitude toward religion. True, secular people who fear dying of COVID-19 will not allow themselves to be persuaded by a lie if they truly believe it to be a lie. Nothing in religion’s dreams will ever convince them to stop worrying completely about coronavirus—or to believe in religion. Yet “religion as psychology” may have something to offer them, which could improve religion’s relationship with secular society long after the pandemic has run its course.

The Fear of Dying

These days, I lie awake for a while before going to sleep. Then I cough and—like many people—my mind begins to work. I think about how I might have COVID-19. I try to fall asleep, but my mind checks off other possible symptoms. I work even harder to fall asleep, but now I am kept awake precisely by my own desire and concentration. I have both insomnia and COVID-19, I decide, and I become irritated as well as afraid.

And that’s just the night. Then comes the day, when I ruminate on the risk of catching the virus, as the news bombards me with the possibility at every moment. I plunge back into my fear; I wallow in it. I think about the patients I once intubated in the ICU, since I might be a patient myself one day. I run down the list of all the possible ways of dying from the virus. In a word, I am wounded, and I do nothing but scratch my wound.

Such fear exists in all of us. Yet its intensity results from our repeated attempt to analyze our situations. When we suffer from fear, we find reasons for being afraid in any thought whatsoever. If the news tells us how dangerous the virus is, we feel justified in our fear. If it predicts a cure by December, we fear not surviving until then. If it tells us to social distance, we feel completely alone in the world, and afraid again. The churning of all our thoughts only reminds us of the fear to which the pandemic has consigned us. Everything in the world draws us back to our fear.

Now imagine a secular man who strays into a church with this mindset. He sees people at a distance and considers them a threat. Yet his fear soon eases. Much of our fear comes when we’re alone—that is when fear is most unbearable—and we become our own worst enemy. The presence of the worshippers around him signifies an admission of weakness and vulnerability (at least before God), such that our man no longer feels alone in his plight. 

When we rush around at great speed we are hardly richer at the end of our journey than at the outset. The real richness is in the details.

The man settles into a pew and once again thinks obsessively about the virus. Meditation often increases fear. People fear death as soon as they start to think about it, as their thoughts get lost in possibilities. But then the church interior draws the man away from his thoughts as he looks up and around, which is what religion wants him to do.

The lens of the eye is at rest when it looks into the distance, and so is the mind. When a man looks for information close by to apply to himself—for example, when he reads a book—his lens tenses and his mind focuses on all his anxieties, as the information is close to his passions. Sitting in a pew and staring into space gives the man’s eye and mind an opportunity to journey outward and contemplate. His eye leads him to one object at a distance, and then to another, and then to 10 or 20 more, and this torrent carries his imagination to the winds, the clouds, and the stars. The movement draws the man away from himself, and so he feels less afraid.

Sitting in a pew calms the man’s mind in a second way. Much of life involves rushing around, and we don’t really see anything. We see things on the run, and when we do, they all look alike. A mountain is just a mountain; a river is just a river. When we rush around at great speed we are hardly richer at the end of our journey than at the outset. The real richness is in the details. Seeing means going over the details, stopping at each little one, and then taking in the whole once again. This takes time.

People in a house of worship tend to stare at the beautiful things around them because they are anchored in their pews and can do nothing else. People who rush about can take in many more sights per minute, but that is why their memories of what they see are often confused, and the images cemented in their minds have indistinct lines and shadows. In church, people have time to carefully look at a piece of stained glass, first at the borders, then at the center, and then back at the borders. The stained glass changes at every glance. If they return to a particular section they saw a few minutes before, and take the time to examine it, it strikes them as if it were new. Several minutes of such activity helps people to momentarily escape from the scary thoughts that imprison their minds.

The service begins. People pray. Our secular man refuses to do so, since he doesn’t believe, but gradually he comes to appreciate the psychological benefit of prayer. Prayer makes him refrain from forming other thoughts. It shuts down the frenzy of fear in his mind.

Our secular man is preoccupied with his fear of death. He is like a pining lover who has been dumped by his sweetheart and who doesn’t want to talk about anything else.

He is living proof that the fear of death can sometimes be worse than death itself. For the dead person, the drama is over. Perhaps death was quick; death’s duration comes about only through reflection. We look at the person who has died of COVID-19 from the perspective of someone who is always on the point of catching and dying from the virus, but who never actually does so. We create for ourselves a kind of movie view of our own destruction, in slow motion, and occasionally the camera stops completely—for example, at the moment when we touch a plastic bag coated with the virus, or later, when we’re admitted to the hospital, or even later, when we’re intubated. Then we start over. I’ve done this hundreds of times while very much alive.

Prayer works as a kind of mental opium. Dying seems long to us because we think about it from every different angle, which makes us afraid. Each new image in the process drives out the last, and the cycle of suffering continues unabated; in our imaginations the dead never stop dying. Prayer rescues people’s minds from this vicious cycle by forcing them to think about something else.

The sermon begins. The subject: eternity.

Is Death the End?

As an anesthesiologist, I’ve often wondered why young people fear losing consciousness under general anesthesia more than very old people do. After all, the latter are usually sicker and have greater risk. It cannot be that young people cherish life more; on the contrary, they often combine their fear of going under anesthesia with dangerous thrill-seeking behavior at home. One answer may be that they simply have stronger egos . They cling with terrific force to whatever they desire at the moment, and they fight against the unconsciousness that will part them from it. Very old people still desire in life, but not with the same tenacity, and so are more likely to view passing from consciousness to unconsciousness as just life flowing on in easy monotony.

The clergyman delivering the sermon agrees. Young people fail to recognize that what they desire in life will change over time, he says. Indeed, a man is different from who he was the day before, and the day before that; every hour, even every minute, a man’s consciousness changes. True, despite these continuous changes, a man imagines an enduring immaterial something within his consciousness, which he calls his ego and  makes him him .  Yet old age changes this perspective. An old man realizes that nothing inside his consciousness was ever continuous, and that he is not the same person that he was as a young man. Consciousness changes, just as the body does.

Our secular man protests inwardly: “ But all these years of life I know I have been a unity of some kind. It really has been my life that I have lived inside my body. It is what I fear losing if I die .”

Belief in God was religion’s cornerstone because it was the unprovable idea that most appealed to the reasoning part of people’s minds.

The sermon continues: People fear death because they fear their special ego will disappear. Yet all they really lose with death, the clergyman tells them, is their last stage of consciousness in an infinite series of stages during their life, which they wrongly associate with their ego .

The error people make, the clergyman continues, is to imagine their ego to be a product of consciousness. People really do feel continuity in their lives despite their ever-changing consciousness. But this feeling—this ego —is not in consciousness, but rather, that which unites all their states of consciousness into one. It is like a cord upon which are strung, one after the other, the various consciousnesses that have followed each other in point of time throughout their lives. This ego exists independent of time. It exists independent of the body, for the feeling of being a unique person living one continuous life persists despite the body’s changes. It even exists independent of consciousness, for when people fall asleep or lose consciousness under anesthesia, their ego returns upon the return of consciousness, whether they are unconscious for two minutes or twenty years. If an immaterial something exists independent of time, the body, and consciousness, then perhaps that something continues when time, the body, and consciousness end, with death?

The service finishes. Our secular man leaves church with vivid memories of having experienced radically different thoughts and feelings of a kind that he has not felt in a long time—if ever. In one hour he feels himself to have lived a full life, which makes him less fearful in another way, for the more we live a full life, often the less afraid we are of losing it. Another paradox in life.

A First Step

For centuries, religion layered one unprovable belief over another to create a unified system of thought. Angels and demons, heaven and hell, stretched the limits of the human imagination, but the whole enterprise seemed perfectly reasonable because everyone agreed beforehand that the existence of God constituted established fact. Belief in God was religion’s cornerstone because it was the unprovable idea that most appealed to the reasoning part of people’s minds. For religious people, it upheld all that was laid on top of it. For secular people it made religion seem sensible and “essential,” although not something they personally believed in.

That cornerstone has weakened , which explains why relations between religion and the secular world have soured. In 1995, 97 percent of Americans believed in God; in 2007, 71 percent did; in 2018, only 63 percent did. For many secular people, the concept of God seems like just another crude delusion. Secular people and religious people no longer have any common ground.

The pandemic makes a new cornerstone possible—easing the fear of death—one that both religious and secular people can agree on as important.

Many secular people cannot shake their fear of dying from coronavirus. They pay no visits and receive no guests; they stay indoors; they buy everything online; they put the mail in the oven for 30 minutes before reading it; they skip necessary doctors’ appointments; they even avoid sex with a partner in their own household. All they do is shiver and shake and think to themselves, “Thank goodness, I’m still alive!”

Religion may not cure COVID-19, but it may help cure people of their fear of dying from it. If it can, even just a little, then secular people will pay it more respect. As Tocqueville observed, religion in America is not so much about morality, or social justice, or even about fighting against selfishness, as it is about mental order and calming the mind amid the threats, commotion, and instabilities of the physical world. It is why religion in America, more than in any other country, Tocqueville said, has so few forms, figures, and observances, and presents such “distinct, simple, and general notions to the mind.” To re-engage with the secular world, religion in America today must rediscover this simple psychological purpose. The pandemic gives it the chance to do so.

Forum China’s Unique Challenge to the West David P. Goldman

Book Review Outgrowing Skintellectualism Isaac Willour

Essay The Declaration’s Timely Teaching on Immigration Paul Seaton

Essay Libertarianism Updated Randy E. Barnett

Forum The Return of Great Power Competition Jerry Hendrix

The Personal Statement Topics Ivy League Hopefuls Should Avoid

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Yale University

A compelling personal statement is a critical component of an Ivy League application, as it offers students the unique opportunity to showcase their personality, experiences, and aspirations. Kickstarting the writing process in the summer can give students a critical advantage in the admissions process, allowing them more time to brainstorm, edit, and polish standout essays. However, as students begin drafting their essays this summer, they should bear in mind that selecting the right topic is crucial to writing a successful essay. Particularly for students with Ivy League aspirations, submitting an essay that is cliche, unoriginal, or inauthentic can make the difference between standing out to admissions officers or blending into the sea of other applicants.

As ambitious students embark on the college application process, here are the personal statement topics they should avoid:

1. The Trauma Dump

Many students overcome significant hurdles by the time they begin the college application process, and some assume that the grisliest and most traumatic stories will attract attention and sympathy from admissions committees. While vulnerability can be powerful, sharing overly personal or sensitive information can make readers uncomfortable and shift focus away from a student’s unique strengths. Students should embrace authenticity and be honest about the struggles they have faced on their path to college, while still recognizing that the personal statement is a professional piece of writing, not a diary entry. Students should first consider why they want to share a particular tragic or traumatic experience and how that story might lend insight into the kind of student and community member they will be on campus. As a general rule, if the story will truly enrich the admissions committee’s understanding of their candidacy, students should thoughtfully include it; if it is a means of proving that they are more deserving or seeking to engender pity, students should consider selecting a different topic. Students should adopt a similar, critical approach as they write about difficult or sensitive topics in their supplemental essays, excluding unnecessary detail and focusing on how the experience shaped who they are today.

2. The Travelogue

Travel experiences can be enriching, but essays that merely recount a trip to a foreign country without deeper reflection often fall flat. Additionally, travel stories can often unintentionally convey white saviorism , particularly if students are recounting experiences from their charity work or mission trips in a foreign place. If a student does wish to write about an experience from their travels, they should prioritize depth not breadth—the personal statement is not the place to detail an entire itinerary or document every aspect of a trip. Instead, students should focus on one specific and meaningful experience from their travels with vivid detail and creative storytelling, expounding on how the event changed their worldview, instilled new values, or inspired their future goals.

3. The Superhero Narrative

Ivy League and other top colleges are looking for students who are introspective and teachable—no applicant is perfect (admissions officers know this!). Therefore, it’s crucial that students be aware of their strengths and weaknesses, and open about the areas in which they hope to grow. They should avoid grandiose narratives in which they cast themselves as flawless heroes. While students should seek to put their best foot forward, depicting themselves as protagonists who single-handedly resolve complex issues can make them appear exaggerated and lacking in humility. For instance, rather than telling the story about being the sole onlooker to stand up for a peer being bullied at the lunch table, perhaps a student could share about an experience that emboldened them to advocate for themselves and others. Doing so will add dimension and dynamism to their essay, rather than convey a static story of heroism.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, 4. the plan for world peace.

Similarly, many students feel compelled to declare their intention to solve global issues like world hunger or climate change. While noble, these proclamations can come across as unrealistic and insincere, and they can distract from the tangible achievements and experiences that a student brings to the table. Instead, applicants should focus on demonstrable steps they’ve taken or plan to take within their local community to enact positive change, demonstrating their commitment and practical approach to making a difference. For instance, instead of stating a desire to eradicate poverty, students could describe their extended involvement in a local charity and how it has helped them to discover their values and actualize their passions.

5. The Sports Story

While sports can teach valuable lessons, essays that focus solely on athletic achievements or the importance of a particular game can be overdone and lack depth. Admissions officers have read countless essays about students scoring the winning goal, dealing with the hardship of an injury, or learning teamwork from sports. Students should keep in mind that the personal essay should relay a story that only they can tell—perhaps a student has a particularly unique story about bringing competitive pickleball to their high school and uniting unlikely friend groups or starting a community initiative to repair and donate golf gear for students who couldn’t otherwise afford to play. However, if their sports-related essay could have been written by any high school point guard or soccer team captain, it’s time to brainstorm new ideas.

6. The Pick-Me Monologue

Students may feel the need to list their accomplishments and standout qualities in an effort to appear impressive to Ivy League admissions officers. This removes any depth, introspection, and creativity from a student’s essay and flattens their experiences to line items on a resume. Admissions officers already have students’ Activities Lists and resumes; the personal statement should add texture and dimension to their applications, revealing aspects of their character, values and voice not otherwise obvious through the quantitative aspects of their applications. Instead of listing all of their extracurricular involvements, students should identify a particularly meaningful encounter or event they experienced through one of the activities that matters most to them, and reflect on the ways in which their participation impacted their development as a student and person.

7. The Pandemic Sob Story

The Covid-19 pandemic was a traumatic and formative experience for many students, and it is therefore understandable that applicants draw inspiration from these transformative years as they choose their essay topics. However, while the pandemic affected individuals differently, an essay about the difficulties faced during this time will likely come across as unoriginal and generic. Admissions officers have likely read hundreds of essays about remote learning challenges, social isolation, and the general disruptions caused by Covid-19. These narratives can start to blend together, making it difficult for any single essay to stand out. Instead of centering the essay on the pandemic's challenges, students should consider how they adapted, grew, or made a positive impact during this time. For example, rather than writing about the difficulties of remote learning, a student could describe how they created a virtual study group to support classmates struggling with online classes. Similarly, an applicant might write about developing a new skill such as coding or painting during lockdown and how this pursuit has influenced their academic or career goals. Focusing on resilience, innovation, and personal development can make for a more compelling narrative.

Crafting a standout personal statement requires dedicated time, careful thought, and honest reflection. The most impactful essays are those that toe the lines between vulnerability and professionalism, introspection and action, championing one’s strengths and acknowledging weaknesses. Starting early and striving to avoid overused and unoriginal topics will level up a student’s essay and increase their chances of standing out.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• E-mail the Help Desk
• User's Guide for H-Announce

American Academy of Religion, Western Region 2025 Annual Conference - "Performing Religions, Faith, and Spirituality"

The American Academy of Religion, Western Region (AAR-WR), is delighted to announce its annual Call for Papers (CFP) for its 2025 Conference, which will be held at Arizona State University. It will be an  in-person  conference  with some hybrid capabilities .

Call for Papers : American Academy of Religion, Western Region 2025 Annual Conference - "Performing Religions, Faith, and Spirituality"

Dates : March 14-16, 2025

Location : Arizona State University

Abstract Submission Deadline : September 30th, 2024

Panel : Religions of Asia 

Panel CFP : 

"Religions of Asia Unit

Co-chair, Fadime Apaydin, University of California, Riverside, [email protected] Co-chair, İhsan Çapcıoğlu, Ankara University, Turkey, [email protected] The Religions of Asia Unit invites scholars to explore how performance, in its broadest sense, shapes and is shaped by religious, spiritual, and faith practices within the diverse traditions of Asia. We particularly seek contributions that address the dynamic and performative aspects of religious practices and their impact on individual and community life. Topics may address, but not limited to:

• Rituals and performances in religious practices
• The role of art, music, and dance in religious expression
• Pilgrimage and religious festivals
• The performative aspect of sacred texts and storytelling
• Religious and spiritual practices in daily life
• Gender, identity, and performance in religious contexts
• Interactions between traditional and contemporary forms of religious expression
• The impact of globalization and transnationalism on religious performances
• Religion and performance in digital and media landscapes

Submissions that engage with the broader conference theme are particularly encouraged. However, those are also welcome that connect with religions of Asia, even if they do not immediately interface with the conference theme. We welcome interdisciplinary approaches and encourage scholars from various fields, including religious studies, anthropology, sociology, history, and the arts, to submit their proposals. Submit your Proposal Form to Fadime Apaydin ( [email protected] ) by September 30, 2024."

Proposal Form:  https://www.aarwr.com/uploads/2/0/4/2/20420409/aar-wr_proposal_form__fillable_pdf__-_20240624.pdf

Refer to the  conference CFP,  which includes 23 more units:  https://www.aarwr.com/call-for-papers.html

AAR-WR Website:  https://www.aarwr.com/

We look forward with great enthusiasm to this conference to share exciting research, scholarship, and publication. 

Fadime Apaydin

Department for the Study of Religion

University of California, Riverside

Jump to navigation

Fictions of the Pandemic: Extended Deadline

Special Issue Call for Papers: Fictions of the Pandemic

Guest Editors: Roanne Kantor (Stanford) and Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan (Rice) Extended Deadline for Submissions: 1 August 2024

For this special issue, MFS invites contributors to consider and problematize the role of literary scholarship in apprehending, producing, and critiquing fictions of the pandemic. “Fictions of the Pandemic” pursues the imaginative structures, disputed narratives, cross-pollinating conspiracies, and contested discourses emergent from the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the recognition of the novel coronavirus in late 2019, various interconnected fictions of the pandemic have circulated in the public sphere, from the idea of universally shared trauma to the promise of technological solutions. These fictions have been countered in turn by the realities of entrenched racial and class disparities and of global vaccine apartheid. Meanwhile, new characters have emerged as the ambivalent subjects of this historical conjuncture: the essential worker, the antimasker, the long-hauler, the COVID minimizer, and the masked minority. Likewise, the dominant plot points, narrative frameworks, and even genres of fictions of the pandemic have shifted (from the romance of revolutionary change to the tragedy of eclipsed horizons) as we move from the acute phase of coordinated global response to COVID to the chronic phase of capitulation to the virus as a normalized and never-ending event.

We propose that the COVID pandemic necessitates a thoroughgoing rethinking of literary objects and literary methods. What kind of object is “pandemic fiction,” given the slipperiness of the COVID response itself: alternately criminal or progressive, inadequate or an overreaction, depending on where you sit on the Zoom chessboard? What is the work of critique when reactions of suspicion, paranoia, and denial—about the gravity of the pandemic, the motives of policymakers, or even the actions of one’s neighbors—feel owned by the right, seemingly to relegate progressive scholarship to gestures of hope, faith, and repair? How do we, as thinkers of the present and explainers of the future, reckon with a world in which our critical practices are so evidently entangled with and defined by our others? What stories did we tell during the pandemic, and why? Whose stories can we tell now, and whose are verboten? What kinds of questions should we have asked, and why didn’t we ask them? What fictions of the past, present, and future have we had to forgo or forget in light of COVID-19? And in what ways might we, as literature scholars, be exactly the right, and wrong, constituency to pursue these questions, given dueling investments in the reparative potential of narrative, on the one hand, and widespread skepticism about the radicality of close reading, on the other?

Contributors are invited to pursue any of the above questions and other related topics, including:

●  Counterfactual thinking and theorizing in the pandemic-era; narratives that imagine the (lost) pasts and futures that-would-have-been in the absence of COVID-19; questions of periodization

●  Real-time collaborations in fiction-writing and fiction-reading (such as Wattpad, Scriggler, Booksie, and similar sites)

●  Critique and post-critique in an era of conspiracy, denialism, suspicion, cruel optimism, and in light of pandemic affects such as doubt, melancholy, relief, fury, jealousy, and grief

●  Infrastructural aesthetics, architecture, and the built environment given transformations in work from home, the real estate market, and evolving relations to public space; the literary registration of infrastructural decay

●  Technologies and artifacts of the pandemic; objects such as masks, tests, vaccines, and ventilators, as well as software applications for infection surveillance, video communications, and the circulation of information in both its original and “mis” variants; the narratives of “UX” that frame their ideal anticipated user and inevitable obsolescence

●  The suppression and minimization of pandemic narratives by mainstream media, global publishing houses, and literary agents

●  Reading the atmospheric and affective traces of the COVID-19 pandemic in fiction that does not explicitly deal with the pandemic

●  Transformations in the “pandemic fiction” genre before and after COVID; teaching fictions of the pandemic; pandemic-era transformations, innovations and upheavals in literary pedagogy; the aesthetics of pandemic fiction; ecocritical and health humanities approaches to fictions of the pandemic

We seek surprising, ambitious, theoretically-rich, and provocative responses to this CFP. Essays that creatively introduce elements of fiction, fictionality, or generic hybridity into their analyses of fictions of the pandemic are also welcome.

Essays should be 7,000–9,000 words, including all quotations and bibliographic references, and should follow the MLA Handbook (9th edition) for internal citations and Works Cited. Please submit your essay via the online submission form at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/mfs . Queries ahead of submission may be directed to Roanne Kantor ( [email protected] ) and Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan ( [email protected] ).

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

Why Britain Just Ended 14 Years of Conservative Rule

Last week, the center-left labour party won the british general election in a landslide..

Hosted by Natalie Kitroeff

Featuring Mark Landler

Produced by Rob Szypko ,  Nina Feldman and Will Reid

Edited by Brendan Klinkenberg

With Paige Cowett

Original music by Dan Powell ,  Diane Wong and Marion Lozano

Engineered by Alyssa Moxley

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

For more than a decade, Britain has been governed by the Conservative Party, which pushed its politics to the right, embracing smaller government and Brexit. Last week, that era officially came to an end.

Mark Landler, the London bureau chief for The Times, explains why British voters rejected the Conservatives and what their defeat means in a world where populism is on the rise.

On today’s episode

Mark Landler , the London bureau chief for The New York Times.

Background reading

Five takeaways from the British general election.

The Conservatives have run Britain for 14 years. How have things changed in that time?

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Natalie Kitroeff is the Mexico City bureau chief for The Times, leading coverage of Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. More about Natalie Kitroeff

Mark Landler is the London bureau chief of The Times, covering the United Kingdom, as well as American foreign policy in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. He has been a journalist for more than three decades. More about Mark Landler

Advertisement