Religion Influences Responses to Epidemics

The Christian tradition, set by the example of Jesus as a healer, stands out, Hughes says. Helping the sick was one way to ensure a trip to Heaven, so risking death from a disease's spread was encouraged. Other religions did not promote such extreme altruism. Islamic teachings basically disavowed the existence of contagious disease, despite some Arabic scholars thinking otherwise at the time. Thus Muslims believed there was no sense in trying to avoid sick people, and the emphasis was on caring for one's family. Jewish doctrine attributed death to God's will and promoted the idea that only God could heal someone, so there was less incentive to treat the sick, concludes Hughes and his colleagues.

While religions were influencing peoples' responses to epidemics, the epidemics themselves may have helped shape religions. "When people feel threatened, they tend to form cooperative groups," says Michael Blume, an expert in religious studies at the Friedrich Schiller University of Jena in Germany, who was not involved with Hughes's study. Blume suggests that as people moved into cities, they needed to find a substitute for families, and religion served that purpose. "When you have disease, it's augmenting this process." Particularly among Christians, being part of a congregation ensured some help would be available in times of need, Blume proposes.

A person's religion may prompt them to overcome their survival imperative and assist the contagiously ill, while people moving into cities are drawn into religion for the support group it provides.