Background: Vaccines represent one of the best ways to counter the COVID-19 pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy among the population limits the effectiveness of vaccines. Recent research has explored the role of religion in vaccine hesitancy, but in doing so has encountered a “black box” problem. There is a relationship between religion and vaccine hesitancy, but the explanation for why remains unclear. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between religion and vaccine hesitancy. We propose that how an individual conceptualizes God/a higher power is associated with getting vaccinated for COVID-19. Methods: We use data from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults, collected using the Amerispeak® probability-based panel via the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. We examine the association between individuals’ views of God/a higher power as both a supervisory and an intervening figure on vaccine uptake and likelihood of getting vaccinated through logistic regressions. Results: We find that belief in God's/a higher power's supervision is not significantly associated with the odds of COVID-19 vaccine uptake or vaccination intent. However, belief in God's/a higher power's ability to intervene in the world is significantly and negatively associated with the odds of COVID-19 vaccine uptake and the odds of having received or planning to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In addition, in models where belief in the ability of God/a higher power to intervene are included, Christian nationalism ceases to have a statistically significant association with intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusions and implications: These findings suggest that how individuals conceptualize God/a higher power is associated with their willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Given this, those who see God/a higher power as more involved in the world may contribute to delays in achieving herd immunity. This information benefits those working on vaccination campaigns in understanding the beliefs of some of those who are most hesitant to get vaccinated. In addition, this intervention mechanism could also mediate other negative relationships between religion and other science and health-related concerns.

Religious beliefs, practices, and social support facilitate coping with psychologically distressful events and circumstances. However, COVID-19 and governmental mandates for social distancing and isolation make in-person communal forms of religious coping difficult. While some congregations began holding virtual rituals, this was not an option for Amish and conservative Mennonite groups that restrict communication and media technologies as a religious sacrament. Governmental mandates placed a disproportionate burden on these groups whose members could not conduct rituals or interact virtually with other members and family. What religious coping strategies did the Amish and Mennonites use to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic given their restricted ability to participate in in-person rituals? We collected data from The Budget and The Diary, two Amish and Mennonite correspondence newspapers, which provide information on the experiences of community members. We content analyzed all entries from March 2020 to April 2020 and identified several themes related to religious coping focused on the positive benefits of the pandemic, specifically how it helps and reminds the Amish and Mennonites to refocus on the simple and important things in life, including God, spirituality, family, tradition, gardening, and other at-home hobbies, all of which reflect their religious commitment to a slower pace of life.

Religiosity and political conservatism are often hypothesized to be negatively associated with attitudes towards science. Yet, past research has often failed to distinguish between trust in science versus the acceptance of science as a source of truth. Using data generated from a probability survey of U.S. adults, we identify four latent factors within a battery of items asking about individuals’ views on science. Two of these represent science’s power as a source of truth, while the other two represent trust in science and scientists. A structural equation model finds that, all else being equal, measures of religiosity tend to be negatively associated with an individual’s view of science as a source of truth and unrelated to their trust in science. Adherence to Christian nationalism is negatively associated with an individual’s trust in science, while political conservatism and Republican identification is negatively associated with both trust in science and seeing science as a source of truth.