Breaking News!

eoin5

Belfast Telegraph wrote:

People who practice religion are happier and healthier than those who don't, according to a study being published today by the Iona Institute.

The conservative think tank says the study has found that religious practice is associated with lower-than-average rates of depression and other mental illnesses and better rates of recovery following illness.

It is also associated with lower-than-average rates of alcohol and drug abuse, marital breakdown and crime.

The study concludes that religion is rarely socially destructive, but is usually socially and personally beneficial.

Linky

This made google news and everything. Its important to reassure religious readers that their beliefs are all warm and cuddly for the world using some "study" at the expense of reporting real news.

It is also associated with lower-than-average rates of alcohol and drug abuse, marital breakdown and crime.

The study concludes that religion is rarely socially destructive, but is usually socially and personally beneficia

LOL
how much did they get paid for that one


Ah, it's all clear now:

The Iona Institute is a non-governmental organisation dedicated to the strengthening of civil society through making the case for marriage and religious practice.
Main link on first page, the christian foundation.

Well, nothing to see here folks.

Zillah

The Iona Institute's declared aim is to promote religion and traditional marriage. Their credibility as a research institute is zero. When a group's founding principle is partisan then one cannot trust their propaganda publishings.

ntlbell

Obviously I have no evidence that the above is true but it does make sense that people who are very religious are "happier" or less "stressed" etc

When you have someone else to blame for everything that goes wrong in your life it takes an awful lot of weight of your shoulders.

i guess it can take the loneliness out of old age too you always have your buddy with you for a chat

with most religions you're off to some amazing place when you die something to look forward to get to meet all your aul mates and family.

where atheists will just turn to into maggots and be forgotten

you can definitely see why it would hold a lot of weight.

Fanny Cradock

eoin5 wrote: »

Linky

This made google news and everything. Its important to reassure religious readers that their beliefs are all warm and cuddly for the world using some "study" at the expense of reporting real news.

Oh, please! You add nothing above what the HAI's mumbling gainsayer attempted to say on the radio last Friday.

You know, I have a funny feeling that you wouldn't use pejorative terms like "warm" and "cuddly" if this study wasn't seemingly supportive of the benefits of religion. Indeed, I also suspect that if this study found that religious practice was detrimental to health and happiness then you would suddenly think it newsworthy.

No doubt you will be equally unimpressed, but there are a number of other studies and articles which draw the same conclusions as the study you discuss. From a post of mine a while back:

On the other hand, studies such as this and this suggest that religious people are happier than the non-religious. Then there are studies such as this and this which found that religious people live longer. Finally, this report even suggests that a full religious life will give you a better sex life!

Like the study from the Iona institute, these studies say nothing about God's existence, rather they report on the apparent tangible benefits of religion. Clearly the notion that religion isn't the pervasive source of all the world's woes seems difficult for some to accept.

Fanny Cradock

The actual study - rather than a Belfast Telegraph synopsis - can be found here:

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/pdfs/Religious_practice.pdf

common_parlance

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Oh, please! You add nothing above what the HAI's mumbling gainsayer attempted to say on the radio last Friday.

You know, I have a funny feeling that you wouldn't use pejorative terms like "warm" and "cuddly" if this study wasn't seemingly supportive of the benefits of religion. Indeed, I also suspect that if this study found that religious practice was detrimental to health and happiness then you would suddenly think it newsworthy.

Of course. That's obvious.

If the League of Crazy Witches came out with a paper saying that they had proven pagan rituals made people happier, luckier, healthier, etc., my default position - without looking through their survey methodology or quantitative techniques - would be to say that their findings should be taken with a pinch of salt, considering the organisation's natural bias in favour of witchcraft. If, on the other hand, the League came out saying pagan rituals made no difference in people's lives, I would of course be less likely to believe bias had had an effect, given it contrasts with their natural position.

Similarly, if the Atheism people (?) came out with a paper saying religion doesn't affect your happiness: pinch of salt. Iona Institute says religion is a happy pill: pinch of salt.

It would be more newsworthy if atheists found in favour of religion, or the Iona institute found against it. This is a simple, logical default position for anyone to take when they haven't been able to examine researchers' methodology.

Salt for everyone.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The actual study - rather than a Belfast Telegraph synopsis - can be found here:

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/pdfs/Religious_practice.pdf

I glanced through the study, and, to my admittedly untrained eye, it seems pretty solid and carefully references all the relevant studies and surveys in its footnotes.

The reaction on this board to it, while somewhat predictable, reminds me of those Creationists who reject evidence by saying, "Well of course that scientist would say that, he's an atheist, isn't he?"

Bottle_of_Smoke

I'm an atheist/agnostic myself, wouldn't be surprised if this is true.

Religion gives people a social outlet where they see familiar faces, a feel good factor when they're praying,a belief that someone is helping them.

Surely these are all things that would lead to a healthier life. Just doesn't make them divine.

common_parlance

PDN wrote: »

I glanced through the study, and, to my admittedly untrained eye, it seems pretty solid and carefully references all the relevant studies and surveys in its footnotes.

The reaction on this board to it, while somewhat predictable, reminds me of those Creationists who reject evidence by saying, "Well of course that scientist would say that, he's an atheist, isn't he?"

I should point out that I don't necessarily disagree with the results of the study. I can imagine that believing in a god or gods could help to deal with certain uncertainties and other sources of mental stress, or benefit the believer through the associated lifestyle.

I'm just pointing out that any statistical study like this should be approached with skepticism, and the appropriate level of skepticism depends partially on the objectives of those carrying out the study. Just as some devout anti-creationist's findings should also be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.

All that said, from the cursory glance I've given the paper it seems to cover a huge range of topics, each of which could probably start a whole thread of its own.

Fanny Cradock

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'm an atheist/agnostic myself, wouldn't be surprised if this is true.

Religion gives people a social outlet where they see familiar faces, a feel good factor when they're praying,a belief that someone is helping them.

Surely these are all things that would lead to a healthier life. Just doesn't make them divine.

Yes, but the study is not concerned with the truth of God's existence, so we shouldn't even be discussing it in the same breath.

What I personally find fascinating is that the findings are said to be bunk, not because of poor methodology or faulty data, but because it because it comes from a religious source. So instead of engaging the study at an intellectual level and objectively assessing the claims (which may or my not be sound), the entire study is dismissed on subjective and scurrilous grounds.

Score one for rational though and critical thinking, eh!

Ickle Magoo

......The conservative think tank....

Is that not a contradiction in terms?

Black Swan

"The study concludes that religion is rarely socially destructive, but is usually socially and personally beneficial."

Sodom and Gomorrah: "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah --from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities --and also the vegetation in the land." Genesis 19:24, 25 NIV)
Source: http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.htm

Jihad: The Quran does call for "jihad" as a military struggle on behalf of Islam. Source: http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/g/me080122a.htm

Crusades: The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfillment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny. Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

The Inquisition: The Inquisition was a medieval church court instituted to seek out and prosecute heretics. The term is applied to the institution itself, which was episcopal or papal, regional or local; to the personnel of the tribunal; and to the judicial procedure followed by the court. Notoriously harsh in its procedures, the Inquisition was defended during the Middle Ages by appeal to biblical practices and to the church father Saint Augustine, who had interpreted Luke 14:23 as endorsing the use of force against heretics. Source: http://www.thenazareneway.com/inquisition.htm

Witchcraft Trials: From June through September of 1692, nineteen men and women, all having been convicted of witchcraft, were carted to Gallows Hill, a barren slope near Salem Village, for hanging. Another man of over eighty years was pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing to submit to a trial on witchcraft charges. Hundreds of others faced accusations of witchcraft; dozens languished in jail for months without trials until the hysteria that swept through Puritan Massachusetts subsided. Source: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/salem.htm

Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia: The role of religious
narratives, symbols, institutions, and beliefs in motivating
and justifying acts of genocide and "ethnic cleansing"... Source: http://www.lib.usf.edu/public/index.cfm?Pg=Events&Date=18-Feb-09

Marching Day: Nothing has divided Northern Ireland as much in recent years as the issue of marches by what are known as the Loyal Orders...
To Protestants, the parades are an expression of their heritage and culture, to Catholics, they are nothing but an exhibition of provocative, sectarian triumphalism. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/811729.stm

Honour Killings: A TEENAGE (girl) was burned to death at her home in India in an "honour killing" by neighbours... Four residents of her village in Ghaziabad, north India, allegedly set the 16-year-old Muslim girl alight after they suspected her of having a relationship with a boy. Source: http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Villagers-burn-girl-alive-in.5103494.jp

Stonings of Female Rape Victims: Human rights group Amnesty International says the victim was a 13-year-old girl who had been raped... Initial reports had said she was a 23-year-old woman who had confessed to adultery before a Sharia court... Numerous eye-witnesses say she was forced into a hole, buried up to her neck then pelted with stones until she died in front of more than 1,000 people last week. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7708169.stm

Death Penalty: Fundamentalist and other Evangelical denominations tend to be supportive of the death penalty... Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut7.htm

darjeeling

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'm an atheist/agnostic myself, wouldn't be surprised if this is true.

Religion gives people a social outlet where they see familiar faces, a feel good factor when they're praying,a belief that someone is helping them.

Surely these are all things that would lead to a healthier life. Just doesn't make them divine.

I'd agree. If religion were both untrue and harmful to the believer, it would be hard to see it surviving as long as it has. Not believing it to be true, I can still see that people who do believe it may find it helpful.

What to make of this study, though? The references to primary studies are mostly little more than headline deep, and I haven't the time to go through the original research to see how genuine and significant the effects of religious belief are. For the sake of argument, though, I'll assume the report hasn't sexed up the case for religion.

Given, then, that bona fide religious practice makes you happier and healthier, what should we infidels do? Should we try to believe what we think to be false? I'm not convinced that'll work. Should we simulate faith, going through the external rituals despite our unbelief? The study cautions against that, warning that it may make you more miserable and unhealthy than carrying on as an outright atheist. So perhaps we should try to look at what aspects of religion improve people's lives and see if we can translate them into our secular lives, whilst rejecting the supernatural bits that we're never going to take seriously. Thanks Iona!

.

2Scoops

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The actual study essay - rather than a Belfast Telegraph synopsis - can be found here:

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/pdfs/Religious_practice.pdf

FYP.

I have no doubt that the evidence shows what they says it does. 'Significantly' better x, y and z for religious people. However, 'significant' is one of those awkward words, like theory or proof, that means a different thing to statisticians compared with the average Joe. It is a statistical descriptor that essentially means 'non-randomly different to.' Note that is does NOT imply the difference is big or small, substantial or trivial.

My question is: how much benefit in absolute terms, not relative risk, does religiosity confer on a person in these variables? Can anyone answer that question based on this piece of work or, indeed, from the citation list? Thought not.

Fanny Cradock

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"The study concludes that religion is rarely socially destructive, but is usually socially and personally beneficial."...

I'm sorry, but what's your point? Are you actually trying to rebut the claim that 'the study concludes that religion is rarely socially destructive, but is usually socially and personally beneficial' by mentioning a few generalities, anecdotal stories and historical events that happened, in some cases, many millenniums ago? Have you read the study?

2Scoops

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Have you read the study essay?

Your friendly neighborhood post-fixer. :pac:

Maybe, if it was an actual meta-analysis, it could be called a study. Certainly, we would know about the magnitude of the differences that way. Right now, it is, at best, a shallow review of literature.

Black Swan

darjeeling wrote: »

I'd agree. If religion were both untrue and harmful to the believer, it would be hard to see it surviving as long as it has.

Could the same logic be applied to the social institution of making war?

"If (war) were both untrue and harmful to the believer, it would be hard to see it surviving as long as it has."

darjeeling

2Scoops wrote: »

FYP.

I have no doubt that the evidence shows what they says it does. 'Significantly' better x, y and z for religious people. However, 'significant' is one of those awkward words, like theory or proof, that means a different thing to statisticians compared with the average Joe. It is a statistical descriptor that essentially means 'non-randomly different to.' Note that is does NOT imply the difference is big or small, substantial or trivial.

My question is: how much benefit in absolute terms, not relative risk, does religiosity confer on a person in these variables? Can anyone answer that question based on this piece of work or, indeed, from the citation list? Thought not.

Yes. And my comments above are in average Joe-speak.

Also, there's the caveat that any report may cherry-pick evidence that agrees with the desired conclusions, ignoring inconvenient contradictory findings. Of course, I've no reason to assume this report has done this.

darjeeling

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Could the same logic be applied to the social institution of making war?

"If (war) were both untrue and harmful to the believer, it would be hard to see it surviving as long as it has."

I don't really follow. Wars do happen, and in that sense are manifestly 'true'. Some people do benefit from them, as history records.

Fanny Cradock

2Scoops wrote: »

FYP.

I have no doubt that the evidence shows what they says it does. 'Significantly' better x, y and z for religious people. However, 'significant' is one of those awkward words, like theory or proof, that means a different thing to statisticians compared with the average Joe. It is a statistical descriptor that essentially means 'non-randomly different to.' Note that is does NOT imply the difference is big or small, substantial or trivial.

My question is: how much benefit in absolute terms, not relative risk, does religiosity confer on a person in these variables? Can anyone answer that question based on this piece of work or, indeed, from the citation list? Thought not.

Yes, but in statistical terms the word 'significant' also means that it probably isn't a chance finding.

I tell you what - why don't you phone up the Prof and see if she will send you the detailed methodology? That way, instead of asking a question that no one here is likely to be able to answer, you can hear the answer straight from the horses mouth. Then you can accept or poo-poo the findings on what they are, not in the absence of their detailed data.

Fanny Cradock

2Scoops wrote: »

FYP.

I have no doubt that the evidence shows what they says it does. 'Significantly' better x, y and z for religious people. However, 'significant' is one of those awkward words, like theory or proof, that means a different thing to statisticians compared with the average Joe. It is a statistical descriptor that essentially means 'non-randomly different to.' Note that is does NOT imply the difference is big or small, substantial or trivial.

My question is: how much benefit in absolute terms, not relative risk, does religiosity confer on a person in these variables? Can anyone answer that question based on this piece of work or, indeed, from the citation list? Thought not.

Yes, but in statistical terms the word 'significant' also means that it probably isn't a chance finding.

I tell you what - why don't you phone up the Prof and see if she will send you the detailed methodology? That way, instead of asking a question that no one here is likely to be able to answer, you can read the answer straight from the horses mouth... eh, so to speak Then you can accept or poo-poo the findings on what they are, not in the absence of their detailed data.

2Scoops

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, but in statistical terms the word 'significant' also means that it probably isn't a chance finding.

Hence, 'non-randomly different' - did you actually read my post or did you just feel a compulsion to repeat my point using different words? And twice, no less!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I tell you what - why don't you phone up the Prof and see if she will send you the detailed methodology?

There is no methodology to an essay, Fanny. You collect papers and then you reiterate their findings. The methodologies of the papers she cites are freely available and are variations on the theme of multiple regression. None of them give us absolutes.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That way, instead of asking a question that no one here is likely to be able to answer, you can hear the answer straight from the horses mouth. Then you can accept or poo-poo the findings on what they are, not in the absence of their detailed data.

The reason no one can answer is because the data are not provided. You seem to have accepted their slant uncritically, though.

Black Swan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

'the study concludes that religion is rarely socially destructive"... by mentioning a few generalities, anecdotal stories and historical events that happened, in some cases, many millenniums ago?

One of the concluding statements from the study was in fact "that religion is rarely socially destructive?" The authors of the study introduced this conceptualization that is more far reaching in implication? Do you mean to suggest that the results of this study will be treated in isolation and not used by religious proponents beyond the study parameters to proclaim that "religion is rarely socially destructive," be it today or in the past?

From an historical view, what could be more "socially destructive" than God destroying entire cities (if you believe the Bible), the Crusades, past jihads, The Inquisition, or witchcraft trials held in Europe and North America? These are not anecdotal stories, but vast socially destructive movements?

From a contemporary view, not "many millennims ago," how was it not "socially destructive" when used to justify post-cold war ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, jihads by terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, or the annual Marching Day in Northern Ireland by Protestants against Catholics? These are not anecdotal stories, but social movements with social consequences that are "socially destructive?"

As for the two "anecdotal stories" that were cited, namely the honour killing in India and the stoning of a rape victim, these are examples of today's application of religious laws, which are applied to millions of persons that are subject to the divergent interpretation of Islamic laws by branches of their faith? These are not isolated "anecdotal" incidents, but rather examples of the application of Islamic sect religious law today that are "socially destructive?"

Fanny Cradock

2Scoops wrote: »

Hence, 'non-randomly different' - did you actually read my post or did you just feel a compulsion to repeat my point using different words? And twice, no less!

I'm sorry, but I don't study statistics, so I didn't follow your initial point. Can you possibly forgive me for this terrible transgression and for also double posting?

2Scoops wrote: »

Your friendly neighborhood post-fixer. :pac:

2Scoops wrote: »

There is no methodology to an essay, Fanny. You collect papers and then you reiterate their findings. The methodologies of the papers she cites are freely available and are variations on the theme of multiple regression. None of them give us absolutes.

I concede this. However, I wonder why relative risk is not an acceptable statistical finding when dealing with the effects of religion upon health and happiness? In this regard, I wonder what roll absolutes play in any study?

2Scoops wrote: »

The reason no one can answer is because the data are not provided. You seem to have accepted their slant uncritically, though.

No, I've already stated that their findings may or may not be true. If it has flaws fundamental flaws then so be it. On this thread, I've been predominantly concerned with the overwhelmingly negative attitude towards a paper which I suspect many hadn't even bothered reading before criticising.

common_parlance

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, but in statistical terms the word 'significant' also means that it probably isn't a chance finding.

I tell you what - why don't you phone up the Prof and see if she will send you the detailed methodology? That way, instead of asking a question that no one here is likely to be able to answer, you can read the answer straight from the horses mouth... eh, so to speak Then you can accept or poo-poo the findings on what they are, not in the absence of their detailed data.

Actually, as 2Scoops has pointed out, there is no methodology; this isn't a study. This is in fact a compilation of findings from cherry-picked studies carried out by other institutions. That's not to say that these findings are necessarily invalid (they might or might not be), but I'd be far more interested if she had used reviews of whole literatures rather than single (favourable) studies in her paper.

For example, one such literature review I found myself on religiousness and depression:

McCullough and Larson wrote:

We reviewed data from approximately 80 published and unpublished studies that examined the association of religious affiliation or involvement with depressive symptoms or depressive disorder. In these studies, religion was measured as religious affiliation; general religious involvement; organizational religious involvement; prayer or private religious involvement; religious salience and motivation; or religious beliefs. People from some religious affiliations appear to have an elevated risk for depressive symptoms and depressive disorder, and people with no religious affiliation are at an elevated risk in comparison with people who are religiously affiliated. People with high levels of general religious involvement, organizational religious involvement, religious salience, and intrinsic religious motivation are at reduced risk for depressive symptoms and depressive disorders. Private religious activity and particular religious beliefs appear to bear no reliable relationship with depression. People with high levels of extrinsic religious motivation are at increased risk for depressive symptoms. Although these associations tend to be consistent, they are modest and are substantially reduced in multivariate research. Longitudinal research is sparse, but suggests that some forms of religious involvement might exert a protective effect against the incidence and persistence of depressive symptoms or disorders. The existing research is sufficient to encourage further investigation of the associations of religion with depressive symptoms and disorder. Religion should be measured with higher methodological standards than those that have been accepted in survey research to date.

Now, this literature definitely lends some support to the theory that religion and depression are inversely related. But her cherry-picking has left out the bold sentences - that the relationship tends to be small and reduced in multivariate research.

If my statistics serve me correctly, the latter implies that other factors are related to both religiousness AND depression, and cause researchers to assume a relationship between religiousness and depression if those other factors are excluded. For example, religious people are less likely to consume too much alcohol because many religions forbid this. Alcohol is also known to contribute to depression. Therefore, religious people are less likely to be depressed. If you exclude alcohol consumption from your study, a relationship appears between religiousness and depression. But if you include alcohol consumption in your study, the relationship is lessened, and the true relationship between alcohol and depression emerges. The point being that it would be better to advocate reduced alcohol consumption than increased religiousness.

This is just an example. My point is that I think it would be far more interesting to debate the original research than this selective mixture of summaries.

Black Swan

darjeeling wrote: »

I don't really follow. Wars do happen, and in that sense are manifestly 'true'. Some people do benefit from them, as history records.

Organized religion is a social institution? Is not the capacity to make war (or defense) a social institution too? There must be millions of people that believe in it, and support it with their votes and taxes, and structure their social reality about it, including millions with military careers, in many ways similar to other social institutions that govern their behaviour? For example, the military has prescribed conduct, and religion has prescribed conduct, that both govern their lives? Furthermore, both historically, like the Crusades, and in post-cold war Bosnia, we can find examples where they were combined to justify action (war) to some extent?

2Scoops

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I don't study statistics, so I didn't follow your initial point. Can you possibly forgive me for this terrible transgression and for also double posting?

Certainly. But you didn't need a background in statistics to follow my initial point - you seem to have gotten it quickly enough.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I concede this. However, I wonder why relative risk is not an acceptable statistical finding when dealing with the effects of religion upon health and happiness? In this regard, I wonder what roll absolutes play in any study?

Take this example from the essay: religious people have a 29% chance of living longer than non-religious. Sounds impressive, right? But how much longer do they live? 10 years? A week? 5 seconds? Surely, that info is necessary to truly grasp the influence of religion on longevity? Do you not agree?

Here's another example (hypothetical this time): non-religious people have a100% greater likelihood of dying from a heart attack in their 30s than religious. Wow! But what is the absolute likelihood of dying from a heart attack in your 30s? 1%? <1%? This information is needed to correctly interpret the '100% greater' statistic quoted.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, I've already stated that their findings may or may not be true. If it has flaws fundamental flaws then so be it. On this thread, I've been predominantly concerned with the overwhelmingly negative attitude towards a paper which I suspect many hadn't even bothered reading before criticising.

Well there's reading it and there's understanding it and its statistical nuances. It's not 'fundamentally flawed' - it's just a rehash of the available evidence. Having read the science cited in the report, I think the stated findings are true. However, my point is that the findings don't tell you very much, or at least not as much as they could. Almost as if they're hiding something or just very lazy.

Fanny Cradock

common_parlance wrote: »

Actually, as 2Scoops has pointed out, there is no methodology; this is isn't a study. This is in fact a compilation of findings from cherry-picked studies carried out by other institutions. That's not to say that these findings are necessarily invalid (they might or might not be), but I'd be far more interested if she had used reviews of whole literatures rather than single (favourable) studies in her paper.

OK, so you criticise a review of various studies by cherry-picking from the abstract of a review of various studies on a different topic. Unless you have been through the 4 pages of references, then I think it is unfair to claim that this report is cherry-picking.

common_parlance

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, so you criticise a review of various studies by cherry-picking from the abstract of a review of various studies on a different topic. Unless you have been through the 4 pages of references, then I think it is unfair to claim that this report is cherry-picking.

I don't think it benefits anyone to pretend I did the same thing as in the Iona paper. By way of example, I took the first assertion of the Iona paper - that religion and depression are inversely related.

I then went and found a review of the entire literature on that topic and gave you the abstract, and referred to everything it said - not just the pieces I was interested in. I said that there is indeed evidence of an inverse relationship between religiousness and depression. I only highlighted what this woman left out in her essay.

Her approach looked at one study and selected the parts that suited her. My post looked at a review of eighty separate studies and showed you everything I saw. My point is, she's written a hugely broad essay comprising things that have been taken out of context. Any reputable journal wouldn't wipe its nose with this paper.

So I'll reiterate, it would be far more interesting to be looking at the individual studies she has carefully selected findings from and discussing those instead.

darjeeling

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Organized religion is a social institution? Is not the capacity to make war (or defense) a social institution too? There must be millions of people that believe in it, and support it with their votes and taxes, and structure their social reality about it, including millions with military careers, in many ways similar to other social institutions that govern their behaviour? For example, the military has prescribed conduct, and religion has prescribed conduct, that both govern their lives? Furthermore, both historically, like the Crusades, and in post-cold war Bosnia, we can find examples where they were combined to justify action (war) to some extent?

I still don't see the analogy. As a Dawkinsian, and with apologies to von Clausewitz, I see war somewhat as a continuation of evolution by other means: banding together with your kin to take on and drive out more distantly related rival groups. Of course, in the modern world of huge and often multi-ethnic populations and armies, war may be a misfiring of an original evolutionary drive, but all that's for another thread.

On religion, I'm saying that people would likely have turned away from it if it were always harmful to each individual believer in terms of poor mental or physical health.

Moving on, and using your comment that organised religion is a social institution as a jumping off point, I suspect that many of the reported well-being benefits of religious practice come from being part of a close-knit social community. This is hinted at in the abstract quoted by common_parlance:

McCullough and Larson wrote:

People with high levels of [...] organizational religious involvement [...] are at reduced risk for depressive symptoms and depressive disorders. Private religious activity [...] appear to bear no reliable relationship with depression.

(my editing for brevity)

Liber8or

In summary: Ignorance is Bliss.

I would rather be miserable.

Black Swan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Have you read the study?

Yes, I have, but in methodological terms, it's not a study, but rather an essay as others in this thread have observed.

On page 7 the author makes a broad sweeping generalisation about all religion to society as a whole, not a specific religion, per se, which I have been responding to, especially as pertains to the "rarely" socially destructive comment in the OP:

"If religion is practiced by a large number of people across a population then its benefits will accrue to society as a whole.

This is an important message at a time when religion is often criticised as a socially divisive force which is mainly repressive and authoritarian in its effects."

Historically, the Crusades, past jihads, The Inquisition, and Witchcraft trials in North America and Europe were not "rarely" done. They exemplify vast social movements over protected periods of time that used religion, rightly or wrongly, as justification. Furthermore, how was referring to past history in terms of how it may inform the understanding of practices today any different than when a priest or pastor quotes the Bible (if you believe it) to guide today's behaviour?

In the present day, Protestants against Catholics on Marching Day in Northern Ireland, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Al Qaeda jihad, the application of Islamic Wasabi Law in Saudi Arabia (or some other Islamic nation) to stone women who were raped, and the brutal practices against women by the Taliban in modern day Afghanistan affects the lives of millions of people and such practices are not rare because of the numbers it impacts. It may not exemplify the behaviours of all peoples that believe in religion, but to claim that such "socially destructive" practices were "rare," and applying it to the generic word "religion" (page 7 of the paper) ignores both past and present facts, and was a broad sweeping generalisation by the author (and should be treated accordingly).

PDN

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

In the present day, Protestants against Catholics on Marching Day in Northern Ireland, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Al Qaeda jihad, the application of Islamic Wasabi Law in Saudi Arabia (or some other Islamic nation) to stone women who were raped, and the brutal practices against women by the Taliban in modern day Afghanistan affects the lives of millions of people and such practices are not rare because of the numbers it impacts. It may not exemplify the behaviours of all peoples that believe in religion, but to claim that such "socially destructive" practices were "rare," and applying it to the generic word "religion" (page 7 of the paper) ignores both past and present facts, and was a broad sweeping generalisation by the author (and should be treated accordingly).

You present the Northern Irish conflict and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans as religious affairs - then you accuse someone else of "a broad sweeping generalisation"? Please!

Black Swan

darjeeling wrote: »

I still don't see the analogy. As a Dawkinsian, and with apologies to von Clausewitz,

Well, as a Derridian postmodern deconstructionist... (ha!) I do see the analogy (although Jacques Derrida, if still alive, would probably be the first to critic me, as well as to challenge the association of his name with my sloppy attempt).:D

PDN wrote: »

You present the Northern Irish conflict and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans as religious affairs - then you accuse someone else of "a broad sweeping generalisation"? Please!

You suggest by your comment that there was absolutely no relationship between religion, per se, and some of the justifications that the Oranges may have when marching, or some of the justifications for ethnic cleansing in the Balkans? Certainly, there were other reasons too, but religion was a part, rightly or wrongly I would think? The same could be said for the Crusades, that being there were other reasons too, but religion was one of the major reasons (at least claimed).

But what about page 7 of the article? Why don't you also comment upon that, and its broad sweeping generalisation about "religion" in the quote? I am just a foolish 2nd year university student, and they are respected Institute research authors? Quote:

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"If religion is practiced by a large number of people across a population then its benefits will accrue to society as a whole."

What if we substitute the generic word "religion" and use more specific, less broad sweeping terms? Let's see...

"If (wasbi Islam) is practiced by a large number of people across a population then its benefits will accrue to society as a whole?"

"If (Taliban Islam) is practiced by a large number of people across a population then its benefits will accrue to society as a whole?"

Oh... that's "rare!"

Fanny Cradock

2Scoops wrote: »

Take this example from the essay: religious people have a 29% chance of living longer than non-religious. Sounds impressive, right? But how much longer do they live? 10 years? A week? 5 seconds? Surely, that info is necessary to truly grasp the influence of religion on longevity? Do you not agree?

Yes! Such analysis is the only correct approach if one is interested in giving a balanced and measured response. I'm all for the this or any other study, report or article being judged on the merits of its data. (If you are interested, the meta-analysis that the figures were taken from can be found here in part. Exact figures are not mentioned, I'm afraid.)

However, my point was that this report was seemingly not dismissed by some people after an analysis of the data, rather it was dismissed on the grounds of preconceived ideas about religion and its effects. So even if this publication is eventually rubbished, the possibility remains that any future scholarly article could be given the same treatment irrespective of the strength of its data.

2Scoops wrote: »

Well there's reading it and there's understanding it and its statistical nuances. It's not 'fundamentally flawed' - it's just a rehash of the available evidence. Having read the science cited in the report, I think the stated findings are true. However, my point is that the findings don't tell you very much, or at least not as much as they could. Almost as if they're hiding something or just very lazy.

Again, I agree up to a point - I can imagine that the devil is in the details. "Lies, damn lie and statistics" and all that. But seems as you have suggested the possibility - what do you think it is they could be hiding? If you have read all the citations I would imagine you might be able to shed some light on this. Also, and this isn't a trick question, can you tell me why you don't seem keen on relative risk in these studies? I would have thought that RR was a perfectly acceptable way of comparing groups.

Fanny Cradock

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Yes, I have, but in methodological terms, it's not a study, but rather an essay as others in this thread have observed.

You are correct, it has been pointed out several times. I was wrong when I stated that 2scoops should look for methodology beyond the references at the bottom. I'm not sure how many more time this needs to be highlighted. I'm going to suggest 'none'!

OK, let clarify something. As far as I can tell, the quote "The study concludes that religion is rarely socially destructive, but is usually socially and personally beneficial" comes from the Belfast Telegraph, and not the report itself. So lets just look at the report. It becomes confusing otherwise. I've selected a quote from the summary that you have quoted and it's probably where the Belfast Telegraph got inaccurate spiel from.

But if religious practise has strong personal benefits, then it obviously has societal benefits as well. If religion is practised by a large number of people across a population, then its benefits will accrue to society as a whole.

I'll will admit that she seems to generalise with this statement. That said, the second sentence is very important, and makes the overall statement more subtle than what the Belfast Telegraph would have us believe. To me it doesn't seem preposterous to posit the idea that if large numbers of people think in a unified way, then it will lead to a social cohesion.

I realise I'm leaving out most of your post, and I apologise for that. I'm just not in the mood for replying in full just now

2Scoops

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes! Such analysis is the only correct approach if one is interested in giving a balanced and measured response.

But only providing the 29%, as done in the Iona report, is not. That is relative risk.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But seems as you have suggested the possibility - what do you think it is they could be hiding? If you have read all the citations I would imagine you might be able to shed some light on this.

I have read several of the most salient citations i.e. the ones that the main points are drawn from and not, for example, the scholarly tome The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins [citation #: ix]. :rolleyes: One possibility is that the differences are so small as to be trivial. Another is that the statistical significance is a mere artefact of the unnecessarily large sample sizes employed. Yet another is that the 'religion effect' disappears when you covary for other relevant factors (a process that has been employed in an inconsistent ad hoc manner).

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Also, and this isn't a trick question, can you tell me why you don't seem keen on relative risk in these studies? I would have thought that RR was a perfectly acceptable way of comparing groups.

As explained above, it hides the full picture by obscuring the context of the difference. I think that you misunderstand the term 'relative risk' in the statistical context.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

I glanced through the study, and, to my admittedly untrained eye, it seems pretty solid and carefully references all the relevant studies and surveys in its footnotes.

The reaction on this board to it, while somewhat predictable, reminds me of those Creationists who reject evidence by saying, "Well of course that scientist would say that, he's an atheist, isn't he?"

You're not mixing like with like here. It would be the equivalent of a religious person rejecting a study that finds benefits of atheism who's stated goal is to promote atheism in society.

I didn't say "Well of course that scientist would say that, he's religions, isn't he?", I'm saying "Well of course that group would say that, wouldn't they, they've already said their only reason to exists is to promote that idea."

Black Swan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, let clarify something. As far as I can tell, the quote "The study concludes that religion is rarely socially destructive, but is usually socially and personally beneficial" comes from the Belfast Telegraph, and not the report itself.

Good point.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

To me it doesn't seem preposterous to posit the idea that if large numbers of people think in a unified way, then it will lead to a social cohesion.

This statement seems consistent with what Durkheim suggested in The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life(1917), where religion tended to provide mechanical solidarity, and to some extent organic solidarity among its members? Of course Durkheim did not attribute this social cohesion to divine inspiration or intervention, but saw it as a functional social construction present in most societies in varying degrees.

But getting back to the paper cited in this thread, and in particular its statement on page 7:

"If religion is practiced by a large number of people across a population then its benefits will accrue to society as a whole."

Although social cohesion could be assumed as a condition of this statement, the outcome may not necessarily be beneficial ("benefits") to society? To reiterate an earlier example, if we substitute the broad sweeping generic word "religion" with one a bit more specific, would it still hold true in terms of "benefits," especially for the female victims of rape that were stoned to death under wasbi religious law in Saudi Arabia?

"If (wasbi Islam) is practiced by a large number of people across a population then its benefits will accrue to society as a whole?"

We could have also substituted Taliban Islam for the generic "religion" word from page 7 -- a "religion" which exhibited practices that led to the subjugation and brutal treatment of many women in Afghanistan?

To a much lesser degree than wasbi or Taliban Islam, the Catholic church subjugates women to an inferior status when they only allow men to occupy the most important positions of authority and sacramental rights (Pope, cardinals, bishops, and priests are all male)?

PDN

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

But getting back to the paper cited in this thread, and in particular its statement on page 7:

"If religion is practiced by a large number of people across a population then its benefits will accrue to society as a whole."

Although social cohesion could be assumed as a condition of this statement, the outcome may not necessarily be beneficial ("benefits") to society? To reiterate an earlier example, if we substitute the broad sweeping generic word "religion" with one a bit more specific, would it still hold true in terms of "benefits," especially for the female victims of rape that were stoned to death under wasbi religious law in Saudi Arabia?

"If (wasbi Islam) is practiced by a large number of people across a population then its benefits will accrue to society as a whole?"

We could have also substituted Taliban Islam for the generic "religion" word from page 7 -- a "religion" which exhibited practices that led to the subjugation and brutal treatment of many women in Afghanistan?

To be fair, the Iona report was focused more on the kinds of religion, and the kinds of society, that are more common in the western world.

We could use your type of reasoning to rebut almost any general statement on any subject.

For example: A report might say that increasing the amount of books children read will benefit society. Now, in general, assuming the kind of literature and the kind of kids we have in western Europe, that is almost certainly true. However, if I were feeling particularly argumentative and bloody minded I could easily take a leaf out of your debating manual and argue:
"Just substitute Mein Kampf, or Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, or Suicide Bombing for Dummies, for the word book. Look at all the book reading that has damaged society. Anyway, this report was produced by a publisher - which is biased towards books! I would trust it more if it was produced by the National Association for the Promotion of Illiteracy."

robindch

eoin5 wrote: »

Its important to reassure religious readers that their beliefs are all warm and cuddly for the world using some "study" at the expense of reporting real news.

Looking briefly through the principal findings of the study:

The Study wrote:

Religious practise reduces the risk of suicide

This has been observed before and there are plausible reasons why people who believe that they will end up for eternity in a burning lake of fire if they commit suicide, will not choose to commit suicide.

The Study wrote:

Religious practise reduces the risk of depression

Others have reported this and as humanity is an intensely social species, it should not surprise anybody to hear that social activity is good for humans.

The Study wrote:

Religious practise helps cope with bereavement effects

Well, if you sincerely believe that your dearly-departed is not dead, then you're not really dealing with a bereavement. A study of 135 people is unlikely to be statistically valid either.

The Study wrote:

Religious practise reduces risk-taking and sexual behaviour among teenagers

This has not been observed in other studies which suggest either no difference, or more commonly, the exact opposite.

The Study wrote:

Religious practise adds to life expectancy

Need to work out how exactly she reached this conclusion.

The Study wrote:

Religious practice increases marital stability

Not a surprise. Personal happiness tends to be less of a concern than in marriages where religion is a motivating factor (in fairness to her, she does suggest this).

The Study wrote:

Prayer and patient recovery

Complete rubbish.

Apart from anything else, this "study" documents the effects of what are, broadly, the social side of religion. It does nothing to address whether or not the religion is true. A similar report published by Muslims or Hindus will, no doubt, report exactly the same thing.

Anyhow, without reading the 40 page report in detail, it seems that Ms Casey has cherry-picked legitimate reports at will to produce a one-sided document which contains the conclusion that the Iona Institute required for their money.

This is not a serious report, it should not be treated as such and Professor Casey should be ashamed of herself.

seamus

Self-fulfilling claims here.

People who are depressed or who have otherwise had a rotten time in life are by definition less likely to have any kind of religious faith or to have abandoned religious faith because they have a crappy life.

That is

Great Life = "Thanks be to God"
Crap Life = "There is no God, how could there be?".

darjeeling

robindch wrote: »

the study wrote:

Prayer and patient recovery

Complete rubbish.

Oh splendid, the intercessory prayer stuff again! I see one 'meta-analysis' cited apparently claims a significant positive effect of intercessory prayer on patient outcome. This meta-analysis study in turn analysed 17 primary studies, of which 7 reported a positive effect for prayer. Unfortunately I can't get my hands on the actual paper, but one of the primary studies it cites (Edit: also cited directly in the Iona report) may be of interest.

Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial

Leonard Leibovici

Department of Medicine, Beilinson Campus, Rabin Medical Center, Petah-Tiqva 49100, Israel

Objective: To determine whether remote, retroactive intercessory prayer, said for a group of patients with a bloodstream infection, has an effect on outcomes.
Design: Double blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial of a retroactive intervention.
Setting: University hospital.
Subjects: All 3393 adult patients whose bloodstream infection was detected at the hospital in 1990-6.
Intervention: In July 2000 patients were randomised to a control group and an intervention group. A remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was said for the well being and full recovery of the intervention group.
Main outcome measures: Mortality in hospital, length of stay in hospital, and duration of fever.
Results: Mortality was 28.1% (475/1691) in the intervention group and 30.2% (514/1702) in the control group (P for difference=0.4). Length of stay in hospital and duration of fever were significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (P=0.01 and P=0.04, respectively).
Conclusions: Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer said for a group is associated with a shorter stay in hospital and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection and should be considered for use in clinical practice.

Table 2. Numbers of days' stay in hospital and duration of fever
                   Min    1st     Median    3rd      Max     P value
                        quartile          quartile
Stay in hospital:
  Intervention     0        4        7       13      165     0.01
  Control          0        4        8       16      320

Duration of fever:
  Intervention     0        1        2        4       49     0.04
  Control          0        1        2        5       50

The study investigated the effcts of praying for people 4 to 10 years after they had contracted a bloodstream infection and either died or recovered. The idea was based on the oft-presented argument that god stands outside of time. Petty considerations of whether a situation is long over wouldn't then apply when considering prayer requests. According to the results, prayer didn't make it any more likely that the patient had lived. Of those that did survive, though, prayer cut their stay in hospital marginally. Applying a theological interpretation, then, god won't save people from death, but he might send them home fractionally earlier.

Given that the result was apparently statistically significant (bear in mind 2Scoops's comments on this), I guess this was one of the 7 pro-prayer studies in the meta-analysis. I am underwhelmed.

As an aside, if we take it that the blood poisoning results genuinely indicated the efficacy of prayer, this raises an interesting point: why is there any urgency to pray when you can do it retroactively years later and have the same effect?

Edit: I've read that the blood poisoning study was originally undertaken 'lightheartedly' (link) and that the concluding recommendation was made in similar vein. This has not stopped others taking up the idea of retroactive prayer more seriously, and it hasn't stopped Prof. Casey trumpeting the results in her Iona report.

eoin5

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, let clarify something. As far as I can tell, the quote "The study concludes that religion is rarely socially destructive, but is usually socially and personally beneficial" comes from the Belfast Telegraph, and not the report itself.

I'd view the study or report or essay or whatever in the same way as a Michael Moore documentary, a pinch of salt needed but contains some worthwhile information. In fairness they dont hide the fact that theyre bent on making religion look good.

My main problem is with the Belfast Telegraph, the journalist is shamelessly delivering blatent religious propaganda by further twisting the not-too-straight. Then it makes its way onto google news somehow. Breaking news eh

darjeeling

eoin5 wrote: »

I'd view the study or report or essay or whatever in the same way as a Michael Moore documentary, a pinch of salt needed but contains some worthwhile information. In fairness they dont hide the fact that theyre bent on making religion look good.

My main problem is with the Belfast Telegraph, the journalist is shamelessly delivering blatent religious propaganda by further twisting the not-too-straight. Then it makes its way onto google news somehow. Breaking news eh

I'd previously said I'd no reason to believe the report had sexed up the case for religion. Having looked at the bit on the healthcare benefits of intercessory prayer, where a ridiculous pisstake of a study was cited as evidence in favour and the results of the study were further exaggerated, I now see that the report was sexed up. I shall now scour it for claims that wafers of mass celebration can be deployed within 45 minutes.

Black Swan

PDN wrote:

To be fair, the Iona report was focused more on the kinds of religion, and the kinds of society, that are more common in the western world.

But they did not qualify their statement to "western" religion, but rather used the broad sweeping, all-inclusive term "religion?" To reiterate page 7 of the OP cited report:

"If religion is practiced by a large number of people across a population then its benefits will accrue to society as a whole."

PDN wrote:

We could use your type of reasoning to rebut almost any general statement on any subject.

Thank you for lending unintended support for my critic of the statement on page 7 of the essay (or study or report, depending upon your evaluation of their work). The point I was attempting to make was the problematic nature of their sweeping "general statement" about "religion." They did not specify which "people across a population" their "general statement" applied to, leaving it open to be applied to any human "population?"

These types of "general statement(s)" were then cited by the news article referred to in the OP, which in turn also failed to specify that it only applied to western "religion" (your "western" assumption), leaving the door open for me to substitute other non-western "religion(s)" in earlier posts for their general statement?

Belfast Telegraph wrote:

The study concludes that religion is rarely socially destructive, but is usually socially and personally beneficial.

This is the problem of making broad sweeping statements about "religion" by the Iona researchers, without specifying the population parameters for the application of the "general statement(s)?"

darjeeling

More on intercessory prayer.

Prof. Casey cites a study on the effect of prayer in Korean women undergoing IVF treatment. Women for whom prayers were said had a whopping 100% greater chance of becoming pregnant. Of all the papers published on the use of intercessory prayer in medicine, this is the one that, on the face of it, provides the strongest evidence for its effectiveness.

The study was also included in two meta analyses cited by Casey, though one still found no overall evidence for prayer and the other handled the IVF data as though it stank. Why? Well, for many reasons, but chief among them was that one of the three authors is a convicted fraudster, as well as a non-medically qualified peddler of a variety of alternative therapies (more here). Additionally, another author has now removed his name from the work. Casey doesn't mention any of this in her report for Iona. She does, though, get a number of things wrong in describing what the literature shows, so I've no reason to suppose she read it too closely. That doesn't give much confidence in the standard of scholarship of this report.
.

Fanny Cradock

Why don't you contact her with your concerns?

darjeeling

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why don't you contact her with your concerns?

'Concerns' is overstating it - I just think it's not very good. The good prof can log in here herself if she likes.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, but the study is not concerned with the truth of God's existence, so we shouldn't even be discussing it in the same breath.

That's a bit cranky.... what's this forum called again?