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.

coffee_cake

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)