Breaking News!

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?

Fanny Cradock

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

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

Huh?

pH

Article in response from Shane Hegarty in the Times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0411/1224244433503.html