Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Breaking News!
Options
Comments
-
In summary: Ignorance is Bliss.
I would rather be miserable.
0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,236 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 36380
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Have you read the study?
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).0 -
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!0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,236 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 36380
darjeeling wrote: »I still don't see the analogy. As a Dawkinsian, and with apologies to von Clausewitz,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!
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."
"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!"0 -
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.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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
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 now0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Yes! Such analysis is the only correct approach if one is interested in giving a balanced and measured response.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.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.0
-
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."0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,236 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 36380
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.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.
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)?0 -
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."0 -
Advertisement
-
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.The Study wrote:Religious practise reduces the risk of suicideThe Study wrote:Religious practise reduces the risk of depressionThe Study wrote:Religious practise helps cope with bereavement effectsThe Study wrote:Religious practise reduces risk-taking and sexual behaviour among teenagersThe Study wrote:Religious practise adds to life expectancyThe Study wrote:Religious practice increases marital stabilityThe Study wrote:Prayer and patient recovery
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.0 -
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?".0 -
the study wrote:Prayer and patient recovery
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
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.0 -
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 eh0 -
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.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,236 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 36380
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)?"0 -
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.
.0 -
Why don't you contact her with your concerns?0
-
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.0 -
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Article in response from Shane Hegarty in the Times.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0411/1224244433503.html0
Advertisement