Atheism and Your Health.

[Khandro]

Is Atheism detrimental to your health and general wellbeing?

[Khandro]

naomi asks; //What a strange question. What prompted it?//
Numerous studies have shown that people who are religious, especially those who regularly attend religious services, live significantly longer, and have better health and less depression than people without religious faith. These effects have been found with Christian and non-Christian groups. Regular attendance at religious services tends to lead to better health and longevity, and people who pray or meditate tend to be healthier and live longer than those who do not.

[naomi24]

Is that because religious people are part of a group? I wonder if any studies have been carried out on other groups - big and close-knit families, for example? Perhaps, rather than attributing good health to religion, we should look at the positive effects produced by a sense of 'belonging'?

[Davethedog]

Khandro - Really - Where does it say that? If you can just give some scientific based research on it. I know religions say this, but I have a feeling that may be anecdotal rather than any evidenced based.

There is also the point that any such research will be flawed unless there is a proper control group, given that it has only been since the 60's that society has "tolerated" out and out Atheism, so any such group would still be alive.

So please show your numerous examples.

[ludwig]

Sounds good for religion. I guess on the down side though, any extra years you might get from your belief are spent doing dull religious stuff like sitting in church or mosque reciting nonsense.

[slaney]

Davethedog - I have given links/references on the previous page.

[LazyGun]

@Sandy - thanks for the translation :)

@Slaney - thanks for the links.

[LazyGun]

Given the nature of the qualitative end points you are attempting to measure - "happiness", and "life expectancy" - It is going to be extremely difficult to remove confounding factors and counter the subjective nature of many of the responses.

I would like to take a more detailed look at some of the studies, when i more time to do so.

[naomi24]

A quick google produced this.

http://www.exeter.ac....r/title_41580_en.html

Time for religion to stop patting itself on the back.

[jomifl]

I have a slightly sneaking suspicion that any scientific surveys sponsored by religious organisations would not be scientific as the point of the survey would be to support a religious agenda.. and that ain't science.

[Davethedog]

"At the same time, however, the authors admit that only a few of the studies were actually designed to test for whether religion had any influence on health - that means any conclusions drawn from the other studies must be regarded as somewhat tenuous. In fact, most of the beneficial findings they report seem to be anecdotal or serendipitous — considering just how much research is covered, the book doesn't provide a great deal of support for those sympathetic to the idea that religion is important to good health"

Review by Austin Cline

The authors of Handbook of Religion and Health acknowledge that what data does exist does not point exclusively towards positive benefits for religion; sometimes, studies show a very negative effect on health from religion. This is an important inclusion because, in the current atmosphere, we hear very little about such negative relationships.

http://atheism.about....r/HandbkRelHealth.htm

Dependens what you call definative and what you wish to cherry pick.

[naomi24]

As the link I provided suggests, belonging to a group is beneficial to health. This is something religion has hi-jacked and claimed for its own. Sneaky!

[naomi24]

Bearing in mind the above, I suppose the answer to the question is ‘No, atheism is not detrimental to your health and general well-being – but loneliness and a sense of isolation from the rest of society is.’

[slaney]

@naomi - membership of any group is indeed important, as seen in your link, but do atheists not also belong to groups/clubs? I presume they are not any more socially isolated than anyone else.

@Davethedog - as regards The "Handbook.." the bit you quote shows its objectivity, that's why I described it as a definitive work. the well respected JAMA regards it as an "unparalleled resource"
http://jama.jamanetwo...aspx?articleid=194027

@jomifl - I tried to pick the most objective links, and those which underline the difficulties of such studies. I hope that all the references are from reputable peer reviewed journals where all competing interests are declared including sponsorship from religious groups.

[naomi24]

Slaney, //do atheists not also belong to groups/clubs? I presume they are not any more socially isolated than anyone else.//

Precisely, which means atheists are no less healthy than anyone else.

[Khandro]

A study was carried out in North Carolina of 1,793 subjects who were over 65 with no physical impairments. Six years later those who prayed and/or meditated had survived 66 per cent more than those who did not. After correcting for age differences between the two groups (Without this correction the difference was 73 per cent.) After allowing for "confounding variables" that might have influenced survival, like stressful life events depression, social connections and healthy lifestyles, those who prayed and/or meditated survived 55 per cent more, making them nearly two-thirds more likely to survive.
'If a new drug or surgical procedure had such dramatic effects on health and survival as spiritual practices, it would be hailed as a medical breakthrough.'

[Zeuhl]

<<Six years later those who prayed and/or meditated had survived 66 per cent more than those who did not.>>

So they weren't necessarily comparing 'religious' with 'atheist'

i.e. they may have been comparing practising 'religious' with non-practising or disaffected religious

I would think that being 'religious' but not practising it for some reason could be harmful, debilitating and affect life expectancy

[Davethedog]

Slaney you included it re-inforce a point then when found wanting tried to justify it. The critique shows quite clearly that you cannot use that book to prove any point.

Khandro

Who published that ? 1,793 How many prayed how many didn't? My guess is more prayed than didn't.

How many were still alive six years later? From what strata? geographical areas? and of the 1,793 over 65 how many were under 70? How many had debilitationg illness at the start? Then procede in 5 year groups etc.

There is nothing that statistics cannot prove if you want, quoting anecdotal evidence based on what? proves nothing.

Show me research from a group of people within a defined age group, all of average health equal division of prayers and none prayers and then wait until the last of one group dies if a significan't number (i.e beyond statisical probability) then there may be a point.

[slaney]

Just to be clear, I would derive little personal comfort from the fact (if it were proven) that people of religious persuasion enjoy better health, but I find the subject and the research interesting.

The Handbook of Religion and Health I included, not to reinforce any particular standpoint, but rather as a good reference tool in the research done so far. I quote .."Nowhere in this tome does one find a statement (let alone any enthusiastic support for) the authentic place of religion in our being".
The book calls for better designed trials, with which I agree.

[LazyGun]

@ Khandro re your 14:55 post. If you are going to include a reference to a scientific paper, it would be helpful if you reference it, preferably with a link, so that others who wish can check for themselves.

Your post actually seems pretty much word for word a paragraph out of Rupert Sheldrakes "The Science Delusion" Is it? - If so, you are actually offering as a summary of a scientific study is actually an interpretation of that same study -an interpretation by Sheldrake himself, who has an agenda. That does not necessarily mean the text as presented is wrong, but it would be useful to verify whether any bias has crept in.

[slaney]

..and the link for the North Carolina study
http://eauxvives.pers...ience/ArticleHelm.pdf