God: No magic required

[Simon Moon]

Simon, you won't accept benefits (proven by a preponderance of evidence, if not beyond a shadow of doubt), in the absence of a proven mechanism. I'm happy to accept the benefits without fully understanding the mechanism.

I accept that there are benefits, I just don't attribute them to the same source.

The exact same benefits can be obtained through purely secular sources. No need for the belief in unsupported supernatural entities to gain them.

On the other hand, it's unambiguously clear that religion offers many benefits, quite apart from "social structure," including the impact of prayer relating to solace, courage, resolve, endurance, focus, discipline, humility, morality, and (as explained before) a sense of companionship with a deity which very definitely can attenuate loneliness. All of the above can offer a wide array of healthful benefits, from stress reduction to avoidance of STDs.

Again, other sources offer the same benefits.

All the "proof" a theist requires is his/her own personal experience with theism. If it works, keep doing it.

Confirmation bias, misinterpretation of events, imagination can account for these.

[lweisenthal]

Regarding: "pure asinine reasonings" and "Bulls--t"

The longevity advantage associated with religious belief is an extra two years of life, which is equivalent to the population impact of curing all forms of cancer. For some people, there is no impact. For others, there is a large impact. Average it all up, and it's the same impact as curing cancer. As an oncologist, I was impressed. So I did what I did, and I'm happy I did, and I see no compelling reason to go back to how I was. It's all upside and no downside whatsoever.

You want to laugh at me; be my guest. You want to claim that religion is a bad thing, at the level of the average individual, show me the data. You demand physical world proof of the physically unprovable. I'm asking for proof that being a theist is, at the level of the individual, objectively disadvantageous, compared to being an atheist. This is a physical world claim, and should be eminently provable, if true. In contrast, I've provided objective, peer review studies to indicate that, in the U.S.A., where I live, there are objective statistical associations between health/longevity and religiosity, which are perfectly compatible with common sense a priori predictions, relating to mechanisms from stress to suicide and much in between.

So who is laughing at whom?

Reminds me of a poem I read in middle school.

This is the grave of Mike O'Day
Who died maintaining his right of way
His mind was clear
His will was strong
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

This is admittedly a bit of a taunt, but it's offered simply to make a point. It's not illogical to consider that there may be pragmatic advantages to religiousity (from longevity to mental health to behavior modification). It's not illogical to consider whether the concept of a theistic deity is plausible, based on modern theories of cosmology. It's not illogical to attempt to determine if it's possible for oneself to develop a theistic belief system, motivated chiefly (at first) by the pragmatic considerations.

You may say, for yourself, thanks but no thanks, but it's beyond presumptuous to make the command decision that it's bad for everyone.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

[Silver]

it's beyond presumptuous to make the command decision that it's bad for everyone.

False.

If someone is escaping reality for the mere comfort of fantasy, then that is not good. You can color it with semantics, claim that they are bettering themselves, but lying to one's self because one is too weak to live in the real world is not a good thing. Ignorance, brought about by religious belief, is not a good thing.

[Simon Moon]

The longevity advantage associated with religious belief is an extra two years of life, which is equivalent to the population impact of curing all forms of cancer. For some people, there is no impact. For others, there is a large impact. Average it all up, and it's the same impact as curing cancer. As an oncologist, I was impressed. So I did what I did, and I'm happy I did, and I see no compelling reason to go back to how I was. It's all upside and no downside whatsoever.

I believe you are still misinterpreting the findings.

The findings say nothing about religious beliefs, they concern church attendance.

"Among the most recent findings in this area: People who attend religious services at least once a week are less likely to die in a given period of time than people who attend services less often. These results -- published in the August 1999 issue of the Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences -- came out of a study examining almost 4,000 North Carolina residents aged 64 to 101."


This can be attributed to having a strong support structure, not belief in a god.

From the New England Journal of Medicine -

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...8303110902

Strong social connections more important to longevity in heart patients than heart medicine.

Here's another study -

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info...ed.1000316

" The analysis, by researchers at Brigham Young University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, compiled data from 148 studies. More than 300,000 people were in the data pool, followed for an average of 7.5 years. The link between social support and mortality risk was found for men and women of all ages, regardless of initial health condition, years of a study or cause of death.

In concrete terms, that 50% number means that socially connected people would live an average of 3.7 years longer than less-connected people, says study co-author Timothy B. Smith, a psychology professor at Brigham Young."

Again, nothing about religious beliefs, or religious service attendance. It's all about having a strong social structure.

[lweisenthal]

Hi Simon,

Firstly, here, again, are the links I originally posted (for convenience):

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/sp...ive-longer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305900/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19949046

I think that it's pretty evident that the preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that religious people are happier, healthier, and live longer than non-religious people.

Now, dissecting out a mechanism is not nearly as simple as you suggest. You want to attribute all the advantages to "social structure." Actually, you said "it's all about social structure."

I don't find that the published studies, either individually or collectively, conclude that "it's all about social structure." Social support is almost certainly part of it, but why do church goers have better social support than non-church goers? Are atheists socially isolated because they are intrinsically unpleasant people who can't make friends...or what? I'm really curious as to what the explanation would be for this. And, if this is so, then is there not still an objective advantage associated with church going, health-wise and longevity-wise? It certainly doesn't mean that God grants improved longevity by divine decree, but it means that the religious people are doing some good things, with respect to impact on their own health. So why is religiosity any less rational than yoga classes or eating healthy foods or having a hobby?

And "social structure" is almost certainly not the whole story. You simply can't deny that religion provides solace, courage, companionship, and the like, all of which are very helpful for avoiding and coping with stress, and it's been shown that people who attend church regularly have lower levels of biochemical and physical stress markers.

As I said before, religion is a high class health problem. It improves health, but we haven't completely defined the mechanism(s) involved. But it's at least consistent that someone who won't entertain the possibility that theism is of positive value to many people -- absent physical world proof of a theistic deity -- would deny the health and longevity benefits of religion, simply because these benefits may be unrelated to the unprovable existence of this unprovable deity.

If I could do something simple and pleasurable to prevent cancer, I'd do it, even if I couldn't satisfy myself of a provable mechanism for the benefit, particularly if said activity provided other important benefits, as well.

Not so irrational.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

[Neo-Scholastic]

Nihilism can't be good for your health.

[Simon Moon]

Hi Simon,

Firstly, here, again, are the links I originally posted (for convenience):

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/sp...ive-longer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305900/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19949046

I think that it's pretty evident that the preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that religious people are happier, healthier, and live longer than non-religious people.

Yes, I misread some of the info in the links you posted.

Social support is almost certainly part of it, but why do church goers have better social support than non-church goers?

Because that goes along with belonging to a church.

A Baptist can move to a new city and have a place to go with like minded people with the same beliefs.

Are atheists socially isolated because they are intrinsically unpleasant people who can't make friends...or what? I'm really curious as to what the explanation would be for this.

The answer is simple.

There are no atheist 'churches'.

The other aspect is, the only thing that all atheists have in common, is the lack of belief in gods.

So why is religiosity any less rational than yoga classes or eating healthy foods or having a hobby?

Because there are known, non supernatural, mechanisms as to why those things cause better health and longevity.

Non of those things requires an irrational belief in a deity or deities.

it's been shown that people who attend church regularly have lower levels of biochemical and physical stress markers.

As I've been saying, I don't deny that. I'm only stating that it's likely that a big part is the 'attending church' part that is responsible for most of the positive results. What about people that are extremely religious but don't attend religious services? I'll bet they don't have the same benefits as those that attend services.

But if you read the links I posted, there are studies that show just as much health and longevity associated with strong social structure. No god belief necessary.

If I could do something simple and pleasurable to prevent cancer, I'd do it, even if I couldn't satisfy myself of a provable mechanism for the benefit, particularly if said activity provided other important benefits, as well.

Not so irrational.

No, it's still irrational.

Just because you believe you are getting benefits from irrational beliefs, does not make them any less irrational.

[Ryantology]

Nihilism can't be good for your health.

If you define 'nihilism' as thinking that the existence and operation of the universe has no grand point, then it's only bad for your health if you can't find any value in your own life. Sucks to be in a cult that hammers home the point repeatedly that you're an unworthy piece of shit that should be thankful God stopped to scrape it off his heel, huh?

You fear the implications of such a state of events and this is why you have to pretend that there's a point behind it. It'll amount to nothing in the long run, but the fate of the universe won't be of any relevance to me when I'm dead anyway. I'm just happy to be here and it's enough that I enjoy what comes as long as I can. It would seem that I'm of more sound health than you since I don't need the delusion.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Is it just me or does this seem like a variant of Pascal Wager, only the payoff is healthy living?

[Ryantology]

Not really. There are as many paths to healthy living as there are people to traverse them.