OPEN DEBATE: Religion effects on health

[Cato]

Are you arguing that being dead isn't an adverse health condition? Or are you just dismissing facts that don't support your conclusion?

"My conclusion"? I'm simply quoting from the experts (well a government literature review which itself examined the evidence provided by experts).

Do you have opposing literature you wish to post?

I don't need to post any additional literature, yours will suffice. Did you actually read it?

Pg.18: This 'study' explicitly ignores negative health impacts associated with religious based oppression of women, attitudes towards the LBGT community, attitudes relative to the use of contraceptives, or religions being the source of religious discrimination.

All of these factors can in turn influence health. However, this study did not explore the evidence linked to these broader debates. For this reason, it does not provide a basis for drawing conclusions about the ‘net benefits’ of religious belief to health at the population level.

The paper is a review of reviews. The authors admit that they found only 10 studies with at least one religious discrimination factor and at least one health related component. The authors also admit that the reviewed literature centered on Muslim Australian discrimination and to a lesser extent Australian anti-Semitism.

Given the small number of studies retrieved in relation to religious discrimination and health, as well as the previously noted overlap between religious discrimination and race-based discrimination, this component of the literature review was supplemented with evidence from the larger body of literature on race-based discrimination (or racism) and health.

Did you catch that? The authors had trouble finding meaningful studies regarding religion and health so they dipped into studies that specifically addressed race-based discrimination. Seriously?

I then went to sample the summaries of the referenced studies in Appendix A. It listed 'religious purification' as a positive religious coping strategy, but we already know that the study ignored the impact of such purification strategies (pray the gay away) on individual mental health. Demonic reappraisal was listed as a negative coping strategy. My other observation was that the referenced studies themselves seemed to all be literature reviews or meta-analysis. I'll have to give this more thought, but I immediately recalled the errors associated with taking the average of averages.

Then there's the matter of how the authors define religion:

[R]eligion and belief should be given a wide meaning, covering the broad spectrum of personal convictions and matters of conscience. It should include theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs. It should include minority and non-mainstream religions and belief systems as well as those of a more traditional or institutionalised nature. Religion or belief
should be defined as a particular collection of ideas and/or practices

Adopting such a wide definition of religion renders the distinction almost meaningless (keep in mind that they borrowed heavily from race-based discrimination studies). It would take pouring through the referenced studies, but early in the paper there was a table that indicated that the discrimination was self-reported. What does this mean? Was a person actually prevented from practicing religion? Or were their feelings hurt because somebody considered his/her particular brand of worship to be stupid? Don't forget that the study ignored the impact of religious intolerance as the basis for discrimination.

The argument in the paper you linked isn't very compelling.

[Bad Wolf]

I wouldn't count out these 'isolated' examples because they don't seem to be that isolated. It seems for as long as there has been different religions, there has been conflict resulting in death. And death is definitely detrimental to your health! I don't know how religious Hitler was or if he used religion to justify the Holocaust so I don't know if that would be a great example.

[Aractus]

I don't need to post any additional literature, yours will suffice. Did you actually read it?

Yes.

Pg.18: This 'study' explicitly ignores negative health impacts associated with religious based oppression of women, attitudes towards the LBGT community, attitudes relative to the use of contraceptives, or religions being the source of religious discrimination.

The studies pertained to the health benefits to the religious by the religious by religious attendance! It doesn't concern itself with smaller minority groups, eg LGBT, that the religious are opposed to. I absolutely agree that for LGBT people religion has provided a barrier of distrust, judgement, and distance.

The paper is a review of reviews.

It's a government literature review, that's what I said.

[paulpablo]

I get sick to death of hearing the same rubbish spewed by other atheists here that "religion is evil". Perhaps they know something I don't, so it's time for something I like to call EVIDENCE. If you have opposing evidence then post it.

Religion is a determinant of health.

I shall quote a government publication:

• "The freedom to practise one’s religion is a fundamental human right identified in key human rights instruments to which Australia is signatory. Freedom of religious belief is also protected in Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities."
  ...
  
  "The results of the literature review show that the impacts of religious belief on mental health are generally positive, with the strongest association being the link between religious belief and decreased depression, as well as reduced anxiety and suicide risk, and to a lesser extent, reduced psychotic disorders. The association found in most studies was a modest one. Religious belief was also found to be important in helping people to recover from traumatic events.
  
  "There was an increased risk of negative mental health effects on two of the measures above: religious orientation and religious coping style. Those at higher risk of negative outcomes were those who were attracted to religion for reasons other than the creed (referred to above as extrinsic
  religious orientation) and people who used negative religious coping strategies (also described above).
  
  "Religious belief was also found to be associated with a reduced likelihood of engaging in risk behaviours such as alcohol and drug abuse and cigarette smoking.
  
  "There were fewer studies investigating the link between religious belief and poor physical health. The available studies suggest only tentative evidence of a reduced risk. However, people engaging in some aspect of religious belief and practice were found to live longer.
  
  "Reductions in the risk of suicide and certain risky behaviours were especially large for young people, a stage of the life cycle when the risk of these problems is especially high."

As I mentioned in another thread recently: religious attendance is identified as a determinant of health, well-being and happiness, and the information above of course confirms this.

So to the rest of the atheists on this forum: we may be right, but we're going to live shorter lives, suffer more mental illnesses and be more unhappy.

I don't know if any of this really matters to me even if it is true.
As far as I know, denial only works in my brain subconsciously.
I don't have the ability to think "Ok believing in bullshit will make me live longer so I'll now believe that thing is true that I find to be unbelievable."

I don't have any evidence to the contrary of the claims being made in the quotes you provided but I don't see how the information could be accurate with so many people, so many different religions, so many different levels of belief, and then taking into account the many different outlooks on what someone might consider to be healthy.

I've always thought that religion is a bit like OCD or a mental disorder, only one that no doctor is allowed to diagnose as a mental disorder.

For instance if I tell a doctor I obsessively drawn to doing things throughout the day and I feel that my day will go better if I do these things a certain amount of time my well being will improve, if I say that the thing I feel obsessive about doing is touching a wall 5 times for no specific logical reason, it's probably diagnosed as OCD (The D stands for disorder) if the thing I obsess over doing is talking to an invisable man 5 times a day, then it's just religion, not religious brain disorder, I'll just be classed as a normal religious person.

[Cato]

Let's have a look at a study that at least attempts to provide some specificity and variable control:

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/...3&ext=.pdf

Belief in a punitive God was positively associated with four psychiatric symptoms, while belief in a benevolent God was negatively associated with four psychiatric symptoms, controlling for demographic characteristics, religiousness, and strength of belief in God. Belief in a deistic God and one’s overall belief in God were not significantly related to any psychiatric symptoms.

If the type of god worshiped yields these results, I am dubious of reports suggesting that mere attendance is a significant determinant. The problem with all of these types of studies is that they all demonstrate correlation and can't even begin to approach causation. Take for instance the attempt to associate religion and cancer. I fully support the claim that religious communities that enforce the prohibition of tobacco use will result in lower occurrences of lung cancer, but to claim that religion causes lower instances of cancer is laughable since passing a law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of cigarettes would have the same effect. Then there's the matter of explaining why the religious are more susceptible to cervical cancer. Perhaps it's just part of God's perpetual misogynistic grudge towards a single instance of fruit consumption.

[LivingNumbers6.626]

Funny, I think about this a lot. I haven't been entirely convinced of the "pure evil that religion is" also. I don't buy it.

Also, I don't buy that religion has held no purpose and will never hold any real purpose. I think that religion was a crucial tool to human evolution (cognitively). Also, I think that religion does a lot of help for a lot of people. Especially in the mental health world. But I also acknowledge that religion is probably a lot less necessary now than it has been and that religion can be and has been an extremely harmful thing as well.

I do not have any evidence to my thoughts. But I refuse to be so polarized and subscribe to such "black and white" thinking, or "all or nothing" unbalanced conclusions.

Just keep religion out of my schools, out of my home, out of my work, out of legislation, and promote a healthy secular government. That's all I vouch for. If this is created and maintained, I couldn't honestly give a damn what someone believes in their brain, their home, and their church. Keep it where it belongs.

Oh, and also, keep that shit away from children. Childhoods should be ideologically neutral.

Yes, this may be an impossible compromise for the religious, but that's why we are fighting.

So is religion 100% evil and useless for the betterment of man kind. I don't know. But at least 85%-95% of fundamentalism is.

[Sterben]

From the research I have done on this subject, the mental damage from religion is far worse. The people who think that "God" will fix there flat tire for them; by having a nice person driving and pull over to help them. This kind of thinking is causes mental health issues.

[pigsworld]

Dear Human,
Hope Floats
Pick a Vessel or be a Vassal.

Date: Feb 5, 2013 9:18 AM
Researchers have also found that people with certain types of brain damage that impair their ability to experience emotions also have an impaired ability to make good decisions. Even in situations where we believe our decisions are guided purely by logic and rationality, emotions play a key role.


Loneliness Has A Purpose
What possible purpose can the heartache of loneliness serve?
Published on August 8, 2011 by Mary C. Lamia, Ph.D. in Intense Emotions and Strong Feelings
You can be lonely whether or not you have a partner, relatives, or many friends. When you have a need and desire to be interpersonally connected and recognize that it's missing, you may become wrapped in the emotion of loneliness. Emotions, by definition, are immediately felt when triggered by a particular event or stimulus. Loneliness can be triggered when you're thinking of a significant relationship that has ended, if you realize that your relationships are not emotionally satisfying, if you have lost a loved one, if your access to social relationships has been altered because of a life circumstance, or at the moment you recognize that you are not truly known and understood by another.
When you're lonely, it's unlikely you'll remember that emotions serve a purpose, since what possible purpose can the heartache of loneliness serve? If you consider how this emotion makes you feel and think, then you will easily recognize that it alerts you to the fact that your relationships are inadequate and your needs to belong are not being met. Beyond that, loneliness motivates you to take necessary action that will relieve it. Emotions do have a purpose, regardless of how unpleasant some of them can make us feel.
Loneliness can make you feel empty and a sense of longing for someone to really know you. If you are without friends you may wish to have someone in your life who will relieve the emptiness. Yet loneliness may not be clearly linked to the reality of a situation because it can exist when connections with others are fleeting, meaningless, or not what you consider to be significant. Thus, you may have many friends, or be in a room filled with people, and still be lonely.
Aloneness is different than loneliness, although the two are a bit conflated and you can feel either without the other. The amount of time you spend alone has little to do with being lonely. Many people find solitude to be a pleasant experience that allows one to think, be creative, rest, or simply pass time in solitary activity. There are people in whom fear or anxiety is triggered when they are alone, but this is different than the experience of loneliness, as are situations where a person prefers to be alone in order to avoid the anxiety inherent in social activities.
Loneliness, like all emotions, creates certain cognitions and therefore can cause you to imagine that everyone else has the kinds of affiliations that you strongly desire, or that other people are enjoying the company of others while you are feeling inadequately connected. Your longing for closeness may, at times, lead you to believe that your situation might never end. It's understandable why people who are lonely might feel unwanted, unloved, undesirable, insignificant, despairing, insecure, or abandoned. Such attributions falsely account for the lack of connection.
Emotions differ from the prolonged emotional states that define moods. A lonely mood is akin to a lingering sadness, but with a particular referent; it's sadness about not having someone in your life where caring and deepunderstanding is mutually felt. Even so, a prolonged loneliness can lead you to believe that you are depressed, or, in some circumstances, can lead to depression.
Across cultures, humans are motivated by a need to belong, and their emotions and behaviors are geared toward satisfying this need (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). Far more effort gets put into maintaining social bonds than dissolving them. However, you can't get rid of lonely feelings with personal contact that is inconsequential.
People have a need to be connected with others. Researchers studied people who were recently excluded from relationships and found that these people may behave in certain ways in social situations just because they need connection (DeWall et al., 2009). Early on, a person who is excluded seeks emotional contact and needs to find others who are accepting. Excluded people paid closer attention to others who had smiling faces, as opposed to those whose faces showed disapproval. The researchers concluded that people who feel the threat of social exclusion are highly motivated to look for sources of acceptance, and their perceptions are in gear to find a friendly face. Being connected to others is important, and it shows in the basic ways in which our brain has evolved to seek out others.
However, it takes more than recognizing a friendly face to extract oneself out of a lonely state. Having a willingness to take risks socially, to beassertive, to self-disclose, and be responsive to others are strategies to defeat loneliness. Drowning your feelings of isolation in alcohol or subjecting them to substances in order to forget is not listening to what your emotions are telling you to do. Loneliness can lead to self-absorption and a high sensitivity where you hopelessly avoid others, or desperately seek their positive affirmation. For these reasons, in social interactions it is important to remain mindful of the needs of others when you are lonely.

References
Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
DeWall, C., Maner, J. & Rouby, D. (2009). Social exclusion and early-stage interpersonal perception: Selective attention to signs of acceptance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96(4), 729-741.

For information regarding my books about emotions:http://www.marylamia.com

"An open mind is a generous invitation for
knowledge and adventure" Stuart...


I pray to Socrates.

---

i like your non dialectical thought,

Religion is community.

so Unitarians teach...
and religions preach,
you screech,
not fixing the breech.

one man is an island,
religion serves to unite,
just causes are rightly,
easier en masse

"An open mind is a generous invitation for
knowledge and adventure" Stuart...