Interpreting statistics is one of the worst areas of "science" I can think of. Suppose, for sake of argument, that a study really was done, and it showed a correlation between ...let's say, fundamentalist Christian beliefs.... and all kinds of health benefits: say the population has 50% reduction in all stress induced diseases - high blood pressure, heart disease, high cholesterol, stroke, etc. Are we to conclude that religious belief led to the unusually healthy trend? Hmmmm. Why is that more likely a conclusion than this: A person who DOESN'T WORRY is more likely to accept BLIND FAITH rather than go though the PAINFUL process if introspection, fact checking and conflict that a WORRY WART would perhaps be more likely to pursue. Bah humbug.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So what you are saying is that people who value how the feel over truth feel better? That's kind of a no-brainer as they are going to do things that promote how they feel regardless of whether or not it tramples on truth.
And that makes you right? I want a reply to my post: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2856457&postcount=30
@arauca -- Bullshit. There may be a minority that do engage in that sort of intellectual dishonesty, but they're certainly not here on this site. And when they do pop up you will almost always see another atheist swatting them back down. However, on to your comment about "my logic". It's not mine, it's the exact same logic you applied to the study in your OP. My conclusion about such studies is that without proper controls(and there weren't proper controls in your study, too many variables were left unaccounted for) such studies are generally useless. The only exception would be to indicate something that we might actually want to study(such as links between religiosity and general levels of health or education). You'll note that i never once argued that the studies I mentioned were definitive or that they showed a causal link like you did in your OP(merely citing the abstract was implying the link). I only asked you if I should do that with those studies, and your answer tells me that you are perfectly aware that you were engaged in confirmation bias, an admission is all I really want here.
Religion is a fairy tale that keeps a lot of people from getting depressed. The truth is cold and depressing, there is no god.
"Happiness over truth" wasn't what I stated; however, I'll support that argument anyway for funsies. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sapient-nature/201105/which-is-more-important-truth-or-happiness
Truth can "feel" anywhere from cold and depressing to warm and fuzzy. I bet that when you were little, the truth of your birthday approaching didn't feel cold and depressing ;3.
That's the nature of the so-called social "sciences", I guess. It's often thinly-disguised special-pleading for some social policy or belief. I'm not sure that's what's happening here though. I don't know what the authors' motivations were. The authors of this paper appear to be making use a large already existing (close to 100K respondents) multi-year health survey of post-menopausal women. The authors are simply noting a correlation in that data-set between weekly church attendence and well-being as measured several ways, compared to non-churchgoers. The authors make a point of noting that a large variety of religions and religious beliefs are represented in the set, so that the well-being isn't necessarily the result of believing in one particular thing. That's the thing. The study isn't really about belief at all. It's comparing individuals that report frequent attendence at religious services with individuals who report no attendence at religious services, and then noting that the first group reports that it's doing better. My point made in an earlier post was that people who already aren't doing well, those who have preexisting medical issues or problems with depression, are probably less likely to get out of the house in the first place, for any reason. So comparing the frequent church-goers with non-church goers is inevitably going to smear the religous/non-religious distinction together with the active/housebound distinction. Including housebound individuals with the non-churchgoers is going to distort the average well-being of the entire non-churchgoer class. What we need is a follow-up study that controls for these issues. We need to compare sets of individuals who are of generally equal health, who get out of the house just as often, and who enjoy equal levels of social support. That last is important, since the data that this paper mined was a large survey of post-menopausal women and we all know that lonely elderly ladies often attend church for social reasons, to make friends. My prediction is that if we select for equally active people who enjoy equal numbers of friends, we'd find that it won't matter a whole lot to their (this-worldly) well-being how much of their time is spent in church compared to pursuing other interests. (Assuming that those aren't self-destructive.) It's certainly no more "frudulent" than a great many so-called "studies" in the social "sciences", which are often just crude correlations like this, usually with lots of impenetrable statistical jargon tossed in to impress gullible laypeople, often produced for rhetorical political purposes. In this case, I don't think that the paper really tells us anything of real interest. But I don't really see any nefarious purpose behind it either. It was probably just an easy way for some academics to generate another publication credit for themselves in their publish-or-perish business.
I like your analysis of this paper . As a whole it tells me also how swift the atheist attack when some thing is posted from religious inclination. As I expected they will attach like African bees.
I think it is fallacious to think that truth and happiness can be mutually exclusive or that it is possible to have one without the other.
I think your interpretation of mutual exclusivity is the issue then. This is about pecking order when they are at odds with each other.
Yes... it was much easier to ask the Lord for reasons to believe when he's standing there in front of you performing miracles. Which puts him on the same field as Zeus or Enki or Ra. Sharing the same beliefs as the commune leaves you better off. Yes, sharing the same behaviours in a herd leaves you better off. I wonder what the results would be in largely secular societies, like Sweden for example.
Yes you are right " The truth is cold and depressing," As long as I have God , I am happy. What is life without happiness. You go and drink liquor, indulge cocaine or LSD to forget your misery and to become happy . I rather have Jesus .
@Diode-Man -- I dunno about that. I find the truth to be liberating, no god is needed for happiness. @arauca -- You really want to go down that road again?
I disagree. I find the idea of an omnipotent big brother depressing. To be free in the universe is a happy feeling. And I know plenty of people that love Jesus and also do drugs.
"And when they do pop up you will almost always see another atheist swatting them back down." Yes you guys are like African bees. The only thing is to mention Jesus and the whole gang comes on. Would you favor to have any study ? I understand to your opinion is useless, would you not agree it is stimulating ? I am bias to what I believe , so are you bias , that is why we have an exchange in opinion and we learn something due to a discussion .
