Religious belief have postiive effects

[angela2]

http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2003/religion.html

“We’ve explored the suggestion in the literature that there is a connection between religious involvement and mortality risk,” Ellison said. “We’ve been particularly interested in racial and ethnic minorities, as well as the general population. Our first study showed a fairly substantial protective effect of religious involvement—even after adjustments were made for the types of social networks people have, their social class, race and ethnicity, age and gender, and a range of behavioral predictors such as drinking, smoking and body mass. The average difference in life expectancy between those who said they attended services more than once a week and those who never attended—which are the two extreme categories—were on the order of seven to eight years for the overall sample. This difference was even larger for African Americans.”

Though he has come across negative influences of religion on behavior, Regnerus says it is less typical in his research.

“Generally speaking, 80 to 85 percent of the time it’s a positive effect,” he said. “Sometimes we have a null effect, and about 5 to 10 percent of the time it can be detrimental—but that is less typical.”

Interesting, isn't it, that 'scientific' opinion differs.

[PinkPanther_04]

I'll take seven fewer years over trying to believe something I know to be false my entire life.

[angela2]

I'll take seven fewer years over trying to believe something I know to be false my entire life.
That's your choice. But the contention has been made on this board that religious beliefs are harmful, and that seems questionable in the light of this article.

[lpetrich]

angela2, do you think that that is true of religions you consider false? Or do you think that it is true only of religions you consider true?

Also, criteria like strength of social networks are a bit subjective; one has to be careful there.

And though I know that small-number statistics is fallacious, I note that Bertrand Russell had lived to the ripe old age of 98.

[angela2]

angela2, do you think that that is true of religions you consider false? Or do you think that it is true only of religions you consider true?
Religious beliefs that one considers false are not one's religous beliefs because no one believes something they think is untrue.

Also, criteria like strength of social networks are a bit subjective; one has to be careful there.
I'd assume the U of Texas does reputable work.

And though I know that small-number statistics is fallacious, I note that Bertrand Russell had lived to the ripe old age of 98.
Well, that settles it, doesn't it? ;)

[Jedi Mind Trick]

So what? I can't make believe. So I suggest that the results would be negative for someone who had to fake religious belief.

[PinkPanther_04]

That's your choice. But the contention has been made on this board that religious beliefs are harmful, and that seems questionable in the light of this article.
That was only about effects on individuals and families. IMO, the biggest negative effects of religion are the effects on groups of people (especially due to fundamentalism), on public policy, and on the people who are shunned by religious groups. This doesn't seem to say anything about that.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Shouldn’t the religious want to go to their heaven earlier?

[Fish]

Religious beliefs that one considers false are not one's religous beliefs because no one believes something they think is untrue.




I think what lpetrich meant was do you think that the religions which you consider false have positive effects on its believers?

I don't deny that people who have religion do benefit from the social network, emotional support and probably even psychological crutch in difficult times. But to me religion is simply that: a psychological crutch. It makes believers all warm and fuzzy inside, so i guess it's beneficial to them.

But to skeptics, religion is anything but beneficial. How can we possibly have faith in something that we constantly question? I think forcing religion upon me (and other atheists) will definitely have negative effects on our behavior.

[angela2]

I think forcing religion upon me (and other atheists) will definitely have negative effects on our behavior.
Lordy, that would be horrific! I never suggested such a thing.

[angela2]

That was only about effects on individuals and families. IMO, the biggest negative effects of religion are the effects on groups of people (especially due to fundamentalism), on public policy, and on the people who are shunned by religious groups. This doesn't seem to say anything about that.
No it doesn't. But it does question some blanket statements made on this site.

[Fish]

Just trying to say that religion isn't for everyone. If I were born a christian but had the same skeptical views i have now, religion wouldn't be doing me any good. Faking the belief (if it were necessary) would make me go crazy. And deconverting might even result in alienation from a fundy christian social circle.

[lpetrich]

Me earlier: angela2, do you think that that is true of religions you consider false? Or do you think that it is true only of religions you consider true?
Religious beliefs that one considers false are not one's religous beliefs because no one believes something they think is untrue.
That's not what I was asking about. Do you consider the supposed good effects of believing in some religion to be true of religions you consider false? Yes, religions that you consider false.

angela2, it is unlikely that you are a Hellenic pagan, so you likely believe that the Greek gods are pure fiction. So do you think that believing in the existence of the Greek gods and worshipping them will have beneficial effects on whoever does so?

(my small-number statistics: Bertrand Russell's longevity...)
Well, that settles it, doesn't it? ;)
I was showing that two can play the game of questionable statistics.


And I note in passing that the Biblical God seems to hate statistics (2 Samuel 24, 1 Chronicles 21); God sends a plague when King David orders a census, though Samuel and Chronicles differ on whether it was God or Satan who led him to do it.

[maxxmann]

Shouldn’t the religious want to go to their heaven earlier?


You would think, but all I hear is fellow christains claiming how great heaven is, but I see none of them, "just dying to get there."

[ModernHeretic]

Religious belief have postiive effects

The average difference in life expectancy between those who said they attendedservices more than once a week and those who never attended—which are the two extreme categories—were on the order of seven to eight years for the overall sample. This difference was even larger for African Americans.”


Note that the passage you quoted says nothing about the effects of religious beliefs, only of the attendance of religious services. I might be willing to buy that, but what if someone were to attend a non-dogmatic church such as a Unitarian church? In other words, what if they didn't have any religious beliefs, but were still a member of a religious community?

Stating that religious beliefs have positive effects when the study clearly mentions attendance as it's criteria is a non-sequitir. The claim should be that religious attendance seems to have positive effects, which seems much more reasonable than claiming that simply believing things is going to make people live longer.

[angela2]

Note that the passage you quoted says nothing about the effects of religious beliefs, only of the attendance of religious services. I might be willing to buy that, but what if someone were to attend a non-dogmatic church such as a Unitarian church? In other words, what if they didn't have any religious beliefs, but were still a member of a religious community?

Stating that religious beliefs have positive effects when the study clearly mentions attendance as it's criteria is a non-sequitir. The claim should be that religious attendance seems to have positive effects, which seems much more reasonable than claiming that simply believing things is going to make people live longer.
The title of my thread is the responsibility of the authors of the article. But, give me a break. Just how many unbelievers do you think attend religious services more than once a week? I'll grant you that some may, but the number must be statistically insignificant.

[David B]

It is an interesting piece. I'd like to see the whole paper to judge the methodology, as far as my near atrophied understanding of stats would allow.

It seems, though, to be exclusively American, where religious attendence seems to be particularly high in comparison with much of the rest of the West.

For Sweden, for instance

http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____25831.asp

Gives life expectencies from birth at 78.42 years for men, 82.78 for women

Life expectancy: 77 years 5 months is a figure I found for life expectency in the US, though I seem to have misplaced the link.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

Gives 44% weekly religious attendence in the US, as opposed to 4% in Sweden.

So it doesn't seem quite as clear cut as the authors suggest, taking a bigger picture.

David B

[Zygote]

That was only about effects on individuals and families. IMO, the biggest negative effects of religion are the effects on groups of people (especially due to fundamentalism), on public policy, and on the people who are shunned by religious groups. This doesn't seem to say anything about that.

Not to mention the detrimental effect on the environment perpetuated by a culture that believes that god put it there for them to use, or the effect on world peace by influential religious people (with connections to the White House, no less) who feel that war in the Middle East is a prerequisite to the second coming and who lobby to prevent cease fires. Ask family members of those killed in the name of religion (Crusades, Holocaust, World Trade Center) whether religion has negative effects. Those of us who oppose religion on principle didn't just wake up and say "Gee, who can I pick on today?"

It seems that it is only on an individual level that abdicating rational, analytical thought brings a benefit, and then only to the believer, not necessarily to those in the vicinity.

I wonder, if the observations of this effect are accurate, what influence it has had on natural selection. Are the reproductive odds increased for those who are more willing to swallow a reassuring set of myths in exchange for peace of mind? Is this significant when weighed against average number of offspring of religious vs. non religious people? The biologist in me worries about stuff like this.

[Zygote]

http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2003/religion.html

“Our first study showed a fairly substantial protective effect of religious involvement—even after adjustments were made for the types of social networks people have, their social class, race and ethnicity, age and gender, and a range of behavioral predictors such as drinking, smoking and body mass. The average difference in life expectancy between those who said they attended services more than once a week and those who never attended—which are the two extreme categories—were on the order of seven to eight years for the overall sample.”

Did they control for the health of the subjects? People who are too ill or housebound to attend services would skew the longevity results in favor of those who are hale and hearty enough to get themselves to services more than once a week. Does the survey simply select for stamina, spare time (a side effect of a less stressful lifestyle) and mobility?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Compare:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3771752#post3771131

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Even if the study was well done and one day might even be replicated in other contexts,

Was Socrates wrong when he proposed that the unexamined life is not worth living? For just a little longer life you have to believe in...
sky tyrants,
undead Jewish miracle workers,
apparitions that recommend the rosary for the salvation of the world,
astral voyages,
Korean bishops can be Christ come back,
Asian pantheons,
the power of crystals,
the infallibility of elderly bishops,
USSR as the antichrist,
blood transfusions as evil,
leprachauns,
holy water,
etc???

Rather be dead.

[FatherMithras]

So we have a single study showing positive effects? A good start I suppose, and I wouldn't doubt the validity of it really. However, this doesn't change the fact studies have shown religious culture leads to more violence, rape, and crime, while more secular societies have less of the above. So it seems that while this study may have some interesting notes, I'd like to see some more studies done by other sources to verify it, since numerous studies have shown the negative aspects to be more prevalent. Interesting though, and I'd have to say I agree that there's too much sweeping generalizations that "all religion is harmful" in a certain way. While I agree it is ALL harmful to rational and honest inquiry and the advancement of scientific progress (when against dogma) I'd be willing to admit believing in a loving higher power made one's life a bit easier to live.

[Tom Sawyer]

Having a supportive social network in one's life is a good thing that improves health. This is one of the chief benefits of religion and one of it's positive factors. It doesn't say anything about the religion per se, though, since I'd imagine that the same benefit would be seen amongst Catholics, Mormons, Muslims and Hindus.

It's also just one of a number of factors that help promote a long and healthy life. It could be said that it's recommended that you eat right, exercise and be part of a supportive social network in order to live as long as possible.

[angela2]

Did they control for the health of the subjects? People who are too ill or housebound to attend services would skew the longevity results in favor of those who are hale and hearty enough to get themselves to services more than once a week. Does the survey simply select for stamina, spare time (a side effect of a less stressful lifestyle) and mobility?
Again, probably a statistically insignificant number of people. If you've ever been a member of a church, you know that people who are very ill still attend church thanks to other members.

I don't drive because I have vision problems. But I have rides to services, bible study, deacons' meetings, choir rehearsals and any special events.

[Overkill]

Yeah, I don't think religion is giving the benefits, but the pageantry of it, meeting new people and friends, having people set you straight when you doubt, etc.

[Vitalstatistix]

The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Preface to Androcles and the Lion

[MortalWombat]

Note that the passage you quoted says nothing about the effects of religious beliefs, only of the attendance of religious services. I might be willing to buy that, but what if someone were to attend a non-dogmatic church such as a Unitarian church? In other words, what if they didn't have any religious beliefs, but were still a member of a religious community?

Stating that religious beliefs have positive effects when the study clearly mentions attendance as it's criteria is a non-sequitir. The claim should be that religious attendance seems to have positive effects, which seems much more reasonable than claiming that simply believing things is going to make people live longer.
One can even look at it another way. By looking at attendance vs non-attendance, would they not be artificially selecting people out who, for various chronic health reasons, are unable to attend church? And presumably, those types of people would have lower life expectancies than healthy people to begin with, possibly skewing the results.

[angela2]

One can even look at it another way. By looking at attendance vs non-attendance, would they not be artificially selecting people out who, for various chronic health reasons, are unable to attend church? And presumably, those types of people would have lower life expectancies than healthy people to begin with, possibly skewing the results.
See post #24

[DreamBotCaptain]

One study, published in 1999 in the journal Demography, shows that regular church attendance is associated with increased life expectancy in the U.S.

This reminds me of the FSM graph of global temperature vs # of pirates:
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

Were pirates preventing global warming? Of course not. The industrial revolution made pirating less lucrative, while at the same time creating greenhouse gasses to slowly heat up our atmosphere.

What is the real cause for the lower life expectancy in the US for non-service attenders (assuming their raw data collecting isn't skewed)? I can't say at this time. In large, complex systems (ie. society), trying to extract correlations requires massive amounts of data and a good understanding of how to put statistical correlations together. After studying statistics, I've come to generally distrust the conclusions of, well, pretty much everyone when it comes to making conclusions based upon statistical data. If there are many other studies across the world with similar results and conclusions, then I will come to a tentative conclusion. Without them, there is no reason to believe in a statistical correlation.

As it stands, it looks like the UT prof's are just looking at Americans - a huge mistake. As long as that is the case, they cannot make generalizations about humans, society as a whole, or any other individual societies.

What about going to services regularly in societies where people who go are in the minority of a society?

For Sweden, for instance

http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____25831.asp

Gives life expectencies from birth at 78.42 years for men, 82.78 for women

Life expectancy: 77 years 5 months is a figure I found for life expectency in the US, though I seem to have misplaced the link.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

Gives 44% weekly religious attendence in the US, as opposed to 4% in Sweden.


The above is one piece of the puzzle. We need a study within Sweden of those 4% compared to the other 96%.

What about people who spend approximately the same time doing a non-religious social activity? What about people who go to non-social religious services? What about pirates going to social activities?

[Pavlov's Dog]

That's your choice.

It is not a choice of me. I would love to believe in a sky fairy that would help me whenever I needed him. I just can't.

But the contention has been made on this board that religious beliefs are harmful, and that seems questionable in the light of this article.

I have only been here a few weeks, but I have never seen anybody on here suggest that being religious makes you die earlier than being nonreligious. The harm that religion does is the spreading of ignorance, intolerance and violence. That article did not refute any of those things.

[angela2]

I have only been here a few weeks, but I have never seen anybody on here suggest that being religious makes you die earlier than being nonreligious. The harm that religion does is the spreading of ignorance, intolerance and violence. That article did not refute any of those things.
Try this NY Times article. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE6DC1E30F933A2575AC0A967958260&sec=health&pagewanted=1

It's entitled "Therapists See Religion as Aid, Not Illusion."
It even talks about what one category of believers and atheists have in common.:grin:

People with the intrinsic orientation tended to have a positive view of human nature and to have a greater sense of control over the course of their lives and a strong sense of purpose in life. In addition, they showed greater empathy and less narcissism and depression.

Those don't sound like people who are involved in
the spreading of ignorance, intolerance and violence.

[angela2]

This reminds me of the FSM graph of global temperature vs # of pirates:
The questions you have raised point to uncontrolled variables. Studies with human subjects always have uncontrolled variables because it's unethical to the things that would be necessary to control them.

[Tom Sawyer]

It is not a choice of me. I would love to believe in a sky fairy that would help me whenever I needed him. I just can't.


But for people who do have that belief, it can be very comforting. Stress can be a major cause for aggrevation of any illness and if believing that some unicorn, elf or god is watching over you and helping to take care of you lowers your stress levels, then it would make sense that this belief would help lower the stress level and not have it further aggrevate whatever problem you have, which wouldn't be the case for people without this belief.

Just because I think religion is kind of lame doesn't mean I can't see that there's an upside to it for other people.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Just because I think religion is kind of lame doesn't mean I can't see that there's an upside to it for other people.
I agree... I have no problem believing that the religious have a comfy blanket that can help them in life. I even at times envy it...

[parkdalian]

See post #24

Conflating church attendance with religiousity is the problem here I think. A lot of people with risky lifestyles (drugs & prostitution) may not want to attend church for obvious social reasons, even if they have religious beliefs and are relatively healthy. Churches, notorious for being gossip clubs, may be too discouraging for those people to attend.

[angela2]

Conflating church attendance with religiousity is the problem here I think. A lot of people with risky lifestyles (drugs & prostitution) may not want to attend church for obvious social reasons, even if they have religious beliefs and are relatively healthy. Churches, notorious for being gossip clubs, may be too discouraging for those people to attend.
I'd question if many drug addicts or prostitutes are religous.
But even if this were true, can you prove that enough of them have been excluded to be significant in the statistical sense?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Just because I think religion is kind of lame doesn't mean I can't see that there's an upside to it for other people.

I never said it doesn't make individuals feel better or live longer. Like I said, I wish I could believe.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Those don't sound like people who are involved in

Do you really need examples of religion spreading violence, ignorance and intolerance?

[AthenaAwakened]

I think there is a difference between the individual's religious practice in his daily life and the institution of religion as it influences greater society.

EX.
Sally is "pro-life" in her personal life. She works at hospice and volunteers in her church nursery. She finds her work very fulfilling and it affords her happiness. People who know her, find her to be an exemplary person.

Sally's church is actively lobbying the state assembly to outlaw abortion in her state (no exceptions) and to curtail the rights of next of kin in determining whether or not to sustain life support for a loved one. Should they be successful, they will cause much happiness for members of the church and others who believe as they do. They will also cause much hardship, sadness, and anger for members of the community who do not share the "pro-life" belief and are forced to make decisions that conflict with their own deeply held beliefs.

This is how religion can cause problems.

[David B]

I agree... I have no problem believing that the religious have a comfy blanket that can help them in life. I even at times envy it...

Steven Weinberg perhaps said it best.

It is an almost irresistable temptation to believe with Bede and Edwin that there must be something for us outside the banqueting hall (he is talking about life after death - DB). the honor (sic) of resisting this temptation is only a thin substitute for the consolations of religion, but it is not entirely without satisfactions of it's own'.

David B (also sees it as honourable to accept ones humanity, and ones mortality)

[parkdalian]

I'd question if many drug addicts or prostitutes are religous.


It's been my experience that some drug addicts are at least quasi-religious in the sense of basic personal God-belief and I live in a fairly rough neighborhood in Toronto (Parkdale) and have worked in a local drop-in for socially isolated adults (such as the mentally ill, drug addicts etc). They certainly don't wear it on their sleeve but they may have basic religious beliefs, which they occasionally express on their own.

I can only assume that their rate of belief is similar to the rest of the population, but that may be generous, considering that they are largely from lower income groups, with their higher rates of belief. I can't find any studies specific to addicts or prostitution but here's a more general survey. (scroll down to socioeconomic status)

http://www.heartheissues.com/americanson-beliefingod-200606-g.html


But even if this were true, can you prove that enough of them have been excluded to be significant in the statistical sense?


No, just a point to be cautious about any statistical surveys. If such people are dying very young it may have an impact.

[angela2]

I think there is a difference between the individual's religious practice in his daily life and the institution of religion as it influences greater society.

EX.
Sally is "pro-life" in her personal life. She works at hospice and volunteers in her church nursery. She finds her work very fulfilling and it affords her happiness. People who know her, find her to be an exemplary person.

Sally's church is actively lobbying the state assembly to outlaw abortion in her state (no exceptions) and to curtail the rights of next of kin in determining whether or not to sustain life support for a loved one. Should they be successful, they will cause much happiness for members of the church and others who believe as they do. They will also cause much hardship, sadness, and anger for members of the community who do not share the "pro-life" belief and are forced to make decisions that conflict with their own deeply held beliefs.

This is how religion can cause problems.
How is this not a political difference of opinion? If the law passes, will not some people be upset regardless of whether it was sponsored by a church?

I with Thomas Aquinas. We cannot legislate morality.

[angela2]

I wish you guys would cut this out. I really don't have the time to find a lot of quotes supporting Christianity. But I may have to make time.

O.K. I found one.

Everything happening, great and small is a parable whereby God speaks to us. The art of life is to get the message. - Malcom Muggeridge

[windsofchange]

Just out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to assume that this article is referring to pro-life born-again Christians? I read it and it just refers to "religions" - Christianity isn't specified at all.

[AthenaAwakened]

How is this not a political difference of opinion? If the law passes, will not some people be upset regardless of whether it was sponsored by a church?

I with Thomas Aquinas. We cannot legislate morality.

Don't get me wrong. Any ideology can run the risk of the over zealous and the just plain twisted. But just because other institutions can go horribly wrong, that doesn't give religion a free pass. In fact, religion may even deserve special attnetion. All ideologies claim righteousness, but only religion claims righteousness, authority and eternity.

Peace

[AthenaAwakened]

Just out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to assume that this article is referring to pro-life born-again Christians? I read it and it just refers to "religions" - Christianity isn't specified at all.

Thank you for noticing :)

[windsofchange]

Don't get me wrong. Any ideology can run the risk of the over zealous and the just plain twisted. But just because other institutions can go horribly wrong, that doesn't give religion a free pass. In fact, religion may even deserve special attnetion. All ideologies claim righteousness, but only religion claims righteousness, authority and eternity.

Peace

Well, that's why I want to know more specifically which religions they're studying. Zen Buddhism, for example, and some of the New Age religions are markedly different from, say, orthodox Christianity or Islam - less of the "my way or the highway" attitude that we're rightfully suspicious of in dogmatic religions. So they might indeed have more positive benefits, both for the individual AND the society, than, say, a very closed-into-itself, rigidly doctrinaire fundamentalism.

[FatherMithras]

I think it's important to make a distinction here. While religion can cause people to live longer and be a helpful tool (as shown by angela2's study, which shouldn't simply be ignored or written off. It's a controlled, well performed study from the looks of it, and doing so is just confirmation bias) the effects of religion are numerous. As shown by OTHER studies, religious societies are inherently more violent and immoral by the societies own standards. This is an interesting, odd dichotomy that should be explored and an explanation looked for. To simply ignore Angels2's data out of hand is alot like being a creationist and waving off difficult evidence.

And to be fair, maybe it's not so nice to gang up on angela2.

[angela2]

I think it's important to make a distinction here. While religion can cause people to live longer and be a helpful tool (as shown by angela2's study, which shouldn't simply be ignored or written off. It's a controlled, well performed study from the looks of it, and doing so is just confirmation bias) the effects of religion are numerous. As shown by OTHER studies, religious societies are inherently more violent and immoral by the societies own standards. This is an interesting, odd dichotomy that should be explored and an explanation looked for. To simply ignore Angels2's data out of hand is alot like being a creationist and waving off difficult evidence.

And to be fair, maybe it's not so nice to gang up on angela2.
I agree with you entirely. And thanks for the remark about ganging up. But actually I wasn't feeling ganged up upon. It was pretty clear to me that lots of people were questioning the validity of the study because they didn't like the results.

[lpetrich]

There are some studies that say the opposite, as Paul Tobin has described in Do Christians Lead Healthier Lives? (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/healthier.html)

And angela2, if it could be shown that worshippers of the Greek gods lead very healthy, happy, and long lives, would you recommend that people worship those entities?

[Tao of Pooh]

I read an article in National Geographic about longevity that mentioned the 7th Day Adventists as being a group that has a significant # of centagenarians, more than the general population. Googling for it I got this page:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG%3A2005-45%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=7th+day+adventists+longevity
I didn't read all the articles but several suggest that their dietary mandates have a great deal to do with their longevity.
Since the dietary mandates stem from their particular religious beliefs then it could be said that their religion contributes to their longevity, although I think that even non-believers who followed the same diet would no doubt benefit from it.
As others have mentioned; stress-reduction, social networking, a sense of belonging & activity (all things that can be found within a religious community) can contribute to longevity.
But they're not exclusive to religious communities, these things can be found in the secular community, the problem with that being you just have to search harder to incorporate them all in your life since they're not all provided from the same source.

(All this made soo much sense in my head, did it come out right?:huh: I hope so.)



Insanity is doing the same thing over & over while expecting different results.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I agree with you entirely. And thanks for the remark about ganging up. But actually I wasn't feeling ganged up upon. It was pretty clear to me that lots of people were questioning the validity of the study because they didn't like the results.
What does "not liking" the results have to do with it? I am totally comfortable with the study. I believe that the religious do have more comfort in life, but that doesn’t do me any good because I do not believe. Should I fake it, would I get the same benefits? I think not.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

And angela2, if it could be shown that worshippers of the Greek gods lead very healthy, happy, and long lives, would you recommend that people worship those entities?

I think this is an important point that Angela has yet to grace with an adequate response.

[angela2]

There are some studies that say the opposite, as Paul Tobin has described in Do Christians Lead Healthier Lives? (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/healthier.html)
Which is not the results of a study but a review of a book the reviewer disagrees with.
And angela2, if it could be shown that worshippers of the Greek gods lead very healthy, happy, and long lives, would you recommend that people worship those entities?
Of course, just as you would I'm sure.

[Magic Primate]

I've come across findings before, that religious attendence is linked to improved happiness and health. Seems quite plausible in terms of possible psychological benefits, community support etc. It doesn't have any bearing at all on issues like the existence of God nor would a view that such benefits were due to 'the grace of God' or any such thing be likely to be taken seriously by the scientific community.

But I don't think Angela is claiming that, nor that non-believers should be forced to attend religious events or anything like that.

In Sweden I understand they have a stronger sense of comminity there which migh be part of the reason for improved levels of happiness and longevity there.

Maybe we can learn from this and find better ways of living instead of dismissing it or reacting against it because it is tainted with the evil that is religion?

What evidence is there that religious societies have more violence and rape?

[DefendsReason]

The results of the Christians vs atheists in prison investigation. (http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm)



Note that atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%).

[angela2]

In Sweden I understand they have a stronger sense of comminity there which migh be part of the reason for improved levels of happiness and longevity there.
Sweden has also had universal health care for decades.

[angela2]

The results of the Christians vs atheists in prison investigation. (http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm)
I've read that these figures are from 1925. Is that true?

[DreamBotCaptain]

The questions you have raised point to uncontrolled variables. Studies with human subjects always have uncontrolled variables because it's unethical to the things that would be necessary to control them.

Angela, hopefully you're really 10 different people, so you can respond to everybody :grin: ...

I'm not questioning it because I don't like the results. It makes sense to me that in the US people going to religious services (most likely church) have a longer expected life span. I am questioning the conclusions of this statistical data - the reason why these people have longer life spans. The going to religious services could be what makes the life span longer. Or it could be that the people who go to religious services are part of a group type that has other health benefits (ex. regular social contact). This extra expected life span could just be because they are accepted more by the general community.

Its about statistical correlations. One needs to gather a lot of the correct data (that don't include doing weird, inhumane studies on humans) to offset the "uncontrolled variables." With the right resources, it can be done.

"Generally speaking, 80 to 85 percent of the time [attending religious services has] a positive effect,” he said. “Sometimes we have a null effect, and about 5 to 10 percent of the time it can be detrimental—but that is less typical.”


I'm saying, unless they've done several studies or researched data from outside of the US, they can't say this with statistical backing. They don't know if it was the religious services that caused the positive effect or some other activity that generall comes with being religious in the US.

[DefendsReason]

I've read that these figures are from 1925. Is that true?

Right on the letter from Denise Golumbaski of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, it states that the statistics were obtained on March 5, 1997.

[benjdm]

Religious beliefs have a lot of effects. Some positive, some negative. There is no need to get defensive when some of the positive benefits are shown. I do think here in the U.S. the social aspects of church attendance are difficult to attain without going to church. Another example of where religiosity generally correlates positively is suicide rates.

I don't know how to improve community building in a non-religious way yet. Humanism is a long way off from appealing to enough people to take on many of the roles religious insititutions do. The local UU church may yet get a research visit from me.

[fatpie42]

That's your choice. But the contention has been made on this board that religious beliefs are harmful, and that seems questionable in the light of this article.

No it doesn't. That religion has positive effects does not mean that it doesn't have negative effects. If someone wished to claim that religion never has any positive effects, then naturally you have just proved them wrong. If, however, you wished to show that religion has no negative effects you have done nothing of the sort and there is a huge amount of evidence against your claim (e.g. the crusades, the spanish inquisition, people using mother teresa medallions to provide miracle cures rather than going to the medical services, Sai Baba molesting his followers, suicide bombings, pro-life bombings, Origen castrating himself because of the passage claiming we should become "eunuchs for God", persecutions of other denominations within Christianity, human sacrifices by the Aztecs, etc.)

[fatpie42]

I'd question if many drug addicts or prostitutes are religous.
But even if this were true, can you prove that enough of them have been excluded to be significant in the statistical sense?

Why do you think getting a drug addiction instantly makes you give up on your religion? Why do you think prostitutes would cease to trust in God (or buddha or whatever)?

Drug addicts would have trouble attending church for the same reason that homosexuals would. The people at the church would doubt their conviction (just as your statement suggests that you would). Certainly there are some churches which would be more accepting. There isn't the same approach in every Church.

Also there's the huge heroin problem in the deeply religious country of Iran.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3791889.stm

[angela2]

Its about statistical correlations. One needs to gather a lot of the correct data (that don't include doing weird, inhumane studies on humans) to offset the "uncontrolled variables." With the right resources, it can be done.
Of course. Never claimed that this was anything other than correlational. However, this is a reputable study. And I'm sure they've done all they could to control intervening variables.

Did you know that the IQ of a child is positively correlated to the number of frying pan their family owns?

[angela2]

Right on the letter from Denise Golumbaski of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, it states that the statistics were obtained on March 5, 1997.
What ist says is, "These stats were obtained from their computer on 5 March 1997."
It does not say what year the data on their computer was collected from inmates.

Do a web search. This is a discredited study.

[angela2]

:) Notice! Posts I consider non-substantivewill not get a reply from me. But feel free to play among yourselves.:)

[Plognark]

:) Notice! Posts I consider non-substantivewill not get a reply from me. But feel free to play among yourselves.:)

So, just out of curiosity, are you asserting that religion in general helps people live longer?

Or did you have a specific religion in mind?

[Plognark]

What ist says is, "These stats were obtained from their computer on 5 March 1997."
It does not say what year the data on their computer was collected from inmates.

Do a web search. This is a discredited study.

Link? I'd like to read where it has been discredited, and what criteria they used.

[benjdm]

Link? I'd like to read where it has been discredited, and what criteria they used.
Possibly here (http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison2.html) ?

[Plognark]

Possibly here (http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison2.html) ?

Cool, thanks.

[angela2]

So, just out of curiosity, are you asserting that religion in general helps people live longer?

Or did you have a specific religion in mind?
I'm not asserting anything. All I did was cite a study. Make what you will of it.

[DreamBotCaptain]

Of course. Never claimed that this was anything other than correlational. However, this is a reputable study. And I'm sure they've done all they could to control intervening variables.

Did you know that the IQ of a child is positively correlated to the number of frying pan their family owns?

I should have added "and interpreting them" after "its about statistical correlations." Unfortunately, I don't see the evidence in that article to interpret the data as, "going to religious services will increase your life expectancy." Yet, this is how they interpret it - as will many others. They're professors at a major university (that I got a bachelor's at), so I'm guessing that they're not just creationist hacks looking for another excuse to say, "see, Christianity is great!" in a subtle way. However, it looks like they're looking just at data about Americans, so I don't find much meaning in their study.

What I'm really worried about is how the average Christian, upon seeing this data, will feel it validates Christianity (considering the US is mostly Christian). When this could just be pointing out that being in the majority group of a society and/or regular social activity increases your life span.

[EarlOfLade]

Sweden has also had universal health care for decades.
Just shows that religion is not necessary for anything but to drag people down into the quagmire.

Ask any christian how much they fear ending up in hell. I think that has an adverse effect on their health.

Besides, this study was done in Texas. I don't think Texas is the most liberal religious state in the union. besides, such a study needs to include a lot of different countries in order to say something general. This is like asking kids on a hot summer day if they like ice cream. Totally worthless.

[FatherMithras]

So the study was or was not discredited? If so, can I see a site that discredits it that's actually from a professional and not just someone's internet site?

[angela2]

So the study was or was not discredited? If so, can I see a site that discredits it that's actually from a professional and not just someone's internet site?
Your point is well taken. But the fact remains that we have no idea when the study was done. In the type of study where the data most likely changed over time, the date is critical. Without the date, how can we grant the study validity?

[Jobar]

Just out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to assume that this article is referring to pro-life born-again Christians? I read it and it just refers to "religions" - Christianity isn't specified at all.

True, but since the stats are limited to the US, it's reasonable to presume that the large majority of those believers are Christians of some sort.

It'd be very interesting to see the stats broken down on a religion-by-religion basis.

Angela, the study referred to in benjdm's link is certainly outdated, but not discredited. There's a difference; to be discredited, it would have to be shown that the 1925 statistics, or the analysis of them, were in error.

AFAIK the 1997 stats are valid; in fairness though, the large number of 'unknown' inmate affiliations make the results questionable, since a disproportionate number of those might possibly be atheists. So that study, while it is indicative that atheists are underrepresented in prison populations circa 1997, isn't definitive.

[David B]

I have wondered about whether the figures might be distorted by prisoners not wanting to say that they are atheists.

David B

[angela2]

I think we just don't have enough data to draw any but the most tentative correlational conclusions. And we're not going to get that data off the web apparently. If I had easy access to a major university library, I might take a look, but unfortunately I no longer do.

[Styrofoamdeity]

Angela2, I applaud you for pointing out that religion helps people to live longer. Since the longest-lived people on the planet are the Japanese, I trust that you will soon be looking up the local Shinto chapter, or perhaps learning how to sit in a Zazen position for a few hours?

For a long life, repeat after me: namyo-ho ren-ge gyo...

[DefendsReason]

What ist says is, "These stats were obtained from their computer on 5 March 1997."
It does not say what year the data on their computer was collected from inmates.

Do a web search. This is a discredited study.

This is NOT "a discredited study".

The web page (http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison2.html) you referenced deals specifically with entirely different statistics apparently provided by Wayne Aiken, North Carolina Director, American Atheists (in red text). They are being refuted on this page by someone named "Greg+" (with Grace and Peace).

The statistics provided by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) of which we are addressing here, is merely referenced via link "as an example of such a document". Whatever the hell that means. It appears that good old Greg+ is of some weird mindset that by refuting Aiken's figures, then the BOP figures are therefore also void.

...Wrong, Greg+!

Greg's statement that

"As the discussion below makes clear, these particular sets of prisoner religious "statistics" are either very old (dating to 1925) or simply fictitious. "

is erroneous in regard to the BOP statistics from the link provided. Again, he is not refuting the BOP figures, but rather the other statistics by the aforementioned Wayne Aiken (in red). Perhaps this is what he meant in a very confusing manner of writing.

And then, Greg+ says he found the same statistics on the web from 1925 by a Dick Clark. But he curiously doesn't bother to provide this link to the source. I suppose we have to take his word on "faith". Wrong again!

My web search did not come up with any such document. So exactly where is the fiction?

At this other page (http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html) on the same site (Adherents) there's this:


David Rice has written to us (23 October 2002) concerning the origin of the data in the table below:

The data came from Denise Golumbaski, who was a Research Analyst for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The data was compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997. (Note that as of the year 1999, Analyst Golumbaski is no longer working for the Federal Bureau of Prisons; I had telephoned Analyst Golumbaski to request the latest figures, and was told by another analyst that Golumbaski was no longer employed there.) The data was requested by Mr. Rod Swift, who passed it on to me for my web site. I later called the Federal Bureau of Prisons and confirmed that the data did in fact come from their database.


Note the line above: "from up-to-the-day figures".

So, who is this Denise Golumbaski? Well, Denise is a real person who actually worked as a research analyst at the BOP in 1997. And I know this directly from the US Department of Justice:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cpus97.txt




...
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Correctional Populations in the
United States, 1997

...

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director

This volume resulted from a collaborative effort of
the BJS Corrections Statistics unit, under the
supervision of Allen J. Beck. Paula M. Ditton coordinated
the preparation of the volume.

...

Christopher Innes, assisted by Susan Allison, Denise
Golumbaski, Nancy Miller, Vicki Russell, Allyson Suski,
and Ina Winn at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, coordinated
data collection in Federal Facilities.
...

[lpetrich]

I think that if it could be shown that (say) worshipping the Greek gods would make one happy, healthy, and long-lived, then that would present an awkward dilemma. Because to me, truthfulness is an important virtue, and here would be evidence that believing certain falsehoods would give one some very desirable things.

So I'd ask how one can get the effect of believing in the Greek gods and worshipping them without believing any falsehoods.

I'm reminded of Plato's Royal Lie. His Republic was to feature an official state religion designed to make its rulers seem legitimate; a religion that Plato considered false. And Plato proposed that his society's religion be banned as full of bad examples like heroes lamenting and gods laughing; he did not indulge in apologetics to explain away those stories.

[angela2]

At this other page (http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html) on the same site (Adherents) there's this:


Could you be more specific as to where that is?

[DefendsReason]

Could you be more specific as to where that is?

I gave you the link(s). Click on underlined text -- that's known as a text hyperlink!

[angela2]

Oh gee. Lill ole me is so dumb I didn't know that.

I guess if I can't find it, I'm just dumb. Or maybe I don't want to search through 4 pp. Or maybe nice squirrel ate it.

[fatpie42]

:) Notice! Posts I consider non-substantivewill not get a reply from me. But feel free to play among yourselves.:)

So these posts were considered non-substantive then?

Originally Posted by angela2
That's your choice. But the contention has been made on this board that religious beliefs are harmful, and that seems questionable in the light of this article.

No it doesn't. That religion has positive effects does not mean that it doesn't have negative effects. If someone wished to claim that religion never has any positive effects, then naturally you have just proved them wrong. If, however, you wished to show that religion has no negative effects you have done nothing of the sort and there is a huge amount of evidence against your claim (e.g. the crusades, the spanish inquisition, people using mother teresa medallions to provide miracle cures rather than going to the medical services, Sai Baba molesting his followers, suicide bombings, pro-life bombings, Origen castrating himself because of the passage claiming we should become "eunuchs for God", persecutions of other denominations within Christianity, human sacrifices by the Aztecs, etc.)

Originally Posted by angela2
I'd question if many drug addicts or prostitutes are religous.
But even if this were true, can you prove that enough of them have been excluded to be significant in the statistical sense?

Why do you think getting a drug addiction instantly makes you give up on your religion? Why do you think prostitutes would cease to trust in God (or buddha or whatever)?

Drug addicts would have trouble attending church for the same reason that homosexuals would. The people at the church would doubt their conviction (just as your statement suggests that you would). Certainly there are some churches which would be more accepting. There isn't the same approach in every Church.

Also there's the huge heroin problem in the deeply religious country of Iran.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3791889.stm



Let me guess, you don't think the people in the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were Christian? As such, you probably don't believe that the muslims of Iran are religious. Does anyone count as religious in the entire world outside your little clique?

[angela2]

So these posts were considered non-substantive then?

I didn't answer these posts because I had already addressed these topics. Repeating myself is a waste of time.

Let me guess, you don't think the people in the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were Christian? As such, you probably don't believe that the muslims of Iran are religious. Does anyone count as religious in the entire world outside your little clique?
Define 'my little clique."

[DefendsReason]

Oh gee. Lill ole me is so dumb I didn't know that.

I guess if I can't find it, I'm just dumb. Or maybe I don't want to search through 4 pp. Or maybe nice squirrel ate it.


Then again, maybe if imaginary jeebus doesn't take you by the hand and show you the way, you can no longer help yourself.

[aa5874]

I don't know if anyone has already mentioned the 'positive effects' of Jim Jones, David Koresh and the perpetrators of '911'. Religion only has a 'positive effect' for the religious leaders, they want to control your thoughts.

[angela2]

Same old same old.

[KindBudz]

In regards to the OP..

Before I can really take this seriously I would have to see how they came to their conclusions. The article dosn't go into much detail about it.

For reasons of discussion I'll make this suggestion.

Religion dosn't actually help you live longer... Aspects of it reduce the affects of loneliness for the "IN" crowd while at the same time increasing loneliness for the "outsiders".

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/011115/loneliness.shtml
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060331_loneliness.html

[TNorthover]

Come on everyone, lets lay off the personal comments please.

[EarlOfLade]

Is there anything that religion has brought to the table which could not have been the same without religion?

I don't think so.

Besides, the overall effect of religion is severly negative. It's a cruel and barbaric ideology that fules hatred towards "other" groups of people. Most of the world was christened at the tip of the sword. "Coverted or die!" How can that make religion good?

[angela2]

. Most of the world was christened at the tip of the sword.
Proof?

[EarlOfLade]

Proof?
Read history.

[fatpie42]

I didn't answer these posts because I had already addressed these topics. Repeating myself is a waste of time.

Could you direct me to which post addressed those particular questions? I must have missed it.


Define 'my little clique."

You must realise that you wrote that you were ignoring non-substantive posts straight after my posts, so it was natural for me to presume you were referring to me with that accusation. Since you weren't referring to me, that's fine. I was just trying to think of what possible reason you might have had for dismissing the view that any of those things listed counted as 'religious'.

[dystopian]

Amazing how people think results like this are due to the actual content of the religious message, when it is clearly obvious that they are the result of peace of mind (in being convinced that we're living in a structured, ordered universe in which god loves us, and we go to heaven if we're good, and there are magical unicorns watching over our every move), and the comfort that comes from the social interactions in a group of like minded individuals.

Clearly however, it doesn't work unless you can actually be convinced in the religious message to begin with, since if you don't believe in it, it's just sitting on a hard wooden bench for several hours every sunday and interacting with people who are all ecstatic about something you don't really believe in. I'm sure those people tend to die of heart attacks at a relatively young age.

In any case, it's not like many of us can just decide to believe. I was born an atheist, i have always been an atheist, and try though i have, i cannot believe in religion, superstition, or fairytales. For as long as i can remember, i knew Santa, the easter bunny, and god, weren't real. The first two fairytales for kids, the latter, for adults. My brain is physically incapable of believing. So if there is a god:

THANKS FOR MAKING ME LIVE 7 YEARS LESS, JERK.

[fatpie42]

In any case, it's not like many of us can just decide to believe. I was born an atheist, i have always been an atheist, and try though i have, i cannot believe in religion, superstition, or fairytales. For as long as i can remember, i knew Santa, the easter bunny, and god, weren't real. The first two fairytales for kids, the latter, for adults. My brain is physically incapable of believing.

I would seriously recommend the following book:

Rudoph Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology and Other Writings, edited and translated by S. M. Ogden

While he is most certainly a Christian writer, what you will be amazed by is the extent to which he dismisses the supernatural (denying the sacrificial atonement, physical resurrection, the ascension, and even the idea that Jesus = God). Rudolph Bultmann is an absolutely amazing theologian and I wish he were more widely known outside of theology departments (he's a major figure within the field of Hermeneutics).

Soren Kierkegaard, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Paul Tillich, Karl Rahner, and, of course, Rudolph Bultmann, are all Christian writers who have wishes to limit the extent to which religious belief appeals to the supernatural. If you haven't heard this stuff before, I think you'll find yourself quite astounded.


Oooh it's online! This is a book all about Bultmann: http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=431

And this chapter (and possibly the following chapter) is Bultmann's 'New Testament and Mythology' essay under a different title:
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=431&C=292

Here's a famous line from the essay: "It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles."

[Oikoman]

The title of my thread is the responsibility of the authors of the article. But, give me a break. Just how many unbelievers do you think attend religious services more than once a week? I'll grant you that some may, but the number must be statistically insignificant.

What he is pointing out is that the beneficial effects may derive from the social aspect of belonging to a religious group, not from the religiousity itself. An athiest community may offer the same beneficial effects as a religious community if structured with sufficient social interaction, while highly religious bible literalists who feel that religioun must be practiced as set out in Matthew 6:6 (and thus don't attend church) may suffer the reduced lifespan that you claim athiests are subject to.

[Jolly_Penguin]

Angela, you are correct that religious belief imparts some positives. There is no doubt about that. It gives you a sense of purpose, answers unanswerable questions for you, gives you a crutch in difficult times (just say its meant to be or you'll go to heaven in the end).

It gives you all the benefits and comforts of delusion plus it also gives you a degree of social acceptance if the majority of your community believes in the same religion.

As for lifespan, I'd not be suprised if 'feel-good' theists, as opposed to the fire and brimstone type, regularly outlive atheists. People who live in more comfort and social acceptance generally do live longer.

There is no doubt that religious belief has its positive aspects, but that doesn't make it rational or right. And that doesn't mean it has no negative aspects.

[Oikoman]

For the benefit of those following this thread, the paper referenced is:
Hummer, R.A. et al. 1999. Religious involvement and US adult mortality. Demography 36: 273 - 285.

According to the paper, data was obtained from a survey of cancer risk factors that started with a population in 1987 and followed for a period of 8 years. The religion of the people involved was never asked, but based on this survey, people were classified on religious attendance based on the following question "How often do you go to church, temple, or other religious services?" Because the study was piggybacking off of a cancer research questionaire, they were somewhat limited in the available data. Factors that could be considered in the analysis were age, sex, socioeconomic status, unhealthy activities (e.g., smoking, drinking), race and region. Race was considered as black/non-black, while region was South/non-South.


Its not clear from the paper how the life expectancy (e20) is calculated, but they come up with a difference in life expectancy between those attending religous activities more than once a week and those never attending of 7.5 years across the entire population, with race rather than sex being the biggest determinate of exactly how large that gap might be (7 years for whites, 13.5 years for blacks). Interestingly, blacks only make up 10% of the sample, and strongly religously attending people 8.5% of the sample.

However, the most interesting part is the multivariate analysis...a quick examination indicates the most important factors governing death in the survey are self-reported health (no surprise there), maritial status, religious attendance, being male, smoking, weight, and having limited activity. Of these factors, only religious attendance is explored in detail further.

The limitations of their data gathering method unfortunately prevent examination of other factors, but what makes it interesting is that maritial status (that is, not being married) was more detrimental to health than non attending church.... this suggest strongly that we are looking at an effect from social factors, not from religion per se. The take home message from the study isn't so much join a church, but make sure you have good friends and loving companions.

[Styrofoamdeity]

For the benefit of those following this thread, the paper referenced is:
Hummer, R.A. et al. 1999. Religious involvement and US adult mortality. Demography 36: 273 - 285.

According to the paper, data was obtained from a survey of cancer risk factors that started with a population in 1987 and followed for a period of 8 years. The religion of the people involved was never asked, but based on this survey, people were classified on religious attendance based on the following question "How often do you go to church, temple, or other religious services?" Because the study was piggybacking off of a cancer research questionaire, they were somewhat limited in the available data. Factors that could be considered in the analysis were age, sex, socioeconomic status, unhealthy activities (e.g., smoking, drinking), race and region. Race was considered as black/non-black, while region was South/non-South.


Its not clear from the paper how the life expectancy (e20) is calculated, but they come up with a difference in life expectancy between those attending religous activities more than once a week and those never attending of 7.5 years across the entire population, with race rather than sex being the biggest determinate of exactly how large that gap might be (7 years for whites, 13.5 years for blacks). Interestingly, blacks only make up 10% of the sample, and strongly religously attending people 8.5% of the sample.

However, the most interesting part is the multivariate analysis...a quick examination indicates the most important factors governing death in the survey are self-reported health (no surprise there), maritial status, religious attendance, being male, smoking, weight, and having limited activity. Of these factors, only religious attendance is explored in detail further.

The limitations of their data gathering method unfortunately prevent examination of other factors, but what makes it interesting is that maritial status (that is, not being married) was more detrimental to health than non attending church.... this suggest strongly that we are looking at an effect from social factors, not from religion per se. The take home message from the study isn't so much join a church, but make sure you have good friends and loving companions.


Excellent summary. Thanks. Provides a good caution to making a very broad statement from a very limited set of information.

[Tao of Pooh]

...THANKS FOR MAKING ME LIVE 7 YEARS LESS, JERK.

Don't feel bad, those missing years come @ the end of your life and I hear they can be pretty crappy;)



You're comparing clowns to mimes. Either way, both are silly.

[Tao of Pooh]

For the benefit of those following this thread, the paper referenced is:
Hummer, R.A. et al. 1999. Religious involvement and US adult mortality. Demography 36: 273 - 285.

According to the paper, data was obtained from a survey of cancer risk factors that started with a population in 1987 and followed for a period of 8 years. The religion of the people involved was never asked, but based on this survey, people were classified on religious attendance based on the following question "How often do you go to church, temple, or other religious services?" Because the study was piggybacking off of a cancer research questionaire, they were somewhat limited in the available data. Factors that could be considered in the analysis were age, sex, socioeconomic status, unhealthy activities (e.g., smoking, drinking), race and region. Race was considered as black/non-black, while region was South/non-South.


Its not clear from the paper how the life expectancy (e20) is calculated, but they come up with a difference in life expectancy between those attending religous activities more than once a week and those never attending of 7.5 years across the entire population, with race rather than sex being the biggest determinate of exactly how large that gap might be (7 years for whites, 13.5 years for blacks). Interestingly, blacks only make up 10% of the sample, and strongly religously attending people 8.5% of the sample.

However, the most interesting part is the multivariate analysis...a quick examination indicates the most important factors governing death in the survey are self-reported health (no surprise there), maritial status, religious attendance, being male, smoking, weight, and having limited activity. Of these factors, only religious attendance is explored in detail further.

The limitations of their data gathering method unfortunately prevent examination of other factors, but what makes it interesting is that maritial status (that is, not being married) was more detrimental to health than non attending church.... this suggest strongly that we are looking at an effect from social factors, not from religion per se. The take home message from the study isn't so much join a church, but make sure you have good friends and loving companions.

I wonder if when in life a person attends religious services would have any bearing as well. Many of the (now) athiests on the board, for example, attended religious services for the majority of their childhood and quite a few into their adult years. Do they still gain the "benefits of religion"?



You're comparing clowns to mimes. Either way, both are silly.