Issues being secure with my "secularity"

[Dylan]

Hey all,

Here is my dillema:
I've never really been a theistic person, besides sort of believing in God while I was in elementry school for a year or so.

I have been an atheist since at least junoir high.

The issue arises in that I've read many studies indicating positive influences of religion on (mostly mental) health (happiness, less depression, more motivation, living longer, more harmonious relationship with one's spouse, quicker recovery when someone you are close to dies, etc). Most of the differences aren't incredibly large, but still substantial.

I believe that many of these health benefits are with liberal religious groups, not fundamentalists or conservative ones- I think they are harmful to your mental well being. Question though - where does religion cross the line into being unhealthy? One can point to definite examples of it being harmful - ie muslim fundamentalism in the middle east - but it's hard to draw the line.

As a side question, are there any studies investigating largely secular societies (ie Europe) and seeing if they differ relative to mental health from more religious societies (ie the US) to see if these studies have other factors at play which haven't been identified (for example, certain types of people who are more likely to, say, exercise or , are religious, people who are better with human interaction - therefore having a better relationship with one's spouse - are more inclined to be religious).

So often, I ask myself, when arguing with people about how they say their minister prophesized something that came true, or that they were touched by the holy spirit, in the long run am I going to cause them to be unhappy? Should I just let them be?

Then I get into broader questions about whether why we are less religious than before as a society, and if things that cause people to lose faith are positive ones (such as evolution). Then I get into questions about what exactly did cause society to be less religious - was it an intellectual choice? Was it a change because of other factors in society (spread of consumerism, etc)?

Then I wonder if I will do my children (who don't exist at the moment) a disservice by not raising them to be religious liberals, say, in a Unitarian Church.

Are secular cultures healthier than religious ones? Is it healthy to promote a religious culture that is based on logic and reason (sounds impossible, but many liberal Xtians seem to be doing it just fine). Is this question silly because it's implications don't matter - some cultures are just different than others, and a culture's values are passed on to their children, and to say certain fundamental beliefs of a culture should be changed for utilitarian reasons is foolish?

I do believe that everyone is different, and religion and God is definetly not for some people, but for the majority of people, would religion be a positive thing? Is religion really not for most of the people who are not religious? Or is it more (to be very simplistic) like some people not exercising - it would be better for lots of people, yet many people just don't do it because they aren't interested by it.

It's also an interesting side note that when I read studies about, say, Buddhism and it's mental health benefits I don't feel threatened at all. But when I read about benefits from religions such as Christianity I do feel threatened. Maybe it is a reflection on the lack of judgementalism (not a word?) on the former's part and the pervasiveness of it on the latter's part.

peace,
Dylan

[The Other Michael]

Hi Dylan,

The new Positive Atheism forum is supposed to be focused on showing reasons why non-theism can be a positive lifestyle, and you may want to read the posts over there (though since it just started there aren't a lot of them). It is possible the SL mods might decide to move your thread there, or if after you look at that forum you decide that it is a better fit you could ask them to move the thread.

There may be aspects to your question that fit quite well in SL, so you might want to give some guidance to the SL mods on just what you see as the appropriate forum for your thread.

cheers,
Michael

[Zakharov]

I'm not sure how to answer your question, but I know that Japan, the nation that has the world's longest average lifespan, is almost entirely a secular society. I also know that the US has relatively high crime rates and suicide rates than similarly wealthy, less religious societies in Europe and Canada. This of course doesn't show causation, but it does cast some doubt over the idea that religion is a positive influence.

[lpetrich]

Possible problems with studies with pro-religious results:

* Confounding factors, like being too sick to easily make it to a house of worship.

* Wishful thinking and selectivity, like ignoring studies that suggest the contrary. This need not be conscious; this can be a side effect of being the sort of person who'd be interested in doing studies of religiosity. For instance, there are some studies that suggest that people in some fundie churches tend to be more mentally disturbed than average, but they do not get much publicity.

* Lack of study of successful people who are indifferent or rejecting towards religion.

* Other possible methodological problems, like excessive reliance on self-reporting. Many people report themselves to be more virtuous than they actually are.

* Being unwilling to be explicit about which sects have the happiest followers, and being unwilling to explicitly consider Plato's Royal Lie theory of religion, that it is desirable as Opium for the People.

[MrFurious76]

Most religious studies I've read dealing with psychology usually are just statistical studies, measuring correlation. These are "weak" types of experiments, as the multitude of variables that can influence the results are too great to control for. They are good at getting a general idea, then narrowing a focus for a true experiment, and every true experiment with a sound methodology I've read has religion performing at about the level of chance for whatever they're testing. "Being positive" is another thing you'll hear bandied about with good health. Those are correlative studies as well, and a rather recent study with cancer (I believe lung cancer???) showed that "being positive" didn't help the sickness at all. Of course, having a positive outlook can be good for you in a number of ways, but don't expect it to cure you. My advice: be positive and social, you'll get the same exact "benefits" a religious person will then, as theres nothing supernatural about it. So odds are, neither being religious or just being happy and social will improve your physical health much, but if you're worried about it you can be happy and social without all the religion.

[Roland98]

As ToM suggested, I think this would work well in PA&SA. Moving...

Roland98
SL moderator

[Norseman]

Religion=Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia: Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances. Schizophrenia is associated with dopamine imbalances in the brain and defects of the frontal lobe and is caused by genetic, other biological, and psychosocial factors.

So I'd say pretty conclusively that atheists have far better mental health than theists. :)

[jayh]

Hey all,



The issue arises in that I've read many studies indicating positive influences of religion on (mostly mental) health (happiness, less depression, more motivation, living longer, more harmonious relationship with one's spouse, quicker recovery when someone you are close to dies, etc). Most of the differences aren't incredibly large, but still substantial.


There are many social processes that have been demonstrated to provide health and social benefits. Activity in neighborhood organizations, active hobbies, second careers have been associated with longer life, people who are involved do better.

None of the studies that purport to show the 'benefits' of religion actually demonstrate any benefit beyond what is associated with being part of a cohesive group. Some other studies come up with negative associations: divorce is highest in highly religious areas of the US (including among religious people), there is a negative association in a number of studies between IQ and religious belief.

One study claiming religious benefit failed to show any health benefit for those who watched religion on TV; leaving open the very real possibility that healthier people were easily able to get to church, equally religious people who weren't healthy watched it on TV.

Neighborhood activism and even home ownership have been linked to health benefits:
http://www.habitat.org/hfhu/transcripts/hfhu_haurinlecture.pdf

[ComestibleVenom]

Possible problems with studies with pro-religious results:

* Confounding factors, like being too sick to easily make it to a house of worship.



May I also add the question of whethre faith, piety or doctrinal purity have any relation to health. (Which the church attendence surveys pretend to indicate.)

[Gawdawful]

Some other studies come up with negative associations: divorce is highest in highly religious areas of the US (including among religious people),Yea, Oklahoma rules!
...there is a negative association in a number of studies between IQ and religious belief. Yea, Oklahoma rules again!

One of the flaws I see in those type of studies is that they fail to clearly define what they mean by nonreligious. Are those nonreligious people all atheists, or do they also include the believers that are also alcoholics, drug addicts and criminals that just happen to not attend church? I have yet to see a definitive study that breaks it down to actual nonbelievers vs all believers. Hell, the Mormon's alone skew any study, they live longer and healthier because they have the genes to live longer healthier lives, plus they expand their membership primarily via birthrate, thus passing on those longevity genes. I wouldn't include them if I were conducting a fair study of the issue.

I think there is probably better correlation between health and longevity in people that have a strong social support system rather than whether they are religious or not.


Warren the Okie

[jayh]

Yea, Oklahoma rules!
Yea, Oklahoma rules again!

One of the flaws I see in those type of studies is that they fail to clearly define what they mean by nonreligious

Paraphrased and summarized from The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith,
Burnham P. Beckwith, _Free Inquiry_, Spring 1986:


1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conversative students "are,
in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more
intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward ... atheism."

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, 10-16.
Negative correlation between religiosity and Terman intelligence test.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported,
"there is a constant positive relation in all the groups between
liberal religious thinking and mental ability...There is also a
constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence..."

5. Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 stydents, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence
and liberal attitudes to go together."

6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship
between intelligence and attitude toward god."

7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores
and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

8. Brown and Love, 1951
At U. of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. Mean test scores
of non-believers = 119, believers = 100. Percentile NBs = 80, BBs = 50.
Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts
earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and
intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an
anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence.
Other factors may have influenced the results at the U. of Wisconsin.

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but
high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering
college and after 2 years of college.

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37% of christians, 58% of apostates, and 53 percent of
non-religious scored above average on SATs.

15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti-
religious (1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022).

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. The reported
"nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more
intelligent than religious S's.

Student Body Comparisons-

1. Rose Goldsen, Student belief in a divine god, percentages 1952.
Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43;
Weslyan 43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60; Texas 62; N. Carolina 68.

2. National Review Study, 1970 Students Belief in Spirit or Divine God.
Percentages:
Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41;
Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65;
Marquette 77.

3. Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977
Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5% in "low" ranked schools to 17%
in "high" ranked schools.

Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978
In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26%,
compared with 44% of all students.

Studies of Very-High-IQ groups.

1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ > 140. Of men, 10% held strong religious belief,
of women 18%. 62% of men and 57% if women claimed "little religious
inclination" while 28% men and 23% of women claimed it was "not at all
important."

2. Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have
been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the
basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership"
and such like.

3. Southern and Plant, 1968
42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less
religious in belief than the typical American college alumnis or adult.



1. William S. Ament, 1927
C. C. Little, president U. of Michigan, checked persons listed in _Who's
Who in America_: "Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists,
Universalists, and Presbyterians are ... far more numerous in _Who's
Who_ than would be expercted on the basis of the population which they
form. Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numberous."

Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the
least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in _W'sW_ as in the
U.S. population.

2. Lehman and Witty, 1931
Identified 1189 scientists found in both _Who's Who_ (1927) and
_American Men of Science_ (1927). Only 25% in _AM of S_ and 50% of
those listed in _W'sW_ reported their religious denomination despite the
specific requests to do so, "religious denomination (if any)." Well
over 90% of the general population claims religious affiliation. The
figure of 25% suggest far less religiosity among scientists.

Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as
non-Unitarians.

3. Kelley and Fisk, 1951
Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious
values and research competence. [How these were measured I have no idea.]

4. Ann Roe, 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the
prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical
Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious
parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are
seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even
give some financial support to a church which they do not attend... All
the otheres have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and
the church plays no part in their lives...A few are militantly
atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"

5. Francis Bello, 1954
Questionaired or interviewed 107 young (<= 40) nonindustrial scientists
judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. 87 responded. 45%
claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22% claimed no
religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now
a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group."

6. Jack Chambers, 1964
Questionaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "the
highly creative men [jft- assume no women included] ... significantly
more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little
or no interest in religion." Found that the most eminent psychologists
showed 40% no preference, 16% for the most eminent chemists.

7. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965

Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists
listed in _American Men of Science_ (1955) on church membership,
and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. 642 replies.

38.5% did not believe in afterlife, 31.8% did. Belief in immortality was
less common among major university staff than among those employed by
business, government, or minor universities. The contemporaneous Gallup
poll showed 2/3 of US population believed in afterlife, so scientists
were far less religious than typical adult.

From Beckwith's concluding remarks:

Conclusions
In this essay I ahve reviewed: (1)sixteen studies of the
correlation between individual measures of student intelligence and
religiosity, all but three of which reported an inverse
correlation. (2) five studies reporting that student bodies with high
average IQ and/or SAT scores are much less religious than inferior
student bodies;(3)three studies reporting that geniuses (IQ 150+)
are much less religious than the general public (Average IQ, 100),
and one dubious study,(4)seven studies reporting that highly
successful persons are much less religious in belief than are others;
and (5) eight old and four new Gallup polls revealing that
college alumni (average IQ about 115) are much less religious in
belief than are grade-school pollees.

I have also noted that many studies have shown that students
become less religious as they proceed through college, probably in
part because average IQ rises.

All but four of the forty-three polls I have reviewed support
the conclusion that native intelligence varies inversely with
degree of religious faith; i.e., that, other factors being equal,
the more intelligent a person is, the less religious he is. It
is easy to find fault with the studies I have reviewed, for all
were imperfect. But the fact that all but four of them
supported the general conclusion provides overwhelming evidence
that, among American students and adults, the amount of religious
faith tends to vary inversely and appreciably with intelligence.

[Gawdawful]

Great stuff jayh. But are they healthy and long-lived? ;)


Warren

[openeyes]

Hey all,

Then I wonder if I will do my children (who don't exist at the moment) a disservice by not raising them to be religious liberals, say, in a Unitarian Church.

Dylan I'm raising my two boys (who are now teens) non-religiously and couldn't imagine doing it any other way. You need to do some general reading about parenting to increase your chances of success, but in my estimate, positive parenting can be done very easily without bringing religion into it. Obviously kids need to "belong" but it can be to something other than a church group.

(For the record, I've also been a single parent for 11 years and their only parent for almost 7 years so according to some statistics, the odds are really stacked against them. Of course I was in my late twenties when I became a parent and I happen to choose a career that I don't have to take home often and pays well, so that definitely helps. As others have pointed out, statistics and studies don't mean much if too much data is lumped together.)

[JossWorShipper]

Well, since no one else seems to want to answer your question, Dylan, I'm going to try.

I think that line you speak of and where religion crosses it is all about the approach. Of course the more liberal will be happier. While the Dogmatic will make one another miserable. People, generally, don't like being told what to do. But they don't seem to mind being coerced.

[A. Uiet bhor]

Dylan

Good questions, I think this is a problem for people who lose their faith but have no alternative "crutch" to use. The are many ways a person can be happy, regardless of religion, as for health, a healthy person, is one that leads a healthy lifestyle, exercise etc, faith has nothing to do with it. But for mental health, it depends on an individual's personality, intelligence, will, even looks. I know atheists who are depressed, and atheists like myself who see life from a very positive angle, due to things like science, morality, culture and the many other factors that effect people. Religion as a factor I would regard as almost entirely without merit. I will take it step by step.

1 Even if it did make you happier, its still living a lie, as no rational person can buy the theistic elements that are at the heart of most of it. I understand that atheists sometimes feel down, but remember religion is not the answer to any problem, there are always better ways than having your will and personality subverted by a brainwashing control freak. Happiness is found in nature, friends, art, music, goals etc. Life is so much bigger, the world so much better than the twisted vision drilled into you by people who know nothing but say they know everything, (or at least claim access to an infinite knowledge).

2 Morally, religion is a terrible tool to improve people, history shows you that but so does the bible itself, I who never teach that to an impressionable child, I found it confusing and scary as I child, only as a well read adult can I read it with any degree of comprehension. I can see the immorality of it, and what it can, and often does lead to even today.

3 I wouldn't rely too much on studies, use reason, evidence, observation and logic.

4 You cannot guarantee the effect that religion will have on your offspring will always be positive, they could become fundies down the line or a crack pot extremist, the best thing is to educate them, in as much as possible, but especially about the dangers of faith, prepare them so they can critically examine all the faiths that will try to sell themselves to your children throughout there lives, you cant just day "all religion is bad" as that is a kind of dogma they use against atheist and other faiths. Arm your kids with the ability to be self sufficient, confident and moral, religion will just seem redundant to them.

5 Very few people lose faith because of evolution; it is simply one of the many branches of science that contradict overly narrow interpretations of the bible, and most other holy books. Many theists are evolutionists, it doesn't rule out god just the rather dumb way people interprets the way he created Man. Astronomy and cosmology rules out the way they say he created the universe, geology the earth, palaeontology the animals, ditto genetics, and DNA based sciences. In a sense so does Newton's theory on gravity rule out the way they said the order of space was gods doing.

6 Liberal religions may seem ok, and I have learnt to tolerate them, (sort of) but just because they don't do terrible things based on a terrible book doesn't mean there not still basing their lives on a terrible book. The potential is still there for some very unpleasant ideas and actions. Maybe I'm judging them to harshly but you cannot say were a liberal church will go during the decades to come, I would just play it safe an avoid them altogether. A white lie is still a lie.

7 The line between fundie and liberal is polarizing. As science makes more progress the liberal, Catholic, Protestant, Unitarian churches except the findings and go down the “God of the Gaps� route, and bleed into the realm of science and reason. However this has the effect of condensing the extreme denominations, fundamentalism, creationism, Baptist, into a tightly packed centre that draws into itself those of the liberal churches that cannot take the scientific influence or are too extreme for the rest of the fold. They then deny the scientific data and make a world of there own, like a cult, and try to separate their flock from the real world, making islands of backward religious communities, that have appalling moral standards, sexist, racist ideals and a warped political agenda, that is successful will force all non extremists and non believers to live their way. All such denominations are to be avoided at all cost, I mean it, things can only get worse for us and them. (see conclusion)


8 Talking to theists is important and I can understand if you are worried about doing them a disservice by de-programming them, but it all depends on who they are, who you are and what you can offer them when they are free. I am working of a Kant style series of secular moral alternative to religious claims to ethical superiority, I may include examples in this thread later, if it last long enough, I would also thing hard about whether in fact faith can offer anything that you or other non believers don't already have, or can provide. I can have found I can meet any claim they make with better alternatives, how about you?

9 As for why certain cultures become less religious, this is due to many factors. In Europe the memories of what religious extremism lead to is still fresh on the minds of many nations. England still remembers the protestant catholic troubles, Spain, the inquisition and moors, Eastern Europe the crusades, Russia, Ivan the terrible, central Europe the witch hunts, Holland, the catholic oppression. The Enlightenment was also very important and most freethinkers in Europe own their freedom at least to these pioneers, if not there ideas. America although settled by many fleeing religious intolerance seem to think history will not repeat for them, they forget their witch hunts, and the way placebo-anity was used to keep the slaves in their place. They hark to a golden age of faith that never was, as if things can go back to the rose tinted communities in the 50s the conservatives think was the American ideal. It may have been for white, male middle class xtians but not for anybody else. Education is another thing, an atheist has many more reasons not to fall in with religious communities if he/she can quote the bible back at them, understand that science have answered more question than faith can answer, and cures more ills than Jesus ever did, and for all not just a small local crowd. And more you know about a religion the less appealing it is. Philosophy is also key, there are many that have could counter to religion, Eurythro, Robert Green Ingersoll, humanism, Epicureanism the list of atheistic philosophies that have timeless reasons to be free is huge and could take your whole life to study.

10 Buddhism is an interesting example of how a faith system can behave, if founded on the right moral principles, at the end of the day, the humanitarian message of Buddha is not drowned out by theological crap like in xtianity. You could take away the doctrine of reincarnation and nirvana and it would still work. This is because it has self-evident virtue that doesn't need to be imposed by a deity or church for people to follow it. Secular Buddhism is a good idea and this principle is a good test of a faith in general. Does it function as a social system? Is there enough there to support itself rationally, philosophically and morally? Funnily enough this works for Judaism as well.

To conclude...

Moral values are moral values regardless of whether a god is behind them, that there is any connection between being a good and happy person and religion is just propaganda that even the non-theist subconsciously swallows. The majority that are part of xtianity are not to be shunned or attacked, however for the good of humanity several things need to be done.
There is in a sense a war between the rationalist and the believer, the believer wants power, the rationalist try's to limit that power, this is taking place on three fronts.

1 Separation of church and state
2 Separation of church and science
3 Separation of church as ethics

The first front is well covered, and is well known in America. The second features the creationists and IDiots trying to contaminate genuine science with theistic and metaphysical ideas. I follow this closely; you wouldn’t believe the nerve of these people. The third front is my speciality, I hate to see religions clinging to their monopoly on ethics, as if they had any claim at all to a purely humanitarian effort. How can one be humane with rules invented by a non human being and enforced by inhumane acts and laws? Providing religion is de-clawed in these 3 areas I am willing to tolerate it, but not as long as they seek to tell use how we should lead our lives, and what to think How far you go is up to you, remember never let them push you around, and your future kids are yours, not the states and not those of the dominate faith. Be proud your not a sheep, and that you are free to know the truth, as far as anyone can.

Ta ta for now. :p