Atheism and Health

[zippy2006]

Correct. Specifically, it says atheists have it better.

As in, the exact opposite of the thesis of this thread.

They confirm two hypotheses:

• H1. Atheists will report significantly lower average levels of mental and physical health problems compared to other secular individuals.
• H2. Religiously nonaffiliated theists will report significantly higher average levels of mental and physical health problems compared to both other secular individuals and religiously affiliated theists.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There is nothing profound about any of this.

Firstly, humans are a social species. Religious people tend to be happier and healthier not because there is anything special about religion, but because religion is (usually) a socially participatory activity. Religious congregations also provide social support networks.

Secondly, people who are healthy and happy tend to be more socially active, so of course you are going to find higher rates of reported health and happiness when you study socially active people, such as those who are actively involved in a religious congregation.

Thirdly, none of the links you shared provide convincing evidence that there is anything special about religious social activity in particular, with regard to mental or physical health. Some of them directly contradict your thesis. You asserted 'Non-Religion is associated with poorer mental health outcomes' immediately after sharing a link to a study, 'Secularity, religiosity, and health', the abstract of which contains the following:

Results indicate better physical health outcomes for atheists compared to other secular individuals and members of some religious traditions. Atheists also reported significantly lower levels of psychiatric symptoms (anxiety, paranoia, obsession, and compulsion) compared to both other seculars and members of most religious traditions.

I don't feel the need to elaborate.

All this data tells me is that as society at large becomes progressively less religious, there will have to be secular communities and support networks to replace religious ones. I'm privileged to be part of one, but the need is big, and is going to get bigger.

Did you miss my warning to actually read articles?

To take that article, within its abstract, the first line in fact, it states: "Extensive literature in the social and medical sciences link religiosity to positive health outcomes". Now, it then states better outcomes for Atheists against certain theists. What do we mean by this? Turns out, these are black Protestants and unaffiliated theists mostly. Catholics, most Protestants etc. outperform the non-religious depending on which factor we review, and obviously to be unaffiliated usually means a high degree of doubt and lack of devotion in that population, and the black Protestant churches are beholden to the general limitations to health of that group due to historic or structural factors and so. For lower anxiety and paranoia, that would be expected once certainty was achieved, so we see similarity to Fundamentalists, and the unaffiliated theists and the agnostic and secular scored much worse. So this atheist refers to a tiny hardcore subset of what is usually referred to as such, to see this other effect, of dubious significance. It looks nicer in an abstract, though. It is telling that it is not a formal conclusion.

That specific study was arguing that we need to divide the non-religious, as their results differed. However, its numbers are very small for these subdivisions, so the 'better than' is not terribly valid, I am afraid. We are looking at a miniscule amount, as the entirety in this study was 1714 respondants, with 'atheists' a minority thereof.

If you don't feel the need to elaborate, I won't further. Sufficed to say, there is no evidence to support it being down to social networks or support, that theists outperform the non-religious; and these atheists they reference are a tiny subset of the non-religious, from which precious little can be said on account of a limited sample. As even this study stated, there is no demonstrated mechanism to account for theists superiority to non-theists in health. They even state their atheists had high levels of civic participation vs the social disengagement of the unaffiliated theists, which certainly have health effects, but its significance is reported as unclear - though certainty and participation in community is hypothesised to play a role, this is far from all that is going on here.

These are complex issues. You can't just half-read one abstract and think you know what is going on. Rather read the meta-analyses in the OP. The only reason I included this study, was because it points to devotion being necessary, as in the poor showing of the unaffiliated, which is what it really followed in the OP.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

In one sense, yes. Many atheists I have read speak of how liberating it is to be free from dogma. To no longer have to hate people. To no longer be burdened with the crushing fear of hell. O the other hand, if you are able to ignore the contradictions in the Bible and just focus on the warm fuzy feeling of having a Big Friend always with you, I imagine that can be quite comforting.

Firstly, this is anecdotal. So, what can we actually find in studies?

Error - Cookies Turned Off
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-00526-001

So prejudice and "having to hate people" is common amongst atheists, just a different grouping. The 'tolerance' and openness is an artifact perhaps of what we are testing against. In fact, atheists have a very similar make-up to religious fundamentalists, which is why the "I was a bible-thumping evangelical who now makes disparaging atheist youtube clips" is so common. They are cut from the same cloth.

Psychological Distress Among Religious Nonbelievers: A Systematic Review

Psychological distress over death anxiety, or leaving behind, or so, is not improved. Existential certainty couples with decreased depressive symptoms it seems, which is hard for most non-theists to achieve. It goes back to that other study which subdivided the non-religious, that has been so misrepresented above. As I said, devotion is also required.

Anyway, your anecdotes don't appear consistently valid to type.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Did you miss my warning to actually read articles?

It doesn't do much good to warn your readers to 'read the articles' when they're behind a paywall. All they can read are the abstracts.

Having said that, I have actually read a few scholarly articles on the subject. And for anyone following this thread, here's a relevant article you can read for free Religion's Relationship to Happiness, Civic Engagement and Health

To take that article, within its abstract, the first line in fact, it states: "Extensive literature in the social and medical sciences link religiosity to positive health outcomes". Now, it then states better outcomes for Atheists against certain theists. What do we mean by this? Turns out, these are black Protestants and unaffiliated theists mostly. Catholics, most Protestants etc. outperform the non-religious depending on which factor we review, and obviously to be unaffiliated usually means a high degree of doubt and devotion in that population, and the black Protestant churches are beholden to the general limitations to health of that group due to historic or structural factors and so. For lower anxiety and paranoia, that would be expected once certainty was achieved, so we see similarity to Fundamentalists, and the unaffiliated theists and the agnostic and secular scored much worse. So this atheist refers to a tiny subset of what is usually referred to as such.

When you title a thread 'atheism and health', and you say something as bold as 'functionally, trying to advance atheism is akin to encouraging someone to take up smoking or to not have their kids vaccinated', then I'm going to take that to be your thesis. None of this supports that thesis.

That specific study was arguing that we need to divide the non-religious, as their results differed.

Then why aren't you doing that? Why are you using 'atheist' and general 'non-religious' interchangeably?

I submit it's because you are engaging in propaganda, whether consciously or not.

However, its numbers are very small for these subdivisions, so the 'better than' is not terribly valid, I am afraid. We are looking at a miniscule amount, as the entirety in this study was 1714 respondants, with 'atheists' a minority thereof.

So according to your own assessment, the atheist sample size is insignificant, and 'very little' can be said about it. In that case, the study is irrelevant to your thesis. Moving on.

Sufficed to say, there is no evidence to support it being down to social networks or support that theists outperform the non-religious

No, I don't think it's 'down to' that. I think it plays a very significant part, but there are other factors, such as the sense of purpose some people derive from religion, and the comfort it can provide in times of grief. Neither of which are exclusive to religion. Religion has just been the primary source of those things for much of human history.

These are complex issues.

They sure are. I suggest we start treating them as such. I think about it quite often.

What are we going to do to rework and/or replace the vast social and emotional support network provided by various religious congregations, that so many vulnerable people have depended on for much of human history? It's a huge task that humanity will have to confront if current trends continue.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It doesn't do much good to warn your readers to 'read the articles' when they're behind a paywall. All they can read are the abstracts.

I apologise. I don't know what is behind paywalls and what isn't. All these I can readily access.

Having said that, I have actually read a few scholarly articles on the subject. And for anyone following this thread, here's a relevant article you can read for free Religion's Relationship to Happiness, Civic Engagement and Health

Which agrees with what I said. Religion is correlated with happiness, but causation hasn't been demonstrated due to multiple factors. In like vein, being civically engaged also cannot be demonstrated causative. Regardless, being religious has health benefits, which was my point, as this concurs.

When you title a thread 'atheism and health', and you say something as bold as 'functionally, trying to advance atheism is akin to encouraging someone to take up smoking or to not have their kids vaccinated', then I'm going to take that to be your thesis. None of this supports that thesis.

You chose to take umbrage with the 4th study in the OP, ignoring the review article before that that specifically adressed 'my thesis': Religion and health: Is there an association, is it valid, and is it causal? - ScienceDirect

The 4th article followed where I was talking about theories clustering around certainty and devotion, which is where this study applied. It is far from the primary article in the OP, which certainly is not structured to highlight it. I can only conclude this is a selective critique.

Then why aren't you doing that? Why are you using 'atheist' and general 'non-religious' interchangeably?

I submit it's because you are engaging in propaganda, whether consciously or not.

Well, again, this 4th article wasn't an important article. I was merely using atheist as people are wont to do on these forums. It is a tad informal, but this was hardly an exercise in formal writing now.

No, I don't think it's 'down to' that. I think it plays a very significant part, but there are other factors, such as the sense of purpose some people derive from religion, and the comfort it can provide in times of grief. Neither of which are exclusive to religion. Religion has just been the primary source of those things for much of human history.

They sure are. I suggest we start treating them as such. I think about it quite often.

What are we going to do to rework and/or replace the vast social and emotional support network provided by various religious congregations, that so many vulnerable people have depended on for much of human history? It's a huge task that humanity will have to confront if current trends continue.

Well, nowhere have we demonstrated that this is due to a support network or such, to reiterate. This is just your opinion, and although this is the preferred explanation in secular circles, they have never been able to show it to be the case. Religious devotion however, is strongly correlated to health, a fact you cannot ignore. You can believe we only need to create a 'secular religion' of support structures if you wish, but there is precious little to support its validity. Similarly, bringing 'comfort' outside religion only occurs once you seem to dogmatically affirm atheism, and the existential anxiety is certainly not helped thereby.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I apologise. I don't know what is behind paywalls and what isn't. All these I can readily access.

So you're a subscriber to all those journals? That must be expensive.

Which agrees with what I said Religion is correlated with happiness, but causation hasn't been demonstrated due to multiple factors. In like vein, being civically engaged also cannot be demonstrated causative. Regardless, being religious has health benefits, which was my point, as this concurs.

'Being religious has health benefits' is a causal assertion. You and I both acknowledge that this article (and others) show a correlation between health and religiosity, but no demonstrative causal link. So no, it does not concur that.

And your point was quite a bit more than just that. You also asserted that atheism was unhealthy, calling it functionally equivalent to smoking and being anti-vax. That also is not in concurrence with this article. Or any article anywhere, save maybe a Christian propaganda website.

Well, again, this 4th article wasn't an important article.

Maybe you should remove it from the OP then.

Well, nowhere have we demonstrated that this is due to a support network or such, to reiterate. This is just your opinion, and although this is the preferred explanation in secular circles, they have never been able to show it to be the case.

Well shoot. Since their are no studies that specifically address it, I guess I'll just have to consider the facts that I have at my disposal.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that participating in a religious congregation is a social activity. It is a fact, not an opinion, that social activity is positively correlated to mental and physical health.

So how about let's just say, for now anyway, I'm going to conclude that religion is positively correlated to mental and physical health because all social activities are, rather than because there is something special about religion that imbues people with mental and physical health through some as yet undiscovered and undocumented means. Magic, one supposes.

Religious devotion however, is strongly correlated to health, a fact you cannot ignore.

I don't deny a correlation. I deny that there is any demonstrable causal link between the two, or between atheism and unhealthiness.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

So you're a subscriber to all those journals? That must be expensive.

I work at an academic hospital. I have institutional access to most medical journals.

Being religious has health benefits' is a causal assertion. You and I both acknowledge that this article (and others) show a correlation between health and religiosity, but no demonstrative causal link. So no, it does not concur that.

And your point was quite a bit more than just that. You also asserted that atheism was unhealthy, calling it functionally equivalent to smoking and being anti-vax. That also is not in concurrence with this article. Or any article anywhere, save maybe a Christian propaganda website.

You are being a bit disingenuous in your wording. We haven't shown it causal, but it being causal is very much a live possibility. Years and years of studies and attempts to find something, anything, other than religion to pin it on, have come up wanting. The correlation though is strong. So if your average atheist sees the light and joins a congregation, he will most likely have health benefits - even if we can't demonstrate exactly where they come from. There is a valid association, a true correlation, although a causal mechanism has not been found. I don't expect we'll ever find the latter, simply from the structure of our studies, as I think that is more a teleological factor than anything else.

Similarly, Atheism in denying whatever it is that gives health benefits, is associated with poor health though. We know something Christians are doing that Atheists are not, is healthy, and that is firmly empirically shown. If you alter Atheism to not do so, sure, but as it stands, Atheism is unhealthy currently.

Maybe you should remove it from the OP then

Why? It supported the point I was trying to make. You are the one elevating it as if it is the sole thing in the OP, misrepresenting it, and taking it out of context.

Well shoot. Since their are no studies that specifically address it, I guess I'll just have to consider the facts that I have at my disposal.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that participating in a religious congregation is a social activity. It is a fact, not an opinion, that social activity is positively correlated to mental and physical health.

So how about let's just say, for now anyway, I'm going to conclude that religion is positively correlated to mental and physical health because all social activities are, rather than because there is something special about religion that imbues people with mental and physical health through some as yet undiscovered and undocumented means. Magic, one supposes.

Studies have been done on the health benefits of social activity, and the advantages of religion cannot be purely ascribed to it. We are not working merely on opinion. You are welcome to yours, but it is not a well-supported one. If there wasn't something 'special' about religion, there would have been no reason to do study after study for years and years looking for a cause.

I don't deny a correlation. I deny that there is any demonstrable causal link between the two, or between atheism and unhealthiness.

We haven't shown a causal link, agreed. There is though a link between Atheism and being unhealthy, simply in that whatever is giving us the health benefit in religious practice, seems absent in current atheist practice. It is not that Atheism therefore causes poor health, but that something health promoting is not being done by Atheists. My smoking analogy was perhaps a bit much, but denying vaccines is more spot on, perhaps. It is akin to how a sedentary lifestyle is unhealthy, in that they are not exercising.

 

[Erik Nelson]

If God is not real, then all of the people who believe in Him have a fixed, false belief. QED.

It has been the well and widely known general experience of humanity for ages, that Heavenly Beings punish those on earth who offend Them ("stick"), and (potentially) reward those who obey Them ("carrot")

That constitutes widespread witness testimony evidence that Heavenly Powers have long been intervening into terrestrial events

If that was true, would you actually be surprised ?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You are being a bit disingenuous in your wording. We haven't shown it causal, but it being causal is very much a live possibility.

And when that can be demonstrated - AND shown to be an exclusive benefit of religion - won't we all have something to talk about.

Meanwhile, I think you've been disingenuous, playing with 'atheist' and general 'non-religious' interchangeably, as it suits your apologetic goal. And you are overplaying your hand as far as the benefits of congregational religion vs other socially engaging activities. It all smacks of propaganda to me.

Why? It supported the point I was trying to make.

It directly contradicted the assertion you made (and continue to make) about atheism.

Studies have been done on the health benefits of social activity, and the advantages of religion cannot be purely ascribed to it.

No one is claiming that. What I am claiming is that it's the most significant beneficial aspect of congregational religious practice that is actually demonstrable. And it is by no means exclusive to religion.

We are not working merely on opinion. You are welcome to yours, but it is not a well-supported one. If there wasn't something 'special' about religion, there would have been no reason to do study after study for years and years looking for a cause.

Well, shoot once more. I guess I am going to have to resort to the facts I have at my disposal to make an inductive inference.

Let us grant that there is some mystery beneficial aspect of congregational religion. Not social interaction, not grief counseling, not having your life's purpose prescribed for you (which to me is terrifying, but that's a different discussion)... something else. Some aspect that has a measurable, causally integrated effect, here in the real live, breathing world of humans, but is undefined and undocumented. We'll call it X.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that every single phenomenon that has ever been studied has turned out to have a naturalistic explanation for its cause, when sufficiently supported by critically robust evidence. Whereas, at no time anywhere, ever, has a 'supernatural' or 'magical' explanation arisen to provide sufficient explanatory power for anything.

So until such time as a workable epistemology and methodology for gathering, discerning, and demonstrating evidence for 'supernatural' causes is established, and that evidence is shown to conclusively point to a 'supernatural' explanation for X, I'm going to go ahead and hold to an inductive conclusion that whatever X is, it has a natural explanation. Which also means, it isn't exclusively applicable to religion.

And that's granting that X is a categorically distinct aspect unto itself. I think it's more likely that X is just a synthesis of other, already well established benefits, coupled with the fact that religion is just better at providing those benefits by virtue having been established for so long.

And this is all to say nothing of the theological implications. Even granting that X exists and that there is a 'supernatural' explanation for X, how do you account for congregations with beliefs that are mutually exclusive to one another, but all see the benefits of X? Is mere, generic 'belief' enough to appease this god (or gods) into rewarding people with *occasionally* detectable, exclusive benefits?

So if your average atheist sees the light and joins a congregation, he will most likely have health benefits - even if we can't demonstrate exactly where they come from.
......................
We haven't shown a causal link, agreed. There is though a link between Atheism and being unhealthy, simply in that whatever is giving us the health benefit in religious practice, seems absent in current atheist practice. It is not that Atheism therefore causes poor health, but that something health promoting is not being done by Atheists.

It's not a mystery what that missing thing is. It's the one benefit that is actually very well documented, demonstrable, and nearly universally applicable - socially engaging activity. A lot of atheists don't have the resources to be socially engaged in the same way, or in anywhere near the same numbers, as religious people. And a lot of them just don't engage in general, which is also a problem.

But yeah, granting its existence, we might also be missing X. Once you can identify X and provide evidence for its causal relationship to wellbeing, I'll start trying to encourage atheists to do more of that, too. For all we know, X might just be 'sitting in a pew'. You can be an atheist and still do that. I do it all the time.

My smoking analogy was perhaps a bit much,

'False' is the word you are looking for.

but denying vaccines is more spot on, perhaps. It is akin to how a sedentary lifestyle is unhealthy, in that they are not exercising.

Atheism isn't a lifestyle, so no. It's not comparable. It's a category error.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Meanwhile, I think you've been disingenuous, playing with 'atheist' and general 'non-religious' interchangeably, as it suits your apologetic goal. And you are overplaying your hand as far as the benefits of congregational religion vs other socially engaging activities. It all smacks of propaganda to me.

I just used atheist as commonly used by atheists nowadays. This is the danger of the modern sophistic tendency to conflate atheism and agnosticism that is so prevalent. Ah, well. Call it propaganda if you wish, but that stinks of Bulverism to me.

It directly contradicted the assertion you made (and continue to make) about atheism.

It certainly doesn't. You just continue to neglect to read it, and insist on continueing to misrepresent it. Even the abstract doesn't, so that you can't read the full article is no defence: Its first line is "Extensive literature in the social and medical sciences link religiosity to positive health outcome" and concludes with "These findings highlight the necessity of distinguishing among different types of secular individuals in future research on health", not the blanket statement of atheists being healthier you take it as. It fully acknowledges the health benefit of religiousity.

What I am claiming is that it's the most significant beneficial aspect of congregational religious practice that is actually demonstrable. And it is by no means exclusive to religion.

Citation? No evidence of this except supposition, from what I've read. I think you are grossly overplaying your hand, my friend. The benefits of social interaction is largely extrapolated from religious activity too. Especially seeing that most such studies focus on the elderly or depressed, the former being disproportionately religious, and the latter participation itself has markedly less effect than combined relugious participation has.

For instance, this review:
Social participation as an indicator of successful aging: an overview of concepts and their associations with health

As they note, it is not really possible to do a valid systematic or quantitative review. So please indicate how, and in what way, this is 'demonstrable'? You are being a bit silly.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that every single phenomenon that has ever been studied has turned out to have a naturalistic explanation for its cause, when sufficiently supported by critically robust evidence.

Ha ha. That is patent nonsense. Everything we have studied by naturalistic means for which we found a cause, had a naturalistic explanation - but that is simply tautology and circular reasoning. A lot of phenomena we have no cause for, and could not find one naturalistically as of yet. For instance, Consciousness, Memory, Sense perception, Pain, etc. Sure, we have things like Neural Correlates of Consciousness, or we can point to our sense organs or nerves and say these are probably associated with it, but we certainly have not 'found' a naturalistic cause - even with mountains of robust critical evidence, from fMRI, EEG, nerve conduction studies, etc. Take Pain, an almost universal human experience, which we are forced to define as the subjective experience of the patient, as no good marker exists with sufficient sensitivity or specificity. We can broadly correlate it to sympathetic activation of the blood pressure or pulse, say, or point to neuromodulation with things like Substance P, but that hardly points to anything. I'd go so far as to say, the association is weaker than between religion and health.

If you start with the assumption that everything must have a naturalistic explanation, you can certainly ascribe explanations or a cause, but at heart, these are not definite. Even more so, with things like having to ascribe Consciousness to airy-fairy ideas like 'Emergent Properties' (meaning we can't show how, but surely it must lie in the nervous tissue in some manner?), this is more often than not an exercise in circular reasoning. We can't even fully show how a person breathes spontaneously, so you give far too much credence to the efficacy of a science of the gaps.

Please. Science is an exercise in induction, while Medicine prefers deduction. By neither methodology can any sort of cogent argument be made for your facile statement.

Whereas, at no time anywhere, ever, has a 'supernatural' or 'magical' explanation arisen to provide sufficient explanatory power for anything.

This is just an assumption based on the model you are applying, which gives a superior credence to empiric observation on no stronger grounds than the axiomatic. A product of our schooling, I suppose.

This is though a misunderstanding more than anything else. For instance, Gravity is not directly observed or measured, but inferred from accelaration, or weight, and associated with mass. We can't really say what it 'is', anymore than we can for something like energy. So a mysterious 'force' or interaction whose effects we note but cannot observe directly, is somehow naturalistic and deemed of sufficient explanatory power. There is a reason why great minds like Aristotle or Galileo struggled with this, using the same basic observations, prior to Newton. Quite a lot that passes as Scientific explanation is quite magical, I can assure you, though we forget it due to familiarity and the quotidian nature it has taken on. We uphold a bit of a double standard, in a lot of things.

It's not a mystery what that missing thing is. It's the one benefit that is actually very well documented, demonstrable, and nearly universally applicable - socially engaging activity.

No evidence to support this beyond opinion. Again, citation?

Is mere, generic 'belief' enough to appease this god (or gods) into rewarding people with *occasionally* detectable, exclusive benefits?

I think you mean consistently detectable benefits. Certainly that is something to look in to. However, as I stated, most of these studies are from WEIRD countries, so we are mostly dealing with Christianity and to a lesser extent Judaism. Such things need to be repeated in other areas, though the lack of religious freedom in the Middle East or China, or India's growing Hindu nationalism, complicates such and acts as confounding factors. At the moment though, I have no reason to think any kind of theological problem is evident, and even then, I believe in one God, who is the source of all good. It isn't an either/or situation, in that all human religious activity is obviously therefore directed at the same source, no matter how misguided it may be, and if we are looking at a teleological factor intrinsic to the human organism here, I would expect other religions to also show some health benefit.

Atheism isn't a lifestyle, so no. It's not comparable. It's a category error.

Atheism is a lifestyle if your excuse for its demonstrated poorer health outcomes is lack of social engagement, and seek to rectify it by created atheistic social networks. In essence, you create a 'community' to measure against the theistic one. You are simply engaged in hairsplitting, if not sophistry.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I would just point out once more, health is a negatively defined property. We define what is healthy, by what does not result in disease or pathology, or prevents it - usually measured against an idealised conception of a normal range of physiological functioning. Atheism does not prevent any pathology and functional decline, and by definition, it is the state contrary to one that does to all practible purposes (even if we cannot isolate what specific properties thereof is responsible for it). From a public health perspective therefore, atheism is undesirable and thus unhealthy.

So denying vaccines to your children, or a sedentary lifestyle, are close analogies on grounds of ommission of health promoting activity. Encouraging atheism would be the equivalent of encouraging smoking, as you are encouraging a bodily state contrary to optimum functioning, though it is of course not a perfect analogy in that case. Atheism might not directly result in depression say (though that is debatable), but prohibit seeking anti-depressive factors of religion too; akin to how smoking does not just have carcinogens, but disrupts the body's mechanisms to clear abnormally growing cells perhaps.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here, as people are generally confused about what healthy or unhealthy means, which I tried to prevent by starting with that in the OP, which seems to have largely been ignored.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I just used atheist as commonly used by atheists nowadays.
.......................................................
It certainly doesn't. You just continue to neglect to read it, and insist on continueing to misrepresent it. Even the abstract doesn't, so that you can't read the full article is no defence: Its first line is "Extensive literature in the social and medical sciences link religiosity to positive health outcome" and concludes with "These findings highlight the necessity of distinguishing among different types of secular individuals in future research on health", not the blanket statement of atheists being healthier you take it as. It fully acknowledges the health benefit of religiousity.

You need to pick your battle.

Firstly, no one is denying the correlation between congregational religion and health, so you can stop coming back to that. I'm focusing on your assertion about the unhealthiness of atheism here.

Are you or are you not attempting to make a point about the unhealthiness of atheists, differentiated from generic 'non-religious' people, yes or no?

If yes, then:

Either this study is showing the opposite of your assertion about atheists,
OR
As you have suggested previously, the atheists in this study represent a statistically insignificant sample, about which 'very little can be said', in which case it is irrelevant to your assertion.

If no, then:

You are disingenuously using 'atheist' and generic 'non-religious' interchangeably, as it suits your apologetic.

Citation?

Citation for what? That socially engaging activities are correlated to health, or that participating in a congregational religion is a social activity? I had assumed this whole time that we agreed on both of those.

Ha ha. That is patent nonsense. Everything we have studied by naturalistic means for which we found a cause, had a naturalistic explanation
..................
If you start with the assumption that everything must have a naturalistic explanation, you can certainly ascribe explanations or a cause, but at heart, these are not definite.
..................
Please. Science is an exercise in induction, while Medicine prefers deduction. By neither methodology can any sort of cogent argument be made for your facile statement.

I certainly do not start with that assumption. The assumption I start with is that X has either a natural or a supernatural explanation. I think it's safe to say that within the discourse we are engaging in, that is a true dichotomy.

Therefor,

Either X has a natural explanation, in which case it is open to scientific scrutiny.
OR
X has a supernatural explanation, in which case it would categorically not be open to scientific scrutiny. You would then have to provide a means of reliably gleaning supernatural information in order to say anything about it.

And, my statement was correct - every single phenomenon that has ever been studied has turned out to have a naturalistic explanation for its cause, when sufficiently supported by critically robust evidence. Those things for which we don't have sufficient evidence, remain in the category of 'unknown'.

That is not the same as asserting 'all phenomena have a natural explanation', which is not an assertion I have ever made, or would make. All I've done is made an inductive inference based on the facts I have at my disposal.

I would love to hear a counterexample, if you think you have one. Not 'here's something science hasn't explained', but 'here is something meaningfully and substantively explained by the supernatural'. While you're at it, you can provide a positive, coherent definition of the 'supernatural', and the means by which you gleaned information about it. Careful not to borrow anything from any naturalistic means when you do so.

And this is all granting that X is a distinct aspect unto itself, rather than a synthesis of other aspects.

No evidence to support this beyond opinion. Again, citation?

Again I have to ask, for what specifically? That socially engaging activities are correlated to health, or that atheists do not have the same resources for socially engaging activities that the religious do?

I think you mean consistently detectable benefits. Certainly that is something to look in to. However, as I stated, most of these studies are from WEIRD countries, so we are mostly dealing with Christianity and to a lesser extent Judaism. Such things need to be repeated in other areas, though the lack of religious freedom in the Middle East or China, or India's growing Hindu nationalism, complicates such and acts as confounding factors. At the moment though, I have no reason to think any kind of theological problem is evident, and even then, I believe in one God, who is the source of all good. It isn't an either/or situation, in that all human religious activity is obviously therefore directed at the same source, no matter how misguided it may be, and if we are looking at a teleological factor intrinsic to the human organism here, I would expect other religions to also show some health benefit.

You're gonna have some pretty skewed data from those other places. I'm privileged to live in the US, where I only have asinine false analogies made about me on web forums, and only occasionally have to deal with zealots. They fine, imprison, torture, and murder us in a lot of Muslim majority countries, so I dare say you're going to see some pretty sad atheists, in the event you are able to find any willing to out themselves to researchers.

But, sticking strictly with Yahweh/Bible 'God'...you think the differences in Catholicism, the various stripes of Protestantism, Judaism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormonism (the HAPPIEST of them all) don't bother him, and he's content to give out the same benefits to everyone as long as they get the bare minimum correct? That's not theologically problematic to you? I can't say you're 'wrong', because I don't think there is a 'right'. It's just surprising. Judging by the arguments I occasionally eves-drop on in the 'Christians only' sections of this forum, that would put you in the minority by far, at least among users on this forum.

Atheism is a lifestyle if your excuse for its demonstrated poorer health outcomes is lack of social engagement

Lifestyle is a choice. Being unconvinced of the existence of gods is not a choice. And once again, most of us don't have the resources to socially engage at anywhere near the rate that religious people do, and we're not surrounded by a larger community that emboldens us to do so. Especially in poor communities and small towns, where church is often by far the largest and most easily accessible resource for that, and sometimes the only resource. Thankfully, that is changing. Slowly.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

As you have suggested previously, the atheists in this study represent a statistically insignificant sample, about which 'very little can be said', in which case it is irrelevant to your assertion.

Again, it isn't irrelevant as the point is about the benefits of devotion and the psychologic theories clustering around ideas of certainty. Which is what it followed in the OP. It isn't the Atheists only, as much as the lessened effect of unaffiliated theists or the non-religious. I never hung my entire thread on this one study, but was illustrating another aspect of it. We have been over this, and your continual insistence to misrepresent here is trying my patience.

Citation for what? That socially engaging activities are correlated to health, or that participating in a congregational religion is a social activity? I had assumed this whole time that we agreed on both of those.

Again I have to ask, for what specifically? That socially engaging activities are correlated to health, or that atheists do not have the same resources for socially engaging activities that the religious do?

You said: "what I am claiming is that [social interaction is] the most significant beneficial aspect of congregational religious practice that is actually demonstrable. And it is by no means exclusive to religion."

I pointed out that we have not divorced this from religion, nor that it is the 'most significant beneficial aspect of congregational religious practice that is actually demonstrable'. I can only conclude you are being abtuse.

Anyway, the strongest health effects are coupled more to devotionary practices than attendance of institutional religion. I'll look for the relevant study when I have time.

I certainly do not start with that assumption. The assumption I start with is that X has either a natural or a supernatural explanation. I think it's safe to say that within the discourse we are engaging in, that is a true dichotomy.

Therefor,

Either X has a natural explanation, in which case it is open to scientific scrutiny.
OR
X has a supernatural explanation, in which case it would categorically not be open to scientific scrutiny. You would then have to provide a means of reliably gleaning supernatural information in order to say anything about it.

And, my statement was correct - every single phenomenon that has ever been studied has turned out to have a naturalistic explanation for its cause, when sufficiently supported by critically robust evidence. Those things for which we don't have sufficient evidence, remain in the category of 'unknown'.

That is not the same as asserting 'all phenomena have a natural explanation', which is not an assertion I have ever made, or would make. All I've done is made an inductive inference based on the facts I have at my disposal.

I would love to hear a counterexample, if you think you have one. Not 'here's something science hasn't explained', but 'here is something meaningfully and substantively explained by the supernatural'. While you're at it, you can provide a positive, coherent definition of the 'supernatural', and the means by which you gleaned information about it. Careful not to borrow anything from any naturalistic means when you do so.

And this is all granting that X is a distinct aspect unto itself, rather than a synthesis of other aspects.

This is a pointless observation, as I said. It is simply a circular argument, that having sufficient 'robust evidence' which is largely naturalistic, we find naturalistic causes, and if we haven't yet, it is just insufficient evidence. I frankly fail to see the point you are trying to make. I cannot prove the supernatural by naturalistic means per defitionem, but that is hardly what I was doing here or even defending. You are tilting at windmills. I was pointing out that by naturalistic means, medical studies, religion is healthy and atheism not so much - by empirically measurable end-points. Our data is insufficient currently to tell us why this is so by naturalistic means. Your argument amounts to simply assuming that it must have some cause outside religion, and appealing to the mistaken argument that just because my method must result in a certain type of result, such a result must exist. As I said, I don't think we ever will show the cause, due to the limitations in our methodology, hence my inference that it might be a teleological factor innate to man at play here.

But, sticking strictly with Yahweh/Bible 'God'...you think the differences in Catholicism, the various stripes of Protestantism, Judaism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormonism (the HAPPIEST of them all) don't bother him, and he's content to mete out the same benefits to everyone as long as they get the bare minimum correct?

Not at all what I said. As I told another poster, I would not ascribe this effect to a reward or punishment from God, but that the innate functioning of the human organism works best under certain criteria - an ideal state as it were - that includes religion.

Lifestyle is a choice. Being unconvinced of the existence of gods is not a choice. And once again, most of us don't have the resources to socially engage at anywhere near the rate that religious people do, and we're not surrounded by a larger community that emboldens us to do so. Especially in poor communities and small towns, where church is often by far the largest and most easily accessible resource for that, and sometimes the only resource. Thankfully, that is changing. Slowly.

Ok. Again I am awaiting that evidence on it being mostly about social participation that does not amount to merely supposition or question-begging. Promoting atheism or opposing religion are choices though, that are both deleterious to other people's health - like second hand smoking.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I never hung my entire thread on this one study, but was illustrating another aspect of it.

I'm not obligated to only address your intended outcome. If you share a source that contradicts some assertion you made - yes, even if it's in some other part of your post - I'm going to point it out.

You said: "what I am claiming is that [social interaction is] the most significant beneficial aspect of congregational religious practice that is actually demonstrable. And it is by no means exclusive to religion."

I pointed out that we have not divorced this from religion, nor that it is the 'most significant beneficial aspect of congregational religious practice that is actually demonstrable'. I can only conclude you are being abtuse.

I think you mean obtuse, and no. I think if anyone were tasked with finding articles and studies on the social benefits of congregational religion, it would be extremely easy, and comparatively difficult to find articles on any teleological factor, save for religious opinion pieces. That is all I mean to say, and I invite anyone reading along (probably no one at this point) to try it themselves.

Anyway, the strongest health effects are coupled more to devotionary practices than attendance of institutional religion. I'll look for the relevant study when I have time.

Sounds interesting. I look forward to seeing it, and I hope it's not behind a paywall (things are rather tight, given today's circumstances).

But you still will not have identified a factor that is exclusive to theistic religion, and necessarily exclusive of atheism, and your analogies will still be failures.

Our data is insufficient currently to tell us why this is so by naturalistic means.

And yet, that is apparently not enough to dissuade you from your hobby of making crappy analogies. I wish it was.

As I said, I don't think we ever will show the cause, due to the limitations in our methodology, hence my inference that it might be a teleological factor innate to man at play here.

My inference is that it's probably a synthesis of factors, possibly including some that we haven't accounted for yet. Perhaps someday we'll see.

Or I should say, perhaps I will see. You will never know if your inference is correct.

Not at all what I said. As I told another poster, I would not ascribe this effect to a reward or punishment from God, but that the innate functioning of the human organism works best under certain criteria - an ideal state as it were - that includes religion.

That doesn't make a difference to the point. If religion, Judeo-Christian in particular, and its rewards are part of the 'innate functioning of the human organism', then Yahweh must have created humans as such, apparently without any regard for which flavor of Christianity or Judaism they ascribe to.

But then, maybe I shouldn't say he is without any regard. He apparently accepts all flavors, but likes Mormons the best.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm not obligated to only address your intended outcome. If you share a source that contradicts some assertion you made - yes, even if it's in some other part of your post - I'm going to point it out.

It really doesn't though, as I have pointed out ad nauseam, so this is just continued willful ignorance.

I think you mean obtuse, and no. I think if anyone were tasked with finding articles and studies on the social benefits of congregational religion, it would be extremely easy, and comparatively difficult to find articles on any teleological factor, save for religious opinion pieces. That is all I mean to say, and I invite anyone reading along (probably no

No, you made a claim that social interaction is the most demonstrable benefit and shown separate from religion, which is false. You are just obfuscating.

As I stated before, our methodology precludes investigation of teleological factors, so this is again a pointless statement. As if saying a cat can't win the Westminster Dog Show and therefore it is not a good cat; or because we can't fully describe flight by Bernoulli's principle or Newton, heavier than air flying must be impossible.

My inference is that it's probably a synthesis of factors, possibly including some that we haven't accounted for yet. Perhaps someday we'll see.

Or I should say, perhaps I will see. You will never know if your inference is correct.

Many many years of people thinking along those lines have made no headway, while the data supportive of the strong association between health and religion keeps piling up. Obviously though, there are always multiple factors to take account of. You are really not talking from strength, but believe what you wish.

That doesn't make a difference to the point. If religion, Judeo-Christian in particular, and its rewards are part of the 'innate functioning of the human organism', then Yahweh must have created humans as such, apparently without any regard for which flavor of Christianity or Judaism they ascribe to.

But then, maybe I shouldn't say he is without any regard. He apparently accepts all flavors, but likes Mormons the best.

Frankly I don't understand what point you are trying to make. If God created man to have some form of relation to Him, then all religions seen as attempts to do so, would have salutary effects. The Bible is quite clear on the fact that God makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust, so yes. Besides, flavours of Judaism or Christianity are irrelevant when weighed against communion with the living God. Our human categories are not necessarily divine ones, and Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats. So there is no theological issue, and I don't see what on earth you are trying to get at? It seems merely a lack of understanding on your part.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Maybe not but it does point out that both the quality and quantity of life is better for the theist which is something promised to them and is statistically verifiable.

Can you give sufficient evidence that a god exists? What if I told you that believing in big foot will give you a better life? Would or could you do that?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

How pray tell, can Atheism show anything true?

Atheism cannot show anything true, it is just a lack of belief in a god. It says nothing about anything else.

We simply cannot absolutely do so, but the prevaling mechanism favoured by Atheists is an empiric or pragmatic approach - Science must be on to something, as planes fly and computers work - or somesuch argument. Here we have pragmatic evidence of religion as a boon to man.

I agree absolute certainty is not attainable. We can know with high degree of certainty why planes fly and computers work. The theory can be derived and can be supported by demonstration. It is not a pragmatic approach but an evidenced based approach. I am not convinced religion has been a boon to man.

But tell me, why would it matter what was true or not? Why are you valueing truth here, if the end result would be a more miserable life?

I value true beliefs over false beliefs. I am not convinced that religion leads to a better life. Many will argue against that including myself. How is that determined? It is beneficial to believe true things over false things. Believing a car can fly by filling it with helium is foolish and dangerous. Believing vaccinations are harmful against all evidence has a negative affect on individuals and society. Can you give sufficient evidence to believe a god exists?

Seems to me that if you are assuming a materialist existence, as most modern atheists are, chasing an ethereal invented human concept like Truth (in such a model of reality) really has no purpose and only deleterious effects. In essence, it is a delusion, a fixed false belief, to such. Invoking Paschal's wager, not only would it thus make sense to bet on religion for the afterlife, but even for the here and now, seeing pragmatic health benefits are evident.

I or anyone cannot choose to believe something. I need to be convinced by evidence. Even if believing in god has better health affects I cannot believe god exists without sufficient evidence. Do you have any?

 

[LoG]

Can you give sufficient evidence that a god exists?

It is not for me to give you sufficient evidence that a god exists. All I can do is share my own testimony which you may or may not accept as enough of a substantiation to consider doing your own experiment. I do have confidence that if you did follow the methodology that I did with the same fervor and willingness, you would likely find the evidence you seek.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It is not for me to give you sufficient evidence that a god exists. All I can do is share my own testimony which you may or may not accept as enough of a substantiation to consider doing your own experiment. I do have confidence that if you did follow the methodology that I did with the same fervor and willingness, you would likely find the evidence you seek.

Can God convince me he exists and is moral?

 

[LoG]

Can God convince me he exists and is moral?

Depends how close minded you are and whether you are willing to seek. Out of curiosity, by who or what measure of morality are you going to compare His morality to?