David Sloan Wilson: "Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion"

[andyandy]

No, it's not. All it shows is that the verbalisation of the subjective degree of happiness someone experiences is positively correlated with religiosity. Since there is no clear objective basis on which two persons' happiness index can be ascertained, let alone compared, it could be something as simple as a semantic effect at work where words are understood slightly differently. Or perhaps naturally happier people or more content people or people of more stable moods have a greater affinity for religion.

Consequently, it is invalid to infer that the correlation implies a genuine benefit to the believer, and a perceived benefit suffers from issues of subjectivity.

'Luthon64

whilst i admire your attempt with the semantics idea, it requires that we accept that religious vs non religious people actually understand the English language significantly differently from one another - this is a rather remarkable claim

On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited.

would you really expect a religious individual to have a different understanding of "happy" "active" "sociable" "involved" and "excited" than a non-religious one?

the second suggestion certainly has more merit - that naturally happier people have a greater affinity towards religion - however this in itself is rather remarkable and does beg the question as to why this would be.

and I don't think you can gain much traction through dismissing any perceived benefit as "not genuine" - ones' perception of happiness is ones' happiness

Given the remarkable nature of the alternatives, it would seem more likely to me that religion itself is responsible - for this requires as its most mundane explanation something as simple as the religious provision of a social network...

 

[Anacoluthon64]

whilst i admire your attempt with the semantics idea, it requires that we accept that religious vs non religious people actually understand the English language significantly differently from one another

Not at all. First, it was just one of a few suggested explanatory possibilities. Second, it has much less to do with any "significant difference" in understanding of a common language than with the way people often use different words to say similar things (or vice versa). Third, describing a subjective experience is especially susceptible to "talking past one another" because such a description is not the same as directly sharing the experience itself. This problem often lies at the root of misunderstandings. How would you propose to compare the happiness of two people both of whom say, "On a scale of one to ten, my happiness is about eight right now?" How can you possibly show that "a happiness of eight out of ten" means the same to both those people? And since it seems impossible to provide an objective framework or yardstick for a proper evaluation, the numerical scale merely serves to obscure the fact that the pronouncement is just as meaningful as saying, "quite happy."

Finally, it is peripheral to the point that the suggested conclusion cannot be validly drawn from the study.

'Luthon64

 

[Meadmaker]

BTW, why is it if he disagrees with Dawkins on this particular point - a point he's studied in depth and Dawkins hasn't - you refer to him as "supposedly being atheist"?

This is something that really bugs me around here. Please, people, don't assume that if someone defends religion, in some way, that they are religious.

 

[Meadmaker]

What I find interesing is that Wilson's article represents some good, real, science, albeit in an area difficult to study. Psychology and sociology are difficult to study because you can't easily conduct controlled experiments, and because the nature of the subject matter might make people deliberately distort the data. (i.e. perhaps a religious person might say that he is "supposed" to be happy, so he says he is). However, there is a whole lot of data available, from a whole lot of sources, that say there are benefits to religion. That, to me, is an interesting finding.

A reasonable, scientific, approach to that data would be to suggest that there is, possibly, an alternative explanation for the correlation, and suggest some means by which a genuine benefit from religion might be distinguished from a benefit of, for example, fitting into the societal norms, which have traditionally been religious.

An unreasonable, unscientific, approach would be to say, "We know religion sucks, so I don't believe the data."

I think we've seen a mixture of those two approaches in this thread.

 

[andyandy]

Second, it has much less to do with any "significant difference" in understanding of a common language than with the way people often use different words to say similar things (or vice versa).

They were using a rating system based on the words given - and thus if you wish to pursue this argument it does require a significantly different interpretation of the given words. A remarkable claim.

Third, describing a subjective experience is especially susceptible to "talking past one another" because such a description is not the same as directly sharing the experience itself. This problem often lies at the root of misunderstandings. How would you propose to compare the happiness of two people both of whom say, "On a scale of one to ten, my happiness is about eight right now?"

but this fails to explain the significant difference over thousands of data sets - and in any case as i mentioned before, a person's perception of happiness is their happiness. It is necessarily subjective but that does not preclude the possibility of comparing individuals' measures.

How can you possibly show that "a happiness of eight out of ten" means the same to both those people? And since it seems impossible to provide an objective framework or yardstick for a proper evaluation, the numerical scale merely serves to obscure the fact that the pronouncement is just as meaningful as saying, "quite happy."

Again you're just dismissing the actual significant results of the survey. If this yardstick was of no meaning then how do you explain the significant differences exhibited between different groups?

Finally, it is peripheral to the point that the suggested conclusion cannot be validly drawn from the study.

It would appear to me the more likely given the more remarkable claims required for the alternative explanations.

 

[andyandy]

What I find interesing is that Wilson's article represents some good, real, science, albeit in an area difficult to study. Psychology and sociology are difficult to study because you can't easily conduct controlled experiments, and because the nature of the subject matter might make people deliberately distort the data. (i.e. perhaps a religious person might say that he is "supposed" to be happy, so he says he is). However, there is a whole lot of data available, from a whole lot of sources, that say there are benefits to religion. That, to me, is an interesting finding.

A reasonable, scientific, approach to that data would be to suggest that there is, possibly, an alternative explanation for the correlation, and suggest some means by which a genuine benefit from religion might be distinguished from a benefit of, for example, fitting into the societal norms, which have traditionally been religious.

An unreasonable, unscientific, approach would be to say, "We know religion sucks, so I don't believe the data."

I think we've seen a mixture of those two approaches in this thread.

I agree completely.

 

[Faithkills]

you saw no evidence in the three articles to support the notion that religion may have some benefit to people? It's not a "wall of opinion" it's a number of scientific studies. There is a difference.

Again, please show me the data to back up these scientific studies? All I saw was a wall of opinion. There was no data to be found. Please point me at the data to back up this wall of opinion.

you want to discuss your studies showing lower divorce rates, and yet you still are unprepared to actually address the studies referenced in the articles showing increased happiness and decreased risk of suicide/depression? Unbelievable. I'm happy to look at evidence from both sides, your myopia on the other hand is rather apparent.

No you have shown nothing but people opining on data which you do not show. I looked. I'm not interested in opinion. I'm sure there is some data somewhere but I'd like to see it to see if it does indeed show what they opine that it shows. Until then the opinion is unsubstantiated you're still barking up the appeal to authority tree.

On the other hand, the things I mentioned all have data available which is easy to find, as I see you did. To be addressed in the next post.

 

[Herzblut]

This is something that really bugs me around here. Please, people, don't assume that if someone defends religion, in some way, that they are religious.

Absolutely. Thank you for posting against this ugly notion!

The stance is discriminative in at least two ways. Firstly, it discredits a group of people per se only based on their view of the world. A group being massively bigger than the own one, btw. Secondly, it assigns the disputant to this group, thereby questioning his/her reputation.

I think, this is a particularly nasty poissoning of the well.

Herzblut

 

[Faithkills]

Firstly we need to look at the data religious vs non-religious, not religious vs atheist - so your claims immediately set up an incorrect comparison. But leaving that to one side, as just a thoughtless slip, we can certainly look at the stats for religious vs non religious.

Agreed, I would like to know this too.

..which looks less trustworthy a source than wiki - no cites, no verifiable sources for claims, just a webpage with some claims based on an email that we have to take at face value....i hope you've got something better than this in mind

Do you dispute the data? I'm pretty sure someone did and would have posted that this data was not from the FBP.

which makes the data much less clear cut. We're interested in religious vs non-religious not religious vs atheist and so the figure we actually want is buried within that 19.9% figure.

however as a counter argument, this is much more substancial....

a UK government 30 page pdf on religion and prison

So people with no religion would appear twice as likely to be incarcerated.

Unfortunately all these counters depend upon grouping unknown into non-religious which is bad science at best and specious at worst. The UK study doesn't even have an unknown, so one must presume if you didn't answer you got a no religion stamp, which is entirely inaccurate for reasons I would have thought I didn't think I need to explain to you.

Why are you even going there?

Though interestingly from the UK study:

"Inmates with No religion formed an important minority at around 30% of the total population. Only 1% of these were Agnostics and Atheists. The remainder had no stated religious affiliation."

They didn't answer the question so they got grouped with no religion. Grouping them with christian would have been just as valid. (In fact thats what the US army did to me, I didn't answer so I was considered christian/other)

It's bad science not to have a 'no answer' or 'unknown' category.

"Inmates with No religion were most likely to be young (under 30 years) white males on short sentences (of less than three years)"

"Another group with proportionately low representation among
inmates serving life was No religion, of whom only 7% were serving a life
sentence."

"The main difference between the religious composition of receptions and that of the general prison population is in the proportion of individuals with No religion (Figures 1 and 7). Among receptions this proportion was 37%, compared with 31-32% of individuals with No religion in the general prison population. The resulting shortfall in prisoners with a religious affiliation was equally distributed among the religious groups. The higher level of No religion can be ascribed to the large number of prisoners on short sentences who inflate the receptions figures as described above."

So even if you could make the link it's hardly saying what you want.

suicide,
death setences,
happiness,
depression,
incarceration

the evidence hasn't fitted your claims.

Including unknown in any category is erroneous, sorry.

 

[andyandy]

Do you dispute the data? I'm pretty sure someone did and would have posted that this data was not from the FBP.

yes i think it's a poor source - and your reasons is a very poor reason to believe it's genuine.
And like I mentioned the figure we actually want is buried in the 19.9% figure and so this is of no use.

I wasn't expecting an affirmative answer when i asked "is this all you've got?" But it's beginning to look like perhaps this is all you've got

Unfortunately all these counters depend upon grouping unknown into non-religious which is bad science at best and specious at worst. The UK study doesn't even have an unknown, so one must presume if you didn't answer you got a no religion stamp, which is entirely inaccurate for reasons I would have thought I didn't think I need to explain to you.

Prisoners have to make a proactive choice as to how they answer to "religion?" - "no religion" is a proactive choice. there is actually another "not recorded" box and a "not recognised" box so your comment is unfounded.

Inmates with No religion formed an important minority at around 30% of the total population. Only 1% of these were Agnostics and Atheists. The remainder had no stated religious affiliation.

Interesting but not relevant as we're looking at religion vs non-religion.

They didn't answer the question so they got grouped with no religion.

Not true. the data for 1999 and 2000 includes "not recorded" - and in any case these numbers are neglible. Do you just make things up to support your already drawn conclusions?

It's bad science not to have a 'no answer' or 'unknown' category.

they have a "not recorded" category. This is sufficient for the Uk government national statistics office

So even if you could make the link it's hardly saying what you want.

disingenous beyond belief. You make the claim that religious vs non-religious are more likely to be incarcerated. I show you evidence that non-religious are twice as likely to be incarcerated. That's what I wanted to show.

 

[andyandy]

In any case I'm waiting all this evidence that you've been promising me. You're a "stickler" for it aren't you? Because we're now on post ~90 and you've yet to give any evidence for any opinion.

 

[andyandy]

Again, please show me the data to back up these scientific studies? All I saw was a wall of opinion. There was no data to be found. Please point me at the data to back up this wall of opinion.

good grief. Here is a peer reviewed study which appeared in Medical-Health

Philadelphia–Depressed seniors who believe their life is guided by a larger spiritual force have significantly fewer symptoms of depression than those who do not use religious coping strategies. Moreover, this relationship is independent of the amount of social support those individuals receive, according to results of a prospective study presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

"This is a pretty remarkable study–and when you see these kind of data coming out from both medical and psychiatric populations, it’s hard to continue ignoring religion as a variable in the recovery from depression," said Harold G. Koenig, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

According to study author Hayden Bosworth, PhD, attempts in the literature to distinguish the effects of religion from the effects of social support on depression have led to mixed success (Husaini BA et al. Int J Aging Hum Dev 1999;48:63-72). Dr. Bosworth, associate director, health services research and development, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and his colleagues attempted to address the issue by examining the effects of religious practices, coping mechanisms and social support on recovery among individuals diagnosed with major depression.

The research team assessed all patients (n=114; average age, 67.5 years) using the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at baseline and at the end of six months. They also asked each patient about the extent of their religious practices and religious coping (Table).

The results indicated that higher patient-reported levels of religious practice correlated with significantly lower MADRS scores at baseline (P <0.02), after adjusting for covariates such as social support. However, the analysis of 90 patients at the six-month follow-up showed that religious practice did not significantly predict lower MADRS scores after adjusting for other factors (P <0.08).

The analysis also revealed higher levels of positive religious coping were related to lower MADRS scores at baseline (P=0.03). Moreover, positive religious coping significantly predicted lower MADRS scores at six months (P <0.03).

The investigators reported that higher levels of negative religious coping were associated with higher MADRS scores at baseline (P=0.02), although similar findings did not appear at six months.

"These results indicate that clinicians should encourage reconnection with religion as a way of coping in patients whose spirituality has been important to them," concluded Dr. Bosworth.

"Physicians need to pay attention to their patients’ religious beliefs and practices," added Dr. Koenig. "Rather than continuing to see it as a liability or unhealthy crutch, they should see it as a potential strength in overcoming depression."

http://www.mental-health-today.com/articles/spirituality.htm

is this not data? I am staggered by your continued protestations.

 

[andyandy]

The last article is from the medical journal of australia
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_10_201100/hassed/hassed.html - it's not some spotty teenager speculating on the web - Appeal to Authority! - no we've already covered this.

Many studies have linked a lack of religiosity to depression. Religious commitment is associated with a reduced incidence of depression13 and a quicker recovery from depressive illness for the elderly.15 Two separate reviews of the literature have supported this: those with high levels of "religious involvement", "religious salience" and "intrinsic religious motivation" were at reduced risk,14 and religious commitment was inversely related to suicide risk in 13 of 16 studies reviewed.13 One study showed a fourfold increased risk of suicide for non-churchgoers compared with regular attenders,22 and no study has shown an increased risk of suicide among churchgoers.

Other data suggest that religiosity protects against drug and alcohol misuse, one of the most commonly used and maladaptive ways for dealing with depression. One study showed that 89% of alcoholics (but only 20% of the control group) had lost interest in religious issues during their teenage years.20 In another study it was found that doctors (who are a high-risk group for substance misuse) were less likely to develop an alcohol problem in later life if they had had a religious commitment while in medical school.21 Religious affiliation, even if accompanied by alcohol misuse, seemed to protect against heavy use or the associated extreme clinical and social consequences.

The reasons why people with a sense of religious commitment are less likely to become depressed may include a feeling of social connectedness, exposure to messages about healthy living, or perhaps the reduced exposure to drug-taking behaviour. However, studies controlling for these factors have still found religiosity to be independently protective. So there may be other reasons, such as the comfort that comes from believing in a benevolent and caring God, the view that justice always prevails in the end, or that adverse events always have a meaning and a message. Such attitudes would buffer enormously against the ill-effects of life stresses and the depression that often follows.

The important role that mental health plays in the development and progression of physical illness goes part way to explaining why religious commitment is associated with reduced risk of conditions such as hypertension, heart disease and cancer.26,27,29,30 A population study over nine years showed that all-cause mortality was significantly reduced and life expectancy increased (to 82 years v. 75 years) for regular churchgoers. The findings were not explainable by the accepted lifestyle and social variables,24 and were consistent with other data.25

you see those numbers? they're references to the studies which support those conclusions.

is this not data? What do you actually want before you're willing to countenance that there might be some validity to these articles? You seem to be going down the NWO conspiracy route of deny any credence to any source with an opinion differing in any way to your own....

I'm still waiting for 1 piece of evidence from you. Here is your boast

Yes yes, sorry, I do like to see evidence, I'm just a stickler that way.
On the other hand I do have data to support the questions I asked you however or I would not have asked them. Every one.

i'm still waiting. It's a shame you've painted yourself into such a corner with your ridiculous protestations about what constitutes data because you're going to really struggle to clear the bar you've set yourself.

 

[Faithkills]

yes i think it's a very poor source - and your reasons is a very poor reason to believe it's genuine.
And like I mentioned the figure we actually want is buried in the 19.9% figure and so this is of no use.

If it's of no use then the rest of your argument that follows, which is that unknown is legitimately put in not religious category, is of even less use.

Prisoners have to make a proactive choice as to how they answer to "religion?" - "no religion" is a proactive choice. there is actually another "not recorded" box and a "not recognised" box so your comment is unfounded.

No if they did not answer they got put in 'no religion'. The criticism is valid, and that method is invalid.

Not true. the data for 1999 and 2000 includes "not recorded" - and in any case these numbers are neglible. Do you just make things up to support your already drawn conclusions?

No, just on what's in the report you cited.

This is sufficient for the Uk government national statistics office - but apparently you know better. Surely you don't wish to make the claim that if someone does not know their religion that they are in fact religious? You've claimed some pretty remarkable things so far - this would be a a new low.

Do you have another song? In the first place for what they were trying to do perhaps lumping 'no answer' in with 'non religious' was ok. For this discussion it's decidedly not ok. Or yes the study could be flawed.. imagine that a flawed study? Who's ever heard of such a thing?

Try a different fallacy please.. this one is getting tired.

disingenous beyond belief. You make the claim that religious vs non-religious are more likely to be incarcerated. I show you evidence that non-religious are twice as likely to be incarcerated. That's what I wanted to show.

You showed no such thing, your whole argument is based on lumping in unknowns with no religion. Which is erroneous and specious.

And did you miss the observations about the 'no religion' category? That a very disproportionate number were in for short sentences and minor crimes?

Explain?

 

[andyandy]

If it's of no use then the rest of your argument that follows, which is that unknown is legitimately put in not religious category, is of even less use.

I'm still waiting to see your evidence.

No if they did not answer they got put in 'no religion'. The criticism is valid, and that method is invalid.

Do you even bother to check the sources? p5 of the pdf shows the breakdown - "not recorded" is a category for 1999 and 2000 and is neglible.

No, just on what's in the report you cited.

yes it does. Please read it. p5.

You showed no such thing, your whole argument is based on lumping in unknowns with no religion. Which is erroneous and specious.

incorrect. please read p5.

And did you miss the observations about the 'no religion' category? That a very disproportionate number were in for short sentences and minor crimes?

Interesting but irrelevant to your assertation that religious people have higher incarceration rates.

I'm getting tired of this merry go round.

Where. Is. Your. Evidence?

Do you have anything at all?

 

[Faithkills]

In any case I'm waiting all this evidence that you've been promising me. You're a "stickler" for it aren't you? Because we're now on post ~90 and you've yet to give any evidence for any opinion.

I assumed you had found it since you referenced some of it, but here you go.

IQ vs Religious Belief
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/20...-atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-believers
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence & religion.htm

Income
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence & religion.htm
http://www.thekn0wledge.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=32

Divorce Rate
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

 

[Faithkills]

Oh and I love this one. The first serious controlled scientific study about prayer. The results are startling.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/529308

 

[Faithkills]

Do you even bother to check the sources? p5 of the pdf shows the breakdown - "not recorded" is a category for 1999 and 2000 and is neglible.

A negligible number were not recorded, which is distinct from 'unknown' or 'no answer'. Your point?

Interesting but irrelevant to your assertation that religious people have higher incarceration rates.

Oh nice straw man! You did manage to break free from appeal to authority, good job!

I never asserted religious people have higher incarceration rates. All of my assertions were about atheists, and were countering the unfounded belief that religion is necessary or beneficial.

Again if religion is either then why are atheists, which are the only group we can be sure of does not believe in a god, more intelligent, more wealthy, less criminal, etc.

You tried to move the argument but again here it is. If religion is so beneficial then explain superior metrics of atheistic individual well being and social adaptation.

 

[andyandy]

I assumed you had found it since you referenced some of it, but here you go.

hurrah!

IQ vs Religious Belief

you're relying on the minefield that is IQ tests? You should check out some of the SMMT threads - very heated

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

ok - this deserves more comment - two quick points - measure of "religiousity" rather than religion, and uses an intra-country IQ gauge....

http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/20...-atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-believers

Is only with regards to atheists....and by a rather controvesial figure even within the IQ community...

Statistically, atheists have a higher intelligence than people with a strong religious faith. The difference is 5.8 points, according to a new study by the Danish professor of developmental psychology, Helmuth Nyborg.


The study was conducted at Aarhus University using American date from more than 7000 subjects.

The Danish professor is a highly controversial academician who has previously provoked outrage by concluding that White people are generally more intelligent than Black people, and in 2002 that men have a higher average intelligence than women – while there are more men than women with very low intelligence.

Last year the professor was fired from Aarhus university following criticism from a panel of experts who criticised his research, but the verdict was changed to a correction for negligence after both Danish and American researchers argued that he was the victim of a witch hunt because his results were not “politically correct”.

would you also agree with his conclusions about white people being more intelligent than blacks? If not, why cherry pick which of his studies you choose to believe?


http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence & religion.htm

This is an interesting link.


http://www.thekn0wledge.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=32

I'd be interested in seeing more discussion on this from a more reliable source - as the site certainly plays pretty fast and loose with the facts in the first section re prison populations.

Divorce Rate
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm[/QUOTE]

This was covered before - the difference between non-religious and religious as a whole does not exist. It's given as 9% - which is bang on the average.

It does seem a little strange that you dismiss sources such as the australian medical journal with over 30 footnoted cites as "a wall of opinion" but are happy to include blogs and personal websites without anything like such rigourous citation.

 

[andyandy]

Oh nice straw man! You did manage to break free from appeal to authority, good job!

I never asserted religious people have higher incarceration rates. All of my assertions were about atheists, and were countering the unfounded belief that religion is necessary or beneficial.

Again if religion is either then why are atheists, which are the only group we can be sure of does not believe in a god, more intelligent, more wealthy, less criminal, etc.

You tried to move the argument but again here it is. If religion is so beneficial then explain superior metrics of atheistic individual well being and social adaptation.

no - if we want to look at the benefit of religion upon people then we need to look at religion vs non-religion. It is erroneous to simply choose a subsection. there are interesting questions as to why atheists may differ from other non-religious (if there is evidence that they do) but this is secondary.

And you have still refused to address any of the studies which suggest that there is a benefit. I'm happy to acknowledge there may be benefit in some areas, not in others - but you simply do not want to discuss anything that even suggests a benefit in some areas. We're up to 100 posts and you've still yet to address the three articles i referenced. Having seen the quality of your "data" dismissing them as a "wall of opinion" is no longer an option.