Slashdot Mirror
Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes
Hatta writes "According to researchers from Harvard Medical School, belief in god is correlated with improved outcomes of treatment for depression. Quoting: 'In the study, published in the current issue of Journal of Affective Disorders, researchers comment that people with a moderate to high level of belief in a higher power do significantly better in short-term psychiatric treatment than those without. "Belief was associated with not only improved psychological well-being, but decreases in depression and intention to self-harm," says David H. Rosmarin, Ph.D., an instructor in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.' This raises interesting questions. Does this support the concept of depressive realism? If the association is found to be causal, would it be ethical for a psychiatrist to prescribe religion?"
That's what people crave. They can't live with the possibility that life might have no meaning at all, that we're just here and should make the best of it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The key thing missing in the headline: "In treatment of depression".
Other things missing: "in one isolated study", "in an article summarizing the study, without any direct link to the research", and of course, "a highly biased interpretation meant to generate views based on obvious controversy."
Keep in mind, this may also be highly cultural, as many nations have much larger percentage non-believing populations, but not worse depression or suicide rates that correlate.
Ryan Fenton
Reality as it's given to us by society and interpreted through rationality IS depressing. The secret is - you don't stop there, you keep going. deeper.
"That a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than a drunk man being happier than a sober one."
Not only unethical, but kind of pointless. Western religions aren't exactly subtle -- if you've reached adulthood and don't follow any, then you're probably not the kind of person who ever would.
p.s. Law only applies to headlines, but still funny.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
It's a same we can't moderate the article as flamebait.
Because, while entertaining hypotheses can be interesting, using them to justify war, censorship, or other state policy are two very different things.
Shouldn't mental health be treating delusional behavior instead of encouraging it?
Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
a Slashdot community filled with raging atheists
I tend to think of it as a Slashdot community filled with raging Gods
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Why is it that worshipers label all atheists as 'raging' while they play no-true-scotsman fallacy games when challenged about atrocities done in the names of their religions? It's perfectly normal to find such toxic irrationality enraging, especially when it's used to justify limiting liberty or committing murder.
Another way to look at their results is that there needs to be an improvement in the psychological treatment of atheists because there may be some bias in the treatment that tends to push people to appeal to the spiritual. Maybe a bit like AA.
There is a distinct lack of research in the area of atheist vs theist rates of psychological problems. Of the available research, here is one such study that suggests that atheists are less likely to suffer from depression:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/buggle_20_4.html
I haven't done the digging yet but the submitted article smells like the Templeton Foundation may have had an influence.
atheists are religious too
And people who don't collect stamps have a hobby.
Probably the same reason atheists label all people of faith as "worshippers", "fanatics", or whatever. The overwhelming majority of atheists and spiritual individuals are laid back and don't advertise their disposition. However the ones that do make their beliefs (or lack thereof) known usually earn the label 'raging', 'cynic', 'fanatic', 'extremist', etc. and stigmatize the remaining likeminded population.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
The guiding moral principle of evolution is "survival of the fittest"
Nope, the mechanism for evolution involves differential reproductive success ("survival of the fittest"), but there is absolutely no "moral principle." The Theory of Evolution doesn't say whether it's good or bad or whocares to survive and reproduce.
People have built all sorts of flaky philosophies off of evolution (e.g. "Social Darwinism") that ascribe moral values to certain outcomes, but these are no part of the scientific theory of evolution.
It was once believed that the female orgasm didn't exist because it served no conceivable (pardon the pun) purpose, but that was wrong on both counts. Positive feedback seems like a perfectly plausible reason for making noise, and it wouldn't necessarily be measurable as a distinct biological process. Besides, the article was in the Daily Mail...their view is that a woman's role is to lie back and think of England.
I'm not sure if the behaviour of bonobos is relevant, since they're a different species. For example, you can grin at a human without having your arms ripped off...
Blank until
It takes a special kind of mind to accept religion. Seriously. Across the whole spectrum of religious personalities, you may notice some commonalities and patterns along the way. But at the end of the day, it's about wanting something more powerful to dominate one in some capacity. After all, when was the last time you heard a believer say something like "I truly believe there is a god but I sure wish there wasn't." Religion is something which is not just wanted, it's just about needed for such people. They lack the ability to face reality without some way to tidy things up in some way... to know there are causes and reasons and purposes even if they may never know what they are.
Maybe I shouldn't say special kind of mind though... it takes a common one. I wish all who are in the 12 step program much luck.
This is not about religion, but about the placebo effect in a new area. Fits right here,
Do you also have low opinions of any parents who feel some tinge of sadness when their kid departs to head off to college? Have you never had a friend move away for better opportunity elsewhere, and both rejoiced with them for their gains and sorrowed at your common loss? Had to put a family pet down, knowing its suffering is over, as is its life? Either you have lived an amazingly lucky and perfect life, or you're just a heartless git --- in either case, you lack a fundamental level of human empathy for those who (religious or not) have enough braincells for both joy and sorrow.
Probably the same reason atheists label all people of faith as "worshippers", "fanatics", or whatever. The overwhelming majority of atheists and spiritual individuals are laid back and don't advertise their disposition. However the ones that do make their beliefs (or lack thereof) known usually earn the label 'raging', 'cynic', 'fanatic', 'extremist', etc. and stigmatize the remaining likeminded population.
You really must know a lot of atheists. Because if you don't, how can you make such a blanket statement? Other wise, you would be the same as a person who says All Christians are fundamentalist assholes who want to take us back tot the dark ages.
I do know some fundies like that, who really shouldn't call themselves Christians because the definitely follow a angry old testament God who is just waiting to torture those people who don't worship him. I've still never gotten any answer when I ask why they don't follow Jesus' sermon on the mount.
But they aren't most religious people I know. In fact, they are a loud obnoxious minority. Most Christians I know follow a Jesus based religion, are decent people who aren't assohles.
So enough of the typecasting. There is also something to be said to standing up to the assholes.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The chief researcher's curriculum vitae: http://www.spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/resources/pdfs/David%20Rosmarin.pdf (search the doc for "spiritual")
Not to say that he can't be right, but he has been pursuing this idea of "religious people are happier/mentally healthier" for several years. He has a lot invested and a lot of publications on the matter. It doesn't give the impression of a researcher free of bias.
I'd be interested in knowing what they controlled for when calculating the strength of the effect they found. Did they account for age, family history, income, race, sex and social involvement?
Why is it that worshipers label all atheists as 'raging' while they play no-true-scotsman fallacy games when challenged about atrocities done in the names of their religions? It's perfectly normal to find such toxic irrationality enraging, especially when it's used to justify limiting liberty or committing murder.
See, I feel like some people play their own games by invoking "no true scotsman" as the excuse to make sweeping generalizations. If someone in my city (let's call it "Springfield") committed a heinous murder, would you then challenge me about the atrocity done by a citizen of Springfield? I'm going to guess you wouldn't do that... so whats the difference? That this is about religion, so it's easier to hate on people here on Slashdot?
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
You don't have to prove something to believe in it, which is why Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity (etc); Atheists believe in the absence of god without proof, but in any argument they require proof of their opponents (Christians etc) that there is a god.
No, atheists don't believe that there is a god. That is not the same as believing there is no god. A person who say believes in the Christian God will spend time thinking about their God. They will pray to their God. They might go to church on Sunday to pray with others. They will at times have differences of opinion about their God, and split off into different churches that require a different belief about their God
It's really silly to say that a person is religious about nothing. I don't believe in a 6 foot duck that brings me tortillas and butternut squash. That doesn't mean I go to church every Sunday and pray to my belief that the duck doesn't exist. I made that up on the spot, and will never think about the duck again. Your logic would mean that everything we believe in or do not believe in is our religion, even if we don't think about it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
When the stamp collectors go out of their way pushing their stamps on others, standing your ground and stating your apathy is confrontational? If the stamp collectors stopped asking people about their hobbies, and pushing their favorite hobbies on everyone else, the non-collectors wouldn't ever be noticed. It's the aggressive stamp collectors that generate the backlash, then complain that people complain about them being pushy and annoying.
Learn to love Alaska
You don't have to prove something to believe in it, which is why Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity (etc); Atheists believe in the absence of god without proof, but in any argument they require proof of their opponents (Christians etc) that there is a god. Atheism is no worse than Christianity though, because Christians believe in the existence of god without proof, but in any argument they require proof from their opponents (Atheists) that there is no god.
Atheism is the lack of belief, not the active belief in a no-god. I reject all your conclusions because your premise is wrong.
Learn to love Alaska
That's actually an awesome question.
If most religions believe only one religion is right and there is only one "real" god, then only only followers of one particular religion should see a benefit. If other religions see the same benefit, then doesn't that sort of disprove any relation to supposed divinity? And if you rationalize it by saying "well, it's not that god is making you better, it's just that simply believing helps", then doesn't that even further invalidate the entire concept?
Survival of the fittest means that the animal with the biggest teeth or claws will survive over those with lesser equipment.
Nope --- otherwise every critter would be nothing but giant mounds of fangs and claws. In lots of environments, a bacterium, earthworm, or gerbil is quite well suited for survival, while saber-toothed kitties have all gone extinct. Your understanding of "reproductive fitness" is seriously flawed. However, that's not the worst mistake in your post.
Anyone who subscribes to the theory of evolution therefore cannot logically say that it is wrong to shoot as many "competitors for survival" as possible until someone with a bigger gun comes along.
No, they're logically allowed to say such a thing; they just won't base their claims (either way) on "evolution." "Evolution" neither says it is "right" nor "wrong" for the most fangly murderator to survive --- or even that it is right or wrong to survive at all. There's nothing "wrong" for a person who considers "evolution" an accurate theory to opt to be on the non-surviving side. Note that, despite your serious misunderstanding of reproductive fitness, a person who wants to be on the "reproductively successful" side would probably not strive to be the murderiest monster, since there are often huge survival advantages to friendly cooperation.
Ah, you seem to think the parent cares about facts.
They don't. A study is good if it confirms their belief that people with beliefs that differ from their own are less intelligent. Any study that does not confirm their belief that they're more intelligent than the majority of the population is clearly flawed.
See, you're not dealing with scientifically literate people here. You're dealing with the scientifically illiterate science cheerleaders.
Facts don't matter to people like that. See, believing that they're perfectly rational, they automatically assume that whatever they think of believe must necessarily be true as their perfectly rational minds can only arrive at true conclusions. They automatically know everything about politics, religion, philosophy, ethics, psychology, logic, statistics ...etc, etc, ... everything but what they consider the super-hard stuff like physics, math, and chemistry. (Though they believe they have a better grasp than the average Joe on the street. Presumably as a side-effect of their superior intellect and subscription to Scientific American.)
Run away. These guys are worse than creationists. They've done more damage to the public understanding of science than Kent Hovind could ever dream of doing!
Required reading for internet skeptics
Statistics do not show that Christians, nor any other Religion for that matter, have a higher rate of illness (mental or physical) compared to atheists. Most militant atheists tend to show the same narcissistic characteristics as the extreme fundamentalist in certain Religions.
Some studies show that certain Religious are far more healthy in all aspects than "atheists". Could this be because their Religion teaches a good diet, moderation, community service (which would increase physical activity), more than it being "Religion" doing it? In other words, you typed out a steaming pile of bias. Nothing factual or worthwhile to anyone or anything except for your ego.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You are confusing knowing a symptom with knowing a cause. We are making progress, but you can't really call what we have now knowledge. Look at how people are classified for medication. It's laughable. Most of the medications are not sugar, but their actions and reactions in the body are so wild and varied that you can't really call that knowledge.
There is a whole lot of write ups by scientists on how the current system is horrible. They classify new diseases by common symptoms, all of course treatable with some wonder pill. Your child want's to play? Here is a pill, now you can watch TV in peace. Your child can't pay attention? No need for discipline, here is a pill.
Sure, there are some very real illnesses. We may even have some real medications for a hand full. For the most part though? Our methods of diagnosis and treatment often compare to snake oil, often with the same impact as drinking said snake oil.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If you believe in something that is greater than you - whether it be God or Buddha or Yaweh or Allah or Satan what-ever-name-it-is - you have some sort of "psychological protective vest"
When I was younger I did not believe in the so-called "power of prayer" (no matter which religion it is, or which God the prayer supposed to go to). I thought the thing is rubbish
Step 1: Establish credentials by stating that you used to hold an opposing view. Provides a sense of credibility, and a starting point. What matters more is how the speaker transitioned from disbeliever to believer, which is what follows.
Then as I age, I get to see a repeat --- cases of, how shall I put it, "miracles" --- where patients that the medical doctors have given up on, made drastic recoveries
Step 2: Wheel out vague anecdotes and faulty reasoning as post hoc support of a conversion. Rather than indicating existence of supernatural super mind power, what you say here suggests more a need for a decent grounding in statistics.
I can't explain how the thing works, I am only an independent observer on that process
Step 3. Argument from ignorance and claim impartiality. This is a common tactic of conspiracy theorists who try to get out of a need for rigorous evidence by saying that they're not asserting, just asking questions. Of course the questions asked strongly imply an assertion, like asking "so why do you think so few Jews died in 9/11?", to imply a Jewish inside job without coming out and saying it.
Perhaps, just perhaps, deep inside our psyche, there is a force that we have not yet touch upon, a force so great that it can fight whatever illness the body has been infected with --- and perhaps, it's the "belief system" that there is something "more powerful than us", through "prayer", that made up a "conduit" or sort, that tap on that force deep within our own psyche, to fight the disease that has inflicted much pain and suffering on the victim / patient
Step 4: The baloney shotgun is armed. Perhaps in my liver I have an army of undetectable ponies that maintain a balance of power that prevents either kidney from seizing control of my renal system.
The word "perhaps" is bolted on to the front of a whole bunch of crazy speculations that are no more to the point than to postulate the universe being at the centre of a giant donkey's arse.
Till now, our human scientific knowledge is still very limited, there are still a lot of things that we do not know
Maybe one day our human can get our technoogy advance to the point that we can get "in touch" with that force deep inside our own psyche
Step 5: Speculation is at an end - shit just got real. At this point, make it clear that this imaginary bullshit for which there's no evidence is only obscured by our lack of technology/open mindedness/faith. Where earlier it was "perhaps", now it's taken as a given that this force exists. The only perhaps left is the question of whether we will ever advance sufficiently in our technology/open mindedness/faith to be able to understand this magical force.
Scientific knowledge is incomplete. Your knowledge of science is on a par with my knowledge of the Iranian dating scene. Like science, you know it does something because you fly in airplanes, and similarly I know Iranians have some form of dating because they marry and they produce children. I've no idea though how man meets women, and you appear to be viewing science as this big mysterious box, that may as well be a fucking great monkey skull shaped cave on a island that brings the rains when you do your little dance.
-- Using the preview button since 2005