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?"
Correlate to better outcomes during sex?
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!”
Makes sense, at least in my point of view. I'm a atheist, and I have got into depressions regarding the meaning of life, the un/fairness behind it, a lot of trascendental questions, also a fear of death, which people that believes in a god, with fervor, may not feel, since they may believe there is a life after death, there is a meaning behind everything, that there is a god that loves you, etc.
That ignorance is bliss.
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
It's God's will. God is testing me. It's beyond my control. There's also the "God gives me strength" angle.
I suppose it's easier to overcome mental health problems if one believes that they bear no responsibility for their troubles and that an infinitely powerful being will make everything okay if they just believe. A metaphysical placebo.
It's a bit rougher if you've only got yourself to blame for your shortcomings and believe the strength to overcome must come from within.
Then you can be tricked into believing you can be helped by the doctor. A weak mind is easily manipulated. Both for good and evil.
Does it also correlate with more than usual incidences of requiring help for such maladies?
Who did what now?
Having an invisible friend that you know not only believes in you but genuinely loves you is a powerful thing. I'd be very interested to know if people with human friends who love and believe in them enjoy the similar success.
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.
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.
People are so worried about how long they have to live and what will happen to them after death that they forget to enjoy the life they have. A close relative was diagnosed with low grade lymphoma a few months ago (manageable but unfortunately uncurable ) and she wander why I took such a devastating diagnosis to open her eye to the happiness of everyday life. "I don’t take life for granted anymore. I learned to live in the moment. I also realized that when I live in the present moment, life is wonderful" she said to me. It sounded like a frigging cliche but she seems happier than she has ever been. Perhaps we are just wired to constantly worry and its only when faced with the prospect of death that we realize how futile an effort it is.
Homer: Dear Lord, The gods have been good to me. For the first time in my life, everything is absolutely perfect just the way it is. So here's the deal: You freeze everything the way it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign. Thy will be done.
Because, while entertaining hypotheses can be interesting, using them to justify war, censorship, or other state policy are two very different things.
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.
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...
Ascribing any particular "meaning" to life would necessitate having a belief in some sort of purpose or specific design for life in the first place. People who do not believe in God do not typically subscribe to such philosophies.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Thank you for opening my eyes -- it never occurred to me to hold belief in faith and belief in hypothesis testing (proof), as equivalent. It also never occurred to me, given that faith and proof are given equal weight, fortune telling and magic, are as likely as testable physical reality. I like unicorns, who are magical creatures, so they may exist. In my old age, I can hold the same beliefs I did as a child. Santa Claus, and "The Giving Tree" are real once again. Perhaps I can regress back to my infancy, when I had my nice warm blanket, and all things are possible. Innocence and a sense of wonder is restored.
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.
Says you. I've seen the source. It's not really even all that complicated. Most of the cycles are taken up by annoy method calls with my object as the target.
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
I'll field this one. There's a few different Gods we refer to when we start using "God" in thought experiments:
1. A Blind Watchmaker.
2. A Spoiled, Brutal Child
3. A Perfect, Immortal Machine
4. Further interesting ideas
However, people who are talking about God who isn't part of a thought experiment, but who actually worship Him usually are referring to American Jesus, who cries when you:
1 .Look at pictures of naked women
2. Play Dungeons and Dragons
3. Read Harry Potter books
4. Are gay
5. Refuse to believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
A lot of people really don't like that guy.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
This is not about religion, but about the placebo effect in a new area. Fits right here,
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?
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.
I happen to believe that there is a God and I will probably be modded into oblivion just for saying so. The fact that the article shows belief in God in a favorable light, will also not sit well with many.
"I believe in God, and I think Slashdot is a group of bigots that will mod me down for my personal beliefs" is flame bait, and should be treated as such. If you left off the taunt on the end, you might have not deserved the negative mods you are expecting, but haven't gotten at the time I post this.
Learn to love Alaska
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?
Too little, and you are a depressed atheist. Too much and you have sudden uncontrollable violent urges to blow up Olympic events and fly planes into buildings.
And what about the truly mentally ill people who fixate that god is telling them to drown their children? Who else would have the authority in their minds to demand that?
I am not saying the belief in God is pernicious. But it seems like there is a certain toxic baggage that has accumulated along with organized religion that keeps people dying a lot.
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.
No, atheists are seen as being as bad as evangelical activists, because a great many of them feel the need to go out of their way to interject their own ideology into the discussion as often as they can... Just like evangelicals. At leasts that's been the bulk of my personal experience, with both types of people.
I've had plenty of perfectly civil conversations about religion and related practices with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, and others. But when it comes to atheists, every one of them seems to define their atheism as their own superiority to all others. All such discussions I've ever had have very quickly devolved into one-sided antagonism, where it's insisted that everyone else must try and "prove" their God exists, and be judged. As I said, that's just my experience, but it's been invariable thus far.
I've certainly never seen this persecution of Atheists you claim exists. And I certainly don't see it being more lonely or challenging to be Atheist than, say, being a lone Hindu or Buddhist in the west.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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