A recent Maclean's magazine article described how people - especialy youth - who practice the reflective, medatative components of their faith with regularity, tend to fair better than their faith-free contemporaries in many respects.
Studies suggest that praying, and meditating, may be linked to reduced rates of depression, substance abuse, and an increased capacity for impulse control - key indicators of success.
So, be it resolved that, while god is not real, people are measurably better off for believing that god is real.
: )
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
You shouldn't be surprised that people in the majority tend to do slightly better than people in the minority.
If it were only the advantage of being majority, I would agree. Except, MRI scans of those with "a strong sense of relationship in a transcendental dialogue with their higher power" have shown that they enjoy a consistently thicker cortex in the right cerebral hemisphere; this brain development correlates with increased pro-social traits, such as volunteerisim.
The improvements are not anecdotal, but supported by a US child and family services study, through the University of Tennessee.
It would seem there are certain distinct neurological advantages to faith, not just the advantage of community.
Quotations are from the article itself: God is the Answer, Macleans, April 13th, 2015 issue
correlation does not mean causation
You see, there is no good way to eliminate lurking variables in this situation. And there are essentially an infinite number of potential lurking variables. Here is a one for an example:
If being a non-believer in a society that rewards belief, causes your brain to develop differently. Then you would expect to see correlation with prayer and a particular brain change (and to be clear I know nothing about the human brain). But clearly the prayer is not the cause of the brain change.
An example I often give:
Owning a hybrid car is correlated with increased cancer rates. Therefore hybrids cause cancer right? Wrong! Living in a city increases cancer rates, and hybrid owners tend to live in cities.
Again: correlation don't mean jack shit.
http://www.macleans.ca/society/science/god-is-the-answer/
Here's the article in case you wanted to check it out yourself.
Th studies span a period as far back as 1995, and apparently number in the hundreds: a corrolation between prayer/meditation is - at least - plausible.
Do you agree?
First of, if it were true, it doesn't have any bearing on the existence or non-existence of god.
So, would you recommend worshipping something you don't believe in?
And, if it were true and you do want to live the lifestyle where you "practice the reflective, medatative components of their faith with regularity", there is absolutely no reason to go for the any of the Abrahamic religions. Buddhism or Jainism are far better alternatives for that.
The evidence suggests there is some beneficial components to being that prayerful type. Judging whether or not there is a god may be of less value than, say, avoiding depression - in real terms.
Knowing something you dont believe in is actually measurably helping someone stave off illness, could you reasonably oppose it?
"stave off illness"
Well that sounds a bit much for prayer.
I do think that the mind plays a very big role when it comes to health and making it through life threatening diseases (at least in some cases). And if someone is completely convinced that they will make it through such a disease, it doesn't matter if that conviction comes from prayer, personal motivation, love for the family, placebo effect or something else.
There are lots of things people can do that would be good for them. Like eat more healthy, exercise regularly, get to bed on a sensible time each night, avoid alcohol, avoid stress, and a few hundred more things...
Do you think everybody should just suddenly change their lifestyle and adhere to thousands of "good" life choices? Do you do that yourself? Why would prayer to empty skies be a preferred choice among all the alternatives?
I would prefer to improve life quality with any of a hundred other options, than to hypocritically adhere to a religion that has so much baggage that is really, really bad for humanity as a whole. Even if "people feel better" for having their belief, religion is still completely indefensible in light of the damage it does.
As I mentioned, there are better or worse alternatives among religions. Zen-Buddhism for example. But they still need to strip away religious dogmatic nonsense.
But by all means, meditate, do yoga, mindfulness, etc. That would probably be good for most people. Just leave the gods out of it.
Do I think it is plausible there is a correlation between prayer/mediation and a brain feature?
Sure. In fact I'd almost bet on it. Just as there is a correlation between owning a hybrid and getting cancer. A correlation exists between almost any 2 things you can choose. I'm sure there is a correlation between biting your fingernails and getting run over by cars driven by someone named "Herman". Correlations don't mean shit.
So given it's possible, that practicing prayer/meditation has benefits neurologically, is it also possible that being faithful makes sense when you consider the developmental advantages.
After all, no such correlation exsists to prove the cognitive benefits of being non-religious - even though correlations can apparently be made between anything.
Could it be better - objectively speaking - to hedge your bets, and practice prayer/meditation? Some of this must appeal to the rationalist in you, at least enough so to consider, that being athiest could actually be bad for you health.
"After all, no such correlation exsists to prove the cognitive benefits of being non-religious"
I want you to listen to me as hard as you can:....
CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!!!:
"Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a c̲o̲r̲r̲e̲l̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ ̲b̲e̲t̲w̲e̲e̲n̲ ̲t̲w̲o̲ ̲v̲a̲r̲i̲a̲b̲l̲e̲s̲ ̲d̲o̲e̲s̲ ̲n̲o̲t̲ ̲n̲e̲c̲e̲s̲s̲a̲r̲i̲l̲y̲ ̲i̲m̲p̲l̲y̲ ̲t̲h̲a̲t̲ ̲o̲n̲e̲ ̲c̲a̲u̲s̲e̲s̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲o̲t̲h̲e̲r̲. Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship...
The counter assumption, t̲h̲a̲t̲ ̲c̲o̲r̲r̲e̲l̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ ̲p̲r̲o̲v̲e̲s̲ ̲c̲a̲u̲s̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲,̲ ̲i̲s̲ ̲c̲o̲n̲s̲i̲d̲e̲r̲e̲d̲ ̲a̲ ̲q̲u̲e̲s̲t̲i̲o̲n̲a̲b̲l̲e̲ ̲c̲a̲u̲s̲e̲ ̲l̲o̲g̲i̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲f̲a̲l̲l̲a̲c̲y̲ in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
That is exactly what you are doing: cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Andrew Newberg's brain scan studies showed that the same neural pathways are used when buddist monks meditate, or franciscan nuns pray, when the subjects attempt to seek god, or become one with the cosmos.
Causal relationship enought to warrant a closer look at a the correlation, which is widely supported? No need for caps, either.
"Could it be better - objectively speaking - to hedge your bets, and practice prayer/meditation? Some of this must appeal to the rationalist in you, at least enough so to consider, that being athiest could actually be bad for you health."
It is funny that you include "prayer/meditation" in the same bag
There is no relation between the 2, they are absolutely different things.
One deals with understanding oneself and your surroundings better.
The other deals with having an imaginary friend = not understanding oneself and your surroundings.
When you see a study that mixes the 2 together when they are contradictory in nature, you know from the bet that this is BS.
Objectively speaking, when you even consider of presenting a decent believable case, then and only then, we might actually consider the possibility of "not believing in something completely evil"(atheist) being bad for us.
In the MRI scans the resulting brain changes are the same for prayers as for meditation. At least, that's how I read the article.
Just because you use your arm to shake hands and make peace, it does not mean that whatever you use your arm for, must be a good thing.
Also they might be both doing something similar, like imagining things during that process.
You cannot assume a good/bad outcome just because they have similar effects on the brain.
Peace of mind and inner tranquility are not the visitors atheists tend to encounter like theists do. You have to be tough to embrace your mortality. If you live out your life expecting an eternal reward when it's over I suppose you would be of a different frame of mind than an atheist.
Yes, you would be easier to fool because gullibility is part of your frame of mind.
Imagine this: it is verifyably better for you, in every way, to be one of the faithful - would you remain athiest?
You are always an atheists, regardless what you do.
You are always an atheists with regards to other religions you do not believe in.
You are born an atheist.
Even if it is "verifyably better for" me it does not mean that I would become a faithful either.
If believing in the most evil character ever imagined (like the christian god) is better for me I would still not do it.
(only the christian god created eternal torture for everyone)
This is like asking the Germans to side with Hitler just because it is better for them.(actually it is even worse since the christian god is far worse then Hitler)
I disagree. I was not born an athiest, I was simply born. Athieisim was something I arrived at through observation, analysis, personal challenge, and acceptance. Through grief, and ultimatly, relief.
Conviction, or devotion, played no role. In fact, those traits are halmarks of faith.
Openness, rationality, and a willingness to change seen me to living without gods. And if there is anything in the world that will either sustain my position - or change my mind - it is those three things.
You were born NOT an Atheist?
You were born NOT lacking belief in any theistic gods?
Understand what Atheist really means, before making very stupid claims please.
The only way you could not have been born an atheist is that somehow you were born with knowledge about a particular religion, which is absurd.
You are actually claiming that you even remember what your beliefs were when you were 0 years old.
Very pathetic indeed.
It is rather obvious that if you have no knowledge yet about a religion then automatically you are "an atheist" in that religion, you are automatically "lacking belief" in that religion.
Claiming otherwise is just stupid.
EDIT:
"Athieisim was something I arrived at through observation, analysis, personal challenge, and acceptance. Through grief, and ultimatly, relief."
You arrived at atheism though those means, but those means are not atheism.
Atheism is a state of being, how you arrive at that state is irrelevant.
You can be an atheist simply because you never heard of any theistic claim before.
Simply because the initial position is always the lack of belief of something which you do not know of it's existence.
Eg: you cannot believe that a satellite will fall on earth if you first do not know that satellites exists.
You lack belief in the "falling satellite" because you lack belief in satellite existence because no one informed you of their existence yet.
It also seems you are mixing Anti-theism with atheism.
Anti-theism is the understanding that theism does more harm then good to the world, and many atheists became atheists through anti-theism arguments.
Most atheists do not even know that they are also anti-theist.
No, I don't think upon birth you are automatically anything. Rather, concepts of religion, no-religion, and anti-religion are not real upon your birth. They're social constructs, of which a newborn is not yet a part.
Without doubt, even atheism - and all that you think it means - becomes yet another form of faith. In fact, my best friend just pointed out that you and I could just as easily be having this conversation about our differing interpretations of holy text, and what makes a true believer.
By rejecting the church, I'm - through atheism - still defining myself by it. Maybe I need to actually let it all go. Even the debate.
Also, I'll thank you to leave personal insult out.
"No, I don't think upon birth you are automatically anything. Rather, concepts of religion, no-religion, and anti-religion are not real upon your birth. They're social constructs, of which a newborn is not yet a part."
An A-Theist is a word invented later to represent those which are NOT a theist.
A= NOT
The theists are the ones making the claim about the existence of a theistic God(not any god)
NOT Theists = "automatically anything" except a theist. (including a baby)
You are born an atheist, it is a fact , not just an opinion.
An atheist is not a claim, it is a state of being.
Very simple strait forward meaning:
If you are NOT a theist, you are an atheist.
You're right in that a person is born with no discernable evidence of religious thought. The point I'm trying to make is, that thiest or athiest, the conversation is faith.
Wouldn't 'real athiest' get together and never even discuss accepting or refuting faith, the faithful, or whether or not there's value in belief/disbelief. Instead, here we gather to converse about god, real or otherwise.
We don't define a beach by what is not on it: "Lets head down to the a-crude oil"... unless, of course, the only thing we think about is oil.
"Wouldn't 'real athiest' get together and never even discuss accepting or refuting faith, the faithful, or whether or not there's value in belief/disbelief. Instead, here we gather to converse about god, real or otherwise."
That is my point exactly, just atheists wouldn't.
It just happens that we are not just atheists, we are atheists who care.
We care to let people know that believing in an evil character does indeed harm people.
It makes people more gullible for abuse, it serves as breeding ground for cults and fanatics.
Countries which give too much power to religion demonstrate the truth of this claim.
Eg: inquisition, shariah law, etc..
Theism is evil and the more power it gets the more amplified that evil is.
That makes sense to me: Caring atheist are proactive about countering the harmful behavior that can accompany faith.
So, then, the faithful are not better off in that they can be susceptible to the harms endorsed by their beliefs. I guess it's bit of a trade off, really; benefit from group-think, or benefit the group by crucially countering it.
Sorry for late reply, lost this topic.
Yea i am glad we clarified the point about Atheism being just 1 position out of millions of outer positions.
Also one could add that unlike Theism, atheism is not a belief thus atheism does not define a person.
As I said.
If you are an orange you have an idea of what you are.
If you are NOT an orange, you still do not know what you are.
"trade off, really; benefit from group-think"
One can find the "group-think" in many other things like yoga and group meditation. Though they are not so popular because Theism has better marketing, but once theism is out of the picture those will fill in that gap quite fast.
Theism is bad because it is dogmatic,and it is against nature.
Nature is evolving/adapting, improving with time, theism is the opposite, it opposes change.
Humanity has improved regardless of theism not because of it.
Secularism forced theism to change, forced the anti-slavery concepts, forced the gay rights concepts etc..
There is really nothing good about theism today.
Jeff, you reminded me of a man by the name of Saul. I think you probably know his story.
Hmm Saul? you mean St Paul in Christianity?
You seem to think I have a choice in what I believe. It's not a choice at all.
I don't have any exceedingly strong opinions about this, as I don't believe myself to be the final arbiter of what is best for other people. However, I will say that any perceived benefit needs to be weighed against the total damage religion CAN do in the long run. In the end, I think we might be able to agree that meditation can be good, but I am not sure that religion need be invoked in the mix. Hasn't Sam Harris actually promoted non-theistic meditation as a better alternative to prayer, fasting, and other rituals proposed by religion?
Pages