Religion is Dangerous to Our Health Says New Study

[callady]

Religion May Be Dangerous to Our Health
by Lee Salisbury
www.dissidentvoice.org
October 11, 2005


The Roman Catholic Jesuit Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, in its Journal of Religion and Society recently published a report by social scientist Gregory Paul. The report is entitled “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies.”

Mr. Paul’s report is based on a decade long, cross-national collaboration on social science surveys of 38 nations and 23,000 interviews. The study assessed such issues as societal health and dysfunction, measuring rates of homicide, youth suicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, and abortion data. This data was analyzed relative to the nations that had the highest rates of absolute belief in God as creator, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer, and Biblical literalism.

The report concludes, “The populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical ‘cultures of life’ that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards.”

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies. Rates of gonorrhea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less theistic pro-evolution secular democracies. The US also suffered from “uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct05/Salisbury1011.htm

Lee Salisbury is a former evangelical preacher, founder of the Critical Thinking Club of Minnesota.

[beam me up scottie]

1. ~

:popcorn:

I'm a veteran of this particular battle, so this time I think I'll watch from the sidelines.

[Demeter]

2. So Much For Those Studies Claiming Otherwise

A survey of basic literature through the ages would have pointed out that only when reality conflicts with the inner world view does drama occur, and unless madness is involved, that means religion.

[KittyWampus]

13. Actually, this "study" is deeply flawed. For beginners, it equates

being religious with believing in a creator.

I cannot believe this crap is continually posted on DU.

[BrklynLiberal]

18. .

re·li·gious Pronunciation (r-ljs)
adj.
1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

[Arugula Latte]

3. Yep -- enlightenment and progress comes as religion diminishes.

Common sense and progressive social policies improve the lives of millions.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. oops.

I just love it when the truth turns out to be something other than what the religious hypocrites want it to be.

and look who published it!!!!

The Roman Catholic Jesuit Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, in its Journal of Religion and Society recently published a report by social scientist Gregory Paul.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

5. .

:evilgrin:

[MADem]

29. Jesuits, they are intellectually rigorous, no way anyone can call them

sloppy or flaky in their reasoning...

[lateo]

6. This topic will get no disagreement from me.

Most of the bat-shit, crazy people I know are super religious.

[callady]

8. Taking note of where it was published

sure is interesting, it's not as if this report were published in 'Atheist Weekly'.

[BrklynLiberal]

10. That sure does make it that much more interesting.

[kath]

15. Yes, huzzah for the Jesuits for publishing this.

[kestrel91316]

34. Ditto. Either super-religious, or deeply into pseudoscience.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Not just ignorance, but militant ignorance.

Ignorance that seeks to extend and replicate itself by enforcing compliance to its dictates with brute force.

[BrklynLiberal]

11. As Janeane Garafolo says.."Willful Ignorance"

[neebob]

12. Critical Thinking Club - I love it!

There should be more of these.

[KittyWampus]

14. Acutally, critical thinking would shot this pathetic study down

in a matter of seconds.

First of all, it's telling that NOONE on this thread even read the study and is simply going on what someone else who MIGHT have read the study says about it.

I read the study... and one could JUST as easily make the case that
POVERTY causes societal problems.

NO, the author had an axe to grind and all the bigoted anti-religion and spirituality posters show up to bleet in unison how this PROVES religion is Baaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

:puke:

[QC]

16. Yeah, real critical thinkers know that correlation is not causation.

They must not talk about that in school anymore.

[BrklynLiberal]

23. That point was mentioned in the article about the study.

[Telly Savalas]

24. Don't even try to reason with them.

They're just trolls trying to stir shit up. Fuck 'em.

[kath]

25. The report, in several places, specifically said that it was NOT implying

causation, but rather was exploring the correlations and was "a first look":

This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. ***This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health.*** It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research and debate on the issue.
<snip>

Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions.
<snip>

The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? {then goes into "red state" vs. "blue state" differences.}
__________________

One of my beefs with the article is that it muddies the distinction between religiosity vs rejection of evolution.

[kath]

17. I read the study too, and it made the point that the US is the WEALTHIEST

of the developed democracies.

[neebob]

19. Uh, okay.

By the way, it's bleat, not bleet. Next time, try jumping on someone who's actually doing it.

[QC]

26. Spelling flames are childish.

I know it's out of style around here now, but have you ever considered responding to the substance of a post?

[neebob]

35. If you mean your post, no

I don't feel the need to respond to the substance because I wasn't bleating. If you mean posts in general, yes, I have considered and sometimes do respond to the substance. As a rule, though, my basic belief that this is just a message board in cyberspace and a way to get information and share thoughts with like-minded others and not the most important think tank in the world, coupled with my own confidence in my intellect and low need to showcase it and feel superior to others, allows me to say whatever comes to mind.

[BrklynLiberal]

36. .

:applause:

[QC]

37. That wasn't my post. n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

20. Religion is not bad in and of itself. Pedantic, stubborn, close-minded

followers of religion who insist that their point of view is the ONLY way to see the world, and refuse to allow others their opinions on the subject are what make people think religion is bad.

[callady]

30. I tend to

agree with what Joseph Campbell had to say about religion and theology in that essentially doctrine and organized religion tend to obstruct a spiritual sense of being and hinder constant criticism of one's own views and as well can squash a natural curiosity about the world.

That seems to make sense if you rigidly believe in an omnipotent being with a mandate.

[BrklynLiberal]

31. and I tend to agree with you.

A strict, punishing "Father" of a diety does not seem to be one that would encourage an open, questioning philosophy of life.

[lisby]

21. Not all religions are spiritual.

Not all spirituality is religious.

I don't think anyone here has equated the two, nor should they. The study deals with organized religions.

HMO.

Lisby

[Greyhound]

22. Poverty does cause these problems, and the most impoverished

nations/cultures are overwhelmingly religious. Why do you find it so important to consistently defend your delusions? You can believe anything you want to, but that doesn't mean it isn't a delusion or wishful thinking.

[malachibk]

39. I read the study and I'm an epidemiologist...

...so I know something about study design. Not saying that to be a jerk, just wanting you to know I'm not talking out of my ass.

There's nothing "wrong" with the study. Pretty standard, reasonable methodology. Good data sources. Variables defined in a reasonable way.

The main problem lies with the folks posting about the study. In epi there's what's called an "ecological fallacy". Put simply, the fallacy occurs when people draw conclusions about individuals from a study that was measured on the aggregate (country, state, etc.)

Just because there are correlations at a national level (overall religiosity --> societal function indexes) does not mean that it's religious people causing poor health. We have no data from the study about individuals at all, just their averages.

That said, it's still telling information that the trend is so clear. What is it about American society (which really drives most of these associations) that makes the correlation between religion and homicide, abortion, STDs, and teen pregnancy so strong? Why does religion not benefit society as it purports to? Important questions, even if the paper can offer no concrete answers.

[depakid]

41. Thank you for the rational analysis

Though I fear it may fall on more than a few deaf ears.

Ecological studies like this one are the first step in determining whether an association exists among certain things like the incidence of STD's and (in this case) the degree of religiousity in different groups (in this case socieites).

It's not intended to provide a be all and end all- it merely looks for patterns and serves as a basis to ask more pointed questions.

Important ones, IMHO- especially when the findings seem to contradict widely held beliefs.

[Maat]

27. My faith (belief system) has been GREAT for my health.

It focuses on being universalist (honoring all paths) and on being a healing faith:

www.rsintl.org (Religious Science).

And, I go by this definition of religion:

"A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader;" from www.dictionary.com . In other words, it is my BELIEF SYSTEM.

There is no outside entity threatening me or judging me, in my faith.

So, there are belief systems that are very healthy for the church member.

We are an openly welcoming and affirming church, DEFYING the stereotypes.

[converted_democrat]

28. I don't know what to believe anymore........

I believe in the lord, but I don't think that is detrimental to my health, but I could understand how it could be.

I grew up in a small extremely religious community. There were 67 people in my graduating class, and all belonged to the same church, and the whole community was extremely anti-choice. I know of 14 girls in my graduating class that had abortions (some more than 1), and 4 that actually had the child. The hypocrisy was boundless. I realize that abortions aren't really bad for your health, but they would not have had to happen if they would have had some understanding of how the body worked. During my freshman year I vividly remember one girl that got Chlamydia so badly that she had to be hospitalized for it, and within a week dozens of the seniors were all mysteriously on the same antibiotic. (I was a an office helper and they had to come to the office to take their medication.)

I never had any sex education of any kind, and the first time I asked my parents about it, I thought my father was truly going to kill me. (wish I was joking) Nobody I grew up with had sex education, either.

I also remember a few people that had cancer, MS, and other diseases, and they would refuse medicine saying that all they needed to do was pray.

Knowing what I know now, I don't think that religion is bad for my health, but I do understand how it could be.

[BrklynLiberal]

32. I guess one could say that if religion forces one to stay ignorant, it

could be bad for one's health....especially if that includes ignorance of essential facts that would preserve ones health and well being.

[kestrel91316]

33. Oh, but don't you know that, according to certain DUers, ALL

statistics and research and scientific "facts" are lies concocted by the WHO to deny us our constitutional rights? And scientists are never to be believed, either because they are stupid or they are political hacks?

My head is still spinning.

I feel like I have gone over to FR in some of these threads (not this one).

[undergroundpanther]

38. The witch burnings

were not caused by "secular humanists".Bullies are bullies whether theocratic or otherwise.Religion never made anyone NOT be what they always were. A bully on god stays a bully.
Many religious people I meet even when they are cool, are COMPULSIVE about talking about their religion and selling it to you.It intrudes into their conversations and thoughts.And people that lose their religion and switch to other ones still seem often obsessed with religion issues like there is some puzzle in their head,a paradox to resolve or an attachment to a certain belief that makes them whir until they decide give up on figuring it all out and get honest about what they observe and say I DON'T KNOW if there is a creator a god or afterlife or alternate spiritual existence whether it's all in my head or not. Atheism is a religion too.However it is not as prone to justifying it's actions with invisible gods who rule everything.Once this "I don't know" statement gets admitted religious people are halfway free of religion and the overvalued system of thought religion is. I get angry at religion when religious bigots trigger my PS TD.
After all it is religious people that were most abusive to me and used religion an an excuse/justification.terror tool..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Gawd and the tooth fairy disagree.

After all, according to the Bible, God decided to pick one of the resident species living on an insignificant planet, circling a minor star, on the outskirts of an unremarkable galaxy, amongst billions of other galaxies, in, what may be one of trillions of universes, to be the center of it all.

And, He waited around 4 billion plus years to do the magic trick. Then he picked some guys from a desert tribe to reveal it all too.

And, to show he's a real guy, if you dare not believe the above, he takes the time and trouble to fry your butt on the eternal barbecue.

[callady]

42. Very Good

Your Sig Line is fine.
The patriarchy is not.

Beware the paranoid ill-tempered guy in the sky who knows it all and is everywhere all at once. With nothing left to learn and nowhere to go he must get bored.

Diderot.

[lateo]

43. Here is a good bookend link to this topic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1590776,00.html

Why do we believe in God?