by teejay 17 Replies latest jw friends
My brain is not functioning properly to give a clear reply, maybe after another cup of coffee I just wanted to give a shout out to TW, and Thinker Great to see you still hanging around, I always enjoy your posts! Love you guys.
wendy
Dannybear Here is to hoping today is a better day for you.
When I leave, you will know I have been here
mommy,
Thanks for your mention. Iam stringing lights on the house today, just maybe I will have time to get the tree.
I don't use lights like Tim on Tool Time, but I alwasy's like the first night's show the best.
It will be a better day.
Danny
"Being entertained by tales is one thing. How do you explain the empirical data pointing to better health, happiness and longer life enjoyed by religious people over their less-religious neighbors?"
Empirical: relying on experiment and observations rather than theory, based on practical experience without reference to scientific priniciples.
Empiric: {Archaic} a practitioner without proper qualifications and regular training; charlatan; quack.
Apparently, that word has not always had a positive conotation. I'm not sure what the empirical data shows when relating to health and happiness. But I can say with confidence that data is often over-played and can be manipulated. It may be true in several cases that people seem healthier and happier when found to be "church goers". But that really doesn't say much about religion. I think church is a social function and that the benefits are most likely due to the human need for connection and communication with fellow humans. What do we say about those who are not church goers who live a long and healthy life? They are what we would term an anomaly.
Anomaly: departure from the regular arrangement, general rule, or usual method; abnormality.
Anomalous: 2. being, or seeming to be inconsistant, contradictory, or improper. -SYN. see irregular.
Some might see this data an an anomaly inside an anomaly.
The problem with data and statistics is that they don't actually apply to any individual in real life. The data can be used to help explain certain trends seen in certain circles. But what to do about those anomalies!?
Right or wrong, the thought that came to mind while reading the study you posted was that it came from a part of the country given to strong religious attitudes. The study may have been carried out in objectivity, I don't know. But I wonder where the subjects of the study were culled from. I also wonder if it is possible to do a study that that yields the opposite results simply by choosing different subjects? Even by accident. I suspect this is possible. In the one study the churchgoers are the normal, the regular. In the other they are the anomaly.
I do not wish to toss out all studies and draw no conclusions from any data. But I can't help but notice that catagorizing an otherwise happy non-church-goer as likely to die an early death as irresponsible. Who of us would do that? So, what purpose, really, does a study like this serve? I think, one it's own, not much. However, if we include it along with studies from other sectors of human society it may have more use. I suppose it really depends on who gets to say "this is regular" and this is an "anomaly".
Sean
Rex,
James, you don't have to reconcile scripture with every skeptical question asked...
I'm confused. Who's James?
----------------
thinkers wife,
... we also concluded that for many of these same one's [religion] has seemed to have a positive effect in their life.
Thanks for this comment, tw. For the most part, I agree with your and Thinker's analysis.
Religion can be good, if it helps to assuage the bumps and bruises that have afflicted it's adherents over a lifetime. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Your response goes to the heart of my original question: what purpose religion.
To comfort people; to see them over and beyond the abuses they have suffered; to help them have a confidence and hope for the future – that it will be better than what's gone before. Most mainstream religions do a much better job of those things than the WTS could ever hope to. Their respective agendas are entirely different.
Thanks very much.
----------------
thinker,
You said that one of the "building blocks of bible belief" was fear. Fear of divine execution, of everlasting death... whatever. Basic, even unfocused, fear.
So, the purpose of religion is to minimize or eliminate that fear. To give the believer a confidence in eventual victory over death and a hope in a here-after. Again, I agree. Not a bad thing. The Watchtower does this too, with a caveat: you better try real hard because Jehovah don't play and, like santa, he's constantly checking to see if you're naughty or nice.
----------------
mommy,
My brain is not functioning properly to give a clear reply, maybe after another cup of coffee...
Made me grin. Made me think of me. You're not addicted to coffee or anything, are you? I know I'm not...
----------------
SEAKEN,
I'm not sure what the empirical data shows when relating to health and happiness. But I can say with confidence that data is often over-played and can be manipulated. It may be true in several cases that people seem healthier and happier when found to be "church goers". But that really doesn't say much about religion. I think church is a social function and that the benefits are most likely due to the human need for connection and communication with fellow humans. (bold mine)
Bravo! You have highlighted what is the key.
Religious people are happier because they are connected socially to other people. THAT is what provides them a greater level of mental and psychological well-being. What's said at the service (meeting), the beliefs that are touted, have nothing to do with one's happier/longer life. It's the connection with friends/people of like mind that expands one's happiness; lengthens one's life.
My psychology professor started the semester by saying that when sales of ice cream go up at the local supermarket chain, so do the number of drownings. What gives? People drowning in ice cream? What's the connection?
He also said that married men live longer than single men. If a man wants to live longer, he should get married, right? Seems to be a connection, yes?
Not necessarily. As you said, data can and is manipulated.
Teejay,
I have been thinking about your conclusion for some time now. One way to test the hypothesis that social connectedness is the key, would be to assess nonreligious people who are socialy conected throught other means. They could be very active in their union, PTA, book club, etc. That would be an interesting study, but hard to do. I would guess that nonrelious people who are socialy active would be healthy compared to nonreligious people who are social isolates.
Now, I think another factor in people who are religous and believe that God is mercifull is a certain peace they have during hardship. The human body is good at rallaying itself for defense against harm, but once harm sets in, the mind can panic and damage the immune system. A person that remains calm for whatever reason is less likely to be depleted, and therefore less likely to die. That's my theory anyway.
Teejay, thank you for introducing a most interesting subject.
Oh, by the way, regarding your profs example of ice cream sales versus drowning. He is pointing out that correlation does not mean causation. The third variable in this situation is season of the year. More ice cream and more drownings occur in the summer. I remember another example. There is a correlation between the number of churches in a city and the number of taverns, which could cause one to conclude that religion causes people to drink. The variable that explains the relationship is size of the city. The bigger the city, the more churches and the more taverns.
Now, regarding the life span of single versus married men, I don't think that is a statistical artifact, explainabable by another variable. I think that is an accurate statistic, for reasons I can explain later.
Teejay,
I think we're of the mind on this matter of the social benefits of church. I think the same social benefit can be achieved at school, work, clubs, etc. But there does seem to be a built in need to formalize any social connections into some kind of association. Religions and Cults are prime examples of this but are not alone. The same type of formalization of social relationships is seen in corporations and in politics.
From my own point of view I see the need to socialize. I have been tempted to return to the KH meetings simply to renew some friendships and cultivate a social life. I resist that because I know I will just get into trouble and get permanently cut off. But, in the meantime, I find myself living in a very small town in the mountains with few opportunities to engage in community social events where I would feel comfortable. My choices are somewhat limited. I have found that my tastes in social excercise favor the metropolitan atmosphere of a large city. (I grew up in the city and was transported to the country when I was under the spell of the Borg)I am trying to convince myself that it is more important to socialize with what I see as less than desirable pool of fellow citizens than to isolate myself. I know that is true and that once I get out and get used to the social norm in this community I will learn from and come to love and respect it.
I think relgion does play an important role in social behavior. But I think it is secondary to the more pure social behavior to be found on a community level. The relgions will shape the peoples ideas and thoughts as they interact with their neighbors, for either positive or negative. But it will most likely be the social skills of the people that will determine the success of the community, not the religion. Up to this point in my life I was taught that the most important thing in determining the value of another socially was their religion. For a good JW, if one is not in your religion they are not in your circle socially. That is a warped and convoluted view and it is a long road to shedding that rediculous idea. It is probably due more to similar relgious ideas that wars are fought than to social incompatibility. Once people understand that religion is not the primary force in social behavior I think there is a chance we will see few wars. There may be some good reasons to go to war but religion is definitely not one of them. It appears not enough of mankind has figured that out yet.
Sean
Larc
I have been thinking about your conclusion for some time now. One way to test the hypothesis that social connectedness is the key, would be to assess nonreligious people who are socialy conected throught other means. They could be very active in their union, PTA, book club, etc. That would be an interesting study, but hard to do. I would guess that nonrelious people who are socialy active would be healthy compared to nonreligious people who are social isolates.
I think the key is to look at people who are socially active, whether religiously or otherwise, and compare them to loners. I think we are wired to be involved with others, to participate in "pack" activities. It stimulates our minds, we're generally more active physically, and those things have a positive impact on health and longevity.
Now, I think another factor in people who are religous and believe that God is mercifull is a certain peace they have during hardship. The human body is good at rallaying itself for defense against harm, but once harm sets in, the mind can panic and damage the immune system. A person that remains calm for whatever reason is less likely to be depleted, and therefore less likely to die. That's my theory anyway.
I like your theory. I believe it has merit. Many illnesses are psychosomatic, so a mind that's at rest or confident will lead to a healthier body, and when illnesses do set in, recovery is a lot quicker.
There is a correlation between the number of churches in a city and the number of taverns, which could cause one to conclude that religion causes people to drink. The variable that explains the relationship is size of the city. The bigger the city, the more churches and the more taverns.
Good one. I'll have to spring that on someone!
Now, regarding the life span of single versus married men, I don't think that is a statistical artifact, explainabable by another variable. I think that is an accurate statistic, for reasons I can explain later.
I think one reason married men statistically live longer than single men is that in the case of accidents, strokes, heart attacks, etc., there's someone at home who's able to call for emergency medical care. Single people who suffer such calamities are found weeks and months later, stiff as boards.
Good thoughts, larc.
----------------------------------------------
SEAKEN,
I think we're of the mind on this matter of the social benefits of church. I think the same social benefit can be achieved at school, work, clubs, etc. But there does seem to be a built in need to formalize any social connections into some kind of association. Religions and Cults are prime examples of this but are not alone. The same type of formalization of social relationships is seen in corporations and in politics.
I agree. I don't think it makes any difference what group one is an active part of as long as they are active.
I have been tempted to return to the KH meetings simply to renew some friendships and cultivate a social life ... in the meantime, I find myself living in a very small town in the mountains with few opportunities to engage in community social events where I would feel comfortable... I am trying to convince myself that it is more important to socialize with what I see as less than desirable pool of fellow citizens than to isolate myself. I know that is true and that once I get out and get used to the social norm in this community I will learn from and come to love and respect it.
I believe you describe a predicament that is very common among many exJWs. I'm in a similar situation also, but more by choice. I live in a rather large city with many avenues to socialize. If I cared to, I'd even think of joining a church. I take at least one class at a local college and it opens up many opportunities to hang out with other students, but I don't.
I decline all of these potential sources of activity because I have a two-year-old that is the highlight of my day and I'd rather spend time at home with her and her mother than anywhere else. That's for now. As she ages and forms friendships out of the home, I will branch out, too. I think you should think about doing the same -- taking advantage of social events where people gather in your town. Maybe there's a larger city not too far away.
I was taught that the most important thing in determining the value of another socially was their religion. For a good JW, if one is not in your religion they are not in your circle socially. That is a warped and convoluted view and it is a long road to shedding that rediculous idea.
Very true. Even among Witnesses, there are categories of people you feel free to associate with and others you don't -"in good standing," "marked," etc.
Good thoughts, Sean.
take care,
tj
***I think one reason married men statistically live longer than single men is that in the case of accidents, strokes, heart attacks, etc., there's someone at home who's able to call for emergency medical care. Single people who suffer such calamities are found weeks and months later, stiff as boards.***
LMBAOROFLMAO....you to funny!
