Do believers enjoy better health than atheists?

[Songbird]

One of many, many studies on the benefits of a wide social network:

Wide Social Networks Are Key to Good Health, Says Study - TIME

"Researchers at Brigham Young University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill pooled data from 148 studies on health outcomes and social relationships — every research paper on the topic they could find, involving more than 300,000 men and women across the developed world — and found that those with poor social connections had on average 50% higher odds of death in the study's follow-up period (an average of 7.5 years) than people with more robust social ties."

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Songbird

Actually, all your articles have to do with the same thing - social support and being around people.

Ugh, but is it really worth it to be a little healthier and live a little longer when you have to be around people?

[Songbird]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

Ugh, but is it really worth it to be a little healthier and live a little longer when you have to be around people?

I'm not sure it would benefit you. You'd probably have to attend church daily to see the same results. Or have Dr. Bird take a look at you.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Songbird

I'm not sure it would benefit you. You'd probably have to attend church daily to see the same results. Or have Dr. Bird take a look at you.

Fine, I'll bend over. Just make sure your fingers aren't too cold this time.

[Godwilling]

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

findings do suggest a more direct link between church attendance and well-being. Conclusion: Indirect effects of church attendance on health were clearly observed, with alcohol use/dependence, smoking, and mood being possible mediators of the church attendance-health relationship

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/hea/28/1/117/

I was getting very interested in your previous statements, but if you are saying that the study did not control for obvious catalyst for illnesses. If that is the case, then the study is not worth the paper it is written on.

Any worthwhile study must conclude that "everything else equal, praying is better for your health". The study to which you refer cannot conclude that because it did not control for variables that have obvious decisive effects on health.

Also, the study must report its variance, it level of accuracy, (for example 95%, 4 times out of 5), it must include the selection of the subjects, their ages, and their starting state of health. Without these details a "study" is not a sound study.

[Godwilling]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

I like science just fine. I do have some problems with poor science journalism, though.

While I wouldn't call myself a scientist, one of the things I do professionally is make logical inferences from observational data. I'm trained in how to do it and I like to think that I'm pretty good at it. I can see that there are several other plausible explanations for the effect besides the one you've decided is your favourite.


If I told you that 70-year-old competitive weightlifters tended to live longer than 70-year-olds who didn't do weightlifting, which would you conclude?

- weightlifting is good for elderly people.
- you have to be pretty fit if you're going to do weightlifting at 70.

Weightlifting is a bit more extreme than going to church, but still, especially for the elderly, just having the mobility to get up, out of the house and to anywhere on a regular basis is a pretty big deal. There's going to be a filtering effect just on that alone, even before we consider whether the place the person is going is a church for a worship service or, say, a coffee shop to chat with friends.


Fun fact: in the study of the 2003 SARS epidemic in Toronto, the quick initial spread of the disease was traced back to exposure (especially hand-shaking) that occured at funerals and church services.

I agree with everyone of your points. The words "statistics", "research", and "studies" are commonly used by people who simply do not know how to conduct studies, or do research.

Those "studies" are usually intended for the "converted" i.e. people who already believe something and are simply looking for those words on print. The consumers of such studies are often not knowledgeable of research and statistical methods, nor interested in learning them.

They simply look for affirmation to their beliefs.

[waitasec]

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

Going to church may be good for the body as well as the soul.

have you considered that those who are a part of any social organization are generally healthier in mind and body...

it doesn't have to be a church or anything religious...
the sierra club, volunteer for a soup kitchen, or the PTA

Social Ties Boost Survival by 50 Percent: Scientific American

[Agnostic75]

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

Regular attendance at church or chapel can be as good for the health as jogging. A study at the University of Pittsburgh showed that weekly attendance at a religious service added two to three years compared with three to five for physical exercise and 2.5 to 3.5 years for people who take statins (anti-cholesterol drugs).

Believers, married people, live longer, says research

But the message is that exercise is healthy, not that going to church is necessarily healthy. What about people who live across the street from their church?

There is not a general scientific correlation between having good physical and financial health, and being a Christian. The Irish Potato famine killed hundreds of thousands of people, most of whom were Christians. The Bubonic Plague killed millions people, most of whom were Christians.

The people who recovered from Hurricane Katrina the best were generally people who had a lot of money, not poor people, and not just Christians who had money.

[krsnaraja]

Originally Posted by Godwilling

The power of prayer has been well documented by various religious organizations and quite a few Catholic saints were canonized as a result of their healing powers.

Furthermore, there are numerous evangelist groups that claim to have the power of healing and they show demonstrations of their healing power on television.

My question is, does that mean that some believers enjoy better health than all others? If so, please let me know the faith so that I may follow it.

Only 20% of diseases are organic. The rest is psychosomatic. It`s all in the mind, God willing. There is no such thing as believers in God enjoying better health than atheists. Take my word for it.

[Gjallarhorn]

Originally Posted by krsnaraja

Only 20% of diseases are organic. The rest is psychosomatic. It`s all in the mind, God willing. There is no such thing as believers in God enjoying better health than atheists. Take my word for it.

I would like to know where you got your percentages...