The Iona Institute are a group of enlightened souls who generally spend their precious time on Earth opposing gay marriage(pdf) and contraception for teenagers(doc). I recently perused to some more of the Good News they'd like share with us: Religion is good for you(pdf).
Yes, it's science folks! The dynamic and colourful report, complete with stock photos of hands clasped in prayer, begins by linking religiosity and general health, breathlessly informing us that this connection
…is increasingly being reported by the media. For example, the cover story of the Time magazine issue of February 23, 2009 was entitled, ‘How faith can heal’.
Well, they've also featured well-known quack Andrew Weil on their cover on two occasions, a man who thinks that so-called 'evidence-based' medicine is merely one possible reality. Not that this report is based solely on glossy propaganda sheets like Time, but are we to immediately drop reality-based medicine on the say-so of this hysterically biased magazine? Of course not.
But I need only quote from the introduction to give you the real tenor of this pamphlet:
…if religious practice has strong personal benefits, then it obviously has societal benefits as well. If religion is practiced by a large number of people across a population, then its benefits will accrue to society as a whole.
Egregious false logic aside ('obviously'? How scientific!), try telling this to the former inmates of Catholic institutions in this country. Or the subjugated women of Muslim countries, buried alive or stoned to death for the sin of having being raped.
Or maybe try telling the Swedes (up to 85% atheist) that their society is scientifically proven to be less healthy than ours (ha!). I guess they don't got no scientists in Sweden–maybe we should stop letting them decide who gets the Nobel Prize!
The bullet points of the report state baldly that those who practice religion
- Live longer
- Have lower levels of depressive illness
- Have lower rates of relationship breakdown
- Are less likely to be involved in crime
- Cope better with serious illness
- Recover faster from the death of a loved one
- Are less likely to suffer marital breakdown
I feel the claims about criminality instantly call for correction.
A similar error is to be found in an article in The Daily Telegraph which points out that in a study of almost 80,000 UK prison inmates, the largest grouping (34%) identify themselves as 'non-religious.' This appears sort of true, until you realise that the corollary is also true, that the remaining 66% (which is actually the largest grouping) self-identify as being part of some religious denomination.
Further examination reveals that those identifying themselves as genuine atheists comprise a minuscule 0.6% of the prison population, a percentage very unrepresentative of the reported 20% found outside the walls. But unlike this report, I'm unwilling to entertain speculation about, say, how many people have 'found religion' while in jail (perhaps to satisfy judges and social workers?).
The report also allows that the
Hell-fire hypothesis promotes pro-social behaviour because of the threat of supernatural
sanction but also the reward for normative behaviour
regardless, naturally, of whether or not it is true–the truth being secondary to social manipulation. Apparently, the religious are incapable of teaching their children simple morality without invoking magic demons and invisible invigilators.
Read more at religiouspractice.ie. I'm sure someone with more time on their hands will provide a point by point rebuttal of each these skewed inferences.
My response to an article about this study in the Kildare and Leighlin Diocese newsletter was worded thus:
The placebo effect of faith healing, the family shunning and loss of community suffered by atheists, the ecstasy of delusional states, all quiet correct.
But is this any proof of the truth of religious claims? Of course not.
As G.B.Shaw pointed out:
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
While it may benefit some individuals to enjoy the feeling of superiority in their rich fantasy life, society is much the worse for the divisive and superstitious control mechanism that is organised religion.
To this I might add the example of Sinéad O'Connor, to whom the Washington Post now turns for comment on papal affairs. A great many articles are surfacing to echo Eoin Butler's sentiment Isn’t Sinead O’Connor overdue a massive, grovelling apology from absolutely everybody?
Her antics nearly 20 years ago caused outrage amongst the religious, and amounted to career suicide as
The following day [after ripping up a picture of the pope], steamrollers crushed hundreds of her CDs outside Rockefeller Center to huge cheers from protesters.
These days, given the revelations of recent weeks and months, the pope doesn't warrant a lot of sympathy, in fact the airwaves both national and international are filled with calls for His Holiness' resignation–or worse.
Perhaps this is not so much a study showing the benefits of religion, as it is a warning to those who dare to step outside it. Maybe it is an indictment of how the religious majority, including friends and family, can crush the souls of courageous freethinkers who seek to stray from the obedient flock.
The evident hypocrisy of this paper trumpets from seemingly innocent paragraphs like this one:
these results show that the more malevolent forms of religious beliefs e.g. religious fanaticism are linked to higher homicide rates while collective beliefs of a benevolent type are associated with lower homicide rates, similar to those found in secular countries.
Apparently, it all depends on how seriously you take your religion. This is the argument of á la carte moderates everywhere: 'our beliefs are tailored to suit our lifestyle and prejudices, naturally we'd don't follow every little rule!'
Let us never forget that the so-called 'fanatics' and extremists are the ones who practise their religions exactly as God originally intended.
::
11 Comments
Nicely deconstructed, Darwin! This kind of piffle, masquerading as scientific evidence for the benefits of religion, is no better than the rubbish emanating from the eejits on the interwebz who claim everything from autism caused by vaccines to moon landings having been faked. But what else would you expect from a rag like Time, interested only in selling more copies to a gullible readership?
Hi Darwin,
Good post, I don't have the inclination myself to click on all the links to the religious quakary that's out there.. just as an aside(not saying you did this in your post) but I think the argument against organised religion, especially the evils and hypocrisy perpetrated by the Catholic Church would be much more enforced if some "atheists"/non believers didn't insult peoples' right to believe in a creator, as both believer and non believer could be in agreement about the need for the removal of the Catholic Church or if not it would at least get them onside to the facts of the organisation they follow without insulting their beliefs.
Is that too much of a contradition in terms for an atheist though ?
To highlight the evils of the Catholic Church, without highlighting the "lunacy" of the basic belief system.. 
/shakes head. They take one study showing that buddhist meditation has observable physiological effects on the brain (shown via fMRI) and they get from that that everyone should be Catholic?
Fail…
FME-
Excellent question!
I had this recently when a friend of mind, whom I had previously believed to be rational, mentioned a belief in God.
Luckily I'm finally at an age now where I don't fly off the handle at the very mention of God. I've learned that the first question to ask is: 'What exactly DO you believe?' as very often this differs from one's expectations.
As in this case, where he explained that he felt there might be an intelligence behind the Big Bang–an entirely reasonable hypothesis for any thoughtful person to make!
Now, personally I don't think there is anything pre-Big Bang, for various reasons, but it isn't a totally absurd notion. Of course, it simply moves the essential mystery of existence back one level (the "turtles all the way down" problem) and its validity cannot be tested past the singularity that is our moment of creation.
Having said that, I'm delighted to discuss this enormously stripped down notion of 'intelligent design,' if only as an intellectual caprice.
This is ultimately a minuscule point of disagreement between two otherwise rational people–given that (as in the case of my friend) we both accept that knowing the mind of God (and his opinion on various bedroom proclivities or, say, the eating of shellfish) is a ridiculous impossibility, thus making all religions equally vacuous.
Dennett and Hitchens have notably clashed over how to treat those who actually subscribe to cobbled together man-made religions from the Bronze Age. Dennett claims they have been fooled, Hitchens that they ARE fools. It's not that subtle a difference.
I tend to think that anyone who subscribes to irrational and contradictory beliefs should be prepared to be confronted with them.
After all, a real scientist doesn't get angry when you say his theory is incorrect because of X, Y, & Z; he is far from 'insulted;' he exclaims "Fascinating! Do go on!"
We're all searching for the truth, and we should help each other out where possible.
::
Amen brother….er..I mean 'Right On'
Sorry..couldn't resist.
Good answer Darwin!..
food for thought.
Dennett, Hitchens, Harris and Hawkins – The four horsemen.(of the Apocalypse?
I recently read (more like tried to read. I got bored. Intellectuals can be bores sometimes
) Hawkin's God Delusion and you've summarised it very accurately for me with your use of the term "an intellectual caprice". That's the best anyone can do really in my opinion and he does do that very well,
as opposed to actively supporting an oppressive organisation that is the Roman Catholic Church.
with the mind God gave him..
I do think all religions are man made and all the dogma of them was cobbled together by the various religious hierarchy of the time and passed down through the generations.
I'm not sure a lot of practising Catholics know fully what they are ascribed to and it's good to point out the hyprocrisy/criminality of the RC Church.
In terms of anyone's personal contradictory beliefs, I would see it as being a lot less harmful to quietly hold to ones own beliefs
in private (after all why not be more self determined in your selection of gobbledygook
At least if you're a fool and know it, there's hope..
I do think though, people who actively put so much effort into informing us of the preposterous carry on of the Church in our society, fail to gain support
when they focus on (even mention for that matter) people's basic belief of a creator as opposed to all the ridiculous rules,dogma, oppression, criminality, that active members of the RC Church are advertently supporting.
That's a nice sentiment regarding truth..reading some Walt Whitman recently, I like his poem "All Is Truth".
Keep up the good work.
Bocktherobber suggested I read this. I read it. And watched the Hitchins video. I never heard of him but I like his thinking. So true. The catholic church is hopefully heading in to its final days on earth.
And as an aside, in your response to FME you mention the Big Bang. It's still just theoretical I believe.
Unstranger-
Theory, yes, but it's probably the most interesting model we have at the moment. As soon as new evidence/theories arise, we'll alter our models accordingly–that's how science works, right?
Don't forget the Big Bang theory was first advanced by Lemaître, a Catholic priest himself.
::
Sacrilege; surely!
Everything in science is always theoretical.
That's the difference between science and religion.
massive amount of known ,small amount of unknown.
Post a Comment