Churchgoers and/or Religious Adherents Live Longer/Healthier Lives

[spidergoat]

It may be so, however the result are incidental to the truth of religion. There are several factors that could be involved, a healthier diet, a supportive community of like minded people, avoidance of violent conflict...

 

[John99]

It may be so, however the result are incidental to the truth of religion. There are several factors that could be involved, a healthier diet, a supportive community of like minded people, avoidance of violent conflict...

It's true. Well according to a nationally broadcast news network (CNN) that features an Indian doctor (paging doctor guptaaaaaa).

Note to moderators: Please dont delete my post, i didnt say anything to anger the gods. I really meant to say "it's all bullshit, it's not true, it's not" please oh please dont tie me to the pole...I'll roll over and die like a good little boy, youll see.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

Woodys statement is correct. People who attend church regularly are healthier and live longer. The doctors in these studies attributed it on the fact that these same people were happier and more positive in their daily outlook.


BTW #348 is great post, Woody!

Yes. Right. Excepting the fact the majority of EVERYONE is religious, so statistics would obviously show the majority lives longer.

Your statement means nothing.

 

[SkinWalker]

It's true. Well according to a nationally broadcast news network (CNN) that features an Indian doctor (paging doctor guptaaaaaa).

There has been several studies that were conducted to support the OP. I don't think a single person (until Jeremyhfht) said it was B.S.

What *I* asked for was a citation to the study or studies that were worth discussing. While this is a religion subforum, the overall forum is a science forum, so this would be interesting discussion. A critical and objective look at the methodologies and statistical modeling of such a study would be informative and interesting. And since it is the type of study that supports the 'god hypothesis,' if only indirectly, it follows that it would be appropriate for the example to be used for discussion come from that camp. If *I* cite a study, to which I then critically evaluate and point out flaws in the methodology (assuming such flaws exist), then I would just be inviting the 'god hypothesis' camp to respond that I cherry-picked a study that I knew I could tear apart.

Note to moderators: Please dont delete my post, i didnt say anything to anger the gods. I really meant to say "it's all bullshit, it's not true, it's not" please oh please dont tie me to the pole...I'll roll over and die like a good little boy, youll see.

Note to participants: There have been no deletions of any posts that were on-topic. I do not delete posts simply because they originate from those whom I disagree. Navigator implied this at least once and it is patently false. Each of the posts that I have deleted remain and are visible to the other mods of this forum as well as the Admins. If Navigator knows of a specific post which I deleted because he vocalized disagreement with me on this topic (or any other), he should immediately PM one of the Admins or James R, demanding action. Should he fail to do that, he should PM me an apology for creating the implication that I'm deleted posts as a tool for debate. Failure to do either of these would certainly be demonstrative of intellectual cowardice and dishonesty.

At this point this thread is pointless. Any proof contrary to moderators opinion will be deleted.

This is an intellectually dishonest statement and could be construed to demonstrate you as an intellectual coward. The only posts that I delete are either off-topic or considered to be baiting/flaming. I demand that you either qualify your allegation or apologize. Either PM James R or an Admin with details of what posts you created that were contrary to the OP and subsequently deleted, or PM me with an apology.

 

[mikenostic]

There has been several studies that were conducted to support the OP. I don't think a single person (until Jeremyhfht) said it was B.S.

What *I* asked for was a citation to the study or studies that were worth discussing. While this is a religion subforum, the overall forum is a science forum, so this would be interesting discussion. A critical and objective look at the methodologies and statistical modeling of such a study would be informative and interesting. And since it is the type of study that supports the 'god hypothesis,' if only indirectly, it follows that it would be appropriate for the example to be used for discussion come from that camp. If *I* cite a study, to which I then critically evaluate and point out flaws in the methodology (assuming such flaws exist), then I would just be inviting the 'god hypothesis' camp to respond that I cherry-picked a study that I knew I could tear apart.

I took me about 10 minutes to read this thread and about 5 seconds to realize what SW was after...even before I read what he posted above:

Mikenostic: "Christians may live longer than non-Christians (does that mean Jews too?), but they get divorce at the same exact rate that non-Christians do."

Apologist:"Gee Mikenostic, can you cite any sources for this information?"
Mikenostic: "Uh, no. I just thought that you could take my word for it."

...which is exactly how ridiculous making this statement, "People who attend church regularly are healthier and live longer. The doctors in these studies attributed it on the fact that these same people were happier and more positive in their daily outlook." sounds when you don't back it up with sources. It's a simple concept really, cite your sources for credibility; most people learned it in elementary school. You remember? It's called a bibliography.

I think all that SW was asking for was some simple sources, references, which even up to this post of mine, none were ever listed.

 

[spidergoat]

I have heard this is especially true for nuns and monks. Perhaps they don't smoke, don't overeat, don't have many doubts. For this devotion, God makes them wait even longer for heaven, 'cause he's just perverse that way.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Giving a very cursory thought to the OP, one can assume that the relatively low risk lives that highly theists folk lead would result in of course a lack of health threats.

However, it seems clear that this won't apply to suicide bombers? They were religious adherents, who died splattered on the side of a building, exploded, then crushed by tons of concrete. Surely these folk would lower the curve a little.

What about the folks who spend all their time spreading hatred against innocents that their religion teaches them to despise? Surely that'd bring down the happy theist curve a bit?

 

[John99]

mikenostic,

IT said RELIGIOUS - NOT CHRISTIAN

what is your problem?

Skinwalker, you and M*W comisserated against me and deleted a succession of my posts in one sweep, but i hold no real grudge.

 

[navigator]

UC Berkeley press release

26 March 2002
By Sarah Yang, Media Relations

Berkeley - Attending religious services may aid the body in addition to helping the spirit, according to a new study. Researchers in California have found new evidence that weekly attendance at religious services is linked to a longer, healthier life.

In the study, researchers from the Human Population Laboratories of the Public Health Institute and the California Department of Health Services, and from the University of California, Berkeley, found that people who attended religious services once a week had significantly lower risks of death compared with those who attended less frequently or never, even after adjusting for age, health behaviors and other risk factors. The study will be published April 4 in the International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine.

"We found this difference even after adjusting for factors such as social connections and health behaviors, including smoking and exercising," said Doug Oman, lead author of the study and a lecturer at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health. "The fact that the risk of death by several different causes is lower for those who attend religious services every week suggests that we should look to some psychological factor for answers. Maybe frequent attendees experience a greater sense of inner peace, perhaps because they can draw upon religious coping practices to help them deal with stressful events."

Oman conducted the study while he was a research scientist at the Public Health Institute and a post-doctoral researcher at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health.

Researchers specifically looked at the risk of death from certain diseases, including cancer and heart disease. While they found no significant difference for risk of death by cancer, they did find that people who attended religious services less than once a week or never had a 21 percent greater overall risk of dying, as well as a 21 percent greater risk of dying from circulatory diseases.

There was also a strong trend towards lower mortality from respiratory and digestive diseases, although there is more of a possibility that chance might have played a role in producing those results. When compared with weekly attendees, those who attended less than weekly or never had a 66 percent greater risk of dying from respiratory diseases and a 99 percent greater risk of dying from digestive diseases.

Adherents to Christian religions made up the bulk of the study participants, with 51.9 percent reporting themselves to be liberal Protestants. Twenty-seven percent of the participants were Roman Catholics and 2.5 percent were Jewish. Members of other Western religions made up 7.2 percent of the group, while those practicing non-Western religions made up 0.8 percent of the group. Those with no religious affiliations comprised 10.6 percent of the study participants.

Oman said there are still unanswered questions he hopes will be addressed in future studies, including the significance of spirituality or devoutness. "Several non-Western religions, including Buddhism, place less emphasis on going to a temple or church," he said. "So people of those faiths may be just as devout in their tradition, and that may revolve around a household shrine. They may go to a temple only a few times a year, but they could still be getting the psychological benefits of inner peace."

Still, Oman said this study adds to a growing body of evidence that religious practices are generally linked to better health. He also pointed out that this study is one of the few that has investigated the relationships between religious involvement and several specific causes of death.

Prior studies of Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists noted that beneficial health behaviors, such as abstention from smoking and high fat diets, were strongly integrated in their beliefs. Past studies have also associated positive health effects with the high level of social support found in religious communities.

"The picture that is developing is that religious activity is affecting health through several pathways," said Oman. "Whether it is encouraging better health habits such as exercising, providing a strong social support network, providing a sense of psychological well-being, or all those factors combined, it seems clear that the effects of faith deserves more study."

The researchers used data taken over 31 years from a longitudinal survey of 6,545 adult residents from California's Alameda County. Researchers from the state health department began the survey, which is ongoing, to study the interrelationships among health status and social, familial, environmental and other factors.

Although the study only looked at residents of Alameda County, Oman said the area's ethnic diversity and mix of rural, suburban and urban neighborhoods make the findings relevant to communities throughout the United States.

Data was obtained through mailed questionnaires or through interviews in the participants' homes. Participants aged 21 and over at the start of the study in 1965 were questioned again in 1974, 1983 and 1994. Death records were obtained from state and federal mortality files through 1996.

Co-authors of the study are William Strawbridge and Richard Cohen from the Public Health Institute, and John Kurata from the California Department of Health Services.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Aging, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the California Department of Health Services.

Web MD 04/16/07, yes thats today.

Discover why some believe that older people who regularly attend religious services appear to have better health.

WebMD FeatureWhy do older people who regularly attend religious services appear to live longer and have better health? Is it something about the type of people they are? Or is it something related to their visits to churches or synagogues -- perhaps increased contact with other people?

A growing body of research is beginning to define the complex connections between religious and spiritual beliefs and practices and an individual's physical and psychological health. No one says it's as simple as going to services or "finding religion" later in life. It may be that people who are more involved in religious activities or are personally more spiritual are doing something that makes them feel better emotionally and helps them live longer and more healthily. The question, researchers say, is what exactly are they doing?

"There is an increasing interest in the subject among researchers and the public," says Susan H. McFadden, Ph.D., of the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, who is co-chair of the Religion and Aging interest group of the Gerontological Society on Aging (GSA), a national group of researchers in aging.

Aging experts will discuss religion, spirituality and aging at the GSA annual conference, which starts Nov. 19 in San Francisco. Sessions will include a discussion of a new report -- from the National Institute on Aging and the Fetzer Institute, a Michigan foundation interested in mind/body issues -- that details research on the religious and spiritual dimensions of health.

Go to Church, Live Longer

Among the most recent findings in this area: People who attend religious services at least once a week are less likely to die in a given period of time than people who attend services less often. These results -- published in the August 1999 issue of the Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences -- came out of a study examining almost 4,000 North Carolina residents aged 64 to 101.

People who attended religious services at least once a week were 46 percent less likely to die during the six-year study, says lead author Harold G. Koenig, M.D., of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina. "When we controlled for such things as age, race, how sick they were and other health and social factors, there was still a 28 percent reduction in mortality," he says.

Koenig, a psychiatrist, says that the regular churchgoers showed a reduction in their mortality rate comparable to that of people who don't smoke over those who do.

Spiritual, Healthy Habits

Other large studies have had similar results. Some smaller studies have also shown that spirituality may be beneficial: People who attend religious services, or who feel they are spiritual, experience lower levels of depression and anxiety; display signs of better health, such as lower blood pressure and fewer strokes; and say they generally feel healthier.

Researchers, including Koenig, say there are limitations to the conclusions anyone should draw from these studies. It could be that people who attend religious services benefit from the social network they form. "It might be that people in churches and synagogues watch out for others, especially the elderly," encouraging them, for example, to get help if they look sick, Koenig says.

Also, it's known that among today's older men and women, religious belief often leads to less risky behavior, such as less alcohol consumption and smoking. And religious beliefs -- or a strong feeling of spirituality outside of traditional religions -- may improve an individual's ability to cope with the stresses of everyday life and the tribulations of aging, experts say.

Or it could be, McFadden says, that certain personality types cope better with life -- and those are the types of people who also attend services more regularly.

Probing Further

Future research might benefit from new survey questions that scientists developed recently. In October, the National Institute on Aging and the Fetzer Institute released a report on new measurement tests. With these tests, researchers may be able to probe more deeply into the connections between health and spirituality, says Ellen Idler, Ph.D., of Rutgers University in New Jersey, who helped write part of the report.

For example, the new tests ask questions about daily spiritual experiences, private religious practices and beliefs and values -- not just about regular church attendance, as some earlier studies did.

"There are private behaviors, attitudes, public behaviors and activities," Idler says of the aspects of an individual's spiritual life. "It is a tremendous, multidimensional model."

Support for the Inner Self

Even people who don't describe themselves as religious probably can benefit from some of the lessons uncovered by research into spirituality and aging, says Harry R. Moody, Ph.D., a gerontologist and author of The Five Stages of the Soul.

"The message isn't 'Go back to church and you'll live a long time,' but stay connected with people on your own wavelength," says Moody, until recently the director of the Brookdale Center on Aging at Hunter College in New York City.

This could mean, for example, joining small prayer groups not associated with any church, trying personal meditation, writing your life story, searching inside for personal meaning in life as you age and face death, remaining optimistic about life even if age and illness take their toll, and forging social connections with family, friends and others.

"You have to discover what is your subjective way of coping with life and tap into it," Moody says.

You can parse and spin it all you want, the fact remains people who regularly attend church live longer happier lives. Granted it is possible similar results could be achieved be by following the same behavior patterns as church-goers, but that has not been proven.

There has been several studies that were conducted to support the OP. I don't think a single person (until Jeremyhfht) said it was B.S.

I agree, the term you used was delusional.

What *I* asked for was a citation to the study or studies that were worth discussing. While this is a religion subforum, the overall forum is a science forum, so this would be interesting discussion. A critical and objective look at the methodologies and statistical modeling of such a study would be informative and interesting. And since it is the type of study that supports the 'god hypothesis,' if only indirectly, it follows that it would be appropriate for the example to be used for discussion come from that camp. If *I* cite a study, to which I then critically evaluate and point out flaws in the methodology (assuming such flaws exist), then I would just be inviting the 'god hypothesis' camp to respond that I cherry-picked a study that I knew I could tear apart.

See above.

Note to participants: There have been no deletions of any posts that were on-topic. I do not delete posts simply because they originate from those whom I disagree. Navigator implied this at least once and it is patently false. Each of the posts that I have deleted remain and are visible to the other mods of this forum as well as the Admins. If Navigator knows of a specific post which I deleted because he vocalized disagreement with me on this topic (or any other), he should immediately PM one of the Admins or James R, demanding action. Should he fail to do that, he should PM me an apology for creating the implication that I'm deleted posts as a tool for debate. Failure to do either of these would certainly be demonstrative of intellectual cowardice and dishonesty.

You are clearly delusional.

This is an intellectually dishonest statement and could be construed to demonstrate you as an intellectual coward. The only posts that I delete are either off-topic or considered to be baiting/flaming. I demand that you either qualify your allegation or apologize. Either PM James R or an Admin with details of what posts you created that were contrary to the OP and subsequently deleted, or PM me with an apology.

I guess we will never know, you deleted the evidence. Why don't you ask James R maybe he will clarify it for you, besides the proof will be listed as off-topic and deleted so why waste my time.

But I digress, like I said in a deleted post, this thread can die for all I care.
1. I didn't start the thread.
2. The topic is old news, except for a few who are delusional.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Yes. Right. Excepting the fact the majority of EVERYONE is religious, so statistics would obviously show the majority lives longer.

Your statement means nothing.

*************
M*W: Fifty-percent of the US population die from cardiovascular disease. If you want to live longer, eat heart healthy and exercise at least three times per week. No religion can take credit for prolonging the length of one's life.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

mikenostic,

IT said RELIGIOUS - NOT CHRISTIAN

what is your problem?

Skinwalker, you and M*W comisserated against me and deleted a succession of my posts in one sweep, but i hold no real grudge.

*************
M*W: John, I have no Machiavellian conspiracy going on with Skin nor do I have any power to delete posts.

 

[Enterprise-D]

I'm sorry, but I laugh at any study where the sample is entirely too small to even be considered serious. 6500 people out of nearly 300 million? That is 0.0022%. Worse again when you consider the 6.5 BILLION people in the world. The sample is insignificant.

How could you come to any firm conclusion with 6500 people in a single state, in a single country?

 

[mikenostic]

mikenostic,

IT said RELIGIOUS - NOT CHRISTIAN

what is your problem?

Skinwalker, you and M*W comisserated against me and deleted a succession of my posts in one sweep, but i hold no real grudge.

No problem. But if you look at the title of this thread, it does say churchgoers and/or religious adherents....
1. Churchgoers usually mean Christians
2. I did say 'apologist' in my hypothetical dialogue there though.
3. In retrospect I could have listed theists, apologists, religious people. But it all works out the same anyway. So I'll go ahead and change Christian to Religious adherents; it still doesn't change the rhetoric of my monologue above though. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Cris]

One of the biggest stresses in life is dealing with the outlook that one day you will die. Stress for most is a significant factor in life expectancy. Religious adherents believe they have solved the death problem so their stress level has been substantially decreased.

Would we live happier and healthier lives not knowing that a planetoid will destroy the Earth in 10 years or would we be seriously stressed out and miserable knowing it was going to hapen but powerless to prevent it?

The delusion of a fantasy as opposed to factual evidence can make a difference to life expectancy and health.

What could change this religious paradigm and the claims that a religious life is healthier is if we all started to work on real solutions to the death problem that would give us all REAL hope that death could be actually averted rather than the dominant religious fantasy.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

*************
M*W: Fifty-percent of the US population die from cardiovascular disease. If you want to live longer, eat heart healthy and exercise at least three times per week. No religion can take credit for prolonging the length of one's life.

I didn't know that about the cardio disease. Thanks for the info.

But did you misunderstand me? That was my point. Since most people are religious, statistics will show religious people living longest. Correlation does not imply causation, though.

Religion has nothing to do with it, as you said. I merely proved the point wrong.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I didn't know that about the cardio disease. Thanks for the info.

But did you misunderstand me? That was my point. Since most people are religious, statistics will show religious people living longest. Correlation does not imply causation, though.

Religion has nothing to do with it, as you said. I merely proved the point wrong.

*************
M*W: True, and your point is well taken. Studies have shown that religious preferences should be taken into consideration by the medical professional in the care and positive outcomes of the patient. I used to teach in medical school, and this was a point I touched on in regard to mind over matter healing. The spiritual needs of the patient when addressed by the physician as part of the healing process is statistically significant in their recovery. It doesn't really matter if its all just a myth, but if the patient has spiritual needs, they need to be addressed and included in the treatment plan. It's mind over matter.

 

[codanblad]

well its in the interest of religions to have such an effect on their followers, i reckon they're designed with that in mind. people will gladly join if it'll make them happy, and dead people don't fill collection plates.

 

[codanblad]

just looking at some of the other posts, being a christian doesn't mean God smiles upon you and throws you a few more years, it means you don't take drugs or drink excessively, etc., you're happy believing you're going to heaven/doing God's will.

 

[codanblad]

that would only apply to some christians however. will edit my shit together in the future. found the edit button lol.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

People from countries which are the most atheistic - like Sweden and Japan - have longer average life expectancies than people from the most religious countries like the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

This would suggest that the title of this thread is a crock