Atheists are mad.

[Gob]

Thanks to a couple of surveys, it’s being put about in certain circles that atheists have higher IQs than believers.

That may or may not be the case, but one problem with this argument is that, if you accept "average group differences in IQ”, you get into all sorts of sinister debates which bien pensant atheist Lefties might find less to their liking.

So let’s not go down that unhappy road. Let’s dispense with the crude metric of IQ and look at the actual lives led by atheists, and believers, and see how they measure up. In other words: let’s see who is living more intelligently.

And guess what: it’s the believers. A vast body of research, amassed over recent decades, shows that religious belief is physically and psychologically beneficial – to a remarkable degree.

In 2004, scholars at UCLA revealed that college students involved in religious activities are likely to have better mental health. In 2006, population researchers at the University of Texas discovered that the more often you go to church, the longer you live. In the same year researchers at Duke University in America discovered that religious people have stronger immune systems than the irreligious. They also established that churchgoers have lower blood pressure.

Meanwhile in 2009 a team of Harvard psychologists discovered that believers who checked into hospital with broken hips reported less depression, had shorter hospital stays, and could hobble further when they left hospital – as compared to their similarly crippled but heathen fellow-sufferers.

The list goes on. In the last few years scientists have revealed that believers, compared to non-believers, have better outcomes from breast cancer, coronary disease, mental illness, Aids, and rheumatoid arthritis. Believers even get better results from IVF. Likewise, believers also report greater levels of happiness, are less likely to commit suicide, and cope with stressful events much better. Believers also have more kids.

What’s more, these benefits are visible even if you adjust for the fact that believers are less likely to smoke, drink or take drugs. And let’s not forget that religious people are nicer. They certainly give more money to charity than atheists, who are, according to the very latest survey, the meanest of all.

So which is the smart party, here? Is it the atheists, who live short, selfish, stunted little lives – often childless – before they approach hopeless death in despair, and their worthless corpses are chucked in a trench (or, if they are wrong, they go to Hell)? Or is it the believers, who live longer, happier, healthier, more generous lives, and who have more kids, and who go to their quietus with ritual dignity, expecting to be greeted by a smiling and benevolent God?

Obviously, it’s the believers who are smarter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally ill.

And I mean that literally: the evidence today implies that atheism is a form of mental illness. And this is because science is showing that the human mind is hard-wired for faith: we have, as a species, evolved to believe, which is one crucial reason why believers are happier – religious people have all their faculties intact, they are fully functioning humans.

Therefore, being an atheist – lacking the vital faculty of faith – should be seen as an affliction, and a tragic deficiency: something akin to blindness. Which makes Richard Dawkins the intellectual equivalent of an amputee, furiously waving his stumps in the air, boasting that he has no hands.

[rubato]

There are periodic claims of "proof" that prayer is curative. When examined they have all been shown to be fraudulent.

So do you have a link for this probable bullshit?

Yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it might be about this story.

[MajGenl.Meade]

There are periodic claims of "proof" that prayer is curative. When examined they have all been shown to be fraudulent.

So do you have a link for this probable bullshit?

Yrs,
rubato

I don't read any claim about "prayer" in the article, though doubtless many Christians (and others?) might claim such as curative (in my view, without warrant). However, I'd like a link as well to see if there's any backup to the alleged research.

"Believers" obviously (?) includes non-Christian believers but if there are some valid studies out there, wouldn't it be interesting to see if different faiths yielded different results. I'd guess "extreme Islam" doesn't stack up so well against(say) "extreme aescetic Buddhist".

[Big RR]

Meade--I'm not so sure "extreme islam" would be all that different; those attracted to those extreme forms of religion apparently get an inner peace from knowing their place in the world and where they are going afterwards. They are promised this by the authorities who they trust--some people want and/or need such extremism. Not exactly an indicator of mental health IMHO, but then if the people are happy in their cloistered world view (and they appear to be), I would bet the author would claim they are the most sane.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well I was joking there BigRR - imagining extreme Islam as the chaps who literally hurl themselves into things while attached to bombs vs. an extreme ascetic Buddhist who figuratively hurls himself into nothingness over a very, very long time. The state of physical wellbeing would seem to me to last for significantly less years amongst the first group.

Longevity and health was my focus - not sanity which for me is a sidebar. There are tons of religous kooks out there (and atheists presumably think that all are a couple of wheels short of a trolley). Question is: do different faiths yield different results?

[Big RR]

Different results? I think it depends what the person wants; the extremist suicide bomber leads a short life but is happy in the knowledge he is acting on behalf of Allah and will be rewarded for this devotion in the hereafter. The Buddhist is similarly happy in his pursuit of nirvana through decades of learning and practice. But I would think neither would be happy with the other's religion.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I find that many who are religious (I'm not) and/or spiritual (I try to be) are more at peace with themselves, others and in general.
I would venture to guess that being calmer and more at peace, would have it's physical advantages in regard to health. I know I have become much calmer and have gone to a lower dose of my hypertension pills along with my anxiety pills. Of course not drinking has probably helped those things also.

Then there is the power of the mind. If someone believes that their God is looking out for them and will help them heal, and they do heal faster than the aethiest, then who would knock that outcome. I certainly wouldn't. People can believe in whatever higher power they want to believe in (or not believe in), and can ascribe whatever powers to that higher power, who am I to say they are wrong.

And this part of the article reminded me of someone but I can't think of who.

Obviously, it’s the believers who are smarter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally ill.

Not what was written, but how the style.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meanwhile in 2009 a team of Harvard psychologists discovered that believers who checked into hospital with broken hips reported less depression, had shorter hospital stays, and could hobble further when they left hospital – as compared to their similarly crippled but heathen fellow-sufferers.

The list goes on. In the last few years scientists have revealed that believers, compared to non-believers, have better outcomes from breast cancer, coronary disease, mental illness, Aids, and rheumatoid arthritis. Believers even get better results from IVF. Likewise, believers also report greater levels of happiness, are less likely to commit suicide, and cope with stressful events much better. Believers also have more kids.

Final effort Big RR. The article is not about comparative religious happiness based upon suicide for Allah or staying alive for Nirvana. (a) the thrust of the article is about people who stay alive and have a better life than atheists (2) dead people can't report on their happiness. Whether it's all true or not....well, who knows?

I remain interested to know if (for example) recovery rates from ulcers or gallstones) are better or worse for a Hindu, a Catholic, an atheist, a Jaine; a Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.

I'm beginning to suspect you just like winding me up......

Meade

[Big RR]

Well Meade, I'd never wind you up--at least over something as inconsequential as this. I read the article as saying that the religious believers are happier, and that this pervades into a variety of other things, such as positive outcomes from serious diseases. Indeed, the article mentions that it appears our brains are hard-wired for faith, and that we do better when we meet that need. I don't think that the article is saying that there is any divine intervention here, only that people who believe in something generally are more fulfilled, happier, and healthier when we subscribe to a faith. I kind of see it like the observation that married people tend to live longer, due, at least in part, to fulfilling our biological leaning to pair bond.

Now I think you do raise an interesting question with regard to whether any faith, or just particular brands (for want of a better word) produce these same outcomes. I ventured an answer based on what I think the study tells us of happiness, but I fully concede it may be wrong. And I will agree that an Islamic suicide bomber would skew the average lifespan of radical moslems ; but I would think you'd have to correct for that, just as I think you'd have to correct for other religious sects that eschew modern medicine in favor of faith healing (or whatever). But, those sort of concerns aside, I would think someone who found a faith that he or she is comfortable with would likely be more mentally stable and happy in their world view, leading to the benefits the surveys apparently observed. Of course, the opposite is also true, and embracing a faith that does not give a person that inner peace (as oldr writes), would not result in those benefits.

[Lord Jim]

I'd like to see a link providing evidence to support this claim, (he said, knowing that no such thing could possibly exist):

There are periodic claims of "proof" that prayer is curative. When examined they have all been shown to be fraudulent.

Laying aside the fact that the article in the OP makes no reference whatsoever to "claims of 'proof' that prayer is curative ", I'd love to see rube's source* for the assertion that "all" such claims have been proven "fraudulent"...








(*Well, not really, since I know that the source of this claim springs from deep inside the inner wall of rube's lower intestine, and I don't actually have any desire to see that... )

[Long Run]

Interesting book. Finds that meditation provides equivalent benefits to prayer, so no need to change one's religious outlook. Research does show improved mental ability with prayer/meditation.

[Lord Jim]

who live short, selfish, stunted little lives – often childless – before they approach hopeless death in despair,their worthless corpses are chucked in a trench

Well, that certainly wouldn't describe every Atheist I've known, but it definitely seems spot on for one I can think of...

[dgs49]

Whether or not one's theology is mumbo-jumbo, it is hardly surprising that a person who believes in God, heaven, and all that nonsense is likely to be "happier" than someone who believes that life just "happens," and when you die, that's it.

Is an 8-year-old who believes in Santa Clause happier than a cynical 8 year old who doesn't?

But does that say anything about their relative intelligence or the existence of Santa Clause? No.

[Crackpot]

I' have found most approach Clauses with trepidation.

[dales]