"Our study offers compelling evidence that it is the social aspects of religion rather than theology or spirituality that leads to life satisfaction," ... friendships built in religious congregations are the secret ingredient in religion that makes people happier."This sounds reasonable but I think you need to compare results with non-religious people who also have a structure of close friendships somehow comparable to those existing among members of religious congregations. I'm skeptical that religious belief itself has no major effect. We know the power of things such as placebos. It seems likely that strong faith, regardless of its validity, might also have effects on a person which could be positive.
Pennsylvania Primary Election Results (New York Times)
17 minutes ago
This is pure scientism--and pseudo-science too boot. Actual science can put no actual "metric" or "measurement" on "Happiness", nor can it in any scientific sense define such things as "religious belief" or "faith", nor can it "measure its effects" in any meaningful quantitative way. It is most certain that it can come up with no "theoretical basis" for religion. More to the point, so far as Christianity goes, the point of faith is not "happiness" in this word, it is salvation in the next. From
ReplyDeleteThis is yet another group of left wing psuedo-scientists pushing their particular point of view. If it has merit as "sociology"--and perhaps better as anthropology--it is as an artifact of the biases and ignorance of atheistic academics posing as scientists and the intellectual rot afflicting the Academy.
Shame on you for not pointing this out.
BTw, Christianity would not have had the long,grand and influence that it has had these last 2000 years merely because of a need for friendship.
"This is pure scientism--and pseudo-science too boot. "
ReplyDeleteNonsense. It's just one study which may or may not mean anything. It hardly deserves such a hostile and defensive overreaction.
"Actual science can put no actual "metric" or "measurement" on "Happiness", nor can it in any scientific sense define such things as "religious belief" or "faith", nor can it "measure its effects" in any meaningful quantitative way."
Yes, actually it can as long as it defines those terms as to what is being measured. You can obviously poll people to find out whether they consider themselves happy, satisfied with life, or whatever other question you want them to respond to.
"It is most certain that it can come up with no "theoretical basis" for religion."
It is most certain that your assertion makes no sense.
"More to the point, so far as Christianity goes, the point of faith is not "happiness" in this word, it is salvation in the next."
That's completely irrelevant to this topic.
"This is yet another group of left wing psuedo-scientists pushing their particular point of view."
That sometimes happens, but I see no firm evidence that this is the case here. It's not exactly an outrageous correlation to find that friendship is important to life satisfaction. As I mentioned, I'm skeptical about their conclusions, but there's no obvious indication of bias. You might want to check your knee-jerk assumptions.
"If it has merit as "sociology"--and perhaps better as anthropology--it is as an artifact of the biases and ignorance of atheistic academics posing as scientists and the intellectual rot afflicting the Academy."
If you are going to make an argument, it doesn't help to spout ridiculous gibberish.
"Shame on you for not pointing this out."
See above.
"BTw, Christianity would not have had the long,grand and influence that it has had these last 2000 years merely because of a need for friendship. "
Who said it did? The study is looking at only one aspect of religion, its effect on so-called "life satisfaction" as indicated by participant responses.