Fiach

http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...ggle_20_4.html

"In order to conclude this short summary of the evaluation of the questionnaires (the original study comprises more than 500 pages—further details can be furnished on request) we should like, once again, to point out the most important results: contrary to the tendentious assertions put up by numerous studies on the psychology of religion, simply taking advantage of the statistically small number of atheists compared to the relatively great number of strictly religious persons, atheists are less prone to depression than religious persons. Their psychic condition differs most impressively from those who, though quite obviously with a guilty conscience, do not keep the church’s rules, but never seriously analyzed their own religious education and their obviously persistent secret, religion-based convictions. There is a less distinct difference between atheists and strictly religious persons who unbrokenly stick to religious prescriptions and therefore are less depressed by feelings of guilt than “lukewarm” Christians. But atheists also have an advantage over the hard core of believers with respect to their depression values—although the difference is not so great."

So it seems that firm Atheists and fanatical theists are the least depressed people. Those in the middle, luke warm theists, or lukewarm agnostics may have higher depression indices.

What does it mean? I don't know. Perhaps the person secure in his/her world views and beliefs is less prone to depression than the perons stuggling with what is the answer?

Fiach

Psycho Economist

Well, on the one hand, I've felt that there's a strong theoretical basis to believe atheists could be as mentally well-off as the religious, especially compared to the "religiously lukewarm". And I'm glad this study doesn't disconfirm it.

On the other hand, I have no choice but to be suspicious of a study conducted by the Council for Secular Humaism. Especially if its publication route is straight into an issue of Free Inquiry, without even a pit stop in peer reviewed psychology journals. So much for Kurtz's grandstanding as a skeptic.

Their intuition -- having and practicing solid beliefs make for happier people than do hypocracy or uncertainty -- is solid. But I can't trust the study. Oh well, leaves me an research opportunity if I ever go into Psychology all the way.

Fiach

This was done by tenured European psychologists. I don't know if it was peer reviewed by any UK journals and I don't read that many American journals. I suspect that as an American Psychologist told me, articles critical of religious beliefs are unlikely to be published by American journals. Newsweek published the Religion and Brain article and as a reward got many subscription cancellations.

Fiach

Fiach

Dr. Franz Buggle is professor emeritus of the Department of Clinical Psychology of Albert-Ludwigs-University at Freiberg/Breisgau, Germany. He is the author of many books including Empirische Untersuchung über die weltanschaulichce Einstellung heutiger deutscher Universitäts-studenten (Meisenheim 1962) and Denn sie wissen nicht, was sie glauben. Oder warum man redlicherweise nicht mehr Christ sein kann. Eine Streitschrift (Reinbek 2nd ed. 1997). He conducted his study with Dorothee Bister, Gisela Nohe, Wolfgang Schneider, and Karl Uhmann.

W. Schneider et al., “Einstellung und emotionales Befinden von Atheisten” (“Attitudes and Emotional State Among Atheists”), Diplomarbeit/Psychologisches Institut der Universität Freiburg 1985.

“Was glauben die Deutschen?” (“What Do Germans Believe In?”), Spiegel 46, no. 25 (1992), 36-52, based on an inquiry by the EMNID Institute, and “Sind Gläubige gesunder? Die positiven Wirkungen der Religion” (“Are the Religious Healthier? The Positive Effects of Religion”), Psychologie Heute 24, no. 6 (1997) based on the aforementioned inquiry.

2. W. Harenberg, “Was glauben die Deutschen? Die EMNID-Umfrage” (“What Do Germans Believe In? The EMNID Poll”), Munchen 1968; G. I Schmidtchen, “Zwischen Kirche und Gesellschaft” (“Between Church and Society”), Freiburg 1972; H. Hild (ed.), “Wie stabil ist die Kirche?” (“How Stable Is the Church?,’’Berlin 1974; A. Feige, Kirchenaustritte, Berlin 1977; H. Mynarek, “Religiös ohne Gott?” (“Religious without God?”) Düsseldorf 1983.

Fiach

Eudaimonist

I had posted a link to a similar article several months ago. Here is an encore presentation.

Faith, Reason, and the Good Life

Fiach

Thanks for sending that link. I have reviewed the article, it is well done. I will save it.

Fiach

Psycho Economist

Until I can trust that their research has been subjected to peer review, I'll be skeptical. But not cynically incredulous. As I said, their findings make intuative sense given previous work in social cognition.

I read the same end matter and, just given German / English cognates, at least two of the references are obviously journals (others could be). But just because this guy's a professor doesn't mean he can't have an axe to grind. And the fact that his research was bankrolled by Kurtz (who's known to have an axe to grind) makes me hesitant (but not loath) to embrace it. It is entirely possible, for example, that if this study had not found results favorable to Dr. Kurtz's cause, he would have made publication... difficult.

I just don't know.

Peregrine

#1 Be carefull into reading too much into a coorelation.

#2 One symptom of depression is lack of strong convictions. Which seems to fit with the findings of this study.

Fiach

Kurtz may have funded a study but are you accusing him of not paying until he saw the results. That is a serious accusation. I hope you can prove it. If I published a similar magazine and I funded two studies, I paid for them both. I would have the right to publish which ever I wanted. If it is a Science Journal which FI is not, then it must pass peer review, other neurologists (such a I have been involved) are sent the manuscript for review. I have done such reviews with other neurologists for the European Journal of Neurology in Paris.

I am not a psychologist. And I admit to being sceoptical of 80% of the shite published by most psychologists older than 40 years of age. The are still stuck in the obsolete psychoanalysis and Freudian bollocks. Modern ones are more aware of brain anatomy and neurotransmitters. I was shocked when I was invited to speak at an American Psychological Association meeting several years ago. I was amazed that psychiatrists had almost no knowledge of basic gross brain anatomy. That was a disgrace. Their excuse was that they deal with phenonology rather than organic function. Bollocks!

It would be nice to have a scientifically controlled study in which the testers are blinded to the religious belief of the subjects and reported the results that could then be categorised. But the very nature of the subject would keep it from being done or funded in America with the increasing religious fanaticism there.

Fiach