Usefulness of Religion (Whether or Not It's True): You'll Live Longer and Happier

[Stone Island]

Religion and living longer:

A recent study by demographers has established a firm relationship
between length of life and religion. Hummer et al. (1999) engaged
the nationally-representative US sample of the 1987 National Health
Interview Survey – Multiple Cause of Death data, a sample of 22 080, to
study the effects of attendance at religious services, sociodemographic
characteristics, health and other factors upon mortality nine years later.
Between 1987 and 1995, 2016 sample persons had died. “Results show
that religious attendance is associated with US adult mortality in a
graded fashion such that individuals who never attend exhibit 1.87
times the risk of death in the follow-up period compared to individuals
who attend more than once a week.”

While admitting that some do not attend religious services because
of illness and hence are at higher risk of death, the authors hypothesize
that the social ties formed through church and temple contacts and
other behavioral factors, such as “stress and coping resources,” reduce
the chance of death. They found the benefits of religious attendance
stood the test of various causes of death. In addition, the effect of religious attendance held even after statistically controlling for the possible
effects of age, sex, race, and region, of activity limitation, self-reported
health, and reported bed days, of income and education, of marital status
and other social ties, and of behavioral risk factors such as smoking
cigarettes, drinking alcohol and overweight (body mass index).

Thus, religious involvement extends the length of life, a key Q[uality] O[f] L[ife]
indicator.

Religion and Happiness:

Subjective well-being is measured by cognitive assessment of life satisfaction, the respondent’s moods and emotions, and by expressions of
happiness. Subjective well-being has become an important area of
psychological research (Diener, 1994; Diener et al., 1997). Studies
of happiness (Veenhoven, 1993) have explored its determinants and
consequences in many and varied aspects of life, including religion.
Studies have found positive relationships between aspects of religiosity
and happiness and the satisfaction with life. Only a few studies
have found negative relationships between religiosity and subjective
well-being.

Witter et al. (1985) examined 556 studies and found 28 addressing
religion and subjective well-being, the latter variously indexed by life
satisfaction, morale, well-being, QOL, and happiness. They found religion
positively associated with perceptions of well-being. A stronger
association was found in earlier than later studies, suggesting a possible
trend. A stronger relationship was found between religion and subjective
well-being among older than younger samples. Studies indexing
religious activity yielded stronger relationships than did other measures
of religiosity. Generally, they found religion accounting for between
two and six percent of the variance in adult subjective well-being.
Studies of elderly populations have yielded positive association
between religious factors and measures of subjective well-being. Cox
and Hammonds (1988) reviewed several studies supporting the hypothesis
that religious activities and attitudes were associated with life satisfaction
and other well-being measures. These included Edwards and
Klemmach (1973), Speitzer and Snyder (1974), and Blazer and Palmore
(1976). Guy (1982) reported higher life satisfaction among those
attending church more today than 15 years ago. Cox and Hammonds
(1988) found “overwhelming support” for “a positive relationship
between religious belief, religious participation and life satisfaction
in later life” (p. 16). For the elderly “the church becomes the focal
part of social integration and activity. . .providing them with a sense of
community and well-being” (p. 1).


from, Ferriss, Abbott L., "Religion and the Quality of Life" in Journal of Happiness Studies, No. 3, 2002, pgs. 199-215.

[Boo]

You will also live a longer and happier life if you are married, have a pet and stay physically and mentally active.



Boo

[Stone Island]

You will also live a longer and happier life if you are married, have a pet and stay physically and mentally active.



Boo

Please note:
In addition, the effect of religious attendance held even after statistically controlling for the possible effects of age, sex, race, and region, of activity limitation, self-reported health, and reported bed days, of income and education, of marital status and other social ties, and of behavioral risk factors such as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and overweight (body mass index).

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yeah, and Pratchett's Librarian has decided to stay an Orangutan.

News at Eleven.

Cause and effect or mere correlation?

[Tiktaalik]

That just shows that there is a correlation, given all other things mentioned held equal.

It doesn't discount any correlation between living longer and other factors, such as the ones Boo mentioned or others, such as maintaining a healthy body weight.

[skeptical]

To do this sort of study properly, they would also have to control for _any_ group affiliations to see if they yield similar results. Also, I think they would have to control for theists who weren't attending religious services vs non-theists who weren't. I would think a theist would tend to have strong feelings of guilt over non-attendance, which could result in significant unhappiness, which would probably not hold for non-theists.

I have no doubt that social ties make people happier, and this study bears that out, but they seem to be drawing a causation between particularly religious associations that seems a bit premature unless they have accounted for non-religious associations.

Also, since the vast majority of the population of at least the US is religious, it would not surprise me if until recently non-theists were not as happy as they tend to be nearly universally reviled by theists in the society around them. The recent upsurge of the "new Atheism" not withstanding, until the past few years, I would suspect that many non believers kept their own counsel in such matters.

Finally, even assuming that all of the factors I mention are accounted for, this would of course have no bearing on the truth of religious beliefs. Something can be quite useful and comforting, but be completely false.

But, the "sense of community" I think nails it on the head. In fact, I have long felt that the primary reasons for religious affiliation for many people are not the actual belief systems but the social interactions they receive.

[drkitten]

[QUOTE=Tiktaalik;3233798]That just shows that there is a correlation, given all other things mentioned held equal.[/QUTOE]

I also simply don't believe it. There are literally hundreds of such studies that have been performed. None of the proposed correlations actually held up in replication.

Based on such a track record, I feel confident dismissing the cited research out of hand.

[Magyar]

That just shows that there is a correlation, given all other things mentioned held equal.

It doesn't discount any correlation between living longer and other factors, such as the ones Boo mentioned or others, such as maintaining a healthy body weight.

Bold mine. SO in other words this study is completely and utterly useless and represents nothing more then the attempt of the religiously delusional to justify their delusion!

Water is wet - News at 11.

[Marquis de Carabas]

So, being religious keeps you out of heaven longer?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

According to a BBC programme the other night, eunuchs have a significantly longer life expectancy (13 years I think).

Seems about as relevant as the opening post.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Being a eunuch certainly tends to keep one out of heaven.

[Hokulele]

Okinawans have a significantly longer life expectancy.

[Jekyll]

Even if this was true, doesn't it just show you should go to church rather than believe in a god?

I mean, deists and anti-social Christians would be more screwed over than atheists that attend church for social reasons.

[Tiktaalik]

It's pretty useless. I mean, if a study shows that maintaining a particular range of body weight will help you live longer, you can at least work on it.

But if a study shows that going to church (correlates with) (may help) you live longer, what are you supposed to do? Start going to church & stressing yourself out by tolerating what goes on there? Or suddenly start believing in a god so you can live longer? I mean...

[Stone Island]

Show me some social science research that does better than "mere" correlation. How do you do a causational analysis in social science without running up against the ire of a human studies board?

Even medial science often relies on correlation and not causation. We knew that people who smoked were dying earlier and getting more diseases than people who didn't. Took us a while to figure out the why (microbiological studies showing the exact chemical agents).

For people living their lives statistical significance across sufficiently randomized survey data is all we got, honey.

[Stone Island]

To do this sort of study properly, they would also have to control for _any_ group affiliations to see if they yield similar results. Also, I think they would have to control for theists who weren't attending religious services vs non-theists who weren't. I would think a theist would tend to have strong feelings of guilt over non-attendance, which could result in significant unhappiness, which would probably not hold for non-theists.

That was, in fact, done.

Religious Doctrine and General Happiness, US, 1972-1996

Very Happy/ Pretty Happy / Not Too Happy
Evangelical 41.1/51.7/7.2
Fundamentalist 36.0/50.9/13.0
Mainline 31.0/61.3/7.8
Liberal 28.6/58.0/13.4
Other 35.3/38.8/5.9
None 26.5/59.0/14.5

Total 31.0/57.4/11.6

[My table editing skills suck.]

[Btodd]

Wow, this thread makes all those seemingly ridiculous claims in the Bible true, right? Since religion is useful, then Jesus obviously walked on water and was born of a virgin. Right?

[skeptical]

Show me some social science research that does better than "mere" correlation. How do you do a causational analysis in social science without running up against the ire of a human studies board?

Even medial science often relies on correlation and not causation. We knew that people who smoked were dying earlier and getting more diseases than people who didn't. Took us a while to figure out the why (microbiological studies showing the exact chemical agents).

For people living their lives statistical significance across sufficiently randomized survey data is all we got, honey.

But it's not _just_ correlation. You have to triangulate, by examining multiple lines of evidence. For smoking causation, it wasn't just that people with smoking got cancer, it was that people who smoked more were more likely to get cancer, as were people who smoked unfiltered vs filtered, and people who quit smoking were less likely to get cancer than those who kept smoking, etc.

These studies were done using the hypothesis that if smoking causes cancer, what sorts of results would we expect to see, and in all cases there was a correlation, which gave a lot of confidence in the causation conclusion.

I agree that in sociological studies, correlation can eventually indicate causation if enough studies looking at different factors correlate. However, as far as I can tell the study doesn't do enough triangulation for things such as theists vs. non-theists, religious groups vs. non-religious groups, etc. to indicate causation.

[Stone Island]

Wow, this thread makes all those seemingly ridiculous claims in the Bible true, right? Since religion is useful, then Jesus obviously walked on water and was born of a virgin. Right?

Your pointless troll is pointless.

[Stone Island]

I agree that in sociological studies, correlation can eventually indicate causation if enough studies looking at different factors correlate. However, as far as I can tell the study doesn't do enough triangulation for things such as theists vs. non-theists, religious groups vs. non-religious groups, etc. to indicate causation.

I'm not claiming that this closes the book on the discussion. It is, however, interesting, and merits following up, yes? I've read enough social science research in my time (mostly on voting and political socialization) to know that what is most useful from these sorts of studies are the questions that their results raise.

[skeptical]

That was, in fact, done.

Religious Doctrine and General Happiness, US, 1972-1996

Very Happy/ Pretty Happy / Not Too Happy
Evangelical 41.1/51.7/7.2
Fundamentalist 36.0/50.9/13.0
Mainline 31.0/61.3/7.8
Liberal 28.6/58.0/13.4
Other 35.3/38.8/5.9
None 26.5/59.0/14.5

Total 31.0/57.4/11.6

[My table editing skills suck.]

Interesting. What does the "other" group contain? Is it theists only, or non-theistic religious people, like Buddhists?

Also, do you know what percentage of each group were in the survey? If the original survey was only 20K, if, for example, only 10% were "none", that is a pretty small sample to draw conclusions from.

I'd also be interested to see if they controlled for socio-economic factors as well as health factors.

I find it interesting that the "other" group had the lowest level of "not too happy" and that fundamentalists had an above average level of unhappiness. I may have to breakdown and actually read the study if its online and free.

[skeptical]

I'm not claiming that this closes the book on the discussion. It is, however, interesting, and merits following up, yes? I've read enough social science research in my time (mostly on voting and political socialization) to know that what is most useful from these sorts of studies are the questions that their results raise.

Yes, I would like to see some follow up. Primarily I think it would be interesting to do some specific studies with the triangulations I have mentioned and possibly others I haven't thought of. I am sure smarter people than myself can come up with all kinds of good hypothesis for further studies to see if there is any "there" there.

[Irony]

I'll believe it. After all, some of the happiest people in the world are cultists. They may be a bunch of suckers being exploited by standard charismatic figure #37802, doomed to a life of poverty and slavery, but they're happy.

[Stone Island]

Interesting. What does the "other" group contain? Is it theists only, or non-theistic religious people, like Buddhists?

Also, do you know what percentage of each group were in the survey? If the original survey was only 20K, if, for example, only 10% were "none", that is a pretty small sample to draw conclusions from.

I'd also be interested to see if they controlled for socio-economic factors as well as health factors.

I find it interesting that the "other" group had the lowest level of "not too happy" and that fundamentalists had an above average level of unhappiness. I may have to breakdown and actually read the study if its online and free.

The study doesn't say. I would imagine that you're right.

It's a small sample, but not unusually so for this sort of thing. For statistical significance, given sufficient randomization, you really only need an N greater than 250 or so. N's in order:

Evangelical: 207 (13.6%)
Fundamentalist: 161 (10.6%)
Mainline: 284 (18.5%)
Liberal: 282 (17.2%)
Other: 61 (3.3%)
None: 558 (36.6%)
Total: 1523

The source is a project that any social scientist can gain access to: The General Social Survey Cumulative File (1972-1996) (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR/STUDY/04697.xml)

The General Social Surveys (GSS) were designed as part of a data diffusion project in 1972. The GSS replicated questionnaire items and wording in order to facilitate time-trend studies. This data collection includes a cumulative file that merges all 25 General Social Surveys into a single file containing data from 1972 to 2006. The 2006 survey was composed of permanent questions that appeared on each of the previous surveys, rotating questions that appeared on two out of every three surveys (e.g. 1973, 1974, 1976), and a small number of occasional questions that occurred in a single survey. The GSS included 11 topical modules: quality of working life, attitudes towards firearms, shared capitalism, level of disability, use of foreign languages, mental health attitudes and experiences, number of people known, participation in congregations, knowledge about and attitude towards science, religious trends, and sexual behavior. The International Social Survey Program (ISSP) modules included in the 2006 survey were: the role of government, and work orientation. Specific topics included social-welfare and economic regulation, civil liberties, spending priorities, and political efficacy. The data also contain several variables describing the demographic characteristics of the respondents.

[Beth]

You will also live a longer and happier life if you are married, have a pet and stay physically and mentally active.
Boo

Good point. All of those are lifestyle choices, just as religion/spirtuality.

To do this sort of study properly, they would also have to control for _any_ group affiliations to see if they yield similar results. Do you mean things like this:
the effect of religious attendance held even after statistically controlling for the possible effects of age, sex, race, and region, of activity limitation, self-reported health, and reported bed days, of income and education, of marital status and other social ties, and of behavioral risk factors such as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and overweight (body mass index). or were you thinking of other group classifications?

Also, I think they would have to control for theists who weren't attending religious services vs non-theists who weren't. This might prove interesing. Apparently some folks are attempting to do just that by developing a questionaire that attempts to better measure the various aspects of different kinds of religious practices.
http://www.hqlo.com/content/3/1/10

I have no doubt that social ties make people happier, and this study bears that out, but they seem to be drawing a causation between particularly religious associations that seems a bit premature unless they have accounted for non-religious associations. This also would be an interesting study. Unfortunately, social groups that provide the sort of support for people that churches due are relatively few and far between. There are some humanist churches, but not many. What other non-religious associations would you propose for comparison purposes.

Also, since the vast majority of the population of at least the US is religious, it would not surprise me if until recently non-theists were not as happy as they tend to be nearly universally reviled by theists in the society around them. The recent upsurge of the "new Atheism" not withstanding, until the past few years, I would suspect that many non believers kept their own counsel in such matters. A very valid point. Have any similar studies been run in Europe, where atheism is much more accepted and tolerated?

Finally, even assuming that all of the factors I mention are accounted for, this would of course have no bearing on the truth of religious beliefs. Something can be quite useful and comforting, but be completely false. It certainly doesn't make it true, but if the results are valid, it provides a rational reason for joining a church.

But, the "sense of community" I think nails it on the head. In fact, I have long felt that the primary reasons for religious affiliation for many people are not the actual belief systems but the social interactions they receive. When I recently joined a church for that reason, I had a talk with the minister to make sure that it was an acceptable reason for joining. He informed me that it was the most common reason in his experience.

[QUOTE=Tiktaalik;3233798]
I also simply don't believe it. There are literally hundreds of such studies that have been performed. None of the proposed correlations actually held up in replication. Could you provide a cite for some of those studies that refuted the correlations? Thanks.

Show me some social science research that does better than "mere" correlation. How do you do a causational analysis in social science without running up against the ire of a human studies board? You can't, so you just have to be cautious about interpreting the results and look for similar results in other studies. Personally, I vote with causal due to the social interaction and community support aspects of most churches. But that's only my opinion.

Thanks for posting the information. It was interesting.

[tek]

Incidentally, the GSS also shows that verbal intelligence and religious belief are inversely related (http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/religious_peopl.html). Following the (apparent) logic: if you're smart, you'll probably figure out there's no God, and be sad about it.

I would be curious to know what the study says about being gay and happiness -- Dawkins frequently makes the "in the closet" analogy to being an atheist, and that seems like it would add stress and discomfort to one's life. For it to really be a causative effect and not a correlative one, there's got to be a mechanism. If I were to put some money on one, I would bet it's the stress of having a different belief system than your close friends and family - something is likely to be the case in a religious country like the US. I wouldn't know myself though, my family is atheist, as are most of my friends. And I'm pretty happy.

[Stone Island]

Incidentally, the GSS also shows that verbal intelligence and religious belief are inversely related (http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/religious_peopl.html). Following the (apparent) logic: if you're smart, you'll probably figure out there's no God, and be sad about it.
Half Sigma also noted:

The race question is also interesting


16.6% of white people but only 12.5% of black people believe that the Bible is a book of fables. This is consistent with white people being smarter than black people.


After you account for verbal IQ, the results look more similar. 31.6% of white people with high verbal IQ think that the Bible is a book of fables, and 32.8% of black people with high verbal IQ think the Bible is a book of fables.
There are two caveats: (1) very few black people fall into the high verbal IQ category (only 58 respondents in the sample that includes RACE and BIBLE) so the results have a high margin of error; and (2) of those blacks who believe the Bible has at least some truth, a much larger percentage think it is the actual word of God rather than the inspired word of God compared to whites--I suspect this has to do with the fact that blacks and whites attend different churches, and black churches put a more fundamentalist spin on the Bible.



:confused:

[Btodd]

Your pointless troll is pointless.

Nice sentence structure.:p

And it couldn't be more pointless than this thread or this argument.

I can think of a lot of things that, if believed in, would be beneficial. Many of them complete nonsense, too. Should I start a thread about each one of them? Could you force yourself to believe in them, anyway?

On another note, there are conflicting God-beliefs that are beneficial. Which one should I force myself to believe in?

[linusrichard]

Did it control for theists who attended religious services vs. atheists who attended religious services? I mean, just because the people in the study who went to church were happier than the people in the study who didn't, doesn't mean my atheist self would be happier in church than not.

[Stone Island]

And it couldn't be more pointless than this thread or this argument.


Maybe you should tell us what you think the "argument" is.

[Stone Island]

Did it control for theists who attended religious services vs. atheists who attended religiouis services? I mean, just because the people in the study who went to church were happier than the people in the study who didn't, doesn't mean my atheist self would be happier in church than not.

This is what it has:

Attendance at religious services is highly associated with happiness. Attendance is highly correlated with frequency of praying
(r = 0.572). Praying is highly correlated with belief in life after death
(r = 0.217).

Of course, the correlation is not 100.00%. So I would think that a few of the people who are attending church and praying don't believe in life after death. Which, oddly enough, would be odd. Maybe some of these non-believing people go with and pray with family members who believe and still get the benefits of the sociability aspects.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And of course the happiest people in the World are in institutions called insane asylums. The spend the whole day giggling at that amazing crack in the wall, nap when they want to, have their diapers changed regularly, are spoonfed a delicious mush three times a day and have a nice warm bath one a week,

I'd rather be religious. :D

[Btodd]

Maybe you should tell us what you think the "argument" is.

That religion makes one live happier and longer, so one should practice religion. If that weren't your point, then the thread has no more use than positing a completely nonsensical idea that would also be useful, and talking about it.

No one brings up 'religion makes you live longer and happier' without the intent to persuade the audience to practice religion.

[Tiktaalik]

Beth, you are attributing a quote to me that was actually Drkitten, who quoted me earlier in her post. That is why I haven't answered you with the information you requested...

[Stone Island]

That religion makes one live happier and longer, so one should practice religion. If that weren't your point, then the thread has no more use than positing a completely nonsensical idea that would also be useful, and talking about it.

No one brings up 'religion makes you live longer and happier' without the intent to persuade the audience to practice religion.

Well, it might do you some good to be more sociable, caring, and accepting of those who do practice religion.

While I'll be the first to admit that it doesn't logically follow, I always get the sense that the dogmatically atheistic are a testy, angry bunch. They almost hate religious people. The feeling's mutual, I imagine. I know I was angry, bitter, and hateful before I saw the light and became an agnostic.

That's not true. I had a professor in graduate school who claimed to be the only real atheist in the world because he saw the necessary connection between atheism and nihilism. Atheism, for him, was for people who didn't want to admit to themselves the complete and utter meaninglessness of existence. He disliked them more because they didn't have the excuse of being deluded or stupid, the were intellectual cowards. He only got up in the morning, again according to him, as an act of stubborn will. He, of course, while brilliant, and even at time convincing, was a loon. Fascinating guy, born stateless, with a passport issued by the U.N.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That isn't the usefulness of religion. It measured church attendance. Not all religions have churches to attend or require you to do so.

I could get a sense of community from joining the local LGBT group.

I'm not saying that a religion wouldn't be helpful, I just doubt that it is due to the religious part of it as opposed to the community aspect.