"Being godless might be good for your health - study shows

[Physics Guy]

Clearly atheists can have plenty of emotions. It seems reasonable to suppose, though, that religious belief can generate feelings of consolation and courage in times of grief and fear, as well as emotional inhibitions against temptations to unethical behavior, which are not available to non-believers.

I mean, atheists can’t have their cake and eat it, too. If religious beliefs are providing imaginary comfort and conditioned inhibitions, well then religious beliefs have to still be doing those same things when we spin them more positively. You have to give God his due, same as the devil.

The atheistic side of this point seems to me to be that religion probably does have social and medical benefits, and that these are what explain the historical persistence of religion even though it’s all false. Atheists can then argue that the benefits of religion can be duplicated by other means, if not perfectly then closely enough for some other benefits of atheism to compensate for the shortfall.

[IHAQ]

In 2018, researchers from the University of Georgia studied the impact of orthodox religious practice on LGBTQ people. The test group? LGBTQ Mormons. And get this: Of the almost 300 Mormon and ex-Mormon participants, a shocking 89% “likely met criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis related to their religious experiences.” PTSD: we know it as the disorder of war veterans and survivors of abuse, violence, and, well, trauma.

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commenta ... ap-hiding/

When your religion is resulting in you or your loved ones suffering PTSD it's time to consider whether a belief in that particular brand of God is worth it...

[IHAQ]

That’s not to say, at all, that atheists as individuals can’t be happy here and there. But they tend more towards social isolation, more so than religionists.

I'm looking for your supporting evidence on this claim.

Within Mormonism members who don't fit the required norm (married with lots of kids) experience strong social isolation. As I've already posted, gay members not only feel socially isolated within their religion, it's so bad as to cause PTSD in a staggering 89% of gay members. Single adult members experience the same type of thing in a very passive aggressive manner. The pinnacle of Mormonism, something that is preached almost every Sunday and certainly every General Conference is that God wants married couples with lots of children, the implication being that if you're an adult, not married, or married without kids you are inferior. The Church even went so far as to remove single adults from normal wards until they got married which reinforced the fact they aren't part of what Mormonism wants. They stopped short of insisting single adults wear some kind of identifying symbol on their clothing, but still...If that's your definition of social inclusion you are completely off your rocker. The LDS Church is one of the least socially inclusive organisations on the face of the earth.

Consider the demographic make up of the senior leadership of the Church in comparison to the demographic make up of the membership:
100% male
100% married
100% fathers
100% heterosexual
87% North American (excludes Canada)
100% Over 60

As an example of the disparity, only 40% of the claimed membership is North American (excludes Canada).
Does that look like the epitome of an organisation with social inclusion? No, it looks like the exact opposite.

[Meadowchik]

Clearly atheists can have plenty of emotions. It seems reasonable to suppose, though, that religious belief can generate feelings of consolation and courage in times of grief and fear, as well as emotional inhibitions against temptations to unethical behavior, which are not available to non-believers.

I mean, atheists can’t have their cake and eat it, too. If religious beliefs are providing imaginary comfort and conditioned inhibitions, well then religious beliefs have to still be doing those same things when we spin them more positively. You have to give God his due, same as the devil.

The atheistic side of this point seems to me to be that religion probably does have social and medical benefits, and that these are what explain the historical persistence of religion even though it’s all false. Atheists can then argue that the benefits of religion can be duplicated by other means, if not perfectly then closely enough for some other benefits of atheism to compensate for the shortfall.

I think there is a clear case for social cohesion enhanced by religion, but I don't think that social cohesion is an accurate indicator of emotional health and certainly not emotional breadth and depth.

What I think MG is talking about is the emotional incentive of social cohesion, but that is not the same as emotional balance or a full emotional life. For example I might feel euphoric singing and hearing testimony every week, and having continual social interactions with the same people that reinforce those emotional highs. Having those euphoric feelings might aid a person in doing difficult things, either by accomplishment or endurance. Euphoria can help reduce the physiological damage of stress, and a supportive social system can provide many health benefits.

As for atheists, the flipside of religious social cohesion involves much more than atheists, and is simply secular ways of forming social cohesion and deriving emotional benefits through areligious channels. Pretty much everyone (except very fundamentalist religionists) does this to some extent. We are, however, adapting in a world that has largely been structured around religion since prehistoric times. Humans have built models to coexist within different religious groups, but as a whole are still unstable in that endeavor. I think that the tools to achieve stability in secularism as a whole are very much the same as the tools for areligious and/or atheistic people to achieve stability as yet another section of a pluralistic society.

[Physics Guy]

I think that the tools to achieve stability in secularism as a whole are very much the same as the tools for areligious and/or atheistic people to achieve stability as yet another section of a pluralistic society.

That's probably true, and it's what I meant by atheists being able to obtain benefits similar to those from religion by other means. By the same token, though, religious people can also do pretty much anything atheists can do to achieve social cohesion or whatever. Some religions condemn some cohesion-building activities as sinful but not all religions are against dancing or playing cards, or drinking liquor or smoking weed for that matter.

Insofar as atheism is just not believing something, though, it seems hard to get around the fact that religious belief opens some additional possibilities beyond whatever you can get without it. Maybe people can live without those extra options but it would be weird if they didn't even exist.

In particular I think there's probably more to the old saw about "no atheists in foxholes" than atheists like to admit. It's not literally true, of course; I'm sure there have been plenty of non-believing soldiers come through battles. The advantage of believing in God, though, over other forms of emotional support and encouragement toward group cohesion, is that there are no hardware requirements. God is still as there as God is ever going to be even under desperate circumstances when most other supports aren't available. You'll never walk alone.

It's fair to point out that this is the same advantage offered by belief in a powerful imaginary friend. Even so: if we're talking about advantages of belief, independent of whether the beliefs are accurate, then belief like that does have advantages.

[Meadowchik]

That's probably true, and it's what I meant by atheists being able to obtain benefits similar to those from religion by other means. By the same token, though, religious people can also do pretty much anything atheists can do to achieve social cohesion or whatever. Some religions condemn some cohesion-building activities as sinful but not all religions are against dancing or playing cards, or drinking liquor or smoking weed for that matter.

I think there is a cost to social group cohesion. Intragroup relationships can often come at a cost to intergroup relationships. We see this readily in the LDS Church, and some other religious groups, where one cannot experience the temple wedding rite with someone outside the Church. And highly dogmatic groups which also enjoy high cohesion also suffer this detachment from the outer world in more everyday ways, even at the subconscious level, where people are "othered," and considered more risky and less trustworthy.

Insofar as atheism is just not believing something, though, it seems hard to get around the fact that religious belief opens some additional possibilities beyond whatever you can get without it. Maybe people can live without those extra options but it would be weird if they didn't even exist.

You could say the same about every religion that excludes other religious beliefs: they are "not believing something," too, which could potentially open doors to additional possibilities.

In particular I think there's probably more to the old saw about "no atheists in foxholes" than atheists like to admit. It's not literally true, of course; I'm sure there have been plenty of non-believing soldiers come through battles. The advantage of believing in God, though, over other forms of emotional support and encouragement toward group cohesion, is that there are no hardware requirements. God is still as there as God is ever going to be even under desperate circumstances when most other supports aren't available. You'll never walk alone.

Sorry, but this is where I am more inclined to respond with the barf emoji! It is really condescending (and also hackneyed) to claim that atheists aren't really atheists. I think you could just as easily say that theists aren't really theists: that in foxholes they'll behave as if no Being exists to hear them. I think this view probably says more about you and your own beliefs than it does atheists.

For me, there is something meaningful to me about how I am and what I think even when I feel totally completely alone in my own mind.

It's fair to point out that this is the same advantage offered by belief in a powerful imaginary friend. Even so: if we're talking about advantages of belief, independent of whether the beliefs are accurate, then belief like that does have advantages.

There is spiritual maturity and even a great deal of edification in personal dignity. Like the person who dies alone but on their own terms. There is likewise spiritual maturity and edification in two people comforting each other at the end of all things as far as they know. The fact that they value their own dignity and treat each other as having their own is, in my opinion, more powerful than people doing so because they believe a divine Being is also a witness.

[Res Ipsa]

MG, your imaginings of what it’s like to be an atheist are truly cringe-worthy.

This is a gross over generalization and misconstruing of anything that I actually said.

If you say you’re happy, I believe you. Happy?

Cringe worthy? C’mon.

Regards,
MG

Yep, cringeworthy. And this isn’t the only example. It’s a theme with you.

I feel both happy and lucky this morning. I think my kidney stone has passed, and the thought of no longer being subjected to that pain makes me feel great. It’s starting to be light out when I get up, which means spring, and with it, my favorite part of the year is approaching. Lots of birdsong, too, which for me is a lovely way to start the day. My parents are vaccinated and my wife gets her first shot tomorrow. It looks like my turn will come next month. I’m looking forward to resuming my social activities. I just finished a book that made a pretty good argument for something that matches my experience — that the vast majority of people are decent and good. That’s put me in a hopeful frame of mind this morning.

So slap whatever label you want on that. Thanks for asking.

[Physics Guy]

In particular I think there's probably more to the old saw about "no atheists in foxholes" than atheists like to admit. It's not literally true, of course; I'm sure there have been plenty of non-believing soldiers come through battles. The advantage of believing in God, though, over other forms of emotional support and encouragement toward group cohesion, is that there are no hardware requirements. God is still as there as God is ever going to be even under desperate circumstances when most other supports aren't available. You'll never walk alone.

Sorry, but this is where I am more inclined to respond with the barf emoji! It is really condescending (and also hackneyed) to claim that atheists aren't really atheists. I think you could just as easily say that theists aren't really theists: that in foxholes they'll behave as if no Being exists to hear them. I think this view probably says more about you and your own beliefs than it does atheists.

Maybe you're too fast with that barf reaction. If you read what you actually quoted you should see that I never said atheists start believing just because they're in foxholes, but instead acknowledged explicitly that "of course ... plenty" do not. My point was that a lot of psychological support mechanisms don't work well in foxholes, where you're isolated and in mortal danger with little you can do to help yourself. Religious belief is one of the few psychological aids that can work even under such adverse circumstances.

[Physics Guy]

I think there is a cost to social group cohesion. Intragroup relationships can often come at a cost to intergroup relationships. We see this readily in the LDS Church, and some other religious groups, where one cannot experience the temple wedding rite with someone outside the Church. And highly dogmatic groups which also enjoy high cohesion also suffer this detachment from the outer world in more everyday ways, even at the subconscious level, where people are "othered," and considered more risky and less trustworthy.

This is an important point. I don't think it really has to be a zero-sum game, where my feeling of being part of my own group comes at the expense of rejecting people who aren't, but I agree that there's a certain tendency that way in practice. At the extreme there are cults that isolate themselves completely from the rest of the world.

Worrying about that is part of some religious traditions, at least. The parable of the Good Samaritan is told as an answer to the question, "Who is it that I'm supposed to love because they count as a neighbour?" Other traditions probably have something comparable.

Insofar as atheism is just not believing something, though, it seems hard to get around the fact that religious belief opens some additional possibilities beyond whatever you can get without it. Maybe people can live without those extra options but it would be weird if they didn't even exist.

You could say the same about every religion that excludes other religious beliefs: they are "not believing something," too, which could potentially open doors to additional possibilities.

Sure, but there are significant differences of degree here. Most religions don't exclude each other completely; some differ only on details that both consider minor. One does not close as many doors by rejecting the authority of the bishop of Rome or the Hanafi school of fiqh as one does by rejecting God.

[Meadowchik]

Sorry, but this is where I am more inclined to respond with the barf emoji! It is really condescending (and also hackneyed) to claim that atheists aren't really atheists. I think you could just as easily say that theists aren't really theists: that in foxholes they'll behave as if no Being exists to hear them. I think this view probably says more about you and your own beliefs than it does atheists.

Maybe you're too fast with that barf reaction. If you read what you actually quoted you should see that I never said atheists start believing just because they're in foxholes, but instead acknowledged explicitly that "of course ... plenty" do not. My point was that a lot of psychological support mechanisms don't work well in foxholes, where you're isolated and in mortal danger with little you can do to help yourself. Religious belief is one of the few psychological aids that can work even under such adverse circumstances.

Sure I did read what I quoted and responded to, which is why I gave explicit examples of how a person can deal with crisis without God-belief. The psychological mechanism of valuing and respecting a human being, including oneself, is powerful.