It doesn't matter what religion it is. Islam, Jewish, Christian, et al. What studies are finding is that,

"People who attend services at a church, synagogue or mosque are less stressed and live longer, according to new research from Vanderbilt University.

“Sometimes in health science we tend to look at those things that are always negative and say, ‘Don’t do this. Don’t do that,’” said Marino Bruce, a social and behavioral scientist and associate director of the Center for Research on Men’s Health at Vanderbilt.

The new research findings, however, are “encouraging individuals to participate in something,” he said.

According to the study, middle-aged (ages 40 to 65) adults – both men and women – who attend church or other houses of worship reduce their risk for mortality by 55 percent."

https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2017/05/31/worship-is-good-for-your-health-vanderbilt-study/

"A study published by researchers at Yeshiva University and its medical school, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, strongly suggests that regular attendance at religious services reduces the risk of death by approximately 20 percent.

The findings were based on data drawn from participants who spanned numerous religious denominations. The research was conducted by Eliezer Schnall, Ph.D., clinical assistant professor of psychology at Yeshiva College of Yeshiva University, and co-authored by Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology and population health at Einstein, as an ancillary study of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI).

The WHI is a national, long-term study aimed at addressing women’s health issues and funded by the National Institutes of Health.

The researchers evaluated the religious practices of 92,395 post-menopausal women participating in the WHI. They examined the prospective association of religious affiliation, religious service attendance, and strength and comfort derived from religion with subsequent cardiovascular events and overall rates of mortality. Although the study showed as much as a 20 percent decrease in the overall risk of mortality for those attending religious services, it did not show any consistent change in rates of morbidity and death specifically related to cardiovascular disease, with no explanation readily evident.

The study adjusted for participation of individuals within communal organizations and group activities that promote a strong social life and enjoyable routines, behaviors known to lead to overall wellness. However, even after controlling for such behavior and other health-related factors, the improvements in morbidity and mortality rates exceeded expectations.

“Interestingly, the protection against mortality provided by religion cannot be entirely explained by expected factors that include enhanced social support of friends or family, lifestyle choices and reduced smoking and alcohol consumption,” said Dr. Schnall, who was lead author of the study. “There is something here that we don’t quite understand. It is always possible that some unknown or unmeasured factors confounded these results,” he added."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081119174230.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2018 11:56AM by Amyjo.

> A study published by researchers at
> Yeshiva University and its medical
> school, Albert Einstein College of
> Medicine, strongly suggests that
> regular attendance at religious
> services reduces the risk of death
> by approximately 20 percent.

So if you don't attend religious services regularly, you have a 100% 'risk' of dying. But of those who do attend religious services regularly, 20% never die.

So 100% of the religious have a 20% chance of never dying.

Let's say that of the 110 billion humans who have ever lived only 10 billion weren't religious. That means that there are 20 billion immortals on this earth.


But my real question is, since this is so stupidly worded and since these are educated but presumably religious people writing this blurb can we do a study on the percentage of religious people who say stupid things?

So I took one course in statistics so I'll just point out one thing with some all caps and then drop my mic.

The FUCKING "study" was on people age 40-65. So of course mortality rate decreased. PEOPLE WHO ARE OLDER WILL LIVE TO BE OLDER.

Fucking stupid studies.

Interesting how you left off all of the original articles' "suggests" qualifiers, and treated it as if the "science is in."

I also don't know where you got the "55 percent" reduction number, since the study says "up to 20%."

And then there's this part you ignored:

“The next step is to figure out how the effect of religiosity is translated into biological mechanisms that affect rates of survival,” said Dr. Smoller. “However, we do not infer causation even from a prospective study, as that can only be done through a clinical trial."

So...interesting, yes. "Science is in," causation demonstrated, whether it's even real or not...no.

Amyjo probably thought that the "editing" was for our own good.

Never has an example been made so boldly, so clearly, that a prophetess is without honor in her own home. But one must give her credit, that despite the rule that preaching should not be done here, she does so all she can. Jesus commanded it...

Atheists everywhere can see her shining light on the hill. Thank ghawd for curtains!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Thank ghawd for curtains!

Pretty funny EOD. Thanks for the laugh, sorely needed today.

But does one need religion anymore?

Won't watching Dateline suffice?

Stop it! Stop tickling my fancy!!

If I watch Joel Osteen, not only do I not die, but I also get rich!

ROFLMAO.

>> ""People who attend services at a church, synagogue or mosque are less stressed and live longer, according to new research from Vanderbilt University.

You can reduce stress a number of ways, yoga, mediation, nature walks, exercise, music, etc. If stress reduction is the key, religious worship is not the only lock.

The new research findings, however, are “encouraging individuals to participate in something,” he said.

"Something" would include what I mentioned above. "Something" isn't just religious worship.

Trying to make religious activity any more important or capable than other equally useful and productive options is disingenuous in my opinion....biased if nothing else....ridiculous for sure.

It's also true that Mormons live longer than non-Mormons do, owing to lifestyle differences.

https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol10/3/

Longevity does not equate to happiness.

This is true. But if you haven't got health, the quality of the years suffer.

Religion doesn't necessarily produce good health.

So Mormonism is better than other religions after all?

That they live longer than others in the same demographic group is what the study showed. Not that it's better.

Better health overall does equate to better quality of years. That would include mental and spiritual health, not just physical.

So you are explicitly saying that Mormonism is bad and all other religions are good?

The standard you established with your opening post was longer life and better health. Now you are saying that Mormonism delivers more of those things than other religions.

See you in Relief Society next week.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you are explicitly saying that Mormonism is bad
> and all other religions are good?
>
> The standard you established with your opening
> post was longer life and better health. Now you
> are saying that Mormonism delivers more of those
> things than other religions.
>
> See you in Relief Society next week.


Save me a seat.

The high usage of antidepressants and porn among the "saints" would make one conclude that they are not living a high quality of life per se.

I think they endure longer more than live longer actually.

A woman well over the age of 100 was interviewed recently and one comment was repeated on KFI a number of times. She said that ghawd must hate her and he'd given her long life as a curse; because in all years of living, she remembered only one day when she was happy.

Hopefully, she was exaggerating...

Longevity is over rated.

Give me a thousand great days rather than ten thousand lousy ones...:)

Belief extends health. The body depends on the mind for longevity and for correcting disease. Likewise, if your mind is out to get you, it will. So don’t let it.

Everyone likes presents and no one wants to die. That's where the imaginary gods of St. Nick and Jesus come in. Wooohooo!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2018 02:37PM by steve benson.

I think the allegations of this article are absolutely fucking ridiculous at worst and specious at best.

However, non-deliberately or otherwise, I don’t think AmyJois trying to suggest that Mormonism is better because it’s participants demonstrably live longer because they don’t smoke drink or do drugs.

I don’t know if A study has been done specific to Mormonism and longevity, but if it has and it did conclude that Mormons do live longer because of what I stated above, it wouldn’t surprise me.

That doesn’t personally matter to me, because quality of life to me has more to do then what a rank fraud considered good or bad for the body and decided to codify into a then-suggestion-now-commandment known as D&C 89.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2018 02:55PM by midwestanon.

You are correct. Amyjo does not like Mormonism: she likes other religions, for which she shills almost daily.

But the standard for religious utility that she espouses above is longer life and better health. There are studies that indicate that Mormons live longer and healthier (ignoring psychological wellbeing) lives, though, so by her measure Mormonism is the superior religion.

The only way out of that paradox is to acknowledge that longevity is not the appropriate measure of religion--in which case there is no point to the thread.

Maybe mindless obedience is less stressful than actual thinking.

Or maybe people willing to dump the tribal safety of religion are more likely to take risks in general.

Or maybe some people have poor coping skills in general, and their inability to cope with religion is just a specific manifestation of a general problem.

IOW, it could well be that the non-participation in religion is the result of a deeper issue, not the cause. "Correlation is not causation"

Dunno why I just do.

Hey, love is a good thing! Further affiant sayeth naught.

There is something really scary to me about the phrase, "Science is in . . ." as if what follows that is some kind of undeniable proof. Science is ongoing exploration subject to continual examination and questioning of data. Perpectual re-evaluation as I understand it.

To have the phrase "Science is in . . ." being used in a religious agenda way--religion which either denies science or attempts to disqualify the integrity of it--is a very odd scenario indeed, playing fast and loose with the word "science."

This accords with other psychological and medical findings that community and support networks help people live longer. Loneliness, and the often accompanying purposelessness, actually alters the immune system to cause illness. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/303084.php

I find it quite biased that most responders here try to debunk the findings in the OP because of the trigger word "worship" instead of considering the phenomenon itself.

Well, it is a 'trigger' word to some of us! And it is often used, especially by the OP, as a settled argument.

But I take your meaning. In that sense, RfM is a life-extender, of sorts. When you connect the fact that real life friendships can result, with in-person meetings, then it is definitely a community of sufficient depth to promote purpose, and thus longevity.

It seems predictable, at least to me, that if you hold a foregone conclusion that 'religion is bad,' then it is justified to find fault with anything that says some good can come of it.

That's not an absolute truth by any means.

I am teaching English-learners the movie "Erin Brockovich." Near the beginning of the film, Erin is hit and injured by a speeding doctor's car which ran a red light (he gets off in court because of a nasty lawyer and Erin's uncontrolled temper). A total "bad" deal, right? But it forced her onto a new life track which led to heroic conclusions. I wonder if she ever thanked that doctor, at least in her mind, for the service he rendered her...

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find it quite biased that most responders here
> try to debunk the findings in the OP because of
> the trigger word "worship" instead of considering
> the phenomenon itself.

Personally, I didn't try to "debunk the findings." In fact, I noted they were interesting.

What I *did* "debunk" was the cherry-picked "summary" the OP offered -- which misrepresented the study, its noted effects, and its conclusions.

The conclusions stated are not the conclusions in the paper.

Also this is based on ~ 90 K post menopausal women. Old church ladies, of course they feel calmer in chuch, total BS.

Not relevant to men, not relevant to young people. Not Releavent to about 7 billion people.

The Vanderbilt study was both men and women aged 40-65. It was the 2nd Yeshiva study that studied post-menopausal women. Note: post-menopausal women are not all old!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2018 07:02PM by Amyjo.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2018 06:56PM by Lot's Wife.

Just wow. Someone posts a *scientific* study -- watch people go bat crap -- because they don't really like the conclusions.

THAT never happens in religions. Oh. Wait. I thought that was one of the reasons we LEFT religions.

There are all kinds of LEGITIMATE criticism to make of this and any other study -- but I am not seeing much of that here. And some of the "issues" brought up here are as pure as applesauce gets.

1. Vanderbilt is NOT BYU -- it not even Notre Dame (which does some pretty respectable research, by the way). V. is a secular research university with a freaking reputation to uphold. Just keep it in mind.

2. My first thought was -- can this research be duplicated? Because -- and follow this closely -- THAT is a scientific question. And all I know about science is what they demanded this English major learn to get a BA --but even *I* know THAT much. So I google around and the first sentence I turn up is: "The latest in a long line of studies, now numbering in the hundreds, if not thousands, shows that church attendance is good for your health." Source is good -- Washington Post -- details follow -- so YES -- research has been duplicated.

To be continued...

You are missing the more fundamental question: is it religion or a social network that has the effect on longevity?

Also important is the failure to address the frequency of attendance at church. There is no differentiation between weekly attenders and yearly attenders, which is important.

And of course the study doesn't address the "worship" question at all. What was measured was participation in the community, not whether anyone believed the doctrine. To claim that "worship" extends one's life is therefore unfounded.

It seems likely that community extends life, not religion per se.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...is it religion or a social network that has the
> effect on longevity?

That's the point I was going to make.

I have been reading about this lately and the more general conclusions of studies so far are that having a good primary relationship, a few close friends and regular social interaction are good ways to promote health and well-being. Makes sense. It's hard to overestimate the beneficial effects of loving and being loved, spending enjoyable time outside of work and pressure, looking after oneself for the sake of family, enjoying a more social lifestyle, and more.


There are many variables, so a lot more study to be done.

How can they measure, for instance, what causes the apparent benefits from attending church? Is it an inspiring sermon, a good feeling, apparent spiritual thoughts and feelings, presumed communion with God, or is it merely getting out of bed and taking oneself off to a few hours of interacting with fellow humans (hence, the question of the importance of social interaction in general or of church in particular). They would have to find a way to measure and/or account for the variables at church before coming to final conclusions, you'd think. For instance, what if the sermons are astoundingly dull but the friendships restorative? How about if the music is sublime but the congregants are two generations older than you so not much in common? What if the pastor is a gifted orator but church policy precludes LGBTQ folks from attending which offends your sense of fair play or leaves out yourself or a loved one or just people in general, all, presumably, within your faith belief, made by God, like yourself? Not all that relaxing and rejuvenating then. So would your presence at such a place influence your longevity? Hard to see how. So, we have the missing link, in my view, in terms of study results about who lives longest and why.


> Also important is the failure to address the
> frequency of attendance at church. There is no
> differentiation between weekly attenders and
> yearly attenders, which is important.

Maybe it's not even physical attendance but just beliefs in general? Wonder if they can factor that in and study it a bit?


> And of course the study doesn't address the
> "worship" question at all. What was measured was
> participation in the community, not whether anyone
> believed the doctrine. To claim that "worship"
> extends one's life is therefore unfounded.

Well said. I agree. Leads to a lot of unanswered (and un-answerable?) questions.


> It seems likely that community extends life, not
> religion per se.

Exactly what I've read in other studies. Makes sense. More so than concluding, prematurely it seems, that merely attending church confers greater longevity.

As others have noted, how could you leave out Mormonism then? It would be *any* religious belief, you'd think. If not, then you'd have to study doctrine and see which teachings prolong life and which foreshorten it.

For many of us, re Mormonism and other belief systems we've ditched, we can easily conclude from firsthand experience if nothing else that continuing to squish one's round self into their square hole is not life-enhancing and may even be life-endangering. Seriously.

It's good to see you around, my friend.

:)

Haven't finished my post -- so isn't a bit early to decide what I'm missing?

3. SOMEONE posted something -- well -- is "weird" too judgmental? And called the study a word that WEIRDLY got through the the Great God filter -- a word I didn't know you tossed about here -- as so many of my posts don't make it. This poster said the study was fracked up -- because after all the older you get, the less likely you are to die? I rather had the opposite impression of human mortality, but what do I know? If you get to be 90 you are guaranteed 95, right? So as the article I lucked on to put it more clearly, I thought I would share it: "Published in May by researchers from Vanderbilt University, the study found that middle-aged adults who attended religious services at least once in the past year were half as likely to die prematurely as those who didn’t." Not fudged up at all.

To Be Continued...

Wait is it 20% or 50%.

And the point is that this isn't science this is statistics, or science fiction you choose.

I think I was singularly lucky in the article I stumbled on to -- because it asked the *good* questions -- as well as acknowledging the science. I like that -- on both counts.

It is called, in fact, "A healthy mystery," and Imma just cut and paste it because I think it is so good. Pay attention to the last paragraph is this clip.

"A documentary called “Your Health: A Sacred Matter,” which probes recent findings similar to these, airs on many PBS stations Saturday — another sign of growing awareness of these studies’ significance, especially for older adults.

"But even as the studies pile up and the literature appears close to conclusive, many questions about the association between religious service attendance and health have yet to be answered.

"For one, people attend religious services for all kinds of reasons. What is it about services that might impart better health? The prayers? The social connections? The coffee and cookies?

"And does religious attendance account for longevity, or something else? Could it be that people who attend church, synagogue or mosque happen to lead healthier lifestyles? Maybe they are on the whole predisposed to eat well, exercise regularly, engage in safe sex and drink alcohol in moderation?

"How about people who bond over shared interests — say, knitting or poker, or devoted volunteers in literacy centers, or animal rescues? Has anyone studied whether these group members have lower mortality rates?

"And finally, if, as so much evidence suggests, religious attendance is correlated with positive health outcomes, does that mean doctors should prescribe a weekly service to their patients?

"“Religion is incredibly complex,” said Neal Krause, a retired professor of public health at the University of Michigan who is the lead investigator in a Landmark Spirituality and Health Survey. “To say ‘Church attendance is good for your health’ does everything and nothing at the same time. The question is, ‘What ­exactly is going on here?’ ”

"Krause points out that not all religion is good. Religious devotion can also lead to negative health outcomes if people are motivated to attend church out of guilt, for example, or feel God is punishing them through their illness. Indeed, studies have shown that negative religious coping can cause spiritual distress that may lead to depression or early death."

Other excellent points raised:

* Many researchers agree that even if religious attendance does promote better health, it’s not appropriate for a physician to tell patients to go to church if they want to live longer — just as it wouldn’t be appropriate to tell patients they should get married because research shows married couples live longer.

* For example, he said, it would be unethical for a doctor to try to convert patients to a particular faith or to initiate prayer with a patient.

Likewise, it’s not clear that going to church to improve the odds of survival is a good idea.

“I wouldn’t want a congregation of people there for health benefits,” said Daniel Sulmasy, a general internist and ethicist at Georgetown University and a former Franciscan friar. “In fact, we don’t know if people did it for that reason, rather than intrinsic reasons, that there would be a correlation.”

But of course someone concerned with eternal salvation would discount extended life. The death of a devout believer is the next step in eternal happiness.

Still statistics, still bullshit.

Oh -- of course -- the citation --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/a-healthy-mystery-over-attending-houses-of-worship/2017/07/07/c0c4e2d0-628f-11e7-a4f7-af34fc1d9d39_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f8b5467d601e

janeeliot, have you reached a conclusion? Or will there be more musings first?

I gotz ta know!

Well, it looks like your research brought you to the points we critics of Amyjo's article have already articulated. That's progress!

There are a lot of variables that need to be sussed out. It is very difficult to single out one thing and attribute one effect to it.

People who spend time in church are not as likely to be out doing things that would kill them prematurely. They are sitting there praying, gossiping and reading scriptures which is much safer than spending that time at home with a chain saw or mountain climbing. I really don't follow what they are ruling out and how.

I think it is feasible that a sense of community - sharing, well being, comfort in the idea that someone is in charge, contemplative awe of the universe, gratitude expression, etc. could contribute to well being for many personality types.

I don't know how they distinguish worship or supernatural beliefs from simply sitting around having a fun visit with friends at church. Church can mean a lot of things. I think we would have to say that Mormon worship could be just as beneficial as any other worship since they also have the group belonging and spend a lot of safe church-time.


A lot of these studies are not solid science, just because they have made a correlation. The catch us how they can test this considering longevity has probably hundreds of variables.

Or get a pet.

For people living alone, man’s best friend can decrease your risk of death by 33% and your risk of cardiovascular-related death by 36% compared to people who live alone that don’t have a pet.

The benefits don’t only extend to those that live alone, although they have the greatest incentive to adopt a furry family member. Multi-person homes see an 11% decrease in their charge of death with a dog at home and a 15% lower chance of death due to cardiovascular disease.

http://fortune.com/2017/11/20/dog-owners-live-longer/

The Church of Bring Your Dog has adherents who are living into their 90s and 100s.

Would I lie?!

Susan I/S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For people living alone, man’s best friend can
> decrease your risk of death by 33% and your risk
> of cardiovascular-related death by 36% compared to
> people who live alone that don’t have a pet.

...and attending church only gets you 20%!

It really is dog over god!

So a scientific study shows that worshipping a mythical figure is good for you? What is wrong with that picture? Why doesn't science first go ahead and prove there is a god?

So if a study showed that worshipping Santa Claus would help me live longer, how exactly would I go about doing that?

Apparently you have to have a mind without critical thought to be healthy, so I guess I'll get ready to die.

Ignorance is bliss.

And we claim that Mormonism is the cause of much ignorance and blindness? Yet give a pass to other religions.

It would seem some people get stuck trying to defend the indefensible. Out of the pot into the fire.

Where I presently worship there are people who attend regularly well into their eighties and nineties. We had a doctor who lived to 103 or 4 before he stopped coming.

They honor the aged there. When I attended Mormon ward last, the elderly were marginalized and treated as less than their younger counterparts. That, to me, represented a most unhealthy outlook on life and respect for the elderly within the Mormon community.

It makes no sense how it elevates the oldest male priesthood leaders to the most important callings of TSCC, while marginalizing and disenfranchising the aged among the laypeople. None whatsoever. It sends a wrong message on aging. And about community and continuity between generations.

That's one thing I do love about where I go is that people are shown respect and treated with dignity at all stages of life.