Showing posts with label psychology religious. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology religious. Show all posts

Monday, September 20, 2010

An Exampel of Atheism hitch hiking on scinece

Photobucket

 Atheism is has a very precarious relationship to scinece. A good many people who love scinece are atheists, and more than that, people who don't know much about scinece but become atheists cling to scinece as the proof (the protection against the angry God). The problem is while atheists think of scinece as an extension of atheism scinece is actually neutral. Science is not atheist and it's only function is to learn about the workings of physical world. Science is not in the business disproving God that is totally outside it's domain. Atheists, however, have basically come to rely on science to take the place of God in their world view. They think of scinece as an extension of atheism and they psychologically depend upon it to guarantee that their hatred of religion and religious people wont blow up in thier faces when they die. These ideas are evident very clearly in the following dialogue that I had on T web.

near the bottom of the thread "Atheism, the adventure of faith."  Opponent is "Tassman" his post to me is no 103, my answer, which is below is 104.

his orignal statment that p-ed me off was:

You, with your advocacy of fringe science, feel yourself to be in a position to argue with Hawking do you?

You, with your advocacy of fringe science,
Meta:translation: science that the atheist ideology does not approve because it doesn't support the ideology. To these guys Alan Sandage is fringe scinece.


feel yourself to be in a position to argue with Hawking do you?
No. Me with my Ph.D. (ABD) in history of ideas I sure as hell am prepared to argue with Hawking on matters concerning God and religion. He as a scientists steps outside his domain every time he uses the word "God." Nevertheless I don't see him around anywhere. I'm arguing with you aren't I, Dr. Hawking?




Who cares about the “god of the bible and how this is relevant to M Theory? Or anything else if it comes to that!
so you admit your view point is based upon begging the question, emotional dislikes for God, and poisoning the well hu?




Certainly M-Theory is not yet complete, but the underlying structure of the mathematics has been established and is in agreement with not only all the string theories, but with all scientific observations of the universe. As well, it has passed tests of internal mathematical consistency which many other attempts to combine quantum mechanics and gravity had failed.

that's not what the guy form Columbia University says.* Now you can call him names all you want, dismiss him as "fringe scinece (meaning he doesn't back your ideological world view) but you really think you can call a major physicists who is respected and teaching at Columbia "fringe?"

this is an example of the fallacy of guilt by association.

*some fringe thinkers disagree with atheist ideology
*this guys disagrees with one important approbation of atheist ideology
*therefore, this guy is a fringe thinker.
guilt by association

To date 'M' theory looks highly promising and is of great interest to those who care about truth and knowledge more than protecting a besieged deity from even further irrelevance.
those who care about truth. well I don't care about truth do I? that's because your definition of caring about truth is "agree with my ideology." that's how we know atheists is an ideology, becuase they always talk like that. They laud scinece like it's a holy sacred endeavor when you disagree with their views (even if you back it up with major scientists) you are transgressing on the holy sacred ground of science, the great god scinece! Guys in white lab coat vestments giving the benedictions with Eucharist in petri dish and the wine in a test tube.

break it down

"M theory looks highly promising" that translates to "proven fact" in his world view. But the major science from Columbia says it's not prmosing. [b]the real issue that you are forgetting is the quote form HAWKING himself! says he's given up on fining the grand theory.


"more than protecting a besieged deity from even further irrelevance."

who is defending the besieged? Anytime anyone brings out evdience against the scientific backing for atheistic arguments they immediately resort ot the labeling trick "he's on the fringe, he's not a real scientist he's a radical." That's evidence of besieged man. read Kuhn. that's a totally defensive circle the wagons kind of strategy.

I am just asking questions, my questions with panic, paranoid, defensive insults.

he practically said "the only people who care about truth are on my side. That is not the sort of thing a confident person says.


And all of us emerged from our mother’s womb as helpless infants, so what do the humble origins of mature adults or a mature discipline like modern science have to do with anything at all?
Now he's trying to write poetry.

Your broad-brush pontifications over atheism are nonsense. Atheism is merely the belief that god’s don’t exist. It has nothing to do with ‘cause and effect’ and everything to do with the lack of evidence.
who the heck is pontificating? The truth seeker speaks. All others are evil subservient or truth.



How ridiculous you and your presuppositions are.
well now that we are on the subject I think you are genius. you must be the greatest thinker scinece Hawking himself. No one ever thought to lump their opponents in with fringe groups or call their view points names, what a stroke of genius! But that's what I would expect from the only man in the world who loves the truth! ROTFLOL



How does adding an unverified and unverifiable god into the ‘mix’ benefit, in any way at all, our understanding of ‘gravity’ or any other law of nature?
If it's unverified (and I'm sure it is unverified) how does speaking of it at all add to our knowledge of scinece? if it is the case that speaking of is not scientific and it's not the scientists job to say unscientific things then: WHY THE HELL IS HAWKING SPEAKING OF IT??? He's the one that brought up God? If it's true that god is not verified and that prohibits him from existing and means that we can just rub the memory of every believing in God form the human mind, why does Hawking need to make this amazing revelatory observation about Gravity in order to say we don't need God? He should be able to just "God is unverified" and that's the end of it.

It's pretty bleeding obvious you don't know what's going on because the publisher uses this as a big selling device and all the atheist are getting happy about it (such rational creatures) but if it's true that talk of God is unscientific then Hawking is speaking not as as a scientist hu?

If he's speaking unscientifically do we have to pay attention? I mean if he said "Corn flakes are great!" does that mean its an official scientific fact that corn flakes are great? The great scientist said it and everything he says becomes a scientific fact right?


On the other hand if God is not a scientific question in the first place, why do you need scientific validation? science is not capable of ruling God out because God is beyond the ability of humans to understand. Thus God is amenable to science. That means we should not expect to find scientific evidence about God--at least not directly




How can invoking an imaginary deity to make to make the natural laws work by divine fiat be anything more than a god-of-the-gaps concept?
OH OH OH I know this, I know this, pick me! Let's see hu...could it be...duh...that's the point? Could it be because the real point is Hawking is begging the question? why is he bring up a non scientific issue and claiming to be able to decide it with scinece?

If it's not a scientific question then scinece is not the tool. Of course calling it "imaginary" to begin with that's not more of begging the question it? That's the great genius telling those of us who love the truth what truth is.

Why is belief in God automatically God of the gaps? Because atheists can on ly thing by their little scientific shield that protected them from having to do real thought. so they can't think in non scientific ways (they can't think scientifically well because that would require being less biased but whatever). Thus they expect that all believers have to have God of the gaps arguments. Of course that' just a function of not bothering to read theology so they don't really know what believers think.


Gravity is, along with ALL the natural laws and constants, based on the ‘principle of uniformity’ which is is a hypothesis based on observation and experience which makes predictions and can be tested.
But that doesn't us why it works does it? NO. Those observations are based upon observing the universe. They are not based upon observing things that makes the laws work. They are not based upon observing the origin of the universe, so they give us no clue as to how laws can exist, weather they are prescriptive or merely descriptive, if they the latter how do the laws make a universe happen that is not around to describe yet?

Nothing in scinece can tell us how there happen to be physical laws or why they work.

what we really need is a global approach not the phony ideological motivated pseudo science of reductionism.


E.g. the constancy of the speed of light is falsifiable, but so far has been verified and the same is true of all constants and laws so far discovered in nature - and most likely always will be. They have been highly productive and gods are not necessary- as Hawking says re the origins of the universe.
All you are saying is "my ideology works because it's based upon something that works." You are, however, extrapolating from the bit that works to the ideological bit that doesn't explain anything. IN fact you can afford to even try and answer my questions seriously because that would be admitting that the ideology is not scinece it's just a sham hitching on the back of scinece.

Non of that answers the questions I asked. None of it rules God out. If we assume that God is the perceiver that makes the universe work what you just described is perfectly explained by that; God is the universal mind the physical laws are the workings of that mind in its' act of engagement with the world, which is its thought.

We need global knowledge to answer these questions. Global knowledge means philosophy, logic, experiential epistemic judgements, phenomenology, and science. We should not ever try to decide the question of God through scinece because it wont work.


*Guy from Columbia University, Peter Woit an established physicist who  is conducting a war against M theory on the premise that it has no proof. M theory = multiverse and is tied in with theory of everything.

Stephen Hawking and Peter Woit, bouth statements on Woit’s blog, “Not Even Wrong” 9/7/2010 URL: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ visited 9/13/2010.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Peter Woit, Interview, “Is Sting Theory Stringing us Along?” Big Think Electronic magazine. (Jan 18) 2010. URL: http://bigthink.com/ideas/18234 visited 9/18/2010

Monday, August 24, 2009

Who is Really Self Actuzliaed, Atheists or Theists?

Photobucket



Yeat another example of atheist attempt at social sciences, on the blog: God is for suckers

An atheist on the blog linked above discovered that actual sercet to realising the reality of God and he's too ignorant and vein to even figure what it means. He's trying to prove that Atheists are self actualized nd religious people not. In fact the studies actually, including those by Maslow whom he quotes and lauds, quite the opposite. Studies show that religious people are self actualized and atheists are not. But this guy, can't find his name, doesn't have a clue. So he uses anecdotal evidence and just asserts "all the atheists I nkow are like this so they must be self actualized, I hate Christianity so it must not be."


Here is how this advanced self actuzed enlightened human describes his site:



Commentary, news, and rants on the evils and stupidity of belief in the big invisible daddy in the sky. Illuminating and watchdogging the widespread attempts to institutionalize the theocratic rule of the US. Making fun of believers everywhere.


The graphic is from his blog

Now he's going to tell us what self actually is:

Atheism As Self Actualization

12 August 2007 by KA

800px-Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs.svg

Let’s talk about actualization, you and I. Take a good, strong look at where we stand.

Abraham Maslow, in 1943, a leader in humanistic psychology, came up with the theory of self-actualization.

No, this is no New Age nonsense: it’s not some Deepak Chopra chaff. It’s a theory that makes a lotta sense.




Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs is as follows:

a theory in psychology that Abraham Maslow proposed in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation, which he subsequently extended to include his observations of man’s innate curiosity. His theory contended that as humans meet ‘basic needs’, they seek to satisfy successively ‘higher needs’ that occupy a set hierarchy. Maslow studied exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that “the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy.”[1] Maslow also studied one percent of the healthiest college student population. While Maslow’s theory was regarded as an improvement over previous theories of personality and motivation, it had its detractors. For example, in their extensive review of research that is dependent on Maslow’s theory, Wabha and Bridwell (1976) found little evidence for the ranking of needs that Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all.




his description of the nature of self actualization. He's quoting an article on Answers.com Even though he basis his arugment upon Maslow he takes issue with Maslows ideas.

I disagree with this last sentence. We require our physical needs be met. We yearn for security, routine. As pack animals, we absolutely must be loved, and provided with a sense of belonging. From those three, flows the fourth. We are, after all, hierarchal creatures.

My addendum to this, is that the religious folks are pretty much stuck at the Esteem level.


As pack animals we must be loved? He's making leap into unsupported claims by implying that love is a need of pack animals. He makes the unsupported assertion that religious people are stuck in one of the phases. Of course he can't see atheists aer stuck just the rule keeping stage. This is a rank armature.I am betting he's in high school, it's certain he has not studied social sciences at the college level.

Now he's going in deeper, from supported claims to anecdotal evidence.


Let’s elaborate, with a personal anecdote. I had a pretty tough childhood (yeah, I know, we all did, just bear with me). Insecure, bullied, wrestling with the divergent hormone avalanche, I sought out alternative ways of validation. Food was one. The occult was another.

It gave me a secret, it gave me the illusion of power. Adolescent fantasies of strength. Luckily, I outgrew all that folderol.

And here is my take: there are many, many things in this life, this world, this universe, that are out of our individual control. Weather, other people’s behavior, other variables over which we exert zero control.


Of course if his low self esteem is what drove him to atheism, then we would search through a succession of positions that would grant him the best illusion of power and worth. It somehow just doesn't occur to him that since he hasn't gotten healed emotionally then the one stuck with is just the one that offers the greater illusion. So my theory about atheists is that they are into the hate because it give them the rush of feeling Superior. They can prop up their failing self esteem by saying "look at these stupid religious slobs, they are so much dumber than i am." One would never think that by reading he hateful intro to his blog above.



So it is in this cloak of flesh we wear, that insecurity plagues us, dogs our footsteps, and sends the wearer on various bunny trails.


Gnostic dualism yet?


So, of all the paths we tread, those that are most tempting, are the ones that are well trodden, that whisper of the ego of personal power. Whether it be of ourselves as the mighty warrior or the keeper of darkness, the vessel of some ghostly power that will act upon us or to impart some supernatural element in hopes that all will be made right one day, that keening wail of the down-trodden that someone comes someday to pass judgment so that the scales will be righted.

If we look at the fifth level, the formula comes clear: most atheists I know are in possession of those attributes (that I know of: there are exceptions, no doubt).

Atheism is what adults do, that is, when the bloom is off the adolescent rose.


It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Let's talk about what adult don't do. First of all, if they have academic training at all, even at the undergraduate level, they don't' blather unsupported assertions and they try to support them with nothing more anecdotal evidence. This is nothing more than the atheist tendency to play social scientist which we see going awry in so many failed atheist arguments all over the net. This is about the worst one I've ever seen. Another thing adults don't do is mock, ridicule and deride people with other view points just becuase they differ from our own. The only reason this guy doesn't this is because he's not an adult he's probably a high school kid rebelling against Dad because because he's gotten a big does of super ego to counter his own id, and obviously he discovered some bits of psychoanalytic theory and he can resist trying to play shrink.

And so we as atheists go about, attempting to educate our fellow adults, who are trying to clutch the dreams of their youth with tremulous hands. It falls to us, then, to lead the world to maturity.

This is the
Apostate, signing off.



so that's what they are doing when they mock, deride, and ridicule me and claim I didn't go to graduate school and refuse to read the posts I spend hours researching, and tell me I have never read the books I've read. They are trying to educate me. In what? In anecdotal evidence?

To be an educator my deal little ignoramus you must know something! You do not know shit from shinola!

The fact of the matter is Maslow would have thought this approach imbecilic. Maslow, though an atheist, did not think religious people were fools. he said "atheists and believers can go a long way down the path together." He admired religious people adn thought they were strong. He admired because the research data that he did proved that people with religious experience re much more self actualized than those who don't have it.

I'll say it again. The studies show that people who have religious experience (what Mslow called "peak experience") other call "mystical," score much higher on self actualization tests than do atheists.

Maslow was concerned with showing healthy psychology. He noted that Freud,Jung, and all the major thinkers in the field of psychology focused on what makes people abnormal, they wanted to know what makes people healthy. His notion of self actualization is the idea, the epitome of healthy psychology. In his research Maslow discovered that religious people tended to be more self actualized than those who do not have religious experiences and he wrote a book about it: Religious Values and Peak Experience (the entire text of the book is on line).



studies have validated Maslow:


Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 92-108 (1982)
DOI: 10.1177/0022167882223011

Scale Development and Theory Testing

Eugene W. Mathes

Department of Psychology, Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois 61455.

The research reported here involved the creation of a measure of the tendency to have peak experiences called the Peak Scale, and the testing of several hypotheses drawn from Maslow's theory of peak experiences. It was found that although individuals who report having peak experiences are also likely to report having experiences involving intense happiness, they are even more prone to report having cognitive experiences of a transcendent and mystical nature. This suggests that although the peak experience involves positive affect, it is primarily a transcendent and mystical cognitive event. Individuals who report having peak experiences are more likely to report living in terms of Being-values, such as truth, beauty, and justice, than individuals who report not having peak experiences. Finally, self-actualizing individuals are more likely to report having peak experiences than less self-actualizing individuals, though the relationship is not a very strong one. In general, these results are consistent with Maslow's theorizing.



Many other studies have done as well.



Dr. Michale Nielson,Ph.D. Psychology and religion.
"http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/ukraine/index.htm"

Quote:

"What makes someone psychologically healthy? This was the question that guided Maslow's work. He saw too much emphasis in psychology on negative behavior and thought, and wanted to supplant it with a psychology of mental health. To this end, he developed a hierarchy of needs, ranging from lower level physiological needs, through love and belonging, to self- actualization. Self-actualized people are those who have reached their potential for self-development. Maslow claimed that mystics are more likely to be self-actualized than are other people. Mystics also are more likely to have had "peak experiences," experiences in which the person feels a sense of ecstasy and oneness with the universe. Although his hierarchy of needs sounds appealing, researchers have had difficulty finding support for his theory."

Gagenback

Quote:

In terms of psychological correlates, well-being and happiness has been associated with mystical experiences,(Mathes, Zevon, Roter, Joerger, 1982; Hay & Morisy, 1978; Greeley, 1975; Alexander, Boyer, & Alexander, 1987) as well as self-actualization (Hood, 1977; Alexander, 1992). Regarding the latter, the developer of self-actualization believed that even one spontaneous peak or transcendental experience could promote self-actualization. Correlational research has supported this relationship. In a recent statistical meta-analysis of causal designs with Transcendental Meditation (TM) controlling for length of treatment and strength of study design, it was found that: TM enhances self-actualization on standard inventories significantly more than recent clinically devised relaxation/meditation procedures not explicitly directed toward transcendence [mystical experience] (p. 1; Alexander, 1992)







But let us turn to quotations by Maslow himself, becuase it's very instructive. Maslow was an atheist but the had Buddhist leanings and he did not hate religious people. He respected religious people, especially mystics. He said:

My feeling is that if it were never to happen again, the power of the experience could permanently affect the attitude toward life. A single glimpse of heaven is enough to confirm its existence even if it is never experienced again. It is my strong suspicion that even one such experience might be able to prevent suicide, for instance, and perhaps many varieties of slow self-destruction, e.g., alcoholism, drug-addiction, addiction to violence, etc. I would guess also, on theoretical grounds, that peak-experiences might very well abort "existential meaninglessness," states of valuelessness, etc., at least occasionally. (These deductions from the nature of intense peak-experiences are given some support by general experience with LSD and psilocybin. Of course these preliminary reports also await confirmation.

This then is one kind of peak-knowledge of whose validity and usefulness there can be no doubt, any more than there could be with discovering for the first time that the color "red" exists and is wonderful. Joy exists, can be experienced and feels very good indeed, and one can always hope that it will be experienced again.


and again:


Now that may be taken as a frank admission of a naturalistic psychological origin, except that it invovles a universal symbology which is not explicable through merely naturalistic means. How is it that all humans come to hold these same archetypical symbols? (For more on archetypes see Jesus Chrsit and Mythology page II) The "prematives" viewed and understood a sense of transformation which gave them an integration into the universe. This is crucial for human development. They sensed a power in the numenous, that is the origin of religion."

"In Appendix I and elsewhere in this essay, I have spoken of unitive perception, i.e., fusion of the B-realm with the D-realm, fusion of the eternal with the temporal, the sacred with the profane, etc. Someone has called this "the measureless gap between the poetic perception of reality and prosaic, unreal commonsense." Anyone who cannot perceive the sacred, the eternal, the symbolic, is simply blind to an aspect of reality, as I think I have amply demonstrated elsewhere (54), and in Appendix I, fromPeak Experience



Anyone who cannot perceive the sacred and the eternal is blind... does that sound like the adult Maslow is ready to join in with your friend in mocking and ridiculing religious thought?

The Greely study spcificially disproves the notion this guy sets forth that religious people are losers and unsuceesful and trying to pretend about a "sky daddy" becuase they can't make it in life:

Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. (Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.)



Long term effects of religious experience have been demonstrated by such major studies as Noble and Wuthnow:

Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

Noble:

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion

Short-Term Effects (usually people who did not previously know of these experiences)

*Experience temporarily disorienting, alarming, disruptive
*Likely changes in self and the world,
*space and time, emotional attitudes, cognitive styles, personalities, doubt sanity and reluctance to communicate, feel ordinary language is inadequate

*Some individuals report psychic capacities and visionary experience destabilizing relationships with family and friends Withdrawal, isolation, confusion, insecurity, self-doubt, depression, anxiety, panic, restlessness, grandiose religious delusions

Links to Maslow's Needs, Mental Health, and Peak Experiences When introducing entheogens to people, I find it's helpful to link them to other ideas people are familiar with. Here are three useful quotations. 1) Maslow - Beyond Self Actualization is Self Transcendence ``I should say that I consider Humanistic, Third Force Psychology to be transitional, a preparation for a still `higher' Fourth Psychology, transhuman, centered in the cosmos rather than in human needs and interest, going beyond humanness, identity, selfactualization and the like.''

Abraham Maslow (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being, Second edition, -- pages iii-iv.



2) States of consciousness and mystical experiences
The ego has problems:
the ego is a problem.

``Within the Western model we recognize and define psychosis as a suboptimal state of consciousness that views reality in a distorted way and does not recognize that distortion. It is therefore important to note that from the mystical perspective our usual state fits all the criteria of psychosis, being suboptimal, having a distorted view of reality, yet not recognizing that distortion. Indeed from the ultimate mystical perspective, psychosis can be defined as being trapped in, or attached to, any one state of consciousness, each of which by itself is necessarily limited and only relatively real.'' -- page 665


Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: Questions of comparison and assessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(6), 663-673.



3) Therapeutic effects of peak experiences

``It is assumed that if, as is often said, one traumatic event can shape a life, one therapeutic event can reshape it. Psychedelic therapy has an analogue in Abraham Maslow's idea of the peak experience. The drug taker feels somehow allied to or merged with a higher power; he becomes convinced the self is part of a much larger pattern, and the sense of cleansing, release, and joy makes old woes seem trivial.'' -- page 132


Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar (1983). ``Psychedelic Drugs in Psychiatry'' in Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, New York: Basic Books.




Transpersonal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integration. Unpublished paper by Jayne Gackenback, (1992)
http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm

"These states of being also result in behavioral and health changes. Ludwig (1985) found that 14% of people claiming spontaneous remission from alcoholism was due to mystical experiences while Richards (1978) found with cancer patients treated in a hallucinogenic drug-assisted therapy who reported mystical experiences improved significantly more on a measure of self-actualization than those who also had the drug but did not have a mystical experience. In terms of the Vedic Psychology group they report a wide range of positive behavioral results from the practice of meditation and as outlined above go to great pains to show that it is the transcendence aspect of that practice that is primarily responsible for the changes. Thus improved performance in many areas of society have been reported including education and business as well as personal health states (reviewed and summarized in Alexander et al., 1990). Specifically, the Vedic Psychology group have found that mystical experiences were associated with "refined sensory threshold and enhanced mind-body coordination (p. 115; Alexander et al., 1987)."



(4) Greater happiness


Religion and Happiness

by Michael E. Nielsen, PhD


Many people expect religion to bring them happiness. Does this actually seem to be the case? Are religious people happier than nonreligious people? And if so, why might this be?

Researchers have been intrigued by such questions. Most studies have simply asked people how happy they are, although studies also may use scales that try to measure happiness more subtly than that. In general, researchers who have a large sample of people in their study tend to limit their measurement of happiness to just one or two questions, and researchers who have fewer numbers of people use several items or scales to measure happiness.

What do they find? In a nutshell, they find that people who are involved in religion also report greater levels of happiness than do those who are not religious. For example, one study involved over 160,000 people in Europe. Among weekly churchgoers, 85% reported being "very satisfied" with life, but this number reduced to 77% among those who never went to church (Inglehart, 1990). This kind of pattern is typical -- religious involvement is associated with modest increases in happiness



Argyle, M., and Hills, P. (2000). Religious experiences and their relations with happiness and personality. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 157-172.

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

< face="Arial Narrow">
Recent Empirical Studies Prove Religious Believers have less depression, mental illness lower Divorce rate, ect.


J. Gartner, D.B. Allen, The Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of Systematic Reviews And Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects Vol. II, David B. Larson M.D., Natiional Institute for Health Research Dec. 1993, p. 3090

Quote:

"The Reviews identified 10 areas of clinical staus in whihc research has demonstrated benefits of religious commitment: (1) Depression, (2) Suicide, (3) Delinquency, (4) Mortality, (5) Alchohol use (6) Drug use, (7) Well-being, (8) Divorce and martital satisfaction, (9) Physical Health Status, and (10) Mental health outcome studies....The authors underscored the need for additional longitudinal studies featuring health outcomes. Although there were few, such studies tended to show mental health benefit. Similarly, in the case of teh few longevity or mortality outcome studies, the benefit was in favor of those who attended chruch...at least 70% of the time, increased religious commitment was associated with improved coping and protection from problems."

[The authors conducted a literature search of over 2000 publications to glean the current state of empirical study data in areas of Spirituality and health]
70% of the time believers are more likely than non believers (or at least experiences are more likely than non experiencers) to have these effects of self actualization.