Koenig edged toward conducting real science based on real research, then he stepped back and indulged in confirmation bias instead.

Typical.

He is misusing his education and his position of authority.

In reading his work, you can feel the strain. He wants to include enough objectivity to earn the respect of non-religious peers, but at the same time, he feels obliged to put his thumb on the scale in judging the effects of religion.

You can see that thumb. You can feel it.

I feel sorry for him. He can't quite allow himself to be completely ethical and logical. He has to weight the scale. But he does have a working brain, so he lets a few facts past the filter.

I would not be surprised to find that he is an example of anxiety caused by the strain of constantly working to fit reality into his confirmation bias.

WTH? We had part one of this discussion (started by Steve Benson). Then we had part two, which was lively and useful.

Then we had part three.

Part three has disappeared. What is going on?

Steve quoted the original post along with all of the replies for part two.

Subsequent to having done that, the entire thread went bye-bye.

Therefore, bandwidth may not have been a big problem but, then again, it might have been. Another potential mystery of the RfM Kingdom.

Be that as it may, Admin is the only God I worship 'round these parts. :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2011 04:02PM by steve benson.

I have diagnosed the problem.

Steve Benson is imperfect.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Be that as it may, Admin is the only God I worship 'round these parts. :)

So, you're not a hard atheist then? :)

Wow, turns out I'm more of an atheist than the atheists here. :)

Of course, I'm open to the idea that hard truth exists but we don't know if we actually "know" any hard truths - we just have models to attempt to explain phenomenon, but the model is always subject to refinement. Though it makes sense to rely on the most "proven" model, until a better one comes along. I suppose someone could go one step further and say there are no hard truths.

Put in a link to the old thread and add ONLY NEW content.

And at this point if the discussion doesn't go in a new direction it is getting pointless.

Part 1: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,353070

Part 2: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,353479

And just as I suspected, Admin is apparently of the view that unless things change in terms of moving on from ground already covered, this thread could get nuked, as well.

Until then, have at it, froth-mouthed believers. :)



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2011 04:43PM by steve benson.

I FREAKIN LOVE THIS!! :) NICE JOB SB............ whoulda thunk it???
that makes SUCH a more better read!!

Okay, I understand about adding only new content.

But a bandwidth objection after only 40 comments? That seems unlikely. That's not my experience with any hosting services I've worked on. Not saying it's not true, just asking for an explanation.

And having one person who decides what is "pointless" and what is not?

I didn't find any of the previous conversation pointless. In fact, I learned a lot, and was continuing to learn more. That's why I'm frustrated by having the conversation cut short.

Arbitrary.

Threads on other forums often run from 300-600 comments. Sometimes it takes that long to get one's thoughts organized around a difficult topic.

A certain amount of repetition is inevitable, but I saw progress in the previous threads.

Yes, "consensus" may be laughable. :-)

But I did see that summer recognized "well-designed waste of time" as sarcasm after several explanatory posts.

That's consensus, right?

Baby steps.

I'm sensing a sin against communication.

I'm receiving promptings that the bandwidth explanation is a red-herring.

OnceMore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm receiving promptings that the bandwidth explanation is a red-herring.

More evidence that "promptings" cannot be relied on. Sus I/S is much more straightforward than you give her credit for with this comment. If it's not bandwidth, she'll tell you exactly what it was. I know this from my observations during the entirety of this century.

Sometimes something is actually what it appears to be without complexity or dark underbellies being involved.

, , , If the first is bumping up against maximum and the second is going on and on without breaking new ground (which results in the digestion of more bandwidth), Admin has demonstrated an inclination to step in. When doing so, Admin has also demonstrated that it is no respecter of person (I know, having been deleted countless times over the years).

Posters may or may not agree with Admin's call in these situations, but Admin runs the board and pays the bills.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2011 04:37PM by steve benson.

they get to call the shots..... and the thread subject may be opened again!!

. . . demand on Admin patience. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2011 05:45PM by steve benson.

this made me laugh out loud!!:
. . . demand on Admin patience. :)

:)

OnceMore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But I did see that summer recognized "well-designed waste of time" as sarcasm after several explanatory posts.

Yeah, I don't always get sarcasm. My feeling is that Barrett, who does a lot of media, should understand the concept of a sound bite (meaning that when you put the words "well designed" in text, that may end up being the take-away.) OTOH, he probably never imagined that those particular words would be analyzed to death.

Susan I/S probably wants us to get back to the business of supporting exmos and soon-to-be exmos. :-)

. . . Like "OnceMore" suggests, however, try to interpret what is being said within the larger context of the discussion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2011 04:35PM by steve benson.

. . . which certainly was not a bad thing. I liked what "OM" had to say, of course, given that it was articulately expressed and, oh, because I happened to agree with it. :)

Part 3 disappeared, I am quite confident, because Admin (as Admin on occasion does) may have concluded that the subject had been kicked around enough for the time being.

Its removal, however, does not require an exclamation of "WTH?"

Its vaporization was not a supernatural occurrence.

Here's to guessing this thread might get nuked, too. :)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2011 04:40PM by steve benson.

I'm accustomed to discussion that are allowed to flourish until they die on their own, or until a consensus is reached.

The premature beheading after only 35-40 comments seems odd to me. And counterproductive.

But I can always leave if I don't like it, as I'm sure someone will tell me.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2011 03:58PM by steve benson.

you are just getting started!! you'll get used to the phorum phormat!! :)

Leaving aside Steve's original assertion that religiosity causes mental illness, and his citing an old book from the 90s as evidence; and leaving aside robertb's counter assertion about religiosity in some cases promoting health, can everyone at least agree to this:

'good affect' promotes healing from illness and/or injury?

Is that contested by anyone? Mind, I'm not talking about *how* the 'good affect' is created in a patient, whether it's so-called clown therapy or meditation or what you will. But I've seen it asserted in many places over many years that patients with a 'good affect' measurably do better at healing from illness and injury. In other words, having a bad attitude while hospitalized works against your recovery, etc., and having a good attitude promotes recovery.

So, if it's true that 'good affect' promotes healing from illness and injury, it simply follows that for those who gain a good affect from prayer, prayer would promote healing from illness and injury in those patients.

Is anything I just said even controversial?

I especially note robertb's skill as a therapist. If his patient/client's religiosity presents well, it would be prudent to use the religiosity for the patient's care. If his patient/client's religiosity presents negatively, he would perhaps "push back" a little on the patient's religiosity. This is prudent. I get the sense that Steve would push back *regardless* of how the patient/client presents because he's concluded the religiosity, no matter how it presents, is illness. That seems imprudent and clinically counter-productive.

. . . some of Watters' conclusions were buttressed by Koenig's review of the lit. (Perhaps "robertb" didn't realize that when he posted a link to Koenig's paper and encouraged posters to read it, which I did in its entirety and then dissected it).

As far as feeling good through prayer, support from a sympathetic group or a belief in god (however magical and non-existent that god is ) can be grounds for a good endorphin dump, as well as for (in some cases, but certainly not all) a release from stress and unease. That said, the scientific evidence, as I have cited, does not indicate, based on complications suffered by medical patients, that intercessory prayer has helped people physically recover; to the contrary, complication percentage comparisons have shown that prayed-for patients actually got worse.

Nonetheless, engaging in religious activities--no matter how ungrounded in reality--can in some respects make one feel good.

In other respects, however, religious belief and practice leads to and/or exacerbates mental illness, as both Koenig and Watters have acknowledged.

I find it interesting that some posters here will insist that Mormonism does crazy, psychotic things to the human brain but yet stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that Christianity demonstrably does, as well.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2011 05:55PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, engaging in religious activities--no matter
> how ungrounded in reality--can in some respects
> make one feel good.
>
> In other respects, it leads to and/or exacerbates
> mental illness, as both Koenig and Watters have
> both acknowledged.


So religiosity is sometimes beneficial to individuals and sometimes not, and religiosity benefits some individuals and hinders other individuals. I don't think robertb has ever asserted anything different than that.


But tell me, Steve, how on earth is a "good endorphin dump" NOT grounded in reality? The feel good endorphins are experienced as just as real as if they were derived from running, my preferred endorphin rush. An endorphin rush is an endorphin rush, you just don't like how some people get their endorphins.

At the end of the day, Steve, you seem to have a life-long quarrel with the imagination, which, given your line of work, is perhaps ironic of something. Just a thought.

If, however, imagination and hallucination are mistaken for reality, yes, I have a quarrel with that--especially when it proves harmful to a cognitive grasp of the difference and impairs the ability to function in mentally healthy ways.

P.S.: Santa also produces good endorphin dumps--in children. Most children grow out of it.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2011 05:26PM by steve benson.

are prolly rite... but i also believe that if a religious person feels better when comforted by his religious beliefs and practices the studies that show that could as well be true....there is a big difference...and as usual i aint all that great in expressing myself.... but what that meens to me is.... BOTH can be valid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2011 05:52PM by bignevermo.

were all over the place. Some attributed mental illness to being involved in religion, others were to the contrary. Many factors had to be taken into account - type of religion, involvement in the religion, religious teachings and their degree of importance, etc. One point I found interesting was abstinence from alcohol or drugs. It seems those who adhered to their religious beliefs strickly were much more inclined to become much worse - ie alcoholism - when they left, and the least likely to recover.
One observation, not really a study but oh well, is that religion seems to attract nutjobs (not including myself haha). Some people just appear too overzealous to be real. I think some people use religion as a hiding place from reality or to conceal their own creepy behaviors - ie childmolestors.

. . . or, perhaps just as bad, helps create them and even make them worse.

Koenig:

“[A study], conducted in London, England, found religious beliefs and practices significantly more common among depressed and schizophrenic psychiatric in-patients, compared with orthopedic control subjects.”

Koenig also found that patients suffering from religious delusions suffered more psychotic disorders and that these mental maladies were more severe than those experienced by non-religiously delusional patients:

“Subjects with religious delusions (24%) had more severe symptoms, especially hallucinations and bizarre delusions, poorer functioning, longer duration of illness and were on higher doses of anti-psychotic medication, compared with patients with other kinds of delusions.”



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2011 05:27PM by steve benson.

it seems like the ole chicken or egg first cunundrum:
which came first....either answer may be right!