Atheism and Depression

Bottle_of_Smoke

Wicknight wrote:

PDN in the Christian forum mentioned that when he comes on to this forum he finds that most of us seem rather depressed, and seem to view life as meaningless and pointless.

While I didn't want to speak for everyone, I said that I didn't find that at all. Quite the opposite, most people here seem to have a lust for life and the wonder of nature that I don't find in religious people.

I thought I would get some opinions.

Are people here generally depressed (you can be honest) or do people see life as meaningless?

To get the ball rolling, while I find the idea of dying rather depressing. But other than that I don't find my atheism depressing.

(by the way this isn't mean to be a "Oh those silly Christians saying we are all miserable again" type thread. If someone genuinely feels that atheism leads them to be depressed I would be interested in discussing this)

Sometimes I do wish I believed, I've seen it's effect on people who genuinely have faith & it really does just seem to make them much happier.

Also yes I do see life as pretty meaningless, but doesn't mean I can't make the most of it while I'm here.

Robbiethe3rd

I do find atheism quite depressing and humbling, and yes at times religion is very comforting and assuring. However, I feel religion is more shallow in that it involves a sort of doublethink, which asks you turn around and ignore some facts of the world eg evolution, some physics, which I find to be numbing.

So I feel religion, for me, is somewhat like a tranquilizer, you may use it to numb the sense of reality and not have to endure the truth.

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

The first is that personality can be consciously altered - so that it is clearly not simply a collection of automatic traits determined solely by the underlying substrate. The claim that the conscious altering of personality is in turn determined by some other set of automatic traits determined solely by the underlying substrate strikes me as a mere addition of epicycles.

This point I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree, I see no reason to assume that the concious altering of personality is in any fashion unique or unusual amongst the millions of exotic characteristics of the human being, and does not strike me as evidence for anything beyond a simple deterministic view.

The second is that I have never read or heard of any researcher into consciousness or behaviour since Skinner who would make the claim that you make that a sufficient number of assembled experts would currently be able to explain everything from quarks to quirks

We can't explain from quarks to quirks in the finest detail, no, but then again science rarely goes to such lengths. We have, what, 0.00001% of all the fossils that could have ever existed? Or some similarily miniscule percentage anyway. And yet we consider that to be a suficient sample group to extrapolate a solid theory on the origins and development of species.

But, like I have argued previously, even if it turns out that our choices are determined by quantum coin flips that have a knock on effect at the macro scale, how does that convey any special significance on the nature of human personality? Its either pre-determined or random, either way its still not special in the way you seem to be imply/hoping.

indeed, currently we can't get from quarks to gravity.

Or anything above gravity! So why make conciousness special?

We can't bridge the gaps between quantum mechanics and the functioning of the brain, hence we can't be sure of the origins of conciousness <-- This is your position, yes?

Lets extend the logic. We can't bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and gravity, so why assume a plane can fly for the reasons we think it can fly? There could be all sorts of as-of-yet undetected forces acting upon it, in just the same way you insist we must consider such forces when contemplating the human mind.

Like I said previously, if we seriously consider the inclusion of unamed and unknowable forces while studying system A, we can deduce nothing about system A.

Scofflaw

Thinking this through a little further, I realise there is what you might call an evolutionary argument against pure determinism.

In an entirely deterministic universe, everything now is predetermined by the preceding state of the universe. There are no decision-points, no ifs. Even if we include quantum indeterminacy we've only added a random number generator.

Essentially, that means that any events A and B are equally determined, even if B follows A and is apparently causally connected to it. Event B has been determined from the start, just as event A has, each one simply part of the already fixed event-line of the universe.

Now, under those circumstances, why does an organism have a nervous system, or any way of reacting to stimuli? It cannot change what happens when stimulus A happens - only reaction B can happen, whether there is a nervous system or not.

This produces a couple of options. First, the evolution of nervous systems is teleologically necessary to the universe - they exist in order to allow events like B to happen. Alternatively, they are epiphenomena - irrelevant abstractions that happen to arise in the course of the event-line.

Now, if the latter is the case, there can be no real evolutionary advantage to nervous systems, since they can have no real impact on the course of events because they cannot produce decision points. Nothing, in determinism, produces decision points except possibly quantum uncertainty, so any system that appears to provide "better outcomes" can only be epiphenomenal - meaninglessly mimicking true decision production. They can't really be providing any better outcome, because a better outcome can only exist as a result of a decision point where a better and a worse outcome are possible, which is not the case in a deterministic universe.

This becomes even more obviously the case for consciousness, which by all measurements (energy consumption, delicacy of substrate, birth difficulties) is extremely 'expensive' for the organism - and all it apparently does is produce better decisions. The brain, in its more complex manifestations, is largely a decision organ.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think the fact that virtually every single organism has some way of reacting to external stimuli, and that we ourselves have an enormously complex organ dedicated in large part to making "decisions" about the universe, suggests that "decisions" are possible, something which is not true in the purely deterministic universe you have posited.

One could attempt to save determinism at this point by stating that such things genuinely are epiphenomena without true functionality, but their universal presence in living organisms and their variable levels of apparent functionality mean that one must posit a deterministic universe whose epiphenomena are so indistinguishable from the functional systems of a non-deterministic one that you run headlong into Occam's Razor.

Alternatively, as above, everything is planned out from the get-go, and things like nervous systems (and Hello Kitty alarm clocks) are each teleologically required in order to allow the universe to be as it is - which raises, of course, a rather large question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

An organism doesn't use its nervous system to choose how to respond to a situation, it responds in the fashion it was always going to; it merely provides the illusion of a choice. That time I dodged a snake in the forest is no less predetermined than a breeze that tips a stone over a hill. A nervous system is a very complicated cause and effect machine, but a cause and effect machine nonetheless. Input, process, output. That output was what was decided at the begining of the universe.

Nervous system (process): If A + B + C > 20, then run. If <20, then fight.
Universe (input): A = 5, B = 3, C = 6.
Action (output): Fight (A + B + C is not > 20)

Clearly the mechanics behind the real world functioning of any organism will be drastically more complicated, but in principle its identical. The values of A, B and C were dictated by cause and effect since the dawn of time. The Process was similarily shaped by cause and effect since the dawn of time. You plug in the inputs and you get an output. It was always going to be the same output, thought it may not seem like it to the organism in question.

Son Goku

Just to say usually emergent system refers to a system with the following properties:

(a) You start with a collection of "small systems".
(b) The smaller systems each have a certain number of degrees of freedom. Roughly their capability to interact in some form. This being generalised beyond the physical meaning.
(c) The smaller systems' degrees of freedom are governed by certain laws.
(d) The laws cause the entire collection to tend to a specific configuration.
(e) When you look at this specific configuration on "large scales" the presence of the smaller systems and their laws seems to disappear. At the large scale you have a single big system with its own laws. Often very different to the original ones. These laws come labelled by specific parameters, the parameters being the only trace of the underlying laws.

For instance a computer is not an emergent system from simple electronics. Where as snail population is emergent from snails.*

*This might seem like a very shallow thing to say, but it is in fact a deep realisation. Snail population is a large scale effect which is largely independant of the fact that it's actually made up of snails. Similarly with rabbit population. So snail population and rabbit population "emerge" from their specific animals, with no reference to the metabolism e.t.c. of that animal. So the two population numbers behave as if they are the exact same thing. This is the linking of emergence with the concept of universality.

Scofflaw wrote:

In much the same way, Newtonian mechanics is an adequate description of the macroscopic behaviour of bodies, but is not actually true.

Since it relates to Deustch e.t.c. I thought you might find it interesting to know that this isn't strictly correct. That being one of the paradoxes of QM.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

An organism doesn't use its nervous system to choose how to respond to a situation, it responds in the fashion it was always going to; it merely provides the illusion of a choice. That time I dodged a snake in the forest is no less predetermined than a breeze that tips a stone over a hill. A nervous system is a very complicated cause and effect machine, but a cause and effect machine nonetheless. Input, process, output. That output was what was decided at the begining of the universe.

Nervous system (process): If A + B + C > 20, then run. If <20, then fight.
Universe (input): A = 5, B = 3, C = 6.
Action (output): Fight (A + B + C is not > 20)

Clearly the mechanics behind the real world functioning of any organism will be drastically more complicated, but in principle its identical. The values of A, B and C were dictated by cause and effect since the dawn of time. The Process was similarily shaped by cause and effect since the dawn of time. You plug in the inputs and you get an output. It was always going to be the same output, thought it may not seem like it to the organism in question.

OK. You're going for the "everything is teleologically necessary" option - nervous systems were required so that B can be the output of A. The question is how was that determined in advance?

By the way, I think it is possible you are confusing behaviourism with determinism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Just to say usually emergent system refers to a system with the following properties:

(a) You start with a collection of "small systems".
(b) The smaller systems each have a certain number of degrees of freedom. Roughly their capability to interact in some form. This being generalised beyond the physical meaning.
(c) The smaller systems' degrees of freedom are governed by certain laws.
(d) The laws cause the entire collection to tend to a specific configuration.
(e) When you look at this specific configuration on "large scales" the presence of the smaller systems and their laws seems to disappear. At the large scale you have a single big system with its own laws. Often very different to the original ones. These laws come labelled by specific parameters, the parameters being the only trace of the underlying laws.

For instance a computer is not an emergent system from simple electronics. Where as snail population is emergent from snails.*

*This might seem like a very shallow thing to say, but it is in fact a deep realisation. Snail population is a large scale effect which is largely independant of the fact that it's actually made up of snails. Similarly with rabbit population. So snail population and rabbit population "emerge" from their specific animals, with no reference to the metabolism e.t.c. of that animal. So the two population numbers behave as if they are the exact same thing. This is the linking of emergence with the concept of universality.

Yes, and the population dynamics of rabbits, snails, or predator-prey populations are deterministic. Chaotic, possibly, but deterministic. So we understand the rules of the system, and can see that they're separate from the rules or properties of the underlying population. We even understand why they're separate.

However, the claim that consciousness is an 'emergent system' is really nothing more than an admission that we can't satisfactorily explain it in terms of the properties of the brain. It also contains the hidden claim that consciousness is deterministic, which is then bolstered by explaining consciousness in terms of the properties of the brain - which suggests that we are simply using 'emergence' to paper over the gaps in our understanding.

Son Goku wrote:

Since it relates to Deustch e.t.c. I thought you might find it interesting to know that this isn't strictly correct. That being one of the paradoxes of QM.

I have to say that was a poorly chosen example, since saying "Newtonian mechanics is not true" is pretty much meaningless. I'd be interested in your explaining this a bit further, if that's OK.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

However, the claim that consciousness is an 'emergent system' is really nothing more than an admission that we can't satisfactorily explain it in terms of the properties of the brain.

I'll remind you that the first time I mentioned emergent systems was in relation to this comment from you: "Mind you, it consistently amazes me the way the random movements of particles produce what appear to be consistent personalities. Life's a mystery, eh?"

Personalities such as yours or mine are systems that emerge from the smaller scale interactions of neurons in the brain.

I will also remind you that I have previously drawn a very deliberate distinction between "personality" and "subjective conciousness". The latter being a ongoing frustration for humanity to explain.

OK. You're going for the "everything is teleologically necessary" option - nervous systems were required so that B can be the output of A. The question is how was that determined in advance?

What? No, teleological arguments are pure crap. Nervous systems were not "required", they simply happened, and were always going to happen, and made B the output of A.

You're not forgetting the nature of cause and effect are you...?

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

I'll remind you that the first time I mentioned emergent systems was in relation to this comment from you: "Mind you, it consistently amazes me the way the random movements of particles produce what appear to be consistent personalities. Life's a mystery, eh?"

Personalities such as yours or mine are systems that emerge from the smaller scale interactions of neurons in the brain.

I will also remind you that I have previously drawn a very deliberate distinction between "personality" and "subjective conciousness". The latter being a ongoing frustration for humanity to explain.

True. How one's throwaway remarks come back to bite one!

Zillah wrote:

What? No, teleological arguments are pure crap. Nervous systems were not "required", they simply happened, and were always going to happen, and made B the output of A.

You're not forgetting the nature of cause and effect are you...?

Nope. I'm pointing out that in a purely deterministic universe, there is no "advantage" to any evolutionary feature, since all outcomes are determined in advance. If the state of the universe at time N already determines the state of the universe at some time N+x, then whether or not the organism has a nervous system makes no difference to the outcomes, because nothing can do so.

Evolution simply doesn't work in a fully deterministic universe, because all of natural selection relies on small changes in probabilities of outcomes - and there is no way of influencing outcomes in a fully deterministic universe. Therefore there is no actual advantage in what appears to be an evolutionary advantage, because the very concept of an 'advantage' is meaningless.

So either something like a nervous system produces a genuine functional effect in actually changing outcomes (making it more likely that the organism will breed, or less likely that it will die), or the deterministic universe requires some teleological explanation where the deterministic outcomes have already "taken into account" the evolution of nervous systems - unless, as I said, one is prepared to claim that the universe somehow manages to look exactly like you can change outcomes, even though you can't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

The evolution of a nervous system allows an organism to determine the outcome of events in a manner it would not be able to otherwise. The fact that the organism was always going to determine that outcome in that fashion does not make such traits any less of an advantage when compared to organisms which do not develop such traits.

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm pointing out that in a purely deterministic universe, there is no "advantage" to any evolutionary feature, since all outcomes are determined in advance.

One outcome that was determined in advance was that organisms with nervous systems would survive more often than those without. I honestly don't understand how you're having problems with this.

Keith186

Just from reading this page you wouldn't have a clue that this was about athiesm and depression.

Zillah

Its not really anymore...discussions evolve...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it was bound to happen..

karen3212

Keith186 wrote:

Just from reading this page you wouldn't have a clue that this was about athiesm and depression.

So you obviously didn't notice a general down in the mouth aura in A&A. Perhaps we could survey people as they exit.

I don't think believing in God/not has any affect on people's well being, these days anyway. Though for my parent's generation, well I think they may have missed a lot of social outings, as most functions were posted in the Church boards on Sunday. Perhaps it's the social contact that US atheists lose.

Zillah

karen3212 wrote:

So you obviously didn't notice a general down in the mouth aura in A&A. Perhaps we could survey people as they exit.

I think he literally meant this page.

Perhaps it's the social contact that US atheists lose.

Thats a good point. Not what PDN was getting at, but a good point none the less.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

The evolution of a nervous system allows an organism to determine the outcome of events in a manner it would not be able to otherwise. The fact that the organism was always going to determine that outcome in that fashion does not make such traits any less of an advantage when compared to organisms which do not develop such traits.

One outcome that was determined in advance was that organisms with nervous systems would survive more often than those without. I honestly don't understand how you're having problems with this.

Sigh - because you have gone back to talking as if there were probabilities in your deterministic universe. There aren't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Zillah wrote:

Its not really anymore...discussions evolve...

I heard off-topic is the new on-topic.

Dave!

hehe

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

I have to say that was a poorly chosen example, since saying "Newtonian mechanics is not true" is pretty much meaningless. I'd be interested in your explaining this a bit further, if that's OK.

Sure, although be warned it makes very little sense to the human mind. It's probably the weirdest thing in QM, next to the Xeno effect.
Sorry for the preliminary stuff that you've probably heard before. I just need it to set things up.

Okay in classical physics things come in definite states. For instance you are "here" or you are "there", e.t.c. As a working example of a classical object I'll take a light switch. A light switch can be on or off.
So its two states are (On) or (Off).

Now by contrast a quantum light switch can be on or off or some mixture of the two. Examples of its states are:
0.5(On) + 0.5(Off), which is an equal mix of on and off.
0.4(On) + 0.6(Off), which is an uneven mix, slightly balanced in favour of off.

So lets say an experimenter comes to measure the state of the quantum light switch, she will only get On or Off. The likelihood of getting either been given by the number in front of that state. For 0.4(On) + 0.6(Off), for example, she has a better chance of measuring Off.
If the experimenter measures "Off", then the state of the quantum light switch will jump from 0.4(On) + 0.6(Off) to simply (Off). This is the so-called "collapse of the wavefunction".

Now here comes the paradoxes, of which there are two. The first is the "measurement problem". Why did the state jump when you measured it?
The second and more interesting paradox is, how the quantum light switch knows to jump to (Off)? Which is a state of the classical world above?

Whenever a measurement is made on them, quantum mechanical objects seem to immediately assume characteristics of the Newtonian world in order to "talk" or "respond" to experimental apparatus. For instance a quantum particle is usually spread out over a large region, but when a piece of experimental equipment measures it the particle instantly gathers into a single spot so that it can be "here in one place" just like a Newtonian object. Quantum Particles don't do this when they interact with each other, only when they interact with big Newtonian objects. In order to assume the character of Newton's Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics needs to know about it. The paradox is that quantum particles or the laws of quantum mechanics make reference to the fact that out there in the large world of objects like me and you there are deterministic laws with definite states. QM needs Newtonian Mechanics to be right on large objects in order to reference what states things should jump to.

Pretty weird but there you go.

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Sigh - because you have gone back to talking as if there were probabilities in your deterministic universe. There aren't.

Correct, there aren't. Though there doesn't need to be for what I've explained above.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Correct, there aren't. Though there doesn't need to be for what I've explained above.

So, while evolution appears to have produced a vast array of adaptations whose essential value appears to be that they increase the probability of feeding, breeding, surviving et al, the real truth is that there are no probabilities. Similarly, despite the fact that all of us (and many other animals) appear to equipped with organs and faculties whose essential value appears to be the capacity to make good choices, there are, in fact, no actual choices.

I have to admit, I find the idea that determinism has accidentally produced exactly what indeterminism would require an argument not dissimilar to the theist argument that God created the world looking old. It appears entirely unfalsifiable.

Further (courtesy of an interesting little article in NS), the universe appears to increase in information content as time goes by (the reductio here being the Big Bang, at which point the universe contained many orders of magnitude less information than at present). How in a fully deterministic universe, can this be the case? If the state of the universe at time T+1 is fully determined by the state of the universe at time T, there can be no information change between the two states.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

So, while evolution appears to have produced a vast array of adaptations whose essential value appears to be that they increase the probability of feeding, breeding, surviving et al, the real truth is that there are no probabilities.

There are indeed no probabilities in terms of any given organism successfully feeding, breeding, surviving etc. However, comparing any two given organisms, we can express their degree of success in relation to each other. Organism X develops a nervous system, which makes it a more successful organism that Organism Y.

The fact that Organism X was always going to out succeed Organism Y does not reduce the benefit to Organism X of having a nervous system.

Further (courtesy of an interesting little article in NS), the universe appears to increase in information content as time goes by (the reductio here being the Big Bang, at which point the universe contained many orders of magnitude less information than at present). How in a fully deterministic universe, can this be the case? If the state of the universe at time T+1 is fully determined by the state of the universe at time T, there can be no information change between the two states.

Frankly I'm not sufficiently educated in Information Theory to address or even truly understand this argument. I could take a stab at it, I have an idea, but it'd be extremely abstract and I have no idea if it'd actually address the point.

How does a non-deterministic universe create information?

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

There are indeed no probabilities in terms of any given organism successfully feeding, breeding, surviving etc. However, comparing any two given organisms, we can express their degree of success in relation to each other. Organism X develops a nervous system, which makes it a more successful organism that Organism Y.

The fact that Organism X was always going to out succeed Organism Y does not reduce the benefit to Organism X of having a nervous system.

Bringing us back around to a teleological universe again. We may have to agree to differ on this one - I don't think either of us can be persuaded of the other's view.

Zillah wrote:

Frankly I'm not sufficiently educated in Information Theory to address or even truly understand this argument. I could take a stab at it, I have an idea, but it'd be extremely abstract and I have no idea if it'd actually address the point.

How does a non-deterministic universe create information?

Choice and probability.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Bringing us back around to a teleological universe again.

I just don't see the connection, seems like an entirely unneccessary jump of logic. I'm arguing that an organism develops a nervous system because of cause and effect, which then makes it more successful than other organisms that didn't. Surely the teleological version would be that an organism evolved a nervous system because it had a need to? Mine is an extremely naturalistic argument, quite the opposite of teleology.

We may have to agree to differ on this one - I don't think either of us can be persuaded of the other's view.

Quite possible.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

I just don't see the connection, seems like an entirely unneccessary jump of logic. I'm arguing that an organism develops a nervous system because of cause and effect, which then makes it more successful than other organisms that didn't. Surely the teleological version would be that an organism evolved a nervous system because it had a need to? Mine is an extremely naturalistic argument, quite the opposite of teleology.

Well, no, because I consider that we have to juggle rather a lot with the scale at which we consider determinism in order to allow for something like a nervous system actually having a functional effect.

In an indeterministic universe, something like a nervous system has a clear functional advantage - it allows the organism to react to some stimulus it otherwise couldn't react to.

In a deterministic universe, the very concept of the "organism" "reacting" to a "stimulus" isn't even conceivable - indeed, the very notion of an "organism" separate from its background is pretty questionable - there are collections of particles, which appear to form an epiphenomenon which we characterise as an 'organism' and like to pretend is somehow something different from the general background of particle movement.

Determinism at the macro scale is not really a problem - mutation and selection are reasonably deterministic (well, probabilistic) on short time scales, nor am I claiming that bacteria need some magical ingredient in order to react to stimuli. It's more that if we go fully, 100%, totally deterministic from the particle level up, all you've got is movements of particles, and a bunch of epiphenomena which look a whole lot like the products of an indeterministic universe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

In a deterministic universe, the very concept of the "organism" "reacting" to a "stimulus" isn't even conceivable

Ok, we can use this. In my view, an organism "reacting" is a perfect example of deterministic cause and effect in action. The brain of the mouse was formed by its genes and environment, which is ultimately determined from the dawn of time via cause and effect. It then encounters an external force, lets say a hawk trying to eat it. All the factors, such as the size, speed, attack angle of the hawk, time of day, energy levels etc etc are fed into the mouse's brain and it produces a "reaction".

Every single aspect of that process was determined by some other part of the universe before it. Lets say the two options are run into the bushes or run into a nearby hole. It chooses the hole (indeed, it was always going to choose the hole). In order for it to have chosen the bushes we must change something about the scenario...be it the mouse's brain or the speed the hawk is attacking at etc.

indeed, the very notion of an "organism" separate from its background is pretty questionable - there are collections of particles, which appear to form an epiphenomenon which we characterise as an 'organism' and like to pretend is somehow something different from the general background of particle movement.

Indeed, lifeforms aren't special in the way a lot of people like to think. Ultimately an organism is more like a wave through matter than anything else. The nature of our existence has made it beneficial to consider prey and predators to be very much more important than a rock, but on a fundamental level they are ultimately just particles swirling around. Complex systems of particles to be sure, but particles none the less.

jtsuited

speaking slightly on-topic (which would apparently be the new off-topic), it's only a matter of time before atheism comes under attack for making people unhappy.
Statistically I'd say it's fairly probable that atheists have a higher rate of depression than christians/muslims/jews/etc.
The reason being that atheists have a higher average intelligence than their non-secular counterparts.

And depression is far more common in those possessing a higher IQ.
So while atheism does not cause depression, proportionately more atheists may be depressed at any one time.

Dades

jtsuited wrote:

The reason being that atheists have a higher average intelligence than their non-secular counterparts.

That idea is commonly put-forth, but invariably not proven.

jtsuited

well there is that study often quoted by Dawkins that the further up the education ladder you go, the more atheists you find.

or something along those lines.

now i know education does not necessarily equal intelligence etc., but a random bunch of atheists versus an equally random bunch of theists sitting the Mensa IQ test- i know i'd be putting my money on the those filthy nonbelievers!

Tim Robbins

jtsuited wrote:

well there is that study often quoted by Dawkins that the further up the education ladder you go, the more atheists you find.

or something along those lines.

now i know education does not necessarily equal intelligence etc., but a random bunch of atheists versus an equally random bunch of theists sitting the Mensa IQ test- i know i'd be putting my money on the those filthy nonbelievers!

You could probably reverse that myth for morals and the theists would get the upper hand.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

You could probably reverse that myth for morals and the theists would get the upper hand.

How would you test morals? At least the mensa tests have answers that are either right, or wrong.

Theists give more money to charity, but you don't find many atheists in prison.
For every argument there's a counter, which is why it's futile to try and generalise.

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

How would you test morals? At least the mensa tests have answers that are either right, or wrong.

Theists give more money to charity, but you don't find many atheists in prison.
For every argument there's a counter, which is why it's futile to try and generalise.

Theists actively believe in a moral doctrine - whether they live it is another question. They have moral viagra another incentive to be morally good.
So it's a priori not a generalisation.

Scofflaw

jtsuited wrote:

speaking slightly on-topic (which would apparently be the new off-topic), it's only a matter of time before atheism comes under attack for making people unhappy.
Statistically I'd say it's fairly probable that atheists have a higher rate of depression than christians/muslims/jews/etc.
The reason being that atheists have a higher average intelligence than their non-secular counterparts.

And depression is far more common in those possessing a higher IQ.
So while atheism does not cause depression, proportionately more atheists may be depressed at any one time.

And now for some fun with figures:

Religious Affiliation and Major Depression: Pentecostals three times more depressed than any other religious affiliation, including non-affiliated.

Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention.

Race and Adolescent Depression: The Impact of Religiosity: While religious participation is negatively associated with depression for white and Black adolescents, it is positively associated with depression for Asian adolescents; Asian adolescents who frequently attend religious services report higher depression than Asian adolescents who attend religious services less frequently. In addition, the negative impact of religious participation on depression is more pronounced for Asian girls than Asian boys. Overall, this study contributes to the literature on race and depression among adolescents by suggesting that the relationships between religious affiliation, religious participation, and depression may vary among adolescents from different racial groups.

The influence of religious affiliation on time to first treatment and hospitalization: From our results, it appears that the degree of religious practice does not affect length of time to treatment in psychotic patients. However, having a Protestant religious affiliation is strongly associated with having a greater delay in treatment seeking for psychosis. Factors contributing to a longer DUP (Duration of Untreated Psychosis) in this group warrant further study.

Religion and depression: a review of the literature: We reviewed data from approximately 80 published and unpublished studiesthat examined the association of religious affiliation or involvement withdepressive symptoms or depressive disorder. In these studies, religion wasmeasured as religious affiliation; general religious involvement;organizational religious involvement; prayer or private religious involvement;religious salience and motivation; or religious beliefs. People from some religious affiliations appear to have an elevated risk for depressive symptoms and depressive disorder, and people with no religious affiliation are at an elevated risk in comparison with people who are religiously affiliated. People with high levels of general religious involvement, organizational religious involvement, religious salience, and intrinsic religious motivation are at reduced risk for depressive symptoms and depressive disorders. Private religious activity and particular religious beliefs appear to bear no reliable relationship with depression. People with high levels of extrinsic religious motivation are at increased risk for depressive symptoms. Although these associations tend to be consistent, they are modest and are substantially reduced in multivariate research. Longitudinal research is sparse, but suggests that some forms of religious involvement might exert a protective effect against the incidence and persistence of depressive symptoms or disorders.

In summary - religion itself, in the sense of faith, probably has little impact on actual levels of depression, but makes a depressed person less likely to commit suicide. Going to church regularly, on the other hand, does help alleviate depression - but probably not (looking at the literature) as much as equally regular participation in sports.

Mens sana in corpore sano.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Going to church regularly, on the other hand, does help alleviate depression - but probably not (looking at the literature) as much as equally regular participation in sports.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Any social activity decreases the effects of depression. Humans are after all social creatures, isolation leads to loneliness and depression.

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote:

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Any social activity decreases the effects of depression. Humans are after all social creatures, isolation leads to loneliness and depression.

And religion probably a lot less than a course of zoloft, prozac, ciprager or any of a dozen other SSRI's. Honestly, a night out in the pub or joining a local bowling team would have a similar effect as church by that logic.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

So it's a priori not a generalisation.

So it's a priori that theists are more moral than non-theists?
I admire your "faith" in theists to stick to what their books tell them.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

And religion probably a lot less than a course of zoloft, prozac, ciprager or any of a dozen other SSRI's. Honestly, a night out in the pub or joining a local bowling team would have a similar effect as church by that logic.

Well, the latter more than the former - regular participative social activities seem to have a strong impact on depression. I imagine there are also specific positive features to churchgoing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, the latter more than the former - regular participative social activities seem to have a strong impact on depression. I imagine there are also specific positive features to churchgoing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Going to church is much different to going bowling or to the pub.
In a church the entire congregation is on the one team, there is no need for the competition and rivalry among peers you get in the pub to be the alpha male. As a result I'd imagine that those who would be depressed by a night in the pub would get a lot more out of Mass.

I blame women tbh.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

http://a829.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/6/l_8bb5ed6f37b97585ef61a3e0a51c0ab4.jpg




--edit

grrr, no img tags

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

So it's a priori that theists are more moral than non-theists?
I admire your "faith" in theists to stick to what their books tell them.

Put it this way, the next time (if anytime) your car gets broken into, I bet you the thieve doesn't watch songs of praise.
Or put it another way:
Take 10,000 people who regularly watch songs of praise, 10,000 who don't. Do you think they would both have the same number of theives?

I don't.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Take 10,000 people who regularly watch songs of praise, 10,000 who don't. Do you think they would both have the same number of theives?

Unless you assume that in order to be a 'theist' you must watch Songs of Praise, this point is irrelevant to our little sub-dialogue.

I'm open to change my mind on this, but you'll have to be more convincing.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Put it this way, the next time (if anytime) your car gets broken into, I bet you the thieve doesn't watch songs of praise.
Or put it another way:
Take 10,000 people who regularly watch songs of praise, 10,000 who don't. Do you think they would both have the same number of theives?

I don't.

And how would you square that with the consistent under-representation of atheists in prison?

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

Scofflaw wrote: »

And how would you square that with the consistent under-representation of atheists in prison?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Probably more religious people in prison cause God was helping em......

Dave!

Scofflaw wrote: »

And how would you square that with the consistent under-representation of atheists in prison?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Are there actually figures on that? Curious.

Scofflaw

DaveMcG wrote: »

Are there actually figures on that? Curious.

Religious adherence of inmates in England and Wales.

Atheists represent 0.2% of the inmates, agnostics 0.3%, but people with "no religion" constitute 28.7% including both of those. Since, officially, people with "no religion" make up only 15.5% of the general population in census forms, people with "no religion" appear over-represented in the prison population. However, other surveys outside the census show a different pattern, with 31-44% of the British population being "atheist, agnostic, or otherwise not believing in God". It is the latter figure which tallies with the attendance figures of churches.

Either way, there are a good deal more than 0.2% atheists in the UK (that would be 130,000), so they are under-represented in the prison population. Same for the US.

These figures, by the way, get cited by both sides. In general, theists will lump together all those who show up in the prison surveys as "no religion" and "unknown", and count them all as "atheists". Even so, where like is compared with like, atheists are persistently under-represented in prisons - possibly because they prefer not to spend part of their one and only life in prison.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

Wicknight wrote: »

PDN in the Christian forum mentioned that when he comes on to this forum he finds that most of us seem rather depressed, and seem to view life as meaningless and pointless.

While I didn't want to speak for everyone, I said that I didn't find that at all. Quite the opposite, most people here seem to have a lust for life and the wonder of nature that I don't find in religious people.

I thought I would get some opinions.

Are people here generally depressed (you can be honest) or do people see life as meaningless?

To get the ball rolling, while I find the idea of dying rather depressing. But other than that I don't find my atheism depressing.

(by the way this isn't mean to be a "Oh those silly Christians saying we are all miserable again" type thread. If someone genuinely feels that atheism leads them to be depressed I would be interested in discussing this)

No, I don't feel depressed about it at all. If this life is all there is, you should really enjoy it. I don't even find the idea of my death unsettling anymore,( I nearly died yesterday actually...a nice big beamer nearly splatted me. If they braked a bif of qa second later, oh baby.) more, intersting.
The only time I was depressed was when i was inflicted with unrequited love with my old bestest pal, and that was not got to do with atheism.
A t the moment, I am thoroughly enjoying my life, until it is my time to die.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

And how would you square that with the consistent under-representation of atheists in prison?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Could that be linked with the percentage of atheists that are white and middle class?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Could that be linked with the percentage of atheists that are white and middle class?

It could, of course. It could also be linked to intelligence. However, as a contradiction of the bland assertion that atheists are more likely to commit crime it remains valid whatever the underlying reasons (except pro-atheist bias on the part of police and courts).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote: »

It could, of course. It could also be linked to intelligence. However, as a contradiction of the bland assertion that atheists are more likely to commit crime it remains valid whatever the underlying reasons (except pro-atheist bias on the part of police and courts).

cordially,
Scofflaw

There is evidence to suggest that the vast majority of violent offenders, thieves, rapists etc who are repeat offenders often exhibit poor impulse control over the actions they take in every aspect of their lives. Moreover that this may be a hereditary condition.

This heriditary postulation is circumstantially supported by the fact that many of these people are coming from poor or disadvantaged families and that these families have been in this position for numerous generations.

This would suggest Atheism has nothing to do with whether people are in prison or not and it would appear that religion doesnt play a major role in the commission of illegal acts either. Rather the chances of being a criminal comes down to a section of the brain that grants control of impulsive behaviour is not operating at the same level as othe non-criminal types.

(this does not apply to places whee crime may be incidental to your existance or to political crimes - also, its theoretical)