Atheism and Depression

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