Should religion be taught in schools?

nozzferrahhtoo

dpe wrote: »

You're funny. Have you thought of going on the stage with this act?

He probably already is. Though I hear they prefer to call it a "pulpit" than a "stage".

Freddie59

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Answer my question.
Why shouldnt people be anti Catholic Church? (which is not the same as being anti catholics).
Before answering cast you mind back to various reports i,.e Ryan. Murphy, ferns etc and have a gander at the international scandals and then stand back and look at The Vaticans attitude to it all.
Im anti racism as well. Does this mean i should be accepting of whites only schools?


So. Will you answer?

Should people be, let's say, anti-parent because of the level of parental abuse in this country at present. There have been many instances of this in the past few years. Are ALL parents then abusers? One to ponder.

And what, precisely, is racism? There are many different forms; from the "positive discrimination" in favour of certain ethnic groups to the marginalisation of indigenous Irish people should they dare to question such practices. Is this not discrimination in reverse? If an Irish native dares to question preferential treatment (above what a normal citizen receives) to a particular group or nationality they are immediately classed as racist. What utter horse shyte.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo: Look to the citations in the article perhaps? - The article cites the studies that show that faith plays a positive role in peoples lives.

The first is still very much valid - it shows that 81% of evangelical Christians in Britain volunteer. The Guardian article that I linked to notes that 26% of the British public do. Therefore it is clearly above average.

Secondly the figures showed, as I've mentioned in the post I linked to that the more than one read the Bible, the more active they were in terms of charitable volunteering and giving as well as more active in their faith.

Why is it so difficult to accept that faith can and does play a positive role in the vast majority of believers lives? Or is it just a case of confirmation bias?

I know you studies philosophy and computer science, so I am not unsurprised you appear to have no ability whatsoever to tell between an article and an actual study. I would recommend you start with reading Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" which is a wonderful transition book between the lay man and the trained statitician. A good stepping stone to start with on the road to learning how to read, recognise and interpret real studies.

I'm finished that degree now, but we can do this discussion much better without this sort of patronising nonsense. The second article very very clearly cited all the studies you could ask for on it. Good reading also involves good following of footnotes.

In fact quoting an article is better because not all posters will have access to JSTOR and other journal sources.

Freddie59

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Its a secular country the majority (an ever shrinking one) of the population of which happens to be catholic.

In fairness, take a deep breath and read that again!

Freddie59

later10 wrote: »

One has to recall that the reason why Catholics own so many schools is because they built them in the first place.

Case closed I think.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Look to the citations perhaps? - The article cites the studies that show that faith plays a positive role in peoples lives.

Hey, it is your claims, so it is for you to back it up with citations. I am more than happy to look into the articles you actually cite and take the time out of my day to work them over and see what is good/bad in them and spell it out for you.

However it is not up to me to do YOUR homework for you. That is just lazy. I am not your secretary sitting here ready to do the work to back up your claims for you on your behalf. If you want to make a claim and back it up with a citation, then you do the citing and I will do the reading.

However I am glad to see you are at least calling it an "article" now and not a study.

So far however I have seen you cite nothing to back up the original claim that you made...

philologos wrote: »

Faith has an overwhelmingly positive role in the majority of peoples lives. This is testified again and again by research and studies that are done into it.

... if there are so many studies (again and again you said) then it should not be hard to find one of them. So far you have simply linked to two articles, not studies, which were self bias fulfilling nonsense written and posted on the websites of people in order to further their own agendas.

philologos

See above. Not all posters on boards.ie are university students or university faculty and won't have access to JSTOR and other academic journal repositories and I'm fairly sure that if I downloaded the PDF's and chucked them onto my own webspace that it would be illegal. So the best compromise is to cite an article with reference to the studies which are actually unavailable without payment / studying at a university.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ah another one of your post edits. It seems I keep replying to you and then when I scroll back up I find the message I am replying to has changed massively. Have you considered using the PREVIEW button at all before posting?

philologos wrote: »

The first is still very much valid - it shows that 81% of evangelical Christians in Britain volunteer.

No it CLAIMS that. It does not SHOW it because it did not show the questionaire, it did not show the workings, it did not show a single figure, it did not show the methodology. It showed NOTHING. Nothing at all. It simply claimed it by fiat.

Anyone can write an article claiming anything. It is whether they can back up their claims that is of importance here. Seemingly they (and you) can not.

philologos wrote: »

Secondly the figures showed

Again, no they did not. There IS no figures shown in your article. Once again I appeal to you to do some actual learning on what a statistical study actually is and how to read, recognise and interpret them. This is an article, not a study, and it cites NONE of the figures it claims to be based on.

philologos wrote: »

Why is it so difficult to accept that faith can and does play a positive role in the vast majority of believers lives?

Why ask me a question you asked once already and I already answered not even an hour ago????? Are you just trying to prove what I have accused you of numerous times before... that you reply to peoples posts without actually reading them???

I repeat: I find it difficult to accept because I have been shown no reasons, evidence, arguments OR data to accept it. That is why I find ANYTHING difficult to accept when I in fact do.

philologos wrote: »

I'm finished that degree now, but we can do this discussion much better without this sort of patronising nonsense.

Nothing here is intended to be patronizing, and it certainly is not nonsense. It is just very clear that you have no training in statistics or how to read, recognize or even interpret an actual statistical study. I am attempting to help you now by letting you know a good place to start such training (Bed Goldacres book really is indispensable for the lay man on this) and by showing you how to recognize that your two articles are not in ANY way "studies".

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

See above. Not all posters on boards.ie are university students or university faculty and won't have access to JSTOR

There are studies everywhere, and many of them do not require special access to anything. You should have no issue finding one to support your claims.... especially given your comments which suggest you think there are a great number of such studies.... yet you can not find a single one.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are studies everywhere, and many of them do not require special access to anything. You should have no issue finding one to support your claims.... especially given your comments which suggest you think there are a great number of such studies.... yet you can not find a single one.

I've presented an article that very thoroughly goes through the studies on the role of faith in medical situations. I've also presented an article with the latest statistics from evangelical churches all around the UK in relation to faith and how that impacts their lives in a tangible level.

What is profound about what I've just cited is:

Evidence from over 1,200 studies and 400 reviews has shown an association between faith and a number of positive health benefits, including protection from illness, coping with illness, and faster recovery from it. Of the studies reviewed in the definitive analysis, (3) 81% showed benefit and only 4% harm.

3) being reference to Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson DB. Handbook of Religion and Health. Oxford University Press, 2001.

If you'd read them and go through what issues you have with them that would be considerably more conducive to discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I've presented an article

You presented two in fact. But I did not ask for articles. YOU very clearly claimed that your claims were supported time and time again by "studies". I simply asked you to cite one of those studies.

So far you cant.

Very telling.

philologos wrote: »

If you'd read them and go through what issues you have with them that would be considerably more conducive to discussion.

Again I have "gone through" and adumbrated by "issues" with everything you have cited and linked to so far. I will continue to do so. So keep citing things. However your request to have me go look for something else myself because you cant/wont is denied. I have spent enough time on forums citing studies to back up the things that I claim myself. I am not about to spend more time doing it for you because you cant be bothered or.... more likely.... are incapable of finding studies that back up what you claim is true.

It simply appears you are happy to make preposterous claims on this forum.... declare by fiat that "time after time" studies support your claims.... but you can not, or will not, back up those claims with a single citation to a study that supports you.

One more time: YOU said there are studies supporting your claim. Please CITE and LINK to one of those studies.

Needler

dpe wrote: »

You're funny. Have you thought of going on the stage with this act?

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yes indeed. "Eaten bread is soon forgotten", as the saying goes. A huge amount of us would not have received an education (and therefore the ability to debate on fora like this) were it not for the religious.

Yes, the clerical abuse scandal was that - an absolute scandal; to which the state was also a party.

But you cannot ignore what the religious have done for this country (and many others). Ever.

I, for one, am eternally grateful to them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

He probably already is. Though I hear they prefer to call it a "pulpit" than a "stage".

Freddie59 wrote: »

Should people be, let's say, anti-parent because of the level of parental abuse in this country at present. There have been many instances of this in the past few years. Are ALL parents then abusers? One to ponder.

And what, precisely, is racism? There are many different forms; from the "positive discrimination" in favour of certain ethnic groups to the marginalisation of indigenous Irish people should they dare to question such practices. Is this not discrimination in reverse? If an Irish native dares to question preferential treatment (above what a normal citizen receives) to a particular group or nationality they are immediately classed as racist. What utter horse shyte.

philologos wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo: Look to the citations in the article perhaps? - The article cites the studies that show that faith plays a positive role in peoples lives.

The first is still very much valid - it shows that 81% of evangelical Christians in Britain volunteer. The Guardian article that I linked to notes that 26% of the British public do. Therefore it is clearly above average.

Secondly the figures showed, as I've mentioned in the post I linked to that the more than one read the Bible, the more active they were in terms of charitable volunteering and giving as well as more active in their faith.

Why is it so difficult to accept that faith can and does play a positive role in the vast majority of believers lives? Or is it just a case of confirmation bias?



I'm finished that degree now, but we can do this discussion much better without this sort of patronising nonsense. The second article very very clearly cited all the studies you could ask for on it. Good reading also involves good following of footnotes.

In fact quoting an article is better because not all posters will have access to JSTOR and other journal sources.

Freddie59 wrote: »

In fairness, take a deep breath and read that again!

Freddie59 wrote: »

Case closed I think.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hey, it is your claims, so it is for you to back it up with citations. I am more than happy to look into the articles you actually cite and take the time out of my day to work them over and see what is good/bad in them and spell it out for you.

However it is not up to me to do YOUR homework for you. That is just lazy. I am not your secretary sitting here ready to do the work to back up your claims for you on your behalf. If you want to make a claim and back it up with a citation, then you do the citing and I will do the reading.

However I am glad to see you are at least calling it an "article" now and not a study.

So far however I have seen you cite nothing to back up the original claim that you made...



... if there are so many studies (again and again you said) then it should not be hard to find one of them. So far you have simply linked to two articles, not studies, which were self bias fulfilling nonsense written and posted on the websites of people in order to further their own agendas.

philologos wrote: »

See above. Not all posters on boards.ie are university students or university faculty and won't have access to JSTOR and other academic journal repositories and I'm fairly sure that if I downloaded the PDF's and chucked them onto my own webspace that it would be illegal. So the best compromise is to cite an article with reference to the studies which are actually unavailable without payment / studying at a university.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah another one of your post edits. It seems I keep replying to you and then when I scroll back up I find the message I am replying to has changed massively. Have you considered using the PREVIEW button at all before posting?



No it CLAIMS that. It does not SHOW it because it did not show the questionaire, it did not show the workings, it did not show a single figure, it did not show the methodology. It showed NOTHING. Nothing at all. It simply claimed it by fiat.

Anyone can write an article claiming anything. It is whether they can back up their claims that is of importance here. Seemingly they (and you) can not.



Again, no they did not. There IS no figures shown in your article. Once again I appeal to you to do some actual learning on what a statistical study actually is and how to read, recognise and interpret them. This is an article, not a study, and it cites NONE of the figures it claims to be based on.



Why ask me a question you asked once already and I already answered not even an hour ago????? Are you just trying to prove what I have accused you of numerous times before... that you reply to peoples posts without actually reading them???

I repeat: I find it difficult to accept because I have been shown no reasons, evidence, arguments OR data to accept it. That is why I find ANYTHING difficult to accept when I in fact do.



Nothing here is intended to be patronizing, and it certainly is not nonsense. It is just very clear that you have no training in statistics or how to read, recognize or even interpret an actual statistical study. I am attempting to help you now by letting you know a good place to start such training (Bed Goldacres book really is indispensable for the lay man on this) and by showing you how to recognize that your two articles are not in ANY way "studies".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are studies everywhere, and many of them do not require special access to anything. You should have no issue finding one to support your claims.... especially given your comments which suggest you think there are a great number of such studies.... yet you can not find a single one.

philologos wrote: »

I've presented an article that very thoroughly goes through the studies on the role of faith in medical situations. I've also presented an article with the latest statistics from evangelical churches all around the UK in relation to faith and how that impacts their lives in a tangible level.

What is profound about what I've just cited is:


3) being reference to Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson DB. Handbook of Religion and Health. Oxford University Press, 2001.

If you'd read them and go through what issues you have with them that would be considerably more conducive to discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You presented two in fact. But I did not ask for articles. YOU very clearly claimed that your claims were supported time and time again by "studies". I simply asked you to cite one of those studies.

So far you cant.

Very telling.



Again I have "gone through" and adumbrated by "issues" with everything you have cited and linked to so far. I will continue to do so. So keep citing things. However your request to have me go look for something else myself because you cant/wont is denied. I have spent enough time on forums citing studies to back up the things that I claim myself. I am not about to spend more time doing it for you because you cant be bother or.... more likely.... are incapable of finding studies that back up what you claim is true.

It simply appears you are happy to make preposterous claims on this forum.... declare by fiat that "time after time" studies support your claims.... but you can not, or will not, back up those claims with a single citation to a study that supports you.

Blah.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo: In respect to the second article, what do you have that suggests what they've cited concerning health on the basis of academic studies is wrong?

Or is it just that confirmation bias is getting in the way?

What is wrong with the content of what is being said is what I want to know.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo: In respect to the second article, what do you have that suggests what they've cited concerning health on the basis of academic studies is wrong?

They did not cite anything. They did not show a single figure, or working. That is my problem.

YOU claimed there is studies to back up what you are saying here yet YOU can not cite a single one of them. Your words even indicated that the studies you claim there are are quite numerous.... which makes your inability to find a single one even more comical.

philologos wrote: »

What is wrong with the content of what is being said is what I want to know.

What is wrong with the content is that it appears to be entirely unsubstantiated. I have... as you will have gathered from my posting history on this forum and others... a massive problem with entirely unsubstantiated claims.... most especially when the people making them falsely CLAIM there is a lot of substantiation and then utterly fail to present a scrap of it when called on it.

philologos

How is it unsubstantiated when the CMF study cites the material. This is getting a little tedious and it reeks of confirmation bias. The other is based on figures that they've collected themselves in churches and it is far from a propaganda piece because they also publish what is concerning to them about evangelical communities, namely that younger believers don't read their Bible as regularly as older members and that they don't contribute as much in terms of giving, but that they do talk about their faith more with others. The purpose of the first was to help church leaders to determine the direction of their churches in the future. It would be woeful if it was just a propaganda piece as a result. That's why I've asked you to read it rather than complain about it prematurely.

The page I've given you from the CMF website has footnotes and citations for everything they've argued.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

How is it unsubstantiated when the CMF study cites the material.

That is not how it works. Have some decorum here please. Not the first time you have attempted to shift the burden of proof on this thread.

I have had the decency to read everything you have linked to. I have taken significant time out of my morning to do so infact. I will even continue to do so. If you feel one of the links supports your claims then simply tell me which one and I will go read it. I am however unwilling to do your homework for you much as you want me to.

Plus given only an hour ago you did not understand the difference between a study and an article, I think the activity of reading those links yourself a useful and educational one.

The onus of proof is on the person making the claims. YOU came here claiming that faith has beneficial effects and YOU claimed there are studies that back that up. The onus therefore is on YOU to cite the studies that in fact do so, and not send any one who calls you on your false claims on a wild goose chase that is essentially saying “find it yourself” in order to run away from the fact that YOU claimed there are studies backing up your position while you are even yourself unaware of a single one.

If we did it your way I would read all the links and if I did not find proof FOR you you would ask me to read all the links at the bottom of those... and at the bottom of those.... in a futile attempt to send me on a wild goose chase so I would simply stop pointing out that YOU are entirely unable to back up YOUR own claims.

philologos wrote: »

The other is based on figures that they've collected themselves

Says you. Show me the figures. Show me the methodology used to collect, collate and interpret them. Show me the normalisation and control techniques used. Show me... as I keep saying.... an actual study with actual figures and workings. Not some self confirmational articles written and only published on their own website to further their own claims. Propaganda indeed. Tedious indeed.

philologos wrote: »

That's why I've asked you to read it rather than complain about it prematurely.

For the 4th or 5th time... I HAVE read everything you HAVE linked to and I will continue to do so. If you think there is a study that I should read that actually backs up what you claim.... cite it. Simple as that.

I am being massively generous with my time and resources for you here. I am however drawing a line in the generosity and refusing to do YOUR homework for you. YOU claimed there are studies that back you up and I am saying I am MORE than willing to read them. All you need do is cite me a direct link to one.

Which should not be so hard given the vast number of them you implied there was.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is not how it works. Have some decorum here please. Not the first time you have attempted to shift the burden of proof on this thread.

Nonsense. I've cited you an article which systematically looks at the current evidence in studies to suggest that faith plays a postive role in a medical context. I'm asking you to suggest what is wrong with the actual article or is it just that it doesn't agree with your position? I haven't seen any logic on your part other than just complaining about the article even when it cites the studies it is basing itself on.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have had the decency to read everything you have linked to. I have taken significant time out of my morning to do so infact. I will even continue to do so. If you feel one of the links supports your claims then simply tell me which one and I will go read it. I am however unwilling to do your homework for you much as you want me to.

Great, what's the objection? - I've given you a reason as to why I can't show you a lot of the research directly, but I can give you links to articles discussing it. I'm asking you to present your difficulty with the actual content of the article something which you've failed to do thus far.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Plus given only an hour ago you did not understand the difference between a study and an article, I think the activity of reading those links yourself a useful and educational one.

Tripe. I said that studies back the view that faith is positive for the most part in peoples lives and I've provided something of the basis for that position.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The onus of proof is on the person making the claims. YOU came here claiming that faith has beneficial effects and YOU claimed there are studies that back that up. The onus therefore is on YOU to cite the studies that in fact do so, and not send any one who calls you on your false claims on a wild goose chase that is essentially saying “find it yourself” in order to run away from the fact that YOU claimed there are studies backing up your position while you are even yourself unaware of a single one.

I've substantiated them by two articles one on the basis of original data collected and another on the basis of peer reviewed studies.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If we did it your way I would read all the links and if I did not find proof FOR you you would ask me to read all the links at the bottom of those... and at the bottom of those.... in a futile attempt to send me on a wild goose chase so I would simply stop pointing out that YOU are entirely unable to back up YOUR own claims.

I've provided 2 links. That's all you really need to look at to see that faith does play an overwhelmingly positive role in peoples lives. As for your own personal prejudices they are your own to deal with they aren't mine to deal with.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Says you. Show me the figures. Show me the methodology used to collect, collate and interpret them. Show me the normalisation and control techniques used. Show me... as I keep saying.... an actual study with actual figures and workings. Not some self confirmational articles written and only published on their own website to further their own claims. Propaganda indeed. Tedious indeed.

I've shown you two articles which systematically look at figures collected, or figures collected in other studies with full citations.

As I said already, I'm not going to satisfy your prejudices or confirmation biases as they are your own to deal with. I've presented the current knowledge on the subject.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For the 4th or 5th time... I HAVE read everything you HAVE linked to and I will continue to do so. If you think there is a study that I should read that actually backs up what you claim.... cite it. Simple as that.

You've presented no evidence that you have read it other than to moan about having no direct links to studies which I've given crystal clear the reason why.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am being massively generous with my time and resources for you here. I am however drawing a line in the generosity and refusing to do YOUR homework for you. YOU claimed there are studies that back you up and I am saying I am MORE than willing to read them. All you need do is cite me a direct link to one.

Show me your actual objections to the findings documented.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which should not be so hard given the vast number of them you implied there was.

Tripe. I've given you two articles that present the findings in a clear manner. If you're willing to pay for JSTOR access or if you are a student at university you will be able to look at the studies that are cited in the CMF article.

If the next post isn't about the actual content and findings that are mentioned in the Evangelical Alliance study or the CMF article I don't see the point in wasting my time.

old hippy

Teach them about all the different belief systems but don't hammer one particular one into them. If you have to teach religion.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Nonsense. I've cited you an article

Again I did not ask you to cite me an article. I responded to this post here where you very clearly claimed there was Research and Studies. Link me to them, not some self confirming articles people write for their own website.

You even indicated that there was a large number of such studies. So your continued inability to find even ONE is comical at best and a gross example of your lies at worst. especially given most of the "links" at the end of the second article are not even to studies either but to books. Even your citations citations arent citations

You claimed the studies are there. You cant find them. I call foul. I call liar.

philologos wrote: »

which systematically looks

Systematically???? Do not make me laugh. It is a 4 page article, and the other is mostly made up of pictures. There is nothing systematic in there... at.... all. Not a single figure is cited. Not a single working shown. Not a single application of anything even remotely approaching a methodology. Where is this "systematic" approach you are fantasizing about??????????????????

You appear to have been fooled. You do not know the first thing about statistics, or how to interpret or even recognise them. So there is no surprise that you think anything about this 4 page article, the other is made up most of pictures and large fonts, has anything "systematic" in it. What was systematic there? I am agog to hear.

philologos wrote: »

I've given you a reason as to why I can't show you a lot of the research directly

No you have given me a cop out excuse as to why you can not show me a small proportion of it directly. I am asking why you can not show me ANY OF IT AT ALL ANYWHERE EVEN ONCE.

philologos wrote: »

I've provided 2 links.

To self confirmation articles which do not show a single working, let alone a systematic approach and are nothing to do with the MANY actual studies you indicated there exists. Studies you can not link to EVEN ONE OF.

philologos wrote: »

I've shown you two articles which systematically look at figures collected

Again neither article does any such thing so this outright lie will not wash I am afraid. There is not a figure cited, not a methodology used. I do not think you know the meaning of the word systematic... or worse you do know but you choose to openly lie about it.

You keep lying that they presented the findings... they did no such thing. Not a figure cited, not a methodological interpretation of the figures used or displayed. Again I repeat: What was systematic here?

In fact just out of curiosity I would have you look at the list of citations in your 4 page article and tell me which one on the list is the first citation to an actual study and not simply a book.... or the notes kept from a meeting? I am curious to see if you can even recognise a study when you see one in other words.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo: There is an assessment of the studies cited in the CMF article. One can follow them up if they wish. To save myself from a gratuitous increase in blood pressure I'm going to leave it here. I'll take it up with people who aren't as intransigent and who are willing to discuss it. I think this is best for both of us.

Also I think it is probably best that I put you on my ignore list because you've accused me of lying again. One of the things I value in posters is honesty and respect. I've shown that there is a large number of studies which have dealt with this subject. Therefore I'm not lying at all in the slightest and it is dishonest of you to suggest this. When you prove your ability to have a civil, calm and polite discussion then and only then will I remove you.

Otherwise I'm wasting my time and you are wasting yours.

old hippy

Religion is all based on lies, anyways.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo: There is an assessment of the studies cited in the CMF article. One can follow them up if they wish. To save myself from a gratuitous increase in blood pressure I'm going to leave it here. I'll take it up with people who aren't as intransigent and who are willing to discuss it. I think this is best for both of us.

You can use any personal insult you wish to cover your cop out and retreat if you want, it is no skin off my nose. The fact is that you claimed there was not only studies backing up your claims, but a large amount of such studies, yet when asked to cite a single one of them you not only failed to do so numerous times, but you insulted the intelligence of everyone here by linking to what essentially amounts to Christian Blog Posts instead in the hope people would fall for that and think these were valid "studies".

I can at least imagine the red faced feeling of being called on being asked to cite a study when you not only claimed they existed, but implied there was in fact a large number of them, but I am not about to hold off on calling "Lie" when I see one just to save your face.

philologos wrote: »

I've shown that there is a large number of studies which have dealt with this subject.

Really? Where? You appear to have shown there there exists TWO articles. One of those Articles appears to suggest there is a couple of pages in a few books. However studies you have shown ZERO let alone a "large Number". Saying you have shown a "large number" when you have cited exactly ZERO is exactly why I keep using words like "liar" here. I do not use such words lightly.

In fact it appears you can not even answer my question above of which of the references in your article is a "study" showing you likely would not even recognize a study if it was placed in front of you. The vast majority of the references in your "article" are not studies at all, but the selective quoting of single pages out of books.

philologos wrote: »

Otherwise I'm wasting my time and you are wasting yours.

You may be, but I have already adumbrated the great utility I find in calling people on their claims on forums such as this.... and then hammering home their cop outs when called out. When someone claims there is a massive amount of studies backing them up.... I ask for them.... and they fail to produce even a SINGLE ONE of that massive number.... I have far from wasted my time but have in fact highlighted quite effectively the willingness of Christians to "lie for jesus" and engage in hypocracy and fantasy and lies in order to further their aims.

You are welcome to try the same on me in return. Find a single time I have EVER claimed there was a study, or studies to back up something I was saying... and then when asked to cite that study or studies I then either did not do so.... or proceeded to engage in a serious of cop out gymnastics in order to avoid having to do so.

When you fail to find me doing such things... compare and contrast our approaches and tell me which of us is the honest one here.

Turtwig

The thing I hate about this whole religious faith having health benefits or not is that the "studies" are so ****tily done that I'd actually consider the publication of one in a peer reviewed journal an attempt to subvert the standards of science. Two things are almost certain, this a field of study where no matter how ****ty your research is it will probably get a lot of attention. It is also a field of study where your research is very vulnerable to getting dragged out of context.

Also I'm still waiting patiently on this.

nozzferrahhtoo

Malty_T wrote: »

Also I'm still waiting patiently on this.

And this but given the content from him on the latter is almost identical to the content of the former, you are essentially waiting for a reply to BOTH posts now.

He promised us a Mark II of his list someday, I am not sure if that second post was intended to be it. I hope not as it is just the Mark I list reworded and represented again.

Alas I am afraid the likelyhood of seeing the Mark II list ever is about the same as the likelyhood of him saying a study exists, and then actually being able to cite it when called out on it.

Turtwig

Oh yeah I saw that reply actually, forgot about it though. I appreciate the effort it took him to write such a long post, but really it's just the vanilla reworded a bit.

Vicxas

Thats all it is really, its him spouting religious references to the benefit of prayer from the CMF.... really?

philologos

Vicxas wrote: »

Thats all it is really, its him spouting religious references to the benefit of prayer from the CMF.... really?

Not at all. If you actually read the article it makes clear reference to studies which point to the benefit of faith in medical recovery. Reading the footnotes as well as the article helps to see what the basis for their conclusions is.

I don't guarantee to be able to shake prejudices or confirmation biases that people may have. All I claim to do is present what the current research is on the issue.

nozzferrahhtoo

Vicxas wrote: »

Thats all it is really, its him spouting religious references to the benefit of prayer from the CMF.... really?

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. If you actually read the article it makes clear reference to studies which point to the benefit of faith in medical recovery. Reading the footnotes as well as the article helps to see what the basis for their conclusions is.

Alas what the user above says is not true. The article does not in any way show how the numbers they mention in the main article were drawn from the source material(s) listed. No methodology is displayed, no direct citations or workings are shown. I can not actually see how any of the figures claimed in the articles match the numbers and claims in the references cited.

Secondly the references are almost always NOT to studies in the articles the user above cited. They are in fact selective quotations from books and not studies of any kind.

In short reading the footnotes of the articles is about as helpful as reading the articles were. That is: Not helpful at all.

philologos wrote: »

I don't guarantee to be able to shake prejudices or confirmation biases that people may have. All I claim to do is present what the current research is on the issue.

No but what you DO gaurantee, at least in your actions, is that if you are called on evidence that you do not have you likely will revert to blaming it on the confirmation biases of those who do not agree with you.

Alas we can all play that game if we wanted to be dishonest. I could sit here saying you only accept the invisible evidence actually exists cause you are biased that way, and you could sit there claiming that I only do not see it because I am biased that way.

At the end of the day this does not change the fact that you said there was quite a large number of studies, you were asked to cite them, and you can not.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. If you actually read the article it makes clear reference to studies which point to the benefit of faith in medical recovery. Reading the footnotes as well as the article helps to see what the basis for their conclusions is.

I don't guarantee to be able to shake prejudices or confirmation biases that people may have. All I claim to do is present what the current research is on the issue.

Which citation or reference, in your opinion, do you think makes the most pertinent point?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Which citation or reference, in your opinion, do you think makes the most pertinent point?

As I've mentioned already. I think that this quote below is hugely significant:

Evidence from over 1,200 studies and 400 reviews has shown an association between faith and a number of positive health benefits, including protection from illness, coping with illness, and faster recovery from it. Of the studies reviewed in the definitive analysis, (3) 81% showed benefit and only 4% harm.

The article even goes through some of the difficulties and examines the methodology behind many of the studies:

2. The problem of proving causality We have already seen that a number of studies show that religious belief is associated with better health. However, does religious faith cause better health, or is the relationship brought about by other factors? Take this absurd example: over 90% of deaths occur in bed. Does this mean that going to bed causes death? Of course not – in this case, another factor, such as a severe illness, causes the patient both to be bedridden and subsequently to die. Some of the association between faith and health may be related to other underlying risk factors, so called 'confounding variables', such as social class. Solutions to the problem of causality include carrying out observational trials prospectively to prevent false retrospective judgments being applied to data, and by adjusting for known risk factors. But even after these correctives, the benefit of faith remains.

Prior to doing this, it looks at what has commonly been found in the research, and after doing this it looks as to why this may be the case including factors such as how faith influences mental outlook, positive health behaviours, social contact, and so on. It's a good presentation of the current research out there and it looks at it in quite a thorough manner. For example it admits that prayer studies are inconclusive at present:

Various studies looked at the efficacy of intercessory prayer on health outcomes. These were summarised in a 'Cochrane' meta-analysis, which concluded that overall there was no significant improvement in groups of patients prayed for, although one trial did show improvements in certain end-points including death.
In another, patients receiving prayer did better post-operatively than those not receiving prayer, but only if they did not know they were being prayed for. The review authors conclude that the evidence is insufficient to advise for or against prayer, (26) and considerable controversy surrounds the interpretation and implications of the studies in question. (27) The reasons why God chooses to answer some prayers and not others are outside the scope of this File, but the assumption that God can be summoned like a genie in a lamp is closer to magical thinking than an authentically Christian understanding of prayer.

That's why I'm seriously wondering if people actually read it or if they fobbed it off immediately.