Attending Religious Services Sharply Cuts Risk Of Death
by GutsThose attending religious services at least once per week showed a 20 percent mortality risk reduction mark compared with those not attending services at all. These findings corroborate prior studies that have shown up to a 25 percent reduction in such risk.
[...]
The study adjusted for participation of individuals within communal organizations and group activities that promote a strong social life and enjoyable routines, behaviors known to lead to overall wellness. However, even after controlling for such behavior and other health-related factors, the improvements in morbidity and mortality rates exceeded expectations.
“Interestingly, the protection against mortality provided by religion cannot be entirely explained by expected factors that include enhanced social support of friends or family, lifestyle choices and reduced smoking and alcohol consumption,” said Dr. Schnall, who was lead author of the study. “There is something here that we don’t quite understand. It is always possible that some unknown or unmeasured factors confounded these results,” he added.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:31 am
Is it something not understood or something that cannot possibly be understood based on the preconceptions brought into this? Is it ever possible to arrive at the truth if one cannot accept God as involved in the dynamics? Assume a study were to report that tested individuals, with strong beliefs in God and behavior that reflected it such as, for example, following prescribed moral precepts and time spent in prayer, also had elevated endorphin levels and other hormonal indicators which were linked to their behavior. A believer would be unsurprised at the conclusion that hormone releases and elevated moods were attributable to an individual's relationship to God. An atheist would look for evidence of self-deception. But which conclusion is more straightforward and consistent with the data? Is it possible to remove bias from the interpretation of such studies?
Comment by Bradford — November 21, 2008 @ 6:31 am
November 21st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
[...] Hat Tip: Telic Thoughts [...]
Pingback by Thinking Christian » “Attending Religious Services Sharply Cuts Risk Of Death, Study Suggests” — November 21, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Science speaks.
The critic stares, vapidly, eyes half shut and closing slowly. A thick bead of drool begins to form in the corner of his slack mouth…
Comment by chunkdz — November 22, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Awfully quiet around here . . .
Comment by TomG — November 22, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Can I ask, what is the risk of death if you are a church goer?
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 22, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
If your a Woman aged 50-79 it would be 6.3% over 7.7 years, this is much less than the 7.0% recorded for the "brights" .
It seems that not only do religious folks see the world more clearly they also live much longer than there godless counterparts
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 22, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
It's the eternal perspective that marks their distinguishing worldview. What occurs after death.
Comment by Bradford — November 22, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I see. So it is the risk of death… after death. And how did they measure that?
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 22, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Comment by don provan — November 22, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
DP
.
In other words "for all we know" religious behavior leads to longer life
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 22, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Or it may be that lives styled after NT moral precepts induce greater physical health and attendance is part of that lifestyle.
Comment by Bradford — November 22, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:09 am
Actually, that's one thing the study seems to established pretty well, so I'd go so far as to say, "It appears so far that religious behavior leads to longer life" at least for that population.
What we don't know is why.
I'm guessing it's something along these lines. But the study was looking at generic "religiosity" or "religious strength and comfort", so a Christian specific explanation would be considered a selection bias in this context. Hopefully later studies can clear this up.
Comment by don provan — November 23, 2008 @ 6:09 am
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
You need to establish a control which compensates for the benefit to menopausal women in the process of getting ready for, going to, attending and returning from a social gathering. I suspect that for older, single women who are unable to get to such a social gathering at least weekly, the health disadvantages are fairly obvious. But, what do I know.
Comment by Alan Fox — November 23, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Alan,
On the one hand, it looks like the study tries to account for some of these non-religious factors to some extend, and I think the authors admit that others still need to be considered. On the other hand, if such meetings are a health benefit, and being religious leads to attending such meetings, then one could still say that the religious behavior had a health benefit. Bradford's statement about following Christian moral precepts doesn't necessarily mean that the reasons Christianity developed those precepts has any relation to the resulting health benefits, so Bradford's hypothesis wouldn't be contradicted by demonstrating other lifestyles with similar benefits.
Comment by don provan — November 23, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Thanks, Don.
I guess I was just thinking any effort to participate in some form of social interaction is better than staying at home watching TV.
If the study managed to separate out the religiosity from other considerations, I am impressed. What non-religious activities by older single women indulged in on a weekly basis were used as a control?
Comment by Alan Fox — November 23, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Alan,
Don't get me wrong: there's plenty this doesn't tell us yet.
You can read the paper for yourself for the details, but the article says that they tried to account for other similar social interactions. I have to admit that I didn't look too closely at what or how, since I don't think this is really the best place for an analysis of the scientific aspects of the study, particularly since the results so far are just scratching the surface. If the study's authors made bold claims about what they proved, I'd be more inclined to look it over more carefully, but from what I see, they're taking a balanced approach and being fairly clear about what exactly they've shown and seem to be charting a reasonable course for proceeding.
Comment by don provan — November 23, 2008 @ 6:48 pm