Spirituality correlates to better mental health regardless of religion: researchers

[rug]

August 20, 2012
Provided byUniversity of Missouri-Columbia

Despite differences in rituals and beliefs among the world's major religions, spirituality often enhances health regardless of a person's faith, according to University of Missouri researchers. The MU researchers believe that health care providers could take advantage of this correlation between health – particularly mental health – and spirituality by tailoring treatments and rehabilitation programs to accommodate an individual's spiritual inclinations.

"In many ways, the results of our study support the idea that spirituality functions as a personality trait," said Dan Cohen, assistant teaching professor of religious studies at MU and one of the co-authors of the study. "With increased spirituality people reduce their sense of self and feel a greater sense of oneness and connectedness with the rest of the universe. What was interesting was that frequency of participation in religious activities or the perceived degree of congregational support was not found to be significant in the relationships between personality, spirituality, religion and health."

The MU study used the results of three surveys to determine if correlations existed among participants' self-reported mental and physical health, personality factors, and spirituality in Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Catholics and Protestants. Across all five faiths, a greater degree of spirituality was related to better mental health, specifically lower levels of neuroticism and greater extraversion. Forgiveness was the only spiritual trait predictive of mental health after personality variables were considered.

"Our prior research shows that the mental health of people recovering from different medical conditions, such as cancer, stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury, appears to be related significantly to positive spiritual beliefs and especially congregational support and spiritual interventions," said Cohen. "Spiritual beliefs may be a coping device to help individuals deal emotionally with stress."

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-spirituality-mental-health-religion.html

[independentpiney]

1. Missouri U- what a surprise

[cbayer]

2. It's a state school with a medical school, isn't it?

Why would the source be a problem?

[independentpiney]

5. It's from the Religious studies department- what does a medical school have to do with it?

[cbayer]

10. It's not actually. It's from the Department of Health Psychology.

You seemed to imply that the school is not a good source for this kind of study. I brought up the medical school aspect because in general a third rate university doesn't have a medical school.

[Walk away]

3. That's if you believe being delusional "better" mental health! nt

[rug]

6. I suppose the exclamation point denotes wit.

[cbayer]

7. That's a broadbrush statement that really has not basis in fact.

There is no psychologist or psychiatrist worth their salt who would call spirituality in general delusional.

[humblebum]

25. It can just as easily be said that the atheistic POV is "delusional." The term is nothing

more than an opinionated ad hominem that can be applied anywhere.

[edhopper]

30. What delusions do atheist hold

last I looked, they do not purport to say that something exist for which there is no evidence.

[humblebum]

31. Concerning those strong atheists who think that

if something cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt/touched, then it does not exist - such a narrow POV seems pretty ridiculous to those who think that something can indeed exist "outside of the box."

[edhopper]

38. No atheist says that

Some do say that if there is something for which there is no evidence and which is counter to all scientific knowledge at present, the probability is that it does not exist.
Your constant referral to the five senses seems to be a very dated in terms of modern science, and might have been relevant a few centuries ago.

"outside the box" is a meaningless phrase without specifics.

[humblebum]

41. Actually you confirmed my point. I never said any "atheist says that" however, thinking is

Last edited Thu Aug 23, 2012, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

a different story. Some atheists have said that they "know" there is no god or deity. Knowing signifies absolute rejection of any other possibility. Therefore, if it cannot be empirically verified (sensed), it cannot exist. That is definitely restricting thought to "inside the box."

And "constant referral to the five senses seems to be a very dated in terms of modern science" - how so?

The five recognized senses, which enable us to objectively interpret the physical world around us are still recognized as the standard. Even though other "senses" are theorized or recognized, they are less defined.

If you are going to say that the 5 senses are outdated, then you can hardly discount those who recognize a sense of spiritual existence, or even senses that might pickup on others' brainwaves, etc.

The five recognized human senses are still the standard.

In different animals we have recognized that other senses do exist. Do those same senses exist in humans? Maybe.

[eqfan592]

43. You're talking about gnostic atheists.

And yes, they do exist. And no, I don't agree with their claiming of knowledge.

However, if you really think that the "five recognized human senses are still the standard," then you're a bit behind the times.

http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/question242.htm

[humblebum]

46. Your argument here is really a red herring.

"In your skin, there are at least five different types of nerve endings:
heat sensitive
cold sensitive
pain sensitive
itch sensitive
pressure sensitive"

Regardless, are not they all contained in the recognized sense of touching or feeling? You know they are.

Empiricism implies use of the senses. It is not restricted to any particular number of senses, and it is empirical verification that we are talking about here.

And if you will notice in the first sentence: "The standard list of five senses"

[eqfan592]

48. Try doing a bit of research. No red hearing's here.

What about your sense of timing? Or try closing your eyes and touching your finger to your nose? How'd you do that? What sense were you using? (proprioception, if you were curious).

Sorry, but I'm taking the word of Harvard Medical over yours any day.

EDIT: And to your edit, something being thought of as a "Standard" doesn't automatically mean it is accurate. The complete sentence underscores this. "The standard list of five senses doesn't really give our bodies credit for all of the amazing things they can do. There are at least a dozen different things we can sense."

[humblebum]

49. I am quite aware of your findings. Nonetheless, empirical

verification still refers to that which is observed or experienced by the SENSES. So then, if I claim that my sense of intuition tells me that such and such exists, how can you claim that to not be objective proof.

After all, that is what we are talking about here.

Which senses will be recognized as yielding close to 100% objectivity? Does your sense of proprioception yield that? In certain cases it probably does.

But how can you be sure your finger touched your nose? Could it possibly be your sense of feeling in your finger tips and in your nose that verified the results?

That is your empirical proof.

[eqfan592]

50. The problem is that intuition isn't a "sense," at least not in the way you are trying to use it here

So I can very easily claim that not to be objective proof.

[humblebum]

51. I never said it was. And I agree that it cannot yield objective proof.

Nonetheless, how do you KNOW with near 100 % objectivity that your finger touched you nose? Maybe you smelled your finger touch your nose. Or maybe your felt your finger tip on the end of your nose.

Maybe you heard the gentle tap of your finger contact your nose. Or maybe you SAW your finger touch your nose.

And I won't even get into how you might have verified by taste that your finger touched your nose.

How then can you verify that your sense of proprioception did indeed enable you to touch your nose?

[eqfan592]

52. Proprioception is how I did it, the other senses is how I verified it.

I can verify it because if I can touch my nose with my eyes closed, then there really aren't any other options for how I got it there (unless you want to argue that I smelled my finger to my nose ).



Of course, it is possible that all of these sensory inputs are being messed with, and that I'm just a brain in a jar someplace, but that's getting into Descartes a bit more than I'd like to

[humblebum]

53. Nonetheless, we are still talking about those senses that yield empirical, objective proof.

Proprioception does not do that, it enables you to do that. How do you SENSEthat proprioception works?

Intuition may be a sense, but any verification based on it is only subjective. Unless of course it can be shown over and over that intuition continually yields the same results. And I am speaking solely of human beings here.

[edhopper]

94. How do you know atheists think that

if they never said it. Your "other ways of knowing"?

[humblebum]

104. Anytime an atheist refers to something as being empirically proven, or

that something cannot be empirically proven, that is exactly what they are thinking, and by extension saying since the definition of empiricism is specifically about using the "senses."

"Empiricism is a theory which holds that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience."

http://skepdic.com/empiricism.html

[madrchsod]

61. so you are calling me delusional?

do you know me? really?

what right do you have to judge me if you do not know me

[cbayer]

4. The concept of spirituality as a personality trait is interesting.

The n is very small and they only included believers of different faiths, so no comparison to non-believers, but otherwise the study looks pretty well done.

[rug]

9. The article sources the paper but I can't seem to pull the article out of the Journal.

"More information: The paper, "Relationships among Spirituality, Religious Practices, Personality Factors, and Health for Five Different Faiths" was published in the Journal of Religion and Health."

[cbayer]

11. Here's a link to the abstract.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22618413

[rug]

13. Ah, thank you.

[Speck Tater]

8. The atheist will be working over time...

to invent reasons why this study can't possibly be valid.

It's the same story whenever reality deals a blow to a cherished belief system.

"Study finds Jesus never existed." -> Fundamentalist Christians invent a billion reasons why the study is false,

"Study finds spirituality matters." -> Fundamentalist atheists invent a billion reasons why the study is false.

The one thing most humans are incapable of is questioning their own belief system.

[rug]

12. Humanity will end with the last two on earth plummeting over a cliff screaming "You're wrong!"

[Speck Tater]

14. hehe. Too true. nt

[mr blur]

47. I suppose the exclamation point denotes wit.

[rug]

57. No, it denotes excitement, as in, plummeting over a cliff.

[2ndAmForComputers]

15. Should I question whether the number pi is transcendent?

[Speck Tater]

16. Beyond irrational is psychotic, not transcendent.

Clearly pi is psychotic!

[eqfan592]

19. Why on earth would an atheist have to do that?

You assume that a sense of spirituality is limited to those who believe in supernatural things. This is not the case. I do not know of a secular word to describe the sorts of feelings associated with spirituality, but I can tell you that leaving my religion and faith behind has not prevented me from still having those same feelings.

EDIT: I went back and looked at the article again, and while the study did restrict itself to those of particular faiths, nothing there stated that the feeling of oneness with the universe described in the article was restricted to people of faith. So exactly where was there a requirement for me to question my belief there?

[Speck Tater]

20. Yes, I agree.

I, myself, am a "spiritual atheist", being a dedicated Buddhist meditator, but still completely atheist due to my lack of belief in the supernatural.

However, many self-proclaimed atheists are the type who find it necessary to belittle anything that smacks of the "spiritual", inasmuch as they do not distinguish between spirituality and outright mumbo jumbo nonsense like astrology or Tarot cards. It is that type of rigidly dogmatic "fundamentalist atheist" I'm addressing with my remarks.

[eqfan592]

33. Fair enough. (nt)

[AlbertCat]

73. nothing there stated that the feeling of oneness with the universe described in the article ...

... was restricted to people of faith.

BINGO!

The supernatural is simply superfluous. And my mental health has been just fine since I rejected it. I still am unspeakably moved by the beauty of nature around me, as well as Bach and Mozart and Vermeer and Gaugin. No religion (not even Lutheranism with the Bach) helps me out there. Those sweeping, elated feelings are a product of my brain and I know that.... and they still feel awesome.

[dmallind]

21. Why? No atheists were included in the study. nt

[trotsky]

26. Which atheist? n/t

[Jim__]

17. Well, if more atheists followed Alex Rosenberg's advice, that might change.

According to a review of his book in Tikkun, he recommends Prozac:

This book promises to show how to enjoy life without illusions. Rosenberg, the chair of the Philosophy Department at Duke University, tells us to give up the fantasy of learning lessons for the future from the past. History has no patterns that can help us predict the human future, he argues. The past is bereft of meaning. What is adaptive in one environment becomes maladaptive in another one. Rosenberg offers a lively defense of the scientism that Tikkun often challenges, yet he is not oblivious to the value of those religious communities that bind people together in attempts to ameliorate the human condition. He argues, however, that secular humanists can best improve our lives by letting go of residual desires for meaning and accepting a wholly scientific account of reality. In what is either a brilliant spoof or a perfect example of the logic of the kind of atheism Rosenberg espouses, he offers the following advice to those readers who still can’t sleep at night, even after accepting science’s answers to life’s biggest questions: “Take a Prozac or your favorite serotonin reuptake inhibitor, and keep taking them till they kick in!”

[cbayer]

18. Great. A philosopher recommending a psychiatric medication.

I hope it's a spoof.

[MineralMan]

22. Spiritualism, eh?

Belief in spirits....

Nah...I don't believe those exist, either. Anything that starts with "spirit" is off my radar.

[eqfan592]

34. I agree that there needs to be a secular word for that emotional state.

All I know is that leaving my belief in the supernatural behind did not prevent me from experiencing what could be described as "spiritual" emotions. Especially whenever I start reading about astronomy.

[MineralMan]

39. Being awed and amazed by the

phenomena of nature requires no supernatural concepts. There are many things I do not understand, but I don't attribute them to supernatural causes. It's simple. I don't expect to understand everything.

[eqfan592]

44. I'm in complete agreement.

Wasn't implying any supernatural concepts were necessary.

[YankeyMCC]

23. Heh, a study of spiritualism by Mu

[cbayer]

24. I asked above, but did not get an answer, as to why this is significant.

Can you tell me?

Editing to add that maybe you were just making a funny which went right over my head!

[YankeyMCC]

28. Yeah, I was making a Zen joke

Mu (Japanese for "no" roughly speaking) is a Koan used in Zen Buddhism

[cbayer]

29. A Zen joke. That in and of itself is funny.

[Scootaloo]

27. Way to knead a simple fact into a goofy one

Familiarity, comfort, time to meditate, and the idea that other people are people to are all conductive to psychological well-being?



Atheists coulda told you this long ago

[rug]

32. I can't imagine Ayn Rand saying this.

"Familiarity, comfort, time to meditate, and the idea that other people are people to [sic] are all conductive [sic] to psychological well-being".

[Scootaloo]

36. That's because Ayn Rand wasn't really interested in anyone's psychological well-being

Thanks for not running to Stalin for your all-purpose atheist-bashing needs though. Was he busy?

[rug]

37. Then you may want to qualify your post.

There is nothing about atheism that requires an atheist to be "interested in anyones's psychological well-being".

[trotsky]

40. Clearly there isn't anything in Catholicism to require it either.

Plenty of Catholics don't give a shit about anyone else.

[rug]

55. It does require it.

Even if it isn't followed.

Atheism doesn't.

[Goblinmonger]

58. Prove it

Where does Catholicism require one to be concerned with another's psychological well being.

[rug]

62. Are you serious?

Matthew 22:36-40

Oh, wait, I bet you're looking for the literal words "psychological well being". If that is the case, it is a truly stupid question.

[trotsky]

65. So I guess you aren't a Catholic, rug?

Because I see you treat lots of people here like garbage - flinging insults and attacks like they're going out of style. What does that do to their well being? Love your neighbor, indeed.

And I can't wait for your dismissive insulting reply to this one, because you'll only drive home the point. Sweet!

[rug]

67. Oh I am, but not a very good one.

And I don't treat people like garbage. I do treat assholes like assholes though.

[trotsky]

69. You said Catholics were *required* to love their neighbor.

If you don't do that, then you aren't a Catholic. Any more than Paul Ryan is.

Thanks for the blatant insult, though. I'm sure you make Jesus proud.

[rug]

70. That is correct. And if people were perfect, there'd be no need for religion,

and if there were no need for religion, we'd all be perfect atheists. In our own minds at least.

You're welcome. Let me know when you want more.

[trotsky]

71. Why do people need religion to compensate for their imperfection?

Are you saying atheists can't be good people?

[rug]

72. People don't need it. Yet it offers it.

[trotsky]

92. Please explain your contradictory statements.

"if people were perfect, there'd be no need for religion" - Obviously, people aren't perfect, so your statement here implies people need religion.

vs.

"People don't need it."

Do all imperfect people need religion?

[rug]

93. Humans are imperfect and have no need to be perfect.

Religions offer a purported path to "perfection", a/k/a salvation, nirvana, bliss.

In other words, humans are, as every other natural thing is, imperfect. Religion offers a path to the "super-natural", although Christianity, at least, holds the state of mankind before the Fall is the natural created state. The whole story of salvation history is the path to return to that state.

I don't think I've misstated it. Feel free to correct me if if I have.

[trotsky]

95. So humans DO need religion to be perfect, in your opinion.

Got it. Thanks.

[rug]

96. No, you don't get it.

It's optional.

Really, if you want to talk to yourself, this is not the place.

[trotsky]

97. No, I understand quite well.

You believe that humans are imperfect, that they don't "need" to be perfect, but if they WANT to be perfect, they will need religion to do so.

[rug]

98. That's essentially what I wrote.

And it's different from what you wrote previously.

It's the difference between a person wanting and needing, aka, free choice.

Now, I hardly expect you to espouse the notion of humans seeking perfection since perfection is not of the natural world.

[trotsky]

99. Oh those two things are closer in meaning than you think.

What you said also begs a very important question, but it's not worth getting into at this time.

See you on the other thread, rug. Have a great day!

[rug]

100. As a matter of fact, the difference is a core human issue.

[trotsky]

101. But not really in the topic of this thread.

I'll refer to your statements on this thread should the issue come up elsewhere.

Thanks again! Still waiting for a response on the other thread, if you could stop over there please.

[rug]

102. I'm glad you agree.

Although you did make it the subject of this subthread.

As far as the other thread, as I told you, I'm moving on. I'm not here to discuss posters, you or anyone else.

[trotsky]

103. I asked you to point out what I said that you believe to be an attack on your religion.

I'm trying to improve the tone, rug. Teach me. Just point out what I said that offended you.

[eqfan592]

66. Of course it's truly stupid to expect a term like "psychological well being" to show up...

...in a bronze age mythological story. I mean it's not like we're expecting a lot from such a thing, as if it were inspired by some sort of all-powerful supernatural being or something. THAT would require much higher standards.

Oh, wait......

[rug]

68. It's his question.

Even though I'm sure he remembers the answer from his oft quoted days in minor (high school) seminary.

[jaded_old_cynic]

54. Hmmmm

Maybe the fact that atheists who do good works do them not because of a potential reward in some mythical afterlife, but simply because they're the right thing to do, is that a concept that is foreign to you?

http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities

[rug]

56. Good for them but you can't attribute it to atheism.

Unless you want to redefine it.

[jaded_old_cynic]

59. I don't attribute it to atheism.

What I am pointing out however is that an atheist's motivations for giving are more noble than those of a theist because he/she expects nothing in return. Whereas in plenty of cases a theist hopes for a reward.

[rug]

60. The atheist's motives "are more noble"?

?

[jaded_old_cynic]

64. Did I stutter?

It is far more noble to perform an act of kindness without expecting anything in return than it is for one to perform such an act expecting to be rewarded for it. Whether that reward is in this life, or what you believe to be the next one. If you can't understand that simple concept, I don't know what else to tell you.

[rug]

75. No but "noble" is a rather odd term to use.

Besides, there are lot of incentives to do good that are not pure (another odd term) altruism. A few offhand: social approval, feeling good, adherence to a moral code, etc. Absence of an afterlife does not erase these incentives. There is nothing inherent in atheism that causes altruism.

[jaded_old_cynic]

78. Do you agree with my last statement or not?

Do you believe that the motives of a person who does good works without praise or reward, are more pure than those who do them expecting to be reciprocated? It's a very simple question. Do you agree or not? If all you have for an argument is semantics, I see no point in continuing the discussion. I might also add that when atheist organizations perform their charities, there are no special conditions for receiving help. Unlike many theistic organizations.

[rug]

86. I do but I think that is rarely the case, whether one believes or not.

[cbayer]

79. I think the assumption that religious people only do good works in anticipation

of a reward in the afterlife is incorrect.

While many religious people are driven to not do bad things for fear of being punished, the same is not generally true for doing good things. That's just part of being a good person, an attribute that can be shared by both religious and non-religious people.

The *contest* as to which is better or more noble is nonsense, imo.

[jaded_old_cynic]

80. I agree that good people come in many persuasions.

I was speaking purely in terms of personal motivation. According to rug, it is religion that motivates one to be "interested in anyones's psychological well-being". That was the insinuation of his statement. Which is what I took issue with. I will pose the same question to you as I did to rug. Do you believe that the motives of a person who does good works without praise or reward, are more pure than those who do them expecting to be reciprocated? As I also stated in my previous post, a lot of "help" from many theistic organizations is conditional.

[cbayer]

81. There is much to be said about acts that are wholly altruistic, but religious motivations

are not the only motivations that might drive an act.

Again, I find the competition between whether someone is driven by their belief system or not to be irrelevant. If the good is being done just because it is the right thing to do, the acts are equal, imo.

[jaded_old_cynic]

82. So you're saying

So you're saying that the motivation of a person is irrelevant, so long as the deed is done? Does that apply in all circumstances? Just curious because that would make Hate Crime legislation irrelevant as well.

[cbayer]

83. No, I didn't say that.

If the motivation is truly altruistic, it doesn't matter what drives it. It's your assumption that good deeds done by religious people are done for other than altruistic reasons that I am challenging.

I can't see any correlation with Hate Crimes here.

[jaded_old_cynic]

84. Yes you did.

the last two sentences in your last post said exactly that.

Again, I find the competition between whether someone is driven by their belief system or not to be irrelevant. If the good is being done just because it is the right thing to do, the acts are equal, imo.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but ......

[cbayer]

85. Then I was not clear. What one hears is not always what has been said or intended.

Anyway, there are good religious people and good non-religious people. There are religious people and non-religious people who are driven to do good things for reasons that are less than truly altruistic. Are those that are wholly altruistic more *noble* or pure? Perhaps.

I reject the concept that this is a contest about who is better. We are all on the same team, imo. It's those that wish to destroy or best the other that I object to.

[jaded_old_cynic]

88. I'll buy that.

However it was not I who suggested that atheists are uncaring of other people's "Psychological well being." That was rug. I merely brought up the fact that there are some theists who are trying to grease their entry into the gates of heaven by doing their "Good works". Nobody's perfect.

If you agree that atheists are/can be every bit as moral as believers, then I have no qualms with you.

Peace.

[cbayer]

89. And I have no qualms with you, joc.

It's been a pleasure talking to you. Now time to make dinner.

Peace back to you.

[AlbertCat]

74. I can't imagine Ayn Rand saying this.

Neither can I!

Fortunately, she does not represent atheism.

Does she?

No more than Tomás de Torquemada represents Catholicism.


Why would anyone with a brain even bring her up?

[rug]

76. Why would anyone lump all atheists in a single sentence?

But since he did, I brought it up.

I think anyone with a brain could figure that out.

[AlbertCat]

77. Why would anyone lump all atheists in a single sentence?

"But since he did, I brought it up. "

No.

You brought up Ayn Rand.

What does someone else "lump(ing) all atheists in a single sentence" have to do with you inferring Ayn Rand represents atheism?

Anyone with a brain can see this ploy is a non sequitur.


Got nothing as usual.... but the last word, no doubt. Gotta have that last word! Even if it's from another universe.

[rug]

87. "Atheists coulda told you this long ago"

He brought up all. I brought up one.

[AlbertCat]

90. "Atheists coulda told you this long ago"

Hmmmm... it doesn't say "All atheists coulda told you this long ago".

But I'm sure there are MANY who could have told you this long ago. Alas, Ayn just isn't one of them. You coulda brought up Bertram Russell or Mark Twain. Or even Butterfly McQueen. I mean if you want to just bring up one out of all.

Here's a (short) list for next time, m'kay? (Ayn Rand is #75)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/101-famous-atheists

[Act_of_Reparation]

35. So does owning pets...

... and neither of my cats voted for Prop 8.

The lesser of two evils?

[Evoman]

42. Meh. Still doesn't mean god exists.

[cbayer]

45. Hello Evoman. Nice to see you back.

No, it certainly doesn't, but the definition of *spirituality* as a personality trait is pretty intriguing to me.

FWIW, the study didn't look at those without religious beliefs at all. It just compared those who identify with different belief systems.

Hope you have been well.

[madrchsod]

63. yup.... but i do know one thing..

"when it all comes down you have to go back to mother earth.."

[Fumesucker]

91. That calls for a song..