Atheists are smarter than those who believe in God. At any rate, a couple of surveys suggest they tend to have higher IQs. But when it comes to who lives a healthier and more fulfilled life the advantages are all on the side of religious folk. in 2006, researchers at the University of Texas found that the more often people went to church, the longer they tended to live; a Duke University study found churchgoers tend to have lower blood pressure and stronger immune systems. Other recent studies show that believers recover faster from surgery than their heathen peers, and have better outcomes from breast cancer and coronary disease, even after adjusting for the fact that they tend to smoke and drink less, and take fewer drugs. They enjoy better mental health, too, as a UCLA study of college students has found. To top it all, believers are nicer: they give more to charity than atheists, “who, according to the very latest survey, are the meanest of all”. Atheists smarter? I don’t think so. (Sean Thomas on Telegraph.co.uk.24aug)
Note that the studies are all American,and that in America atheists come close to Al Queda terrorists in the public esteem. In the US charity giving statistics are skewed by including church expenses as charitable giving. A recent study shows that church goers give money for the church buildings and for the upkeep of the pastor, but fall well behind atheists in giving to charity. And how do you arrive at a professional finding that one group is “nicer” than another?
As for the assertion of the writer about health this is counter-intuitive. Everyone knows that African Americans are very religious, and yet the statistics show that their longevity is less than whites, and their health is generally worse. Disentangling the effect of church seems somewhat tricky.
Are these studies quoted based on hear-say? Which churchgoer is to admit churchgoing doesn’t make you feel better and get you over breast cancer and coronary disease? And what constitutes churchgoing – once a year, once. a month, every week or every day? Don’ feel you have to believe all this!
If you are to be such an in-your – face advocate of church- going I think you should also explain where you are coming from. If the journalist is simply reporting news that is fine. Unfortunately, many journalists are simply expressing opinions. So if Mr. Sean Thomas, writing for the right wing Telegraph , turns out to be a born again Christian or a closet Southern Baptist, then his reporting would constitute advocacy, not news. Regrettably, he gives us no clue as to his tendencies.
This blog, in contrast, is written by a humanist and Epicurean, avowedly sceptical about organised religion, but also a defender of the right of individual to hold any belief as long as it is not cruel, violent or bullying.