I think that about sums it up.

That seems entirely reasonable.

Thanks for your clarification and I will briefly address your comment, as I am deluged with work, atm.

Let’s take this right off the table: I had perfectly clear that you are not an “anti-skeptic troll”, don’t worry.
My concern was that you fell for a dubious way of evaluating the impact of religion on society.

I didn’t know the paper that you linked, but I am familiar with a variety of studies, which narrowly focus on a single aspect associated with a complex social phenomenon or with a belief-system, and hastily draw up general conclusions. Inevitably, such studies end up waved around by religious apologists and advocates for dubious ideologies.

Since we both agree that identical beneficial effectsresult from aggregating people in a cohesive social network – be it secular or religious in nature – you will concede that it is disingenuous, to say the least, to single out a religious organisation and credit religion with such an effect on its members. In fact, it would be a case of forcing causation where only correlation could be inferred.

However, the abstract of the particular study that you indicated concludes by saying “in light of the cross-sectional design used in the present study, and given that religion may have both positive and negative consequences further research is needed to determine the extent to which promoting religiosity may increase or alleviate distress”. This, to me, appears to further validate my point , if anything.

Whatever its conclusion, what do you find more relevant to the well being of HIV/AIDS patients?
The fact that they may find comfort with religion, or that the same religion is wilfully responsible for helping spread the virus with genocidal effects, by demonising the use of condoms, promoting idiotic doctrines of abstinence, and opposing sex education?
The paper specifically mentions Baptist and Pentecostal denominations, both actively perpetuating this egregious medieval stupidity. Now, do we really have to admire the executioner for furnishing the guillotine table with a comfortable pillow?

Superdave

Sorry, but you missed my point. I hope that my answer to arbitrary.marks helps clarify what I meant and failed to convey in my previous post.

Fifi

Psychotherapy is not a topic that I feel qualified to comment upon, sorry.

Great discussion. The supplement L-Theanine is an amino acid derived from tea and touted for stress relief in health food shops. As a non-scientist I find this a particularly interesting one because it’s derived from a plant that I’ve already got a lifelong addiction to… Apparently in Japan this stuff is regarded as very safe and available in chewing gum! Now I understand that just because tea is safe, it doesn’t follow that an extracted substance is safe… But what level of risk are we talking about here, and what kind of controls are reasonable? I think a typical pill is the equivalent of three cups of tea (i.e. my normal breakfast intake).

Cheers,

Paul

That said,
1) I’d grant you your point about the Hitler Youth, etc., not because I think those organizations ought to exist, but that there’s a similar effect that can go on there, too. (Why else would they exist and be seen as beneficial from those participating? Social cohesion is one reason.)

2) As to the “simplistic” charge – I’ll admit that the description of the effect was a simple analogy. That doesn’t mean that the effect itself is “simplistic.” As superdave points out, understanding what religions are in the first place is an important subject. Second, disentangling what it is the cause of a set of purported benefits isn’t straightforward.

There are lots of different studies you can find in peer-reviewed journals saying what I did in fancier language, if you’d rather

(Long-winded way of saying, I’m not an anti-skeptic troll, if that’s your complaint!)

Good psychotherapists (the only ones I am familiar with) don’t lie to themselves or to their patients about what it is that they are doing. They don’t have mystical woo-mediated CAM that they are pushing.

There are many different theories of psychotherapy, many different styles, many different schools. They all seem to “work”, the physiology behind how it is that they do work remains unknown. I think it has to do with the neurogenic production of NO mediated through socially activated pathways. Those pathways have to be reconfigured to change the neurologically mediated behaviors that are the focus of the therapy. The only way those pathways can be reconfigured is by using the brain’s own mechanisms to do so.

I’m curious, would you consider feeling better after an hour or a course of psychotherapy to be a placebo effect?