"[...]people who had a spiritual understanding of life had worse mental health than those with an understanding that was neither religious nor spiritual."
I read the article, noticed the limited research and the even more limited details that made it into the article and I dismissed both the research and the article. I moved on. I wasn't going to write about it at all... yet it has not let me go, and so I must write about it, in the hope of getting it out of my system.
My biggest problems with the article is that it only relates the 'highlights' of the study; for one, it doesn't give a definition of 'spiritual', nor does it mention which religions qualified as religions within the range of this study; something of importance to the Pagan community which (potentially) supplies people from all three categories of this study. I would be very interested to see if there were any Pagans in the sampling at all; the article mentions that the research let the participants categorized themselves as non-religious, spiritual, or religious. The author goes on to say that those who label themselves as 'religious', "attended a church, mosque, synagogue or temple'. I know a lot of religious Pagans--myself included--who don't visit any of these places for worship. Of course, any detail from the study beyond the few random grabs from the conclusion would help to give more legitimacy to the article.
As for the study itself; needless to say I have some issues. For one; a study with such a broad and potentially far-reaching conclusion, the research sample sure is a little small. Just shy of 7,500 people is a considerable sample size, but without a proper break-up of the various ages, socio-economic backgrounds, religions, etc., all I can think is that 'England'--the central and southern part of the island of Great Britain--is a very homogenous sampling. Now, perhaps, the researchers did specify that their research was only applicable to England itself, but if not, a comparable sample from other (wester, if you so desire) countries would not have been amiss. Also, from the article, the research claims a pretty sold causality between spirituality and mental disorders, but doesn't look at a reversed causality, or even any other factors that might lead to a higher risk of mental disorder. It's like saying that people who like the color blue have a higher disposition towards mental illness, because the research showed that that was the favorite color of the people with these illnesses.
I would love to have a look at the full research; see what the researches really meant and how they came to it. If anyone knows where to find it, I would love to be linked to it.
As it stands, I can only place one more note: a worry and raised eyebrow at Pagan media who pick this up as 'evidence' that religion is 'better than' spirituality. Look, I'll be the first to say that I want to believe (in) this research; everyone wants validation. Yet, I know some atheist and 'spiritual but not religious' people who are some of the sanest, and happiest, people I have ever known. I also know religious people who are unhappy every day of their life, who fight against mental illness on a daily basis. For me, religion offers a framework for my life that--most certainly--keeps me sane. It gives me the strength to fight through the hard times, and gives me daily moments of pleasure and gratitude. This research changes the lives on none of these people, including mine, and if anyone wants it to have a bigger impact than it has, the researchers needs to release more details, and above all, redo the research with a far larger, broader, and more widespread, sample size.
In writing this, I hope to have put it out of my mind for once and for all. Sorry for the Hellenismos-break.
I believe this is the full article that the Telegraph is quoting from:
ReplyDeletehttp://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/202/1/68.full?sid=54573809-431e-4cd1-b204-85d2960bce3d
I haven't had time to read the full article yet, but I certainly will when I get the chance. In a quick scan through the discussion I saw them mention this:
"Second, the cross-sectional nature of the data means that we cannot attribute cause and effect to any relationship between spiritual beliefs and mental health."
So they don't seem to be claiming that there's a strong causality, but they do give that impression in their conclusion and abstract..
Oh that's brilliant, thank you for that Faélada! Now to find a way to actually access it...
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to read that they aren't forcing causality where there is none, but it sure seems like it's in the conclusion. Well, at least now I'm a little closer to reading what this is all about. My thanks, indeed!
So I've read the article now, and I'm not sure what to think of it. I don't know if you've read it yet (I've sent you a mail in case you still can't access it), but I'll give some highlights:
ReplyDeleteI do think they interviewed enough people see significant differences between groups, but I also think that the results are mostly applicable to Christians:
"In total 53% gave a nominal religious affiliation, with the majority citing Christianity (86%)."
So I'm not sure how this research would translate to the religious/spiritual groups that weren't so well represented, and sadly enough they don't seem to give any information on the percentages of the other groups.
Apparantly, the definition of religion as it was offered to the participants was:
"By religion, we mean the actual practice of a faith, e.g. going to a temple, mosque, church or synagogue. Some people do not follow a religion but do have spiritual beliefs or experiences. Some people make sense of their lives without any religious or spiritual belief"
Followed by the question:
"Would you say that you have a religious or spiritual understanding of your life?"
This seems to me like the definition could potentially exclude a lot of people who do see themselves as religious.
So yeah, I think that all in all, I am of the opinion that it's probably a very accurate research... For white, British Christians who define 'religious' by going to a place of worship and 'spiritual' by practicing from home.
I just finished reading it; again, thank you so very much! I've decided I'm not impressed. Looking at the numbers, the sample size looks decent, but conclusions were drawn on only a very minor sample. When ~98,4 percent of 7403 people have never received counseling, you can't really draw any conclusions on the remaining ~1,6 percent. Same goes for almost all of the other categories. It's most certainly not enough to justify the literal conclusion of the research:
ReplyDelete"People who have a spiritual understanding of life in the absence of a religious framework are vulnerable to mental disorder."
I also agree with your conclusion; the amount of white people of Christian denomination does make the conclusion viable only to them.
I really wish they had shared the denominations of the remaining 34 percent, as well as how those who identify as 'spiritual but not religious' identify. I feel that I would have been forced to assign to the 'spiritual but not religious' category, simply for practicing at home.
Well, reading the entire research paper(the whole seven pages, including the front page and a page for sources) has helped calm my mind a lot. The research has applications when taken with the other research done on the subject, but drawing conclusions on this research alone is folly.
I haven't read the article, but this reminds me of the #overlyhonestmethod hash tag on Twitter.
ReplyDeleteOne of the ones that struck me (and that I wish I had saved) was a social scientist commenting that they use undergrads as their population because the public is really expensive. College students are NOT the general population, but it's hard enough to get funding and IRB approval as it is.
... #overlyhonestmethods, sorry. :)
ReplyDelete@Kaye: oh yes, this is something I'm very aware of, and have even made use of myself for college assignments which would only be read by the teacher of the course. Thankfully, the age categories were wide apart with an average of about 45, so that's fine. It was one of the first things I scouted for, however. One trap of bad research avoided, at least.
ReplyDelete