RE: HEA report on religion and mental health

John C. 'Buck' Field (
Tue, 19 Oct 1999 03:34:27 -0500

From: "John C. 'Buck' Field" <>
To: <>
Subject: RE: HEA report on religion and mental health
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 03:34:27 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>

>Whay are you proposing this possibility?

It explains the HEA/Bible-believer partnership, the hypothesis of the study, the
motivation for conducting the study, the questionable methodology, the framing of the
results to support a particular finding, etc.

>Why do you think the HEA was

I think it is possible. Justification for more likely theories are welcome.

>These are generally top-notch scientists we are talking about.

How do you know that?

>They're not easily used by anyone.

So you assert, I have no information one way or another, but I generally become MORE
suspicious when arguments from authority appear...

>While perhaps true, this does not make them proof from misuse by individuals
>propaganda to support their organized con-game.
>"Organized con-game"? Isn't this just a touch rhetorical?

I don't know, is it?

>I think perhaps
>you've already made your mind up about this before seeing the evidence..????

Nope, the qualifiers clearly and accurately reflect my analysis is what I see as
probable, and alternate explanations are welcome.

>"Apparently sloppy science"? On what grounds??

As I said before: biased wording of the findings: "not everyone has a positive
experience" and "many people...find practical and emotional help and support from
their faith". To reverse the wording without alter the accuracy, one could say "many
people have had negative experiences" and "not everyone finds practical and emotional
help and support from their faith".

>There is quite a body of
>research that shows that religion is psychologically beneficial.

Agreed. There is also quite a body of research that shows that ET's are secretly
performing penetrating explorations of primates orifices in neighborhoods across
America. Is there a better explanation for the evidence?

>Does your
>comment apply to _all_ of that work?

I don't know, but it does apply to every paper & study I've read, despite
protestations of rigorous methodology.

>Are you just dismissing the HEA
>report, or the entire field?

Neither. I'm proposing skepticism based on suspicious circumstances under which many
frauds have been perpetrated.

>This is exactly what they have always claimed, especially before a barbeque,
>Again, don't you think that we should leave words like "barbecue" out of

Correct, I should have said "the most agonizingly gruesome tortures imaginable in
service of the greater glory of YHWY".

>It's not possible to make a rational jusgement on the available
>evidence when one has those kind of prejudices.

Prejudice? The Inquisition is a matter of history, not prejudging.

>and I've
>no doubt that most of the leaders, followers and their victims both
>certainly believe
>this to be true. The suppression of necessary rational justification for
>certainty, (among other things) forces my condemnation of the practice.
>"Suppression"? Again, I'm not sure on what grounds you think that any
>"suppression" is going on.

My grounds are the observation that no occult faith system of belief appears to be
free from some attack on reason, and they must hold areas of knowledge separate from
the rational justification consistent with our most reliable means of determining
truth. This is the only way that a need can be created which faith is introduced to

Cultivate A Healthy Mind With Reason, Empathy, And Clear Vision.
Project Management and Technical Writing -

This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)