Does Childhood Religiosity Delay Death?

[Algor]

From:
Journal of Religion and Health volume 60 , pages 420–443 (2021)

Abstract
This study explores the potential long-term health effects of religiosity in the childhood home. Analyses use retrospective childhood data from the MIDUS survey linked to National Death Index records from 1995 to 2014. Findings from Cox proportional hazard models suggest that children brought up in highly religious households have a higher risk of mortality than those socialized in more moderately religious households, this despite such individuals having better overall health profiles. The surprising link between high childhood religiosity and mortality was confined to those who downgraded their religiosity. Those who intensified from moderate to high religiosity, in fact, seemed to be most protected. We call for future research to more clearly specify the intervening mechanisms linking childhood religion with adult health and mortality over the life course.

Reasonable study, with a reasonable sample size after a response rate of >60% to survey.

From the discussion "A seeming paradox makes our central finding all the more surprising: People raised in highly religious homes were at an increased mortality risk despite fitting the profile of overall health and well-being. Indeed, ancillary analyses showed this group to have a lower risk of smoking and heavy drinking, lower depression scores, and lower risk of several major illnesses relative to those raised in moderately or non-religious homes. People raised to be highly religious also visited a doctor with more regularity and reported higher self-confidence and optimism than peers raised in less religious homes.

The surprising mortality penalty associated with high childhood religiosity, however, had an important contingency: It was confined to those who downgraded their religiosity and not observed among those who remained highly religious over time. Growing up in the highest quantile of religiosity necessarily means that one has the farthest possible range of religious decline (i.e., a ceiling effect), and prior research documents that any form of drop-off is most common among those raised most devout . This pattern was also found in our data. Indeed, for those with highly religious childhoods, 44% reported a decrease in religious importance in adulthood, compared with only 26% of individuals raised in moderately religious homes. Experiencing the downward path from a religious ceiling can carry negative health implications ). One potential pathway for this process is the social support linked to church attendance and other collective expressions of religiosity . That is, a decrease in religiosity over time may portend the loss of important social ties that eventually exact a toll on health. Another potential pathway from declining religiosity to health is the loss of a totalizing worldview to make sense of and effectively address life problems. Losing religion could wipe away some of the cognitive resources that people once depended on for dealing with stress."

TLDR: raising children with high levels of religiosity is associated with an increase in their age adjusted mortality if their religiosity declines as adults.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Analyses use retrospective childhood data from the MIDUS survey linked to National Death Index records from 1995 to 2014. Findings from Cox proportional hazard models suggest that children brought up in highly religious households have a higher risk of mortality than those socialized in more moderately religious households, this despite such individuals having better overall health profiles.

Makes sense, if true. If earthly life is training for heavenly life, those who get a good early start are the sooner ready for Prime Time and are perhaps promoted sooner by the Judge of all hearts.

 

[SteveB]

From:
Journal of Religion and Health volume 60 , pages 420–443 (2021)

Abstract
This study explores the potential long-term health effects of religiosity in the childhood home. Analyses use retrospective childhood data from the MIDUS survey linked to National Death Index records from 1995 to 2014. Findings from Cox proportional hazard models suggest that children brought up in highly religious households have a higher risk of mortality than those socialized in more moderately religious households, this despite such individuals having better overall health profiles. The surprising link between high childhood religiosity and mortality was confined to those who downgraded their religiosity. Those who intensified from moderate to high religiosity, in fact, seemed to be most protected. We call for future research to more clearly specify the intervening mechanisms linking childhood religion with adult health and mortality over the life course.

Reasonable study, with a reasonable sample size after a response rate of >60% to survey.

From the discussion "A seeming paradox makes our central finding all the more surprising: People raised in highly religious homes were at an increased mortality risk despite fitting the profile of overall health and well-being. Indeed, ancillary analyses showed this group to have a lower risk of smoking and heavy drinking, lower depression scores, and lower risk of several major illnesses relative to those raised in moderately or non-religious homes. People raised to be highly religious also visited a doctor with more regularity and reported higher self-confidence and optimism than peers raised in less religious homes.

The surprising mortality penalty associated with high childhood religiosity, however, had an important contingency: It was confined to those who downgraded their religiosity and not observed among those who remained highly religious over time. Growing up in the highest quantile of religiosity necessarily means that one has the farthest possible range of religious decline (i.e., a ceiling effect), and prior research documents that any form of drop-off is most common among those raised most devout . This pattern was also found in our data. Indeed, for those with highly religious childhoods, 44% reported a decrease in religious importance in adulthood, compared with only 26% of individuals raised in moderately religious homes. Experiencing the downward path from a religious ceiling can carry negative health implications ). One potential pathway for this process is the social support linked to church attendance and other collective expressions of religiosity . That is, a decrease in religiosity over time may portend the loss of important social ties that eventually exact a toll on health. Another potential pathway from declining religiosity to health is the loss of a totalizing worldview to make sense of and effectively address life problems. Losing religion could wipe away some of the cognitive resources that people once depended on for dealing with stress."

TLDR: raising children with high levels of religiosity is associated with an increase in their age adjusted mortality if their religiosity declines as adults.

The thing I find myself wondering is if you didn't bother reading it because it was too lengthy, how do you know that your perspective on it is accurate?
You clearly miss some important points.

 

[Algor]

Makes sense, if true. If earthly life is training for heavenly life, those who get a good early start are the sooner ready for Prime Time and are perhaps promoted sooner by the Judge of all hearts.

In general, religiosity is associated with consistent health benefits, so the authors I think were surprised to find the statistical increase in death rate in children from religious households. That increased death was associated with a loss of religiosity brings a chicken and egg question. Do people lose religiosity, and thus get sick and die more easily, or is the loss of religiosity because of illness and/or acts as an independant stressor?

 

[Algor]

The thing I find myself wondering is if you didn't bother reading it because it was too lengthy, how do you know that your perspective on it is accurate?
You clearly miss some important points.

Meh, going by past evidence, anything I post you'll just lie about. Whatever.

 

[SteveB]

Meh, going by past evidence, anything I post you'll just lie about. Whatever.

You're the one who used the acronym, TLDR.
According to the urban dictionary,
It means

Urban Dictionary: TLDR

Too long; Didn't read

www.urbandictionary.com

Too long; Didn't read

So, you're the one who said it was too long to read, so you clearly didn't know what else is in the document.

Which is my point.

If you don't actually care about the truth, why do you even bother posting these things?

 

[Algor]

You're the one who used the acronym, TLDR

Yes: if one uses that followed by a summary sentence about one’s own post, it means that one is giving a summary for those who think “TLDR” when they encounter the post.

 

[The Pixie]

Yes: if one uses that followed by a summary sentence about one’s own post, it means that one is giving a summary for those who think “TLDR” when they encounter the post.

So your post #5 was spot on. Good call.

 

[Tiburon]

From:
Journal of Religion and Health volume 60 , pages 420–443 (2021)

Abstract
This study explores the potential long-term health effects of religiosity in the childhood home. Analyses use retrospective childhood data from the MIDUS survey linked to National Death Index records from 1995 to 2014. Findings from Cox proportional hazard models suggest that children brought up in highly religious households have a higher risk of mortality than those socialized in more moderately religious households, this despite such individuals having better overall health profiles. The surprising link between high childhood religiosity and mortality was confined to those who downgraded their religiosity. Those who intensified from moderate to high religiosity, in fact, seemed to be most protected. We call for future research to more clearly specify the intervening mechanisms linking childhood religion with adult health and mortality over the life course.

Reasonable study, with a reasonable sample size after a response rate of >60% to survey.

From the discussion "A seeming paradox makes our central finding all the more surprising: People raised in highly religious homes were at an increased mortality risk despite fitting the profile of overall health and well-being. Indeed, ancillary analyses showed this group to have a lower risk of smoking and heavy drinking, lower depression scores, and lower risk of several major illnesses relative to those raised in moderately or non-religious homes. People raised to be highly religious also visited a doctor with more regularity and reported higher self-confidence and optimism than peers raised in less religious homes.

The surprising mortality penalty associated with high childhood religiosity, however, had an important contingency: It was confined to those who downgraded their religiosity and not observed among those who remained highly religious over time. Growing up in the highest quantile of religiosity necessarily means that one has the farthest possible range of religious decline (i.e., a ceiling effect), and prior research documents that any form of drop-off is most common among those raised most devout . This pattern was also found in our data. Indeed, for those with highly religious childhoods, 44% reported a decrease in religious importance in adulthood, compared with only 26% of individuals raised in moderately religious homes. Experiencing the downward path from a religious ceiling can carry negative health implications ). One potential pathway for this process is the social support linked to church attendance and other collective expressions of religiosity . That is, a decrease in religiosity over time may portend the loss of important social ties that eventually exact a toll on health. Another potential pathway from declining religiosity to health is the loss of a totalizing worldview to make sense of and effectively address life problems. Losing religion could wipe away some of the cognitive resources that people once depended on for dealing with stress."

TLDR: raising children with high levels of religiosity is associated with an increase in their age adjusted mortality if their religiosity declines as adults.

I don't see how they could isolate other factors enough to make this a meaningful study.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

You're the one who used the acronym, TLDR.
According to the urban dictionary,
It means

Urban Dictionary: TLDR

Too long; Didn't read

www.urbandictionary.com

Too long; Didn't read

So, you're the one who said it was too long to read, so you clearly didn't know what else is in the document.

Which is my point.

If you don't actually care about the truth, why do you even bother posting these things?

Any study that uses the words 'possible contingency, moderately religious is nonsense from the start.

From the article: From the discussion "A seeming paradox makes our central finding all the more surprising: People raised in highly religious homes were at an increased mortality risk despite fitting the profile of overall health and well-being. Indeed, ancillary analyses showed this group to have a lower risk of smoking and heavy drinking, lower depression scores, and lower risk of several major illnesses relative to those raised in moderately or non-religious homes. People raised to be highly religious also visited a doctor with more regularity and reported higher self-confidence and optimism than peers raised in less religious homes.

This so-called 'study' is flawed, contradictory and downright wrong. They point to the paradoxes for their faulty conclusions.

They praise the health habits of religious people. They are more self-confidant, optimistic than non religious homes.

When they can clearly define 'moderately religious upbringing' I might consider this outrageous idea as valid.

If I turned in a study that looks like this, I'd have my entire thesis removed. Shameful nonsense.

 

[5wize]

From:
Journal of Religion and Health volume 60 , pages 420–443 (2021)

Abstract
This study explores the potential long-term health effects of religiosity in the childhood home. Analyses use retrospective childhood data from the MIDUS survey linked to National Death Index records from 1995 to 2014. Findings from Cox proportional hazard models suggest that children brought up in highly religious households have a higher risk of mortality than those socialized in more moderately religious households, this despite such individuals having better overall health profiles. The surprising link between high childhood religiosity and mortality was confined to those who downgraded their religiosity. Those who intensified from moderate to high religiosity, in fact, seemed to be most protected. We call for future research to more clearly specify the intervening mechanisms linking childhood religion with adult health and mortality over the life course.

Reasonable study, with a reasonable sample size after a response rate of >60% to survey.

From the discussion "A seeming paradox makes our central finding all the more surprising: People raised in highly religious homes were at an increased mortality risk despite fitting the profile of overall health and well-being. Indeed, ancillary analyses showed this group to have a lower risk of smoking and heavy drinking, lower depression scores, and lower risk of several major illnesses relative to those raised in moderately or non-religious homes. People raised to be highly religious also visited a doctor with more regularity and reported higher self-confidence and optimism than peers raised in less religious homes.

The surprising mortality penalty associated with high childhood religiosity, however, had an important contingency: It was confined to those who downgraded their religiosity and not observed among those who remained highly religious over time. Growing up in the highest quantile of religiosity necessarily means that one has the farthest possible range of religious decline (i.e., a ceiling effect), and prior research documents that any form of drop-off is most common among those raised most devout . This pattern was also found in our data. Indeed, for those with highly religious childhoods, 44% reported a decrease in religious importance in adulthood, compared with only 26% of individuals raised in moderately religious homes. Experiencing the downward path from a religious ceiling can carry negative health implications ). One potential pathway for this process is the social support linked to church attendance and other collective expressions of religiosity . That is, a decrease in religiosity over time may portend the loss of important social ties that eventually exact a toll on health. Another potential pathway from declining religiosity to health is the loss of a totalizing worldview to make sense of and effectively address life problems. Losing religion could wipe away some of the cognitive resources that people once depended on for dealing with stress."

TLDR: raising children with high levels of religiosity is associated with an increase in their age adjusted mortality if their religiosity declines as adults.

It seems religiosity is merely along for a much broader ride of potential life upheaval. Changes cause stress. Consistency, whether anchored in reality or not, is comfort, and it works psychologically for overall health. I think of the widow/er paradigm. You were correct to ask above what brought about a change from high religiosity to low or moderate. Many times it's the stress of life itself which is probably the hidden culprit here.

 

[Algor]

I don't see how they could isolate other factors enough to make this a meaningful study.

Well, a few things. Firstly the data were extracted from population survey (the MIDUS) that relied on self reporting, and wasn't really designed to answer the question in the study: it seems like a bit of a "Oh look: I wonder what happens if we look at his data this way" kind of thing. It's hardly ground breaking or definitive at all. It is a bit of data mining based on a larger study looking for major health determinants and their biomarkers.
Secondly, all the controls are statistical: they do take into account reported demographics, including education, race, socioeconomic status, education, exercise, and major family and personal health risks in their statistical model, but it isn't very fine grained. and again, it's all self reported. (On the plus side though, the sample size is pretty good). Finally I'm not impressed with the strength of the effect, although they look consistent. The p values for the models are all <0.05, >.001 and the hazard ratios are all <1.4 for mortality.

I just thought it was interesting because there's lots and lots of data pointing to beneficial effects of religiosity on personal health, and I can't recall one that is population based and looks at shifts in personal religiosity, which are personally important and common. It's worth a more fine grained, carefully designed study.

 

[Algor]

So your post #5 was spot on. Good call.

Unfortunately, one too easily and reliably made.

 

[Algor]

Any study that uses the words 'possible contingency, moderately religious is nonsense from the start.

From the article: From the discussion "A seeming paradox makes our central finding all the more surprising: People raised in highly religious homes were at an increased mortality risk despite fitting the profile of overall health and well-being. Indeed, ancillary analyses showed this group to have a lower risk of smoking and heavy drinking, lower depression scores, and lower risk of several major illnesses relative to those raised in moderately or non-religious homes. People raised to be highly religious also visited a doctor with more regularity and reported higher self-confidence and optimism than peers raised in less religious homes.

This so-called 'study' is flawed, contradictory and downright wrong. They point to the paradoxes for their faulty conclusions.

They praise the health habits of religious people. They are more self-confidant, optimistic than non religious homes.

When they can clearly define 'moderately religious upbringing' I might consider this outrageous idea as valid.

If I turned in a study that looks like this, I'd have my entire thesis removed. Shameful nonsense.

Well, it isn't really going to win any Nobel prizes, that's for sure. It's from survey data, so it's all self reported, categorical data based on recall: it isn't something you can hang your hat on, and that's reflected by the fairly low level subspecialty journal it is in. You would need a much better longitudinal study to show the effect was real with confidence, but as I'm sure you are aware, those studies are expensive and take a long time.

It might be worth it though: although the effect is weak, it is as strong as that measured (in this population) for a a history of smoking, so from a public health POV it isn't trivial (if it is real, and generalized).

 

[Algor]

It seems religiosity is merely along for a much broader ride of potential life upheaval. Changes cause stress. Consistency, whether anchored in reality or not, is comfort, and it works psychologically for overall health. I think of the widow/er paradigm. You were correct to ask above what brought about a change from high religiosity to low or moderate. Many times it's the stress of life itself which is probably the hidden culprit here.

That's pretty much how I look at it too. There are some interesting feedback and feed forward things going on, but in general, yes, the important stuff is hidden in the weeds.

 

[SteveB]

Yes: if one uses that followed by a summary sentence about one’s own post, it means that one is giving a summary for those who think “TLDR” when they encounter the post.

In other words, this is BS thread, to state BS, for the sake of stating BS, to make you appear erudite, but you don't actually want to spend your time reading the whole article.

Ok.

Fair enough.

My thoughts on the article's point is that humans are beings created in the likeness and image of YHVH. The first humans sinned, killing themselves in their ability to perceive and interact with YHVH.
As Jesus says in John 3:18-20, people who refuse to come to YHVH, hate the light, and prefer their sin, hiding from YHVH.

In following through on the article, the sin nature (spiritually dead people) draws us to live according to our own desires and values, digging deeper and deeper holes, driving ourselves further from YHVH and Jesus.

This means that some people are going to choose Jesus and others, not Jesus.

There are some who choose Jesus who get involved in missionary life, and the people to who they go to serve wind up killing them. Jim Elliot is an excellent example. As is David Brainerd, and the kid from a couple of years ago who decided to take a trip to a east Indian Ocean island, where the people who he was trying to win for Christ skewered him with spears.

So, yes, some people who engage Jesus die younger because they engage in missionary work in dangerous places.

Some people who are raised in religious homes decide they want nothing to do with Jesus, and turn to a life of their own choosing. Their choices can result in their own self-destruction.

It's about their own choices in their lives.

Sometimes, in those rare communities, religious people who reject medical community, parents refuse to get their children the care they need, following the logic of atheists who mock Jesus followers for getting medical care when needed, and their failure to care for their children result in the deaths of their children.
Giving atheists fodder for mocking the name of Jesus and YHVH.

People die. It's the stated consequence of sin.
I came really close to getting myself killed in my teen years because of the choices I made for myself.
Wrong crowds, drug abuse, alcohol abuse.

Sometimes life just happens in cruel ways.

Thankfully, YHVH sent Jesus to save us from our sin and the consequences of sin. He's going to restore the world to the designed parameters at the pre-appointed time, and we just need to decide whether we want to be a part of the new heavens and new earth or not.

 

[Algor]

In other words, this is BS thread, to state BS, for the sake of stating BS, to make you appear erudite, but you don't actually want to spend your time reading the whole article.

On the evidence here, reading comprehension has never been your strong point.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

On the evidence here, reading comprehension has never been your strong point.

Some regular Christian posters here - not referring to anybody in particular - have a history of ignoring (not even reading?) what others post and replying to them instead with a little rant of their own that bears no relationship to what the other person had actually posted. Just FYI

 

[Algor]

Some regular Christian posters here - not referring to anybody in particular - have a history of ignoring (not even reading?) what others post and replying to them instead with a little rant of their own that bears no relationship to what the other person had actually posted. Just FYI

There was a fellow here who, when told his verbal reasoning skills sucked, observed that he wasn't engaging in verbal reasoning....

How you could have changed my mind

I used to post here as a Christian apologist. I did eventually come around to non-theism, but it did not have much to do with the arguments that the atheists here made. I think the main thing the atheists here would have had to do to change my mind would have been to do background research on...

forums.carm.org

Kid you not. Sound familiar to you, @SteveB?

 

[SteveB]

On the evidence here, reading comprehension has never been your strong point.

It's not that my reading comprehension is the problem.
It's that I see from a perspective that you don't see.