Queen's study finds religion helps us gain self-control

[MarkCharles]

61. That is your opinion of my "intent" but I disagree. Actually, I think

you and I have agreed and not agreed beforehand. I am sorry if two members of DU see each other's intentions so differently, simply because we hold differing opinions.

I see no science here, and I state it, I see wishful thinking about a desired result, and phony science being staged to prop up the wished-for results.

As a long-time defender of rigorous use of proper scientific investigative techniques and procedures, I feel that I must speak up when such procedures are so blatantly violated for any desired agenda. I have spent half a lifetime teaching people proper ethical techniques in the social sciences, from research into education to racial and ethnic sociological investigations. I do not take kindly when I see such procedures so flagrantly violated over any system of prior beliefs.

If you wish to project your feelings of being insulted from my word choices, project them upon my "intent", you are free to do so, and I disagree, of course. You are free to believe whatever you like about me and what I state. You are also free to ignore my posts, to confront them with actual facts, or to move on to posts more "friendly" to your own opinions and beliefs.

If you have not "seen any evidence here that DU member are willing to place religious beliefs before actual scientific evidence", then I suggest you read the original post here, and several others in this thread, such as:

"They’ve done some simple experiments, which lend some credence to the theory." in post number 20.

They have done no such thing as "simple experiments" in a scientific framework. They have set up stawman hypotheses, and "suggestions" and arrived at premature conclusions based upon their own bias.

You might not agree, but I state what I do with some background in the field of scientific research methodologies.

Or you might look at THIS statement by the very person conducting this "study&quot found in post#4)“This research actually suggests that religion can serve a very useful function in society. People can turn to religion not just for transcendence and fears regarding death and an after-life but also for practical purposes.”

The "research" suggests no such thing. It suggests the researcher has a solid bias and agenda, and takes results he got from a faulty experiment structure and goes all the way to the 100 yard goal post to proudly state: "People can turn to religion not just for transcendence and fears regarding death and an after-life but also for practical purposes."

Here, again, are two examples of non-scientific wishful thinking being equated with scientific conclusive evidence. The evidence is flawed by a faulty technique, as well as by prior bias of the researcher, stated on his own Linked-in web site page.

I am sorry if you feel the need to impugn my motives here. But you are free to think of me whatever you wish. I don't wish to argue with a fellow DU'er over the need for rigorous scientific research methodologies, yet I won't allow wild claims of "scientific" validity as to the value of religion to go unchallenged, particularly when they are based upon rather questionable research methodologies and already evident bias on the part of the researcher.

I think we all should make a mental note of this Ph.D. candidate at Queens University. He might crop up a couple years from now proclaiming some new "evidence" of his own beliefs. What is already evident is that he cannot summarize his already faulty work in frameworks other than proclamations in his own words as to the value of religion. I hope someone up there at Queens University gets around to teaching him impartiality before awarding him a Ph.D.