Evidence for God from Science

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... 2820070913

So that explains it.

I don't like the sound of that. Is it just romantic lonliness, or lonliness in general? Hmm... I hope you aren't lonley man, remember you always have the Church family.
God bless!

Gabrielman wrote: I don't like the sound of that. Is it just romantic lonliness, or lonliness in general? Hmm... I hope you aren't lonley man, remember you always have the Church family.
God bless!

lol.. You are living in a dream world. Pray you never have to take the red pill. The fallacy of church "family" aside, it seems in this article they have it backwards. The cart before the horse. Sick people with arthritic coniditions don't develop the condition because they are lonely. Rather they are lonely because of the effects of thee arthiritis (deformities, mobility issues, pain, etc...). Most of these studies are flawed in this way imo. They take a correlation and then carefully solve for the reverse of the actual reality.

I would only pray that the Church does not judge people based on thier physical apperance, if they do so can they really call themselves the body of Christ? Though I do know what you mean, I have all too often seen the Church fail at doing things the Godly way. Though I am inclined to agree with the fact that the study got it backwards. Many people today are too shallow and self loving to care about others, but not all people are that way. There is still hope for this world yet, we only have to act on it and change the way things are. We can be the start of that, it is our responsablity. Though I am opted to say that the study does get a few things right, being lonely can cause problems, if you let it happen. We need to reach out, like the body of Christ we are supposed to be. The Church is growing more and more shut in on itself, that would be the fall of the faith if we don't stop it now... I am rambling, God be with you Age.
God bless!

ageofknowledge wrote:

Gabrielman wrote: I don't like the sound of that. Is it just romantic lonliness, or lonliness in general? Hmm... I hope you aren't lonley man, remember you always have the Church family.
God bless!

lol.. You are living in a dream world. Pray you never have to take the red pill. The fallacy of church "family" aside, it seems in this article they have it backwards. The cart before the horse. Sick people with arthritic coniditions don't develop the condition because they are lonely. Rather they are lonely because of the effects of thee arthiritis (deformities, mobility issues, pain, etc...). Most of these studies are flawed in this way imo. They take a correlation and then carefully solve for the reverse of the actual reality.

Evidently, you did you not take the time to read the researcher's article.

Studies of human behavior are difficult due to ethical considerations. We can't simply put otherwise healthy people in solitary confinement and see what happens to their immune system. Instead, scientists are forced to conduct correlational studies, such as this one. Does this mean that we can't draw any conclusions at all regarding cause and effect? NO.

If you would have read the article, you would have seen that the authors cite numerous animal studies that do show a cause-and-effect relationship between loneliness and health. While, these other studies do not prove that the present study was correct, they do indicate that the authors are at least on the right track. Even in the absence of direct experimental manipulations (which would be unethical in this case), I think the authors are justified in suggesting that there is a cause and effect relationship between loneliness and human health.

ageofknowledge wrote:

Gabrielman wrote: I don't like the sound of that. Is it just romantic lonliness, or lonliness in general? Hmm... I hope you aren't lonley man, remember you always have the Church family.
God bless!

lol.. You are living in a dream world. Pray you never have to take the red pill. The fallacy of church "family" aside, it seems in this article they have it backwards. The cart before the horse. Sick people with arthritic coniditions don't develop the condition because they are lonely. Rather they are lonely because of the effects of thee arthiritis (deformities, mobility issues, pain, etc...). Most of these studies are flawed in this way imo. They take a correlation and then carefully solve for the reverse of the actual reality.

Actually because it *is* a correlation study, one simply has to be careful of what conclusions you make. But it doesn't mean that their conclusions are definitely wrong, or that the two don't affect each other.

Certainly, for instance, they have found a greater incidence of heart disease among singles, and there certainly have been pieces of evidence that our mood/outlook affect our physical status.

I think that's one of the reason that Yoga or other activities that force us to slow down and allow our bodies to "rest" or reset are so beneficial. Not because of any idea of "chi" but because we are allowing our endorphins and other interactions in our body to start that otherwise wouldn't. And loneliness and isolation could certainly, in someone who is genetically susceptible, aggravate the problem.

There is a huge amount of information we are learning concerning inflammatory responses in the body and what can provoke their release in the body. I'm not saying that there isn't a genetic component. Or that a condition that restricts movement doesn't lead to isolation. But it doesn't invalidate their findings.

hopefulcynic wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:

Gabrielman wrote: I don't like the sound of that. Is it just romantic lonliness, or lonliness in general? Hmm... I hope you aren't lonley man, remember you always have the Church family.
God bless!

lol.. You are living in a dream world. Pray you never have to take the red pill. The fallacy of church "family" aside, it seems in this article they have it backwards. The cart before the horse. Sick people with arthritic coniditions don't develop the condition because they are lonely. Rather they are lonely because of the effects of thee arthiritis (deformities, mobility issues, pain, etc...). Most of these studies are flawed in this way imo. They take a correlation and then carefully solve for the reverse of the actual reality.

Evidently, you did you not take the time to read the researcher's article.

Studies of human behavior are difficult due to ethical considerations. We can't simply put otherwise healthy people in solitary confinement and see what happens to their immune system. Instead, scientists are forced to conduct correlational studies, such as this one. Does this mean that we can't draw any conclusions at all regarding cause and effect? NO.

If you would have read the article, you would have seen that the authors cite numerous animal studies that do show a cause-and-effect relationship between loneliness and health. While, these other studies do not prove that the present study was correct, they do indicate that the authors are at least on the right track. Even in the absence of direct experimental manipulations (which would be unethical in this case), I think the authors are justified in suggesting that there is a cause and effect relationship between loneliness and human health.

Obviously you didn't read my post or you would have realized I was not contesting the findings there is a correlation. I think the authors are justified in suggesting that there is a cause and effect relationship between loneliness and human health; however, their assertion that loneliness primarily causes the health issue rather than poor health primarily resulting in statistically greater numbers of lonely people is the problem. I believe the reason why this error occurs so frequently is a result of the political need, often a requirement, that studies which are to be published must align with a supposition that posits biological evolutionary processes be behind behavior.

ageofknowledge wrote:

hopefulcynic wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:

Gabrielman wrote: I don't like the sound of that. Is it just romantic lonliness, or lonliness in general? Hmm... I hope you aren't lonley man, remember you always have the Church family.
God bless!

lol.. You are living in a dream world. Pray you never have to take the red pill. The fallacy of church "family" aside, it seems in this article they have it backwards. The cart before the horse. Sick people with arthritic coniditions don't develop the condition because they are lonely. Rather they are lonely because of the effects of thee arthiritis (deformities, mobility issues, pain, etc...). Most of these studies are flawed in this way imo. They take a correlation and then carefully solve for the reverse of the actual reality.

Evidently, you did you not take the time to read the researcher's article.

Studies of human behavior are difficult due to ethical considerations. We can't simply put otherwise healthy people in solitary confinement and see what happens to their immune system. Instead, scientists are forced to conduct correlational studies, such as this one. Does this mean that we can't draw any conclusions at all regarding cause and effect? NO.

If you would have read the article, you would have seen that the authors cite numerous animal studies that do show a cause-and-effect relationship between loneliness and health. While, these other studies do not prove that the present study was correct, they do indicate that the authors are at least on the right track. Even in the absence of direct experimental manipulations (which would be unethical in this case), I think the authors are justified in suggesting that there is a cause and effect relationship between loneliness and human health.

Obviously you didn't read my post or you would have realized I was not contesting the findings there is a correlation. I think the authors are justified in suggesting that there is a cause and effect relationship between loneliness and human health; however, their assertion that loneliness primarily causes the health issue rather than poor health primarily resulting in statistically greater numbers of lonely people is the problem. I believe the reason why this error occurs so frequently is a result of the political need, often a requirement, that studies which are to be published must align with a supposition that posits biological evolutionary processes be behind behavior.

Age, you were indeed contesting the findings.

they have it backwards. The cart before the horse. Sick people with arthritic coniditions don't develop the condition because they are lonely. Rather they are lonely because of the effects of thee arthiritis (deformities, mobility issues, pain, etc...). Most of these studies are flawed in this way imo. They take a correlation and then carefully solve for the reverse of the actual reality

your first reply did contest the cause and effect relationship. Both hopeful cynic and i interpreted it the same and thus our responses.

The article itself says

The study does not show which came first -- the loneliness or the physical traits.

loneliness is a stressful condition and would provke the release of stress chemicals, most of which are involved in inflammatory reactions.

As to the evolutionary link...why is it necessarily demanding of an evolutionary philosophy to suppose that loneliness, a condition that is not the way we should be, should provoke or aggravate disease?

I don't feel well and don't wish to discuss it anymore. Hmph.

Sorry you don't' feel well.

I don't mean to be judgmental, but this seems to be more of a type of propaganda for integrating independent people into society than anything else, as well as somewhat pseudoscientific.

I mean, seriously: for some people, not constantly being around others may be damaging to their overall thought process, but others that don't need constant input from others to discern on their own, and do much better without "regular" social interaction are much different.

Take for example, actual, real scientists that aren't mainstream. Just about every one of them thinks or illustrates in manners that are not agreed upon by "modern science"- that's because they understand the majority's opinion is not reality. That's also why most of them spend days on end locked up and by themselves, because they understand they can think better without human interaction than with "components" of society.

And on that note, this article takes a biased and "one size fits all" approach, saying that the repeated, and technically speaking "scientific" data from the research in the article-if it even happened, was applicable to everyone outside of the research.

If you want my further opinion, I believe that constant social interaction can create an addiction, similar to drugs. If someone is constantly forced to be among society, then that person will possibly become addicted to it, and if such an addiction occurs, the person in question will feel ill due to not having any of its... sedating effects. Not saying being around people is bad, but to the degrees seen so commonly in modern society, it's quite possible that for some, parts of the brain and body will become weaker as certain thought processes are governed by other persons' actions. Still, I'm not going to say this is absolutely true- it's my hypothesis on the manner.

Any way, I guess I'll leave it at that.

I think the researchers were clear that the group that they studied communicated loneliness.
In other words, it's not as if they choose a group of people who were typically alone.

They specifically studied people who described there life as being lonely.

There is a difference. They knew that not all people who might be alone are lonely.

And of course it's not going to be the same with animal studies. We can't choose 50 people and isolate them. We jsut can't do that. So is this study as strong as an experiment that isolated humans and then examined them? No, but that doesn't mean it's not useful.

While there are people out there that are more introverted and willing to be alone, loneliness does affect most people. Even introverted people will be lonely if they have no one and very little interaction besides the person at the checkout stand or the delivery person. We are meant to interact with one another in some capacity. I may not seek out the crazy parties and extended socializing exhausts me (I like my solitude and I am more introverted than extroverted), but that doesn't mean that I don't get lonely for interaction.

It's clear that loneliness is a stressful situation for many people. Stress produces a physical response in the body. Why is this idea so hard to believe?

I have autism and generally don't enjoy a lot of social activities... Mostly I prefer solitude, and am not so prone to feeling lonely..

Anonymiss wrote:I have autism and generally don't enjoy a lot of social activities... Mostly I prefer solitude, and am not so prone to feeling lonely..

Sounds like a blessing to me. I yearn for rich relationships which I do not have.