My initial response in reading the start of your text was". . . growing body of medical research that has discovered the positive health effects of religion and spirituality" was to ask: please site your source as this foggy broad spectrum un-sited assertion is a common tactic from less then honest theists that that have a definitive bias they wish to push. What are his sources to make that assertion what study is he siting?

Thank you for siting your source.

Took some reading but when I followed his (3) sources I found

RESULTS: from his first link (an 18 year old study):

"For women, the protective effect of weekly religious attendance was of the same order of magnitude as the four other health behaviors. For men, the protective effect of weekly religious attendance was less than for any of the other health behaviors."

How does this support his assertion?

Results from a 20 year old study (university of Texas) and a 19 year old study required money to read so I decided to follow James similar publications to determine his work:

After following the JamesClaer then reading another of his Opinion piece on the New Your Times "what religion gives us that science can't" I became even more skeptical of his work as he unsupported assertion. In the article, he sites several doctors in defining the brain and human traits then, completely unsupported by the doctors he sited, he changes course and reaches conclusions to support his church is good for you without any supporting study to support his position. Note: James's original post included a quote from the bible. . . Yea, I wonder if he has a bias?

I think this is more about being part of a community with strong ties. Most people have a lot of difficulty living in a city or large town, there are just too many people to form relationships with all of them. So we close ourselves off, and just treat everyone with politeness.

It’s really only in a much smaller community where we become open to forming close ties, which is behaviour that goes back to humanity’s tribal days. Religion and what church you go to kind of simulates that tribalism.

I'd be more inclined to agree with Sam Harris, that it isn't religion, per se, but rather the social connections created under its auspices that create the benefits described. I remember a study, decades ago, in which baby monkees were split into 2 groups. 1 group was permitted physical contact with the parent; the other could only see the parent through glass. After the observation period concluded, brains of the young monkees were examined and a significant difference in development was observed between the 2 groups, in that the group permitted contact showed greater signs of development. As people, it's the social connection, itself, that makes the difference, not the medium of that connection. Meditation can help, too, with or without a spiritual focus.

Some people have sports . Knitting clubs. Reading clubs etc all do the same . Religion just wants all of your money and to control all this f your life

Wow, I'm convinced. After reading this, I accepted jesus in my heart and started speaking in tongues.

Most of these so-called studies that I've read, or read rigorous analyses thereof, show that the so-called benefits of religion break down on examination. Yes, social bonds help, but the religious aspect is the enabler, not the cause of the benefit.

It's not entirely wrong as ignorance can be blissful. Humans are social creatures and atheists have a more difficult time easily finding a supportive community. Churches expect you to talk about your problems whereas an atheist may have a club that they bicycle with every Sunday, but that doesn't always mean they can talk to those people about their personal problems.

The problems is that there are lots of things that have an upside that doesn't outweigh the down. I'd probably love crack if it didn't come with that whole "crazy addiction and significant health problems" thing, so don't tell me religion is worth it because it does a few good things too.

The community benefit is all well and good, but I would rather be on edge than have to listen to all that superstitious drivel. THAT would really raise my BP.

I'd rather be miserable and die a much earlier death, than EVER delude myself by believing in any bullshit religion or god. Regardless of the "benefits".

One group who adapted and survived best in Hitler's murder camps were Jehovah's Witnesses, partly for reasons such as you have given above - the intra-group solidarity and the sense that their sufferings were part of something bigger. The only other group who did as well were the Communists! So it's not about religion per se.

To me religion is like a placebo - it may work for some people some of the time, but once you know what's going on it ceases to be effective.

And what it all boils down to is that (1) community and refuge are beneficial to hypersocial creatures like humans, and (2) religion has tended to be an easy source of this in the past.

Association is not cause.