First of all, Self-interest is not a "bad" thing, and does not have to conflict with an ultimate goal of greater understanding of others and happier relationships.

Young people need new ways. They will always need and seek new ways. I see it as healthy and natural.

If a young person is questioning his or her world, is it necessary that this young person put on a happy face for the camera? Why should or would they?

And how do we measure happiness anyway? Number of smiles per day? Amount of self-satisfaction? Seems like many of us are never happier than when we have a good problem to work on.

But, yes, it can't all be found in a book or a ritual or a belief....

love, blink

Lars,

Thanks for posting the results of this ground-breaking study by Dr. Aird.  This is precisely the sort of "outsider" research that posters need to challenge their New Age dogmas.  The prickly but unfocused reaction is certainly predictable.  An insulated mentality typically avoids challenges created by refusing to read scientific material.  Therefore, I think it is important to highlight some of Dr. Aird's findings:

"Young people who embrace trendy, self-focused spiritualism are more anxious and depressed than those who believe in God or reject religion altogether, a survey [of 3,705 21-year-olds] shows."  In other words, it is even mentally healthier to remain an atheist or agnostic than it is to become a narcissistic New Ager. 

Dr. Aird also finds that when self-fulfillment becomes a higher priority than the wellbeing of others, mental health and healthy relationships are impaired.  This dovetails nicely with an earlier study demonstrating thet regular church attendance correlates with 5 additional years of life expectancy.  Of course, mental health and life expectancy do not directly measure the credibility of a belief system.  But in my view, there is no substitute for the loving intimacy and mutual support of God-loving communities that function as an oasis of love for their members.  And surely, if there is a "true" spirituality, it just might be conducive to improved mental health.

Don

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2008 at 2:58pm:


Don, I was surprised at the results of this study. I expected New Agers to be at least equal
(in mental health) to those who follow traditional religions. This was the first time I have
heard of anybody conducting this type of study, and I will try of find and read her complete
paper on it,  if and when it's published on the net. Lars.

This is SO easy to explain, I don't know why you even bothered
to post it...
Humans are conformists. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the beliefs
they were raised in. When they willfully buck these beliefs (e.g. a
Christian dumping Christianity to become a New Age foo-foo or
whatever) they experience guilt, cognitive dissonance, ect. It is that
old subconscious mind, punishing them for going against their
childhood programming.
Incidentally, becoming an atheist/agnostic would likely be easier
on the ex-Xian mind than adopting New Age beliefs (after all, does the
bible really have much to say about atheists? Not without some rather tortured "interpretation of scripture!" It explicitly says to KILL "witches/
seers" ect. though. So which would the subconscious consider the bigger
"sin?" Yep, you guessed it. Not to mention that atheism/agnosticism is simply the adoption of a highly rationalistic, scientifically supported and "non-crazy" belief structure, as opposed to the positive adoption of a whole new, and frankly FUNKY dogma.)
It is worth noting, that there are a LOT more young folks raised in
traditional religions, who convert to New Ageism than young folks
who were raised New Age who convert to traditional religion. (The
latter category being so rare as to be statistically insignificant for
the purposes of any real-world study, I might venture to say.)
I might expect to see the same poor mental health among those
who were raised atheist/agnostic embracing Christianity/Judaism/
Islam; or a person raised as a New Ager who converts to traditional
religion! Or among ANY convert from their childhood belief system
for that matter. So I'd have been a lot more impressed by this
study, had it taken these variables into account. But did it? Hell
no! And why? Because I suspect whoever conducted that study
was more into furthering an AGENDA, than acting out of pure
scientific curiosity. (Why am I not surprised by that..?)

B-man

Those who chose to walk their own path do so without the support of like-minded people who would otherwise form the *nice* and nurturing community that give the conformists their false sense of comfort and security. Of course the conformist lives longer.

It's the honest and brave among the ab-normal who don't have the good sense to shut up, that are discriminated against, cast out, beaten and even executed; the saint, the witch, the shaman, the UFO researcher, the homosexual and the militant minority.  Need I mention the *afterlife* explorer?

We have laws and police, psychiatrists and meds to enforce normalcy, and all the peer reviewed studies to back them up. Be openly discriminating in your beliefs and practices and Society will discriminate against you. And they have the Power (guns and chemicals).

Society determines how the bell curve of normalcy is plotted. It's Society that decides to burn witches, et al., and it's Society that decides when to stop and use psychotropic meds instead (or just nervously tolerate them).  Religion and science are right there to help, providing the moral justification for its fear and the studies and stats for it's Almighty Bell Curve (and both provide its arrogance). Think religion and science are in in conflict? That depends on your perspective.

Think I'm being overly biased? Walk into a church or a group of psychiatrists and INSIST that you see and talk to dead people, you have seen Jesus personally, you hear voices when no one is there, telling you what to do. Tell then you talk to angels (like Joan of Arc) and yes, there is intelligent, telepathic, alien life in our physical universe and that you've seen and talked to them. Tell them you've already been to heaven. Don't sound like a wayward Christian or Bhuddist (or scientist). Be blunt. Tell them the plain truth. INSIST on all this to your family, your coworkers, all your peers. Do this long enough to get a reaction. See what happens. You will find yourself on your own path (whether you chose to be alone or not). That's not a bad thing. They're actually doing you a favor.

Don't cower in fear. Be who you are (who else can you honestly be?). Be honest with yourself and admit that you chose to incarnate into this mess for a reason.

We already know that religion is not often our friend, that science isn't much better. But who can blame people, who need comfort and security, for depending on science and religion for their truth?

Plot your own bell curve. You have the comfort and security of KNOWING that this is just one life of many and that you don't have to depend on others for the truth (your truth, if no one else's).

Be more diplomatic than what I suggested above (I was making a point). Love your neighbors and don't view them as the enemy. But be yourself. Find and KNOW your own truth without depending on either science or religion. Know also that you're not as alone as you may often think.

Rob

I side with Blink, Cricket, Berserk2, Snoopy, and even Bundy is not so fubar on this one -

I really have a basic squawk about this study. Look at the findings -  They're substantially tautological. The findings are defined by the terms of the question. - As a way to look at social issues, this might be an interesting article, but it is not very good science.   

"Young men who held non-traditional religious views were at twice the risk of being more anxious and depressed than those with traditional beliefs." - Turn that around and we find that depressed and antisocial people are far more likely to have non-traditional beliefs that deviate from the society and popular religious thinking in general. - Nothng new here.

"This study suggests that new forms of religiosity demand further research attention to understand the extent that religious change is linked to population mental health and social behaviour among younger generations," Dr Aird said. - Here we have the question as to which is the cause and which is the effect. Do we have a sick population that is deviating from prior social values, or do the prior social values create tension that cause a sick population? It is important to discern which part is the tail and which part is the dog - or are these correlates that arise together?

"Dr Aird found only eight per cent of young adults attended church once a week, a trend linked to lower rates of antisocial behaviour among young men, but not females." - Here we can discover the uninteresting fact that people who are less antisocial engage in social activities more often, and females are less antisocial than men. - Aside from the obvious, that's a rough description of social roles.

"She said individualism was the common thread in the shift away from traditional religious thoughts to non-religious spirituality." - And here we are told that, in context of prior statements, individualism is the common factor found in anti-social people, and that these individualistic people shift away from the traditional religious practices of the greater society. - Yup, that's how we define individualism.

And now that I've demonstrated that my views are antithetical and individualistic, the assumption would be that I am anti-social, which is proven by failure to participate in an organized religion. On thast basis it seems to be time to roll out the Malleus Malificarum and start sending these non-believers to the dungeon where we can torture them until their morale improves. Where is the Inquisition when we need it?

dave

I also agree to some degree or another all the replies posted....Here's a link to her article
on the Uni. of Queensland website http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=13813
Looks like she has her cell phone number at the end of the article. Anybody game to call her?
Lars