How many vague, qualitative terms can one put into a “scientific” finding? Just read and see.
Rosemary Aird of the University of Queensland has released a masterpiece of pseudo-science propaganda in order to “prove” that “non-traditional” religion, basically, makes you depressed and anxious. The news release from the University includes such statements as “This focus on self fulfilment and improvement over others’ wellbeing could undermine a person’s mental health with many people feeling more isolated, less healthy and having poorer relationsihps. “[sic]
This is such a startling example of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking that I cannot believe a major university in any country would allow it to slip by. It is just as likely that thinking differently from the majority of a person’s social group would cause depression and anxiety before the adoption of a new religion, and perhaps even lead to such a change, as it is that someone developed depression and anxiety because of that religion.
What are we supposed to think of a study where the researcher says “There’s no way of measuring all of those different types of things.” You mean, there’s no way to actually determine if your findings actually refer to any real world phenomena?
Great. I’m sure this will be a popular study for Dominionists to cite. And it has an academic pedigree to give it that special authority.