> One of her most striking experiments tested the common observation that religious faith helps people cope with pain. I know there is always the problem that

> One of her most striking experiments tested the common observation that religious faith helps people cope with pain. I know there is always the problem that popular reports have to so simplify research results that they veer into misrepresentation. But as described, the stated conclusion is impossible to support. Devout Catholics and atheists, collectively, had similar responses to pain stimuli. But if you shows both a picture of the Virgin Mary before the pain, Catholics reported one point lower pain scores. How could the conclude that? What if instead they segregated the groups into (US) football fans and non-fans, and showed both pictures of, say, Mike Ditka, a famous tough, non-whiny guy? If the football fans reported lower pain scores, would that mean sports helped them cope? Or are they simply primed to act more manly? Or rap fans/non-fans were primed with pictures of 50-cent? Or history buffs pictures of Earnest Shackleton?