Is religion an illness?

[Gorgo]

Is religion an illness?

http://www.geocities.com/bororissa/rel.html
--------
According to Webster’s New Word Dictionary, religion is:

"(1)belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe; (2) expression of this belief in conduct and ritual."

English and English, in their Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms (1958), define religion as "a system of beliefs by means of which individuals or a community put themselves in relation to god or to a supernatural world and often to each other, and from which the religious person derives a set of values by which to judge events in the natural world."

The Columbia Encyclopedia notes that "when a man becomes conscious of a power above and beyond the human, and recognizes a dependence of himself upon that power, religion has become a factor in his being."

These, then are the definitions of religion which I accept and which I shall have in mind as I discuss the religious viewpoint in this paper. Religion, to me, must include some concept of a deity. When the term is used merely to denote a system of beliefs, practices, or ethical values which are not connected with any assumed higher power, then I believe it is used loosely and confusingly; since such a nonsupernatural system of beliefs can more accurately be described as a philosophy of life or a code of ethics, and it is misleading to confuse a believer in this general kind of philosophy or ethical code with a true religionist.

Every Atheist, in other words, has some kind of philosophy and some code of ethics; and many Atheists, in fact, have much more rigorous life philosophies and ethical systems than have most deists.

------


Before we can talk sensibly about religion—or almost anything else!-- we should give some kind of definition of what we are talking about. Let me, therefore, start with what I think are some legitimate definitions of the term religion. Other concepts of this term, of course, exist; but what I am talking about when I use it is as follows.
According to Webster’s New Word Dictionary, religion is:

"(1)belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe; (2) expression of this belief in conduct and ritual."

English and English, in their Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms (1958), define religion as "a system of beliefs by means of which individuals or a community put themselves in relation to god or to a supernatural world and often to each other, and from which the religious person derives a set of values by which to judge events in the natural world."

The Columbia Encyclopedia notes that "when a man becomes conscious of a power above and beyond the human, and recognizes a dependence of himself upon that power, religion has become a factor in his being."

These, then are the definitions of religion which I accept and which I shall have in mind as I discuss the religious viewpoint in this paper. Religion, to me, must include some concept of a deity. When the term is used merely to denote a system of beliefs, practices, or ethical values which are not connected with any assumed higher power, then I believe it is used loosely and confusingly; since such a nonsupernatural system of beliefs can more accurately be described as a philosophy of life or a code of ethics, and it is misleading to confuse a believer in this general kind of philosophy or ethical code with a true religionist.

Every Atheist, in other words, has some kind of philosophy and some code of ethics; and many Atheists, in fact, have much more rigorous life philosophies and ethical systems than have most deists.

SOMEONE IS RELIGIOUS

It therefore seems silly to say that someone is religious because he happens to be philosophic or ethical; and unless we rigorously use the term religion to mean some kind of faith unfounded on fact, or dependency on some assumed superhuman entities, we broaden the definition of the word so greatly as to make it practically meaningless.

If religion is defined as man’s dependence of a power above and beyond the human, the as a psychotherapist, I find it to be exceptionally pernicious. For the psychotherapist is normally dedicated to helping human beings in general, and his patients in particular, to achieve certain goals of mental health, and virtually all these goals are antithetical to a truly religious viewpoint.

Let us look at the main psychotherapeutic goals. On the basis of twenty years of clinical experience, and in basic agreement with most of my professional colleagues (such as Brasten, 1961; Dreikurs, 1955; Fromm, 1955; Goldstein 1954; Maslow, 1954, Rogers, 1957; and Thorne, 1961), I would say that the psychotherapist tries to help his patients to be minimally anxious and hostile; and to this end, he tries to help them to acquire the following kind of personality traits:

1. Self-interest. The emotionally healthy individual should primarily be true to himself and not masochistically sacrifice himself for others. His kindness and consideration for others should be derived form the idea that he himself wants to enjoy freedom form unnecessary pain and restriction, and that he is only likely to do so by helping create a world in which the rights of others, as well as his own, are not needlessly curtailed.

2. Self-direction. He should assume responsibility for his own life, be able independently to work out his own problems, and while at times wanting or preferring the cooperation and help of others, not need their support for his effectiveness and well-being.

3. Tolerance. He should fully give other human beings the right to be wrong; and while disliking or abhorring some of their behavior, still not blame them, as persons, for performing this dislikeable behavior. He should accept the fact that all humans are remarkably fallible, never unrealistically expect them to be perfect, and refrain from despising or punishing them when they make inevitable mistakes and errors.

4. Acceptance of uncertainty. The emotionally mature individual should completely accept the fact that we live in a world of probability and chance, where there are not, nor probably ever will be, any absolute certainties, and should realize that it is not at all horrible, indeed—such a probabilistic, uncertain world.

5. Flexibility. He should remain intellectually flexible, be open to change at all times, and unbigotedly view the infinitely varied people, ideas, and things in the world around him.

6. Scientific thinking. He should be objective, rational and scientific; and be able to apply the laws of logic and of scientific method not only to external people and events, but to himself and his interpersonal relationships.

7. Commitment. He should be vitally absorbed in something outside of himself, whether it be people, things, or ideas; and should preferably have at least one major creative interest, as well as some outstanding human involvement, which is highly important to him, and around which he structures a good part of his life.

8. Risk-taking. The emotionally sound person should be able to take risks, to ask himself what he really would like to do in life, and then to try to do this, even though he has to risk defeat or failure. He should be adventurous (though not necessarily foolhardy); be willing to try almost anything once, just to see how he likes it; and look forward to some breaks in his usual life routines.

9. Self-acceptance. He should normally be glad to be alive, and to like himself just because he is alive, because he exists, and because he (as a living being) invariably has some power to enjoy himself, to create happiness and joy. He should not equate his worth or value to himself on his extrinsic achievements, or on what others think of him, but on his personal existence; on his ability to think, feel, and act, and thereby to make some kind of an interesting, absorbed life for himself.

These, then, are the kind of personality traits which a psychotherapist is interested in helping his patients achieve and which he is also, prohylactically, interested in fostering in the lives of millions who will never be his patients.

Now, does religion—by which again, I mean faith unfounded on fact, or dependence on some supernatural deity—help human beings to achieve these healthy traits and thereby to avoid becoming anxious, depressed, and hostile?

---------------

[Samildanach]

God is the therapist for these people.

[Gorgo]

Well, the proposition is that God is a symptom of the disease.

What is god the cure for and how does it/he/she do that?

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Gorgo, Is religion an illness? Now, does religion—by which again, I mean faith unfounded on fact, or dependence on some supernatural deity—help human beings to achieve these healthy traits and thereby to avoid becoming anxious, depressed, and hostile?

Gorgo, I wish you could have what I have: Faith in God, founded on experience of His goodness and mercy.

Sadly for those who are filled with the Spirit of God, we are unable to pass that along to everyone. Some are simply too skeptical.

Evidence exists, but many refuse to be objective or even experimental, firmly deciding to oppose what they have not yet experienced or understood.

You hate the religious, but they do not hate you.

Ponder that...

[Milton Bradley]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, You hate the religious, but they do not hate you. Ponder that...

They certainly seem to take every opportunity to legislate me into a croner. Often the only way out is to attack their beliefs. Beliefs I would not have to attack if they would leave them where they belong.


I want to know why religeous people think it necessary to try to regulate, or criminalize behavior that does not fit into their belief system. Either "sinning" becomes illegal in certain communities, or they attempt to add a "sin tax" to legitamize adding cost to whatever they disagree with, be it gambling, smoking, drinking, or whatever behavior they disapprove of.


What part of the bible instructs people to mind other people affairs?

[PatrickHenry]

MB, you are blaming the religious for an agenda that they have been manipulated to share with a globalist elite. Concurrence is not causation...

[Gorgo]

I had faith, and am happy to have lost that. So, consequently, I hate no one. I have no need for faith or for hate. Both are illusions.

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, Gorgo, I wish you could have what I have: Faith in God, founded on experience of His goodness and mercy.

[Phil Free]

Is reality an illness?

It seems to produce many "insane" people, many of which are not religious.

I'm currently skeptical about most things, including psychology and atheism. I'm not "religious" per se, though I do have "spiritualistic" tendencies. I already explained my "religious" views in the "What's your Religion" thread, so I won't go into that here.

Also: there have been quite a few theoriest claiming that psychologists create many personality disorders and "mental illnesses" themselves as they "headshrink".

Sort of like the idea that only laws make criminals, maybe only psychologists and "experts" make insanity.

[Gorgo]

Good point.

Originally posted by Phil Free, Is reality an illness?

[italiangm]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry MB, you are blaming the religious for an agenda that they have been manipulated to share with a globalist elite. Concurrence is not causation...

I tend to concur with MB's POV. I read your answer about 20 times and I still can't decode it. Can you expand/clarify/translate for simple folk like me? TIA. :)

[PatrickHenry]

Often progressives equate GW Bush with the religious of America. His brand of morality(or lack thereof) is unique to a specific type of pol.

They are phony Christians, just as they are bogus conservatives. These pols make just enough effort along the lines of the religious right to convince ignorant voters, then proceed with an agenda that is profoundly Statist and monopolist, not conservative in the traditional sense of the word.

Big taxes are for big government. Actually socialism in the time-honored context of that system. As a progressive, anti-Statist, anti-militarist, I often feel cornered, too.

As a "religious" guy, I don't feel the need to regulate the moral behavior of others or criminalize stuff because I think it's wrong. I could go into the specifics, but that might be a threadwaster.

There are multiple causative threads to the restrictive legislation and the offending taxes. To blame religion is faulty. I think you should blame the media, who do the manipulating...

[Milton Bradley]

What I was attempting to convey was that where I live, it is not uncommon for the religeous (Christian) community to attempt to brow beat the legislature to enact laws that are pro-religion, like the regulation of gambling, or the banning of pornography.


Its clear that they have no legal right to act as they do, but that does not stop them. Often times they get their own way, and the rest are made to suffer.


I think that the heart of the matter is really an attempt to reduce their own temptation to act in an unholy way.


I also thiink that may welll be a sign that they are not balanced in their thinking, and perhaps do have a mild mental illness. Not all religious people, but the ones who push to have other segments of the populations opinion, or rights stiffled.

[italiangm]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There are multiple causative threads to the restrictive legislation and the offending taxes. To blame religion is faulty. I think you should blame the media, who do the manipulating...[/b]

I see. Let me call your attention to the following:

Originally posted by From the proposed Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 -- HR3799 and S2082@ United States Code Title 28 Chapter 81 is amended by adding at the end the following: Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable. ...the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

<!--QuoteBegin-From the current SC State Constitution Article XVII Section 4
Supreme Being. No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.[/quote]

[Freaky Ed]

Religion is more of a drug than an illness.

[Gorgo]

Some people call drug addiction an illness. I haven't seen the evidence for that, so I don't think religion is a mental illness, but they seem to be in the same category.

Originally posted by Freaky Ed, Religion is more of a drug than an illness.

[ruiner]

I think it would be more fitting to call religion a plague than an illness, given its ability to spread from host to host upon contact.

[Jack E Valentine]

Something all little children want to know growing up is -- why do we have bullies? Now that we're grown up it's easy to rattle off, "oh they're just insecure people who need to put other people down to feel better about themselves."

No offense intended, but that's exactly what I see happening here. I'm a secular humanist, and just as prone to getting pissed off at the religious right-wing as any of you who are calling religion a disease or even a plague -- but there's something we have to accept to live peaceably within a human community: There is NO one right way to live.

The main innate force in humans (as with all life) is survival instinct. Survival instinct is the reason we formed communities, it is the reason we have fear, and most importantly in this case -- it is the reason we are curious.

To be curious is to explore the world around us. In the beginning this meant finding out which foods were safe and were dangerous, finding places where we could sleep safely versus those with predators (funny to think today that humans once had predators), in essence: finding patterns of survival which worked for us.

Combining our self-awareness and intellegence with an understanding of these patterns of survival, it became only natural to theorize an "ultimate" pattern of survival -- the ultimate way to live. We conceptualized perfection.

Then came the prophets one after another saying a perfect being had told them the perfect way to live and they were to pass this on to all of humanity. We really believed them to, we thought we had the key to everything.

There are other ways to think of an ultimate pattern for survival -- an ultimate way of life. I conceive of one which I have forged myself through experience and hours of debating.

The difference is -- I conceive of an ultimate way of life for myself and myself only. Most majors religions conceive of an ultimate way of life for all of humanity. This is ridiculous. There is absolutely no one right way to live. Religious worship works marvellously for some people and allows them to be who they want to be, and to do good in the world. It doesn't work for me, and I'm sure it doesn't work for many of you reading this, but we have to step back and accept our religious brothers and sisters, because most of the time they are doing what works for them and we have no right to question that.

The problem with most major religions is that they claim to be the right thing for everybody. The problem with what the atheists here are saying is that they claim religion to be the right thing for nobody.

Ignoring the perverse institutional aspects (yes the church is a filthy institution, but this discussion is about religion itself, not the institution which claims to serve it) -- religion works for some people. Atheism and secular humanism work for some people. Not caring works for some people.

It is nobody's place to make such ultimate statements as "religion is a disease" or "everybody should find God" -- they are equally false.

[Gorgo]

First of all, I didn't put anyone down. People are welcome to smoke or drink or believe in god(s) as they will. Some of my heroes, such as Kathy Kelly are very religious. That doesn't mean that religion is healthy. I'm overweight, and I realize that it's not healthy. It's not an insult to me to discuss that. Hopefully, you'll accept me knowing I could stand to lose a few pounds. But I certainly don't promote obesity, nor would I say that superstition is good for anyone. Albert Ellis, the psychologist, has written that it is a disease. I don't think it is, anymore than I think that alcoholism is a disease. It's a choice. I'm not knocking alcoholics if I discuss that.

[Jack E Valentine]

I see what you're saying -- but show me the negatives. Obesity, alcoholism, and other such vices are "bad" because they are unhealthy.

You're saying religion is a disease. What are the symptoms that lead to this diagnosis? Please be specific. I could say that having hair is a disease which makes you addicted murder people because the vast majority of all murderers have hair. Religion is not always practiced in a healthy manner. The institution of the church is a decrepit thing. There are a lot of downsides to religion, sure.

But what is inherrent about revering a supreme being that is unhealthy? Just because it doesn't work for me or you doesn't mean it can't help a lot of people succeed in ways they wouldn't without.

[Gorgo]

Well, I think the article sums it up for me pretty well.

"Finally, in regard to self-acceptance, it should again be clear that the religious devotee cannot possibly accept himself just because he is alive, because he exists and has, by mere virtue of his aliveness, some power to enjoy himself. Rather, he must make his self-acceptance utterly contingent on the acceptance of his definitional god, the church and clergy who also serve this god, and all other true believers in his religion.

If all these extrinsic persons and things accept him, he is able— and even then only temporarily and with continued underlying anxiety—to accept himself. Which means, of course, that he defines himself only through the reflected appraisals of others and loses any real, existential self that he might otherwise keep creating. Religion, for such an individual, consequently is self-abasement and self-abnegation—as, of course, virtually all the saints and mystics have clearly stated that it is.

If we summarize what we have just been saying, the conclusion seems inescapable that religion is, on almost every conceivable count, directly opposed to the goals of mental health—since it basically consists of masochism, other-directness, intolerance, refusal to accept uncertainty, unscientific thinking, needless inhibition, and self-abasement. In the one area where religion has some advantages in terms of emotional hygiene—that of encouraging hearty commitment to a cause or project in which the person may vitally absorbed—it even tends to sabotage this advantage in two important ways: (a) it drives most of its adherents to commit themselves to its tenets for the wrong reasons—that is, to cover up instead of to face and rid themselves of their basic insecurities; and (b) it encourages a fanatic, obsessive-compulsive kind of commitment that is, in its own right, a form of mental illness.

If we want to look at the problems of human disturbance a little differently we may ask ourselves, "What are the irrational ideas which people believe and through which they drive themselves into severe states of emotional sickness?"


EXPLORING THE QUESTION

After exploring this question for many years, and developing a new form of psychotherapy which is specifically directed at quickly unearthing and challenging the main irrational ideas which make people neurotic and psychotic, I have found that these ideas may be categorized under a few major headings (Ellis, 1962;Ellis and Harper, 1961a, 1961b). Here, for example, are five irrational notions, all or some of which are strongly held by practically every seriously disturbed person; here, along with these notions, are the connections between and commonly held religious beliefs.

Irrational idea No. 1 is the idea that it is a dire necessity for an adult to be loved or approved of by all the significant figures in his life. This idea is bolstered by the religious philosophy that if you cannot get certain people to love or approve of you, you can always fall back on god’s love. The thought, however, that it is quite possible for you to live comfortably in the world whether or not other people accept you is quite foreign to both emotionally disturbed people and religionists.

Irrational idea No.2 is the idea that you must be thoroughly competent, adequate, and achieving in all possible respects, otherwise you are worthless. The religionists say that no, you need not be competent and achieving, and in fact can be thoroughly inadequate—as long as god loves you and you are a member in good standing of the church. But this means, of course, that you must be a competent and achieving religionist—else you are no damned good.

Irrational idea No.3 is the notion that certain people are bad, wicked, and villainous and that they should be severely blamed and punished for their sins. This is the ethical basis, of course, of virtually all true religions. The concepts of quilt, blaming, and sin are, in fact, almost synonymous with that of revealed religion.

Irrational idea No. 4 is the belief that it is horrible, terrible, and catastrophic when things are not going the way you would like them to go. This idea, again, is the very core of religiousity, since the religious person invariably believes that just because he cannot stand being frustrated, and just because he must keep worrying about things turning out badly, he needs a supreme deity to supervise his thoughts and deeds and to protect him from anxiety and frustrations.

Irrational idea No. 5 is the idea that human unhappiness is externally caused and that people have little or no ability to control their sorrows or rid themselves of their negative feelings. Once again, this notion is the essence of religion, since real religions invariably teach you that only by trusting in god and relying on praying to him will you be able to control your sorrows of counteract your negative emotions.

Similarly, if we had time to review all the other major irrational ideas that lead humans to become and to remain emotionally disturbed, we could quickly find that they are coextensive with, or are strongly encouraged by, religious tenets.

If you think about the matter carefully, you will see this close connection between mental illness and religion is inevitable and invariant, since neurosis of psychosis is something of a high-class name for childishness or dependency; and religion, when correctly used, is little more that a synonym for dependency.

In the final analysis, then, religion is neurosis. This is why I remarked, at a symposium on sin and psychotherapy held by the American Psychological Association a few years ago, that from a mental health standpoint Voltaire’s famous dictum should be reversed: for if there were a god, it would be necessary to uninvent him.

If the thesis of this article is correct, religion goes hand in hand with the basic irrational beliefs of human beings. These keep them dependant, anxious, and hostile, and thereby create and maintain their neuroses and psychoses. What then is the role of psychotherapy in dealing with the religious views of disturbed patients? Obviously, the sane and effective psychotherapist should not—as many contemporary psychoanalytic Jungian, client-centered, and existentialist therapists have contended he should—go along with the patients’ religious orientation and try to help these patients live successfully with their religions, for this is equivalent to trying to help them live successfully with their emotional illness."