--Observing the Disturbing: Mormonism is a Form of Mental Illness, As Is Its Sibling, Christianity--

Both are in the business of selling sin, submission and self-hate.

Yet, there are some defenders of the faith who appear to be in denial, in denying that religious belief can clearly represent a classic form of debilitating and destructive mental illness. For example, in a recent, now-closed thread, RfM poster "summer" asserted that Mormonism is hobbled with mental dysfunctionalities, while arguing simultaneously that Christianity deserves to be cut a break:

" . . . Christianity has evolved, and is still evolving to keep up with the times. Mormonism is pretty far behind the curve. Mormonism has also institutionalized dysfunctional, controlling, and psychologically unhealthy behavior."

("Re: MaInstream Christianity believes in free agency?," by "summer," posted on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 28 November 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,351854,352156#msg-352156)


You'll get no argument here that when it comes to cultivating good mental health, Mormonism is definitely "behind the curve."

But you will if you insist that its sibling, Christianity, isn't.

Before proceeding further, let it be noted that there is a definite Mormon-Christian connection--although not the one Mormonism's propagandizing proponents would have the gullible believe. Perceptive observers of the “religious belief-as-mental illness” proposition are encouraged to compare reported findings on dysfunctional Christianity with their own mentally-disturbing experiences in Mormonism. The similarities are striking, sobering and, to use an especially appropriate term here, “sickening.” To appreciate that fact as one reads further, simply replace the words “Christian,” “the Christian Church,” and “religion” with the words “Mormon,” “the Mormon Church,” and “Mormonism,” and those parallels will become manifestly evident.
_____


--The Religion Belief/Mental Illness Connection--

Rather than attempt on my own to persuade “summer” and other like-minded posters that religious belief (including the weed-infested Mormon garden variety) is a form of mental illness, I'll instead refer interested readers to the observations and findings of others--both in and out of the Christian realm of belief--on the subject of both Christianity's manifest dysfunctionalities and harmful effects.

One highly-regarded critic in this arena is Wendell W. Watters, M.D., professor Emeritus in Psychiatry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Watters is the author of the book, “Deadly Doctrine: Health, Illness, and Christian God-Talk” (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1992, 198 pp.).

By way of professional credentials, Watters is a trained psychoanalyst who spent seven years in that area and 25 years as a practicing psychiatrist. He credits working with his patients has having led him “to the conclusions I have reached about the hitherto unrecognized role of Christianity in people's lives,” adding that it “became evident that in the social woodwork of the Western world, the cross of Jesus has been carved deeply over the past two thousand years and that even people who [have] never darkened a church door [have been] strongly affected by many teachings of Christianity, often without knowing it.”

As to his own personal background, Watters does not come to religion ignorantly, noting that his “early upbringing was in the Anglican (Episcopalian) faith,” with “many of the messages emanating from that institution still reverberat[ing] at some level of my being.”

(“Introduction,” pp. 11-12)


But Watters is a seasoned--and reasoned--foe of religious belief, having concluded that it is a pernicious, mind-hampering form of mental disease.. Indeed, his book banners the warning across the top of its front cover: “Christianity May Be Hazardous to Your Health!”

The other experienced author and critic is Leo Booth who, as vicar of St. George Episcopal Church in Hawthorne, California, authored the book, "When God Becomes a Drug: Breaking the Chains of Religious Addiction and Abuse" (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1991, 273 pp.)

Booth describes himself this way: "My name is Leo. I'm an alcoholic. A co-dependent. A religious addict and religious abuser. I'm a recoverying priest."
_____


--The Challenge in Escaping the Prison of Mentally Destabilizing Religious Belief--

In making his case for religion as a perceivable and preventable mental illness, Watters minces no words. He dedicates his book “to all those who choose to think for themselves on existential issues, no matter how lonely and painful that may be,” and quotes freethinker Robert G. Ingersoll on the facing page:

“If people were a little more ignorant, astrology would flourish--if a little more enlightened, religion would perish.”

(pre-Introduction, pp. 4-5)


Watters' book starkly warns the reader of what they are about to encounter as they run up against his bold arguments on the devastating effects of religion on the human psyche:

“Churchgoers who are committed believers may be offended by this book, if, indeed, they read it all,” he acknowledges. And no wonder. Watters forthrightly announces that his thesis, “based on many years of clinical experiences, is that, despite the so-called comfort of the Christian message, Christian doctrine and teachings, deeply engrained as they are in Western society, are incompatible with the development and maintenance of sound health, and not only 'mental' health, in human beings.”

He has work cut out for him in cutting through religion belief's mental morass, observing that “[t]raditional believers tend to cling to their religious systems with a tenacity not demonstrated in the area of scientific research. Addictive belief systems become so much a part of the identity of some people, that it is often impossible to determine where the individual being stops and the religious, group-think starts.”

However, to the searching and open-minded, Watters offers hope and encouragement:

“People who are atheists, freethinkers, or humanists (who comprise approximately one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's population) may find much to help them in their never-ending quest for genuine meaning in their lives.”

Watters informs the reader that, ultimately, he has “written for those who, while nominally religious, are increasingly dissatisfied with the theist orientation to life and, in spite of the guilt they are encouraged to feel for doubting, are prepared to explore the humanistic alternative.”

That sounds like a lot of visitors to this “Recovery from Mormonism' site.

(“Introduction,” pp. 9, 12)
_____


--Religious Belief as a Dangerous Addictive Drug--

Watters likens religion to a habit-forming narcotic, describing it as “an existential soother to which individuals, having been born atheists, are encouraged to become addicted as they grow up in our theistic society.” In this regard, he declares that “Christianity is the pacifier PAR EXCELLENCE, claiming to alleviate cosmological fear--fears largely of its own creation--and to relieve guilt that has been stimulated in the believer by Christian god-talk.”

(original emphasis)

Like pushers trying to entice their customers to inhale the “wonder drugs of deity” they peddle, Watters says that “[i]n order to sell their product, god-talking salesmen do everything possible to prevent the believer from growing up emotionally and psychologically, manipulating the greedy egocentric infant in us all with preposterous promises of eternal bliss in the hereafter.”

Watters might as well be talking to true-believing, saddled-by-their-faith Mormons who are convinced against all reason and evidence that their brand of mind-twisting religion is absolutely imperative for long-term happiness and survival:

“In our addiction, we tend to lose sight of the price tag carried by most drugs, some higher than others. . . . Christians [substitute 'Mormons'] will find it difficult to entertain the notion that the tenets of their faith (one many claim to be as essential as food and air) have side effects that are deleterious to their health and that of their children. Simply put, Christian indoctrination is a form of mental and emotional abuse that can adversely affect bodily health in the same way a drug can.”

Watters' book explains the negative side effects of hallucinatory religion to those searching for healthy meaning and economic practicality in their existence:

“ . . . [E]vidence that religion is not only irrelevant but actual harmful to human beings should be of interest, not only to other behavioral scientists, but to anyone who finds it difficult to live an unexamined life. . . . [T]he argument advanced [against habit-forming religion] should stir political decision makers, who complain about the high cost of health care even while continuing to subsided that very institution that may be actually making the public 'sick.'”

(ibid., pp. 9-10, 12)
_____


Watters isn't the only critic who finds religiousity both harmful and addictive. Author Leo Booth defines "religious addiction" as "using God, a religion or a belief system as a means both to escape or avoid painful feelings and to seek self-esteem. It involves adopting a rigid belief system that specifies only one right way, which you feel you must force onto others by means of guilt, shame, fear, brainwashing and elitism. Thus religious addiction nearly always results in the abuse of someone else in the name of your beliefs."

Booth also describes religious addiction as "a hidden epidemic," in which "the concept of God . . . is used to create guilt, shame and, ultimately, self-hate."

Religious addicts, Booth explains, are driven by their "need to control, judge and proselytize," which he says "make abuse [of themselves and others] a virtual imperative."

The driving force behind that imperative is "[t]he all-or-nothing mindset [and] the belief that sex is dirty, [along with] other symptoms [which] unite to build a wall of shame and fear around the spouses and children of religious addicts. When a religious addict's rage is couched in scripture, when it literally appears to be the wrath of God, the guilt and shame imbedded in the family go straight to the core. In this way, religious addiction destroys families as much as do other addictions."

In the end, Booth says, it amounts to "using God or religion as a fix. It is the ultimate form of co-dependency--feeling worthless in and of ourselves and looking outside ourselves for something or someone to tell us we are worthwhile. . . . It is using God, religion or a belief system as a weapon against ourselves or others. . . . [In reality, however, it is an] addiction [that] has very little to do with God or spirituality, just as food addiction and alcoholism have less to do with the substance involved than with the way in which they are abused. Religious addicts use the accessory items of religion--rituals, dogma and scriptural texts--to reinforce the dysfunctional message that all humans are evil, stupid or incapable of merit. Thus, far from enhancing spiritual development, religious addiction stunts or paralyzes spiritual growth . . . ."

Booth speaks of religious addiction as an obvious "mental disorder" in the same breath as he does "compulsive behavior and psychiatric disorders;" "drug addiction, eating disorders, co-dependency, sex and love addictions, gambling;" and "such psychiatric illnesses as depression, anxiety, paranoia and post-traumatic stress due to sexual and other physical and mental abuse."

As with drug addiction, there are definite symptoms of religious addiction, which Booth lists as follows:

--"Inability to think, doubt or question information or authority.

--"Black-and-white, simplistic thinking.

--"Shame-based belief that you aren't good enough or aren't 'doing it right.'

--"Magical thinking that God will fix you.

--"Scrupulosity: rigid, obsessive adherence to rules, codes of ethics or guidelines.

--"Uncompromising, judgmental attitudes.

--"Compulsive praying, gong to church or crusades, quoting scripture.

--"Unrealistic financial contributions.

--"Believing that sex it dirty, that our bodies and physical pleasures are evil.

--"Compulsive over-eating or excessive fasting.

--"Conflict with science, medicine and education.

--"Progressive detachment from the real world, isolation, breakdown of relationships.

--"Psychosomatic illness: sleeplessness, back pains, headaches, hypertension.

--"Manipulating scriptures or texts, feeling chosen, claiming to receive special messages from God.

--"Trance-like state or religious high, wearing a glazed happy face.

--"Cries for help; mental, emotional, physical breakdown, hospitalization."

While a professed believer in God, Booth nonetheless is convinced that the most effective way to treat and recover from religious addiction is not through religion itself, but through personal spirituality.

He defines "religion" as "being essentially a set of man-made principles about God, focusing on a teacher or prophet," which often contains "negative messages" that produce feelings of "alienation and and shame." Borrowing from Eric Fromm's "The Dogma of Christ," Booth explains the three-fold function of religion:

--"for all mankind, consolation for the privations exacted by life;

--"for the great majority [of humankind], encouragement to accept their class situation; and

--"for the dominant majority, relief from guilt feelings caused by the suffering of those they oppress."

Booth writes that these functions have historically been carried out by "[t]he controlling authority of the [Christian] clergy," who are tasked with "teaching and interpreting religion" in order to maintain abusive "social control" by "keep[ing] people in submission [and] fearful of error."

He notes that "[t]his divinely appointed power group claims not only to speak for God but insists that it is also the only way to God. From cradle to grave, we are trained to look to someone else to tell us what to do, when to do it and what will happen if we don't." Booth explains that this power group "make[s] the rules and say[s] the rules are God's, so that questioning the teachers or teachings equals questioning God. Those rules, those messages have been, still are, often dysfunctional and abusive." And thus, he laments, "[s]o it is that people allow themselves to be abused in the name of God."

By contrast, Booth defines "spirituality" as an individually-determined "process of becoming a positive and creative person" through "a search [for] a healthy spirituality that . . . enhance[s] our self esteem" and which leads to "the spiritual freedom of truth."

(Preface, "Leo's Story," pp. 1-2, 13; Chapter 1, "Sin, Shame, Fear and Control: The Roots of Religious Addiction," pp. 20-21, 23, 27, 30-31, 36, 38; Chapter 3, "Where Does It Hurt? The Symptoms of Religious Addiction," p. 59; Chapter 4, "Religious Addiction: A Family Disease," p. 92)
_____


--The Broad Case for Classifying Religious Belief as a Mental Disorder--

From the cover of Watters' book, "Deadly Doctrine," on through its final pages, he lobs salvo after well-aimed salvo at the negative, ignorant and unhealthy impact of religion's “deadly doctrines“ on humankind. Starting at the beginning, he draws a bead on the mental backwardness that religion creates—and the social ills that it also produces:

“Christianity's influence actually militates AGAINST human development in such vital areas as self-esteem, sexuality and social interactions. The tragic result of Christian conditioning is too often anti-social behavior, sexual dysfunction, poor psychological development, anxiety and even major psychiatric illness. [original emphasis]

“Christian indoctrination is not simply a problem affecting individuals or single families; the noxious effects of its teachings over nearly two millennia pervade society at large, even those who are not Christians, and in ways that seriously undermine human welfare and the quality of life. Christianity's aggressive pronatalist policies have encouraged large families despite parents' ability to cope either emotionally or financially. With this the Christian church has formulated rigid sexual roles, forbidding all practices not leading directly to conception. By actually promoting sexual ignorance and irresponsibility, Christianity has allowed the proliferation of such social ills as rape, child molestation and pornography.”

Watters' book further argues that “[r]ecent research data in the field of psychology and religion . . . show that patients with rigid belief systems manifest greater racism and less open-mindedness and flexibility than those with a more questing scientific attitude toward life. Biological predispositions toward severe depression and schizophrenia may also be aggravated by Christianity's promotion of an extreme body-soul dualism, self-denial and narrowly defined social roles.”

Watters' work notes how reluctantly “the Christian church” has come to grips (or “rectification”) with the mental illness-producing nature of some of its most notorious traditional and officially-peddled doctrines on such matters as “slavery, democracy, psychoanalysis, sexuality and reproduction, and religious toleration.”

(from flyleaf)
_____


Booth agrees that all is not well in the world of religious belief. He points out, for instance, that "the messages and teachings concerning the concept of original sin [which] offer the explanation that we were born bad and only by following God's rules can we overcome this inherent blight" is a manifestation of "the disease of religious addiction and abuse" which serves only to create "negative effects on self-esteem and spirituality" and which results in harming people "as individuals and as a society."

He warns that "[t]eaching the concept of original sin--that people are born bad--and keeping the focus on avoiding error, which religious addicts equate with sin, makes people slaves to following rules . . . . Promising heavenly rewards as compensation for suffering and deprivation in this life conditions people to escape into magical thinking and denial of reality. Teaching that acceptance of Christ (or any other prophet/teacher) is the way to absolve sins lead to rationalization and the inability to take responsibility for one's actions."

"This," Booth says, "is the foundation of religious addiction and abuse: We are bad and God will magically fix us if we do what someone tells us is God's wish." It is, he writes, "the conflicts and sources of guilt and shame within Christianity [that] have left us vulnerable to victimization by those who would abuse the power we give them."

Booth observes that religious addicts "all share a common experience: in the name of God, they have been made to feel fear, guilt, shame and anger. In the name of God, they have emotionally, physically or sexually abused themselves or others. In the name of God, they have brought themselves or others to the edge of financial ruin. In the name of God, they have judged and condemned themselves or others as worthless or inherently bad."

Booth notes that "[much] shame comes from dysfunctional religious beliefs" and that "[d]ysfunctional religious messages about sin, about sexuality, about God as an angry judge or Cosmic Fixer have created these toxic beliefs--from which people have tried to escape by means of addictive practices."

(Preface, "Leo's Story," p. 16; and Chapter 1, "Fear, Shame, Fear and Control," pp. 25, 31, 36)
_____


--Treating the Mental Illness of Religious Belief--

Watters, in "Deadly Doctrine," argues for rapid, intense and focused remedial action to counter the perverse, pervasive and poisonous role of Christian dogma in perpetuating a range of debilitating mental illness:

“In the face of so much human suffering resulting from Christian doctrine, it is imperative that health care professionals, recognizing the Christian belief system as an addictive disease, develop a religious status examination to help evaluate how notions about life derived from Christian god-talk compromise individuals' healthy functioning. In failing to to determine the role of oppressive religious beliefs in mental illness, physicians and other health care workers actually promote Christianity's continued stranglehold on human happiness and self-fulfillment.”

Watters' work lays out the aggressive course that must be taken to effectively counter the mental disease of religious dependence--a course that Mormons in their various stages of recovery could also arguably benefit from:

“If we are to free ourselves from the destructive end toward which god-talk is leading us, we need to cure ourselves of our addiction to religious doctrines that teach us to deny self-responsibility in all areas of our lives. . . . Only with proper education comes the promise of RECOVERY that will restore the primacy of reason and critical thinking.”

(from the fly leafs, emphasis added)

“Recovery.” As in “Recovery from Mormonism”--and in that rehabilitation process, as in recovery from Mormonism's contributing cousins in cranium-crushing crime.
_____


--The Role of Religious Belief in the Development of Significant Psychiatric Disorders--

Watters, in his chapter entitled “Christianity and Major Psychiatric Illness,” cites the work of behavioral scientist Albert Ellis in making the case that “there exists an irrefutable causal relationship between religion and emotional and mental illness.” Noting that Ellis “identifies 11 characteristics of religiosity that run counter to the development of sound mental health,” Watters offers the following summary of findings:

“Adherence to a religious view of life, in contrast to the scientific humanist view, discourages self-acceptance, self-interest and self-directedness, which are all necessary for sound mental and emotional functioning.”

Watters presents Ellis's contention that “religion tends to make healthy human-to-human relationships difficult, and encourages intolerance of others and inflexibility." Ellis asserts that “[s]eriously religious people have difficulty accepting the real world and trying to change what can be changed for the better; especially problematical is the acceptance of ambiguity and uncertainty. Religious people make use of scientific thinking, but only until it comes too close to areas that threaten their religious beliefs. They are also prone to fanatical commitments, in contrast to the less fanatical but nonetheless passionate commitments of emotionally healthy non-believers. Generally speaking, emotionally stable people are more inclined to be risk-takers in the sense, first of all, of recognizing what they want and then taking appropriate risks to pursue their personal goals. Deeply religious people, by contrast, are more inclined to feel too guilty to pursue their goals, since self-sacrifice is such an important component of their world view.”

(Chapter 8, “Christianity and Major Psychiatric Illness,” pp. 135-36)
_____


Below are explicit examples of religious belief manifestations of mental illness.

Watters notes that “Christian doctrine and teachings are incompatible with many of the components of sound mental health . . . . ” Sound mental heath, he says, includes the following indicators:

--”self-esteem

--”self-actualization and mastery

--”good communication skills

--”related individuation and the establishment of supportive human networks,” and

--”development of healthy sexuality and reproductive responsibility”

Watters then observes that in family situations “[w]hen the couple are not only partners to each other but parents to children in a family, the destructive effects of Christian doctrine combine to compromise the healthy development of yet another generation.”

Watters writes that women, in particular, have been trapped in a mentally-battered world of their own where religious dogma denies their personal identity and right of choice:

“Until recently, women in our society were not encouraged to look upon themselves as autonomous individuals capable of developing their human potential in whatever direction it took them. Even their identities were submerged in that of their husbands. . . . Nonetheless, women were somehow expected to be effective catalysts in the self-actualization of their own children. But how can a woman be expected to develop the adaptive potential of her own biological offspring if her own adaptive potential has been compromised, not only by the gender role she has been obliged to play but by many other teachings inherent in our Christian doctrine?"

Those destructive teachings include the following:

“Consider the tendency of Christian indoctrination to produce self-loathing, guilt over pleasure, the inability to be in charge of ones won sexuality and reproductivity and a built-in orientation away from human support systems and toward the divine. Could anyone design a more inefficient training program for parents?

"The fact that most mothers in our society do not raise schizophrenic children has more to do with the innate humanity and good judgment of most women and their ability to defend themselves against the more destructive effects of Christian doctrine, even when they may repeat that doctrine like parrots Sunday after Sunday.”

(Chapter 8, "Christianity and Major Psychiatric Illness," pp. 140-41)


In the authoritarian scheme of sex roles still largely imposed in the Christian church, Watters writes that the saving grace, so to speak, of protecting church-raised children from church-created psychiatric illness is the “female characteristic that comes to the rescue;”--namely, “the mother is expected to be 'emotional' and allowed to be demonstrably affectionate,” while in the history of Western religious culture, “that has long been denied to men. . . . Coupled with this is the traditional pressure on the male to control his feelings as much as possible, . . . [and] never to attempt to express them verbally and directly. . . . The longing for contact with a male God may be a reflection of this longing for contact with an earthly father denied to most people in the Western world because of the roles males have been and still are encouraged to play.”

Such factors, Watters argues, play their own role in the toxic relationship between “Christian doctrine and mental health,” where children are mentally imprisoned and developmentally stunted in a religiously dysfunctional and destructive environment. He notes, for instance, how “Christian teachings [demonstrably] interfere with the process of 'related individuation,' [in] that a child who is under-individuated shows poor ego boundaries and runs the risk of remaining fused with or absorbed into the stronger organism, the parent. In order for this to be the case, the parent, whose individuation has also been severely compromised, would have to remain over-involved in the life of the child.”

Watters notes that “[e]xcess criticism and hostility toward the growing child also interfere with healthy adaptive growth, making it difficult for the child to feel good about himself. Negative attitudes toward the self . . . are actually favored by Christian doctrine [and] lead naturally to negative attitudes toward others."

(ibid., pp. 140-41, 145-46)
_____


Booth likewise illustrates the plight of women in double-minded, schizophrenic-like religious belief systems, where they "are particularly vulnerable to . . . behaviors [of religious addiction] because of the secondary roles into which they are cast. For women with a Christian background, religion has given a definite message concerning their conduct:

"'. . . [W]omen should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet women will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.' (1 Tim. 2:9-15)

"'Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be subject in everything to their husbands.' (Eph. 5:22-25)

"These verses," writes Booth, "have been the basis for the religious abuse of the female population. They help make women susceptible to becoming both addicted and abused. When religion is used as an external means of identity, of finding self-respect, these verses can become the standard against which women measure themselves. The woman who has been abused, who is seeking to purify herself or attain perfection, has only to adhere to this code to assure herself of salvation. This is how women use religion as a fantasy means to compensate for their secondary status--by becoming exemplary models of that role."

"At the same time, these texts set up a rebelliousness, an internal conflict that causes some female religious addicts to become abusive and sexually conflicted. . . .

"Just as often, the same verses . . . are used to justify sexual abusiveness [by men]. The idea of women as examples of submissive purity and sanctity sets up powerful conflicts in men, which have contributed to sexual double standards and abuse. Even today, the myth persists that there are sexual acts that men should not perform with wives, but rather mistresses. Another myth holds that women should remain sexually inexperienced, but that men should know what they're doing. . . . The conflicts produced by such mixed messages no doubt add to the range and sense of guilt felt by many religious addicts."

(Chapter 4, "Religious Addiction: A Family Disease," pp. 108-09)
_____


*Religious Belief and the Inability to Forge Meaningful Human Inter-Connectedness

A “major affective disorder” that Watters causally associates with Christian doctrine and liturgy is the actual “discoura [ment] [of] the kind of human-to-human communication and negotiation skills that make for genuinely supportive human networks, the phenomenon of 'Christian fellowship' notwithstanding.” As an example, he points to “[the] beesch[ing] of [lonely] listeners to 'come unto Jesus Christ,' thereby reinforcing the barriers that separate lonely people from their fellow human beings, [which are the] very barriers that Christianity has helped to erect.”

(Chapter 8, "Christianity and Major Psychiatric Illness," p. 147)
_____


*Religious Belief and Depression

Another major mental illness that Watters blames on Christian contribution is depression:

“If an individual has grown up with poor human relationship skills, his or her human support systems may not be very effective, in which case full-blown clinical depression may emerge. This illness may show varying degrees of intensity and require a variety of psychiatric treatments; when it reaches the degree of intensity requiring mood-altering medication, we consider that we are then dealing with a major affective illness. The main classification system used today is BIPOLAR DISORDER (in which the mood disturbance is alternately one of mania and depeession) and UNIPOLAR DISORDER (in which the mood is only one of depression).”

(original emphasis)

Watters blames Christianity for contributing to the affective illness of depression through a combination of “personality factors, early maternal deprivation, loss of human supports associated with incomplete mourning, stressful life events that exceed the coping capacity of the individual and learned helplessness,” together with “low self-esteem, strong super-ego, clinging and dependent interpersonal relations, and limited capacity for mature and enduring object relations.”

Watters notes that all of these “are inevitable products of the Christian belief system, one that preaches self-abasement as a means of ingratiating oneself with the deity, that discourages ego growth and inner-directedness and promotes super-ego growth and outer-directedness with its reliance on external authority. The dependent, clinging relationship Christians are encouraged to develop with their God quite naturally becomes the paradigm for their relationships with each other in the absence of any training in how to make adult human relationships work.”

(ibid, pp. 147-48)
_____


*Religious Belief and Maternal Deprivation

“Maternal deprivation,” as a contributing factor to mental illness generated by unhealthy religious influence, is, as Watters writes, “largely a direct result of the authoritarian pronatalist sex code operating in our society, which promotes the idea that motherhood is the only legitimate role for real women and which has encouraged women, even those who genuinely wanted children, to have more of them then they can care for emotionally or economically. Paul stated the childbirth was the only way in which women could be forgiven for the sins of Eve. By continuing to make it difficult for women and men to become knowledgeable about their sexuality, by continuing to resist the establishment of contraceptive and abortion services, many Christian denominations continue to contribute to unwanted pregnancies and maternal deprivation.”

Watters emphasizes that “[b]eing a competent mother is an adult activity and women can give OF themselves TO their babies only if they have been able to give TO themselves without feeling guilt. A Christian society that promotes suffering as good for the soul, while it discourages adult self-esteem and human inter-dependency, is hardly an environment for encouraging women to develop their full potential as human beings; and if a woman has been socialized to ignore her own needs, how can she be expected to be sensitive to the needs of her infant?”

(ibid., pp. 148-49, original emphasis)
_____


*Religious Belief and Unhealthy Mourning

In addition, Watters writes that the Christian practice of mourning losses is likewise conducive to the development of a depressive mental state:

“. . . [I]t is not the loss itself that appears to play an etiological role in depression but rather the way the loss is mourned. Christian attitudes toward death discourage healthy mourning in many ways, starting with the destructive impact of the resurrection myth. Since Jesus promised Christians a life after death, much of the message of 'comfort' delivered at Christian funerals is geared to a denial of the very existence and permanence of death. . . . The essential Christian denial of death is illustrated in the famous hymn, 'Abide with Me;' here we find the words 'Where is death's sting? Where, grave, the victory? I triumph still, if thou abide with me.'"

By contrast, Watters notes that “[h]ealthy mourning occurs when the bereaved is able to experience and express the full range of painful feelings mobilized by the loss of a loved one.” Unfortunately, as he reports, “Christian doctrine and practice encourage people to deal with such emergency emotions by beseeching 'God' to take the painful feelings away, thereby making it difficult for human supports to sustain the mourner through these difficult times. It is often said at Christian funerals that 'the widow was a real brick,' or 'he held up so well during it all.' Denial of emergency emotions of all kinds is really encouraged in Christianity.”

(ibid., p. 149)
_____


*Religious Belief and the Inability to Cope with Anxiety

Watters points to religious belief as contributing to debilitating mental illness in failing to offer healthy, self-aware mechanisms for dealing with stressed-caused anxiety:

“Christian doctrine and liturgy . . . discourage the development of adult coping behaviors and the human-to-human relationship skills that enable people to cope in an adaptive way with anxiety generated by stress.”

As Watters notes, Christian teaching and practice require that “adaptational challenges associated with anxiety are not to be resolved by using ones human support system to help develop a higher level of coping skills. Such feelings should be suppressed or denied. One Christian psychologist, John A. Hammes, put it bluntly: 'Not only should needless anxiety be avoided. Other unhealthy emotional responses should be resisted This means avoiding anger, hate, jealousy, envy, bitterness, and depression . . . . For the Christian, however, indulgence in such moods indicates a lack of trust in divine providence.'

"If such denial is impossible, the anxious Christian is encouraged to regress to a dependent symbiotic state with the great anthropomorphized unknown and unknowable. A prayer in the Anglican prayer book titled, 'For Those in Anxiety,' teaches this message specifically. . . . [T]he prayer does not ask God to help the anxious and distressed to maximize their human support systems in order that they might bear their own burdens and learn and grow thereby. It says nothing about asking God to enlighten the anxious and distressed as to the sources of their suffering, and to enhance their problem-solving skills by tackling those problems that can be solved. It says nothing about asking God to help the anxious and distressed develop confidence in themselves; rather, it urges the supplicant not to make the effort, but rather to 'put our whole trust and confidence' in God.”

(Chapter 4, “Dependency, Interdependence, and Self-Actualization,” pp. 61-62; and Chapter 9, "Christianity and Major Psychiatric Illness,” p. 149)

Which leads to the next religion-exacerbated mental affliction.
_____


*Religious Belief and Learned Helplessness

Watters compares and contrasts a healthy human-centered attitude toward individual self-confidence and ability, against the Christian lack of one:

“It is . . . generally accepted that children who, from an early age, live in a human environment that encourages them to develop mastery of their intra- and inter-personal environments, as well as the physical environment, are likely to develop a sense of competence and ultimately sound mental health. They are the adults who are more likely to cope with loss by allowing the mourning process to go forward naturally and to adapt well to challenges and cope with stress by use of their human support systems. These individuals are less likely to become depressed, having grown up with a life-long sense of their own personal worth and competence, and an ability to trust in the human beings they cherish.

“By contrast, children who grow up influenced by Christian teachings develop a sense of powerlessness in the world, rather than a feeling of competence and mastery, together with an inability to trust in the human support systems around them. It is logical that such individuals are more likely to grow up with a tendency to develop 'clinical' depression when faced with loss or stress.

“Christian doctrine,” Watters summarizes,. “promotes human helplessness by making it a virtue, indeed the 'sine qua non' of a good Christian life. Paul said, 'For when I am weak, then I am strong.' (2 Cor. 12:10) A perusal of a common Anglican hymn book today will convince one that this is not simply an outmoded notion pushed by Paul, but is one constantly reinforced: 'Stand up! Stand up for Jesus! Stand in his strength alone; the arm of flesh will fail you; you dare not trust your own;' and 'Jesus Savior, pilot me over life's tempestuous seas.' It is important to note that these lines explicitly discourage the development of personal mastery, warning that 'the arm of flesh will fail you.' They do not implore Jesus to help one find strength in oneself and human support systems to sail over 'life's tempestuous sea.' In order for a growing child not to be damaged by repeated exposure to such message, he would have to be blessed with a considerably high level of innate adaptive capacity and with a familial and social environment that was able to neutralize the destructive impact of these messages.”

(Chapter 8, “Christianity and Major Psychiatric Illness,” pp. 149-50)
_____


*Religious Belief and Co-dependency

Booth defines "co-dependency" using terminology from Robert Subby's book, "Co-dependency: An Emerging Issue," as "an emotional, psychological and behavioral condition that develops as a result of an individual's prolonged exposure to, and practice of, a set of oppressive rules--rules which prevent the open expression of feeling as well as the direct discussion of personal and interpersonal problems."

Booth explains that "[i]n religious co-dependency, the family members either take on the belief system that the addicts bring into the home or resign themselves to putting up with it, living in martyred victimhood. They may also rebel.

"When the family members take on the addict's belief system, they rarely do so out of their own inner convictions. Children who are raised in this kind of religious environment seldom have an opportunity to question those beliefs, especially if they are raised in a home in which doubting and questioning are punishable sins. Because of religious teachings about women being submissive to men, wives usually follow their husband's lead. Either they are not aware of their own needs and beliefs or they set them aside to follow those of the addict. They become as judgmental, dogmatic, rigid, intolerant and perfectionistic as their addicted spouse or parents.

"As a result, they have their own struggles with issues of control, guilt, shame, inadequacy and fear. Religious co-dependents are extremely out of touch with their emotions; they have been conditioned not to think for themselves. They live very narrow, restrictive lives, avoiding people who do not meet their strict standards.

"The families who resign themselves to living with religious addicts are walking pressure-cookers ready to explode. Resentment, fear, rage and anxiety seethe beneath the surface because putting up with the status quo set by the addict entails not rocking the boat. They may attend the same church, swallowing feelings of hypocrisy and anger. Some try to adopt an approach that says do what you want but leave me out of it--co-existing in stoic martyrdom. . . .

"In resigning themselves to the addict's behavior, they become victims, feeling helpless, powerless, confused and frustrated. They may alter between arguing with the religious addict or tuning out by avoiding or ignoring the addict's behavior. The passive-aggressiveness that comes with being a victim may manifest itself in the form of extra-marital affairs, hiding or hoarding money so the addict can't tithe it away or belittling the religious addict to family and friends.

"The families who rebel often have the hardest time. Spouses frequently find themselves pitted against a powerfully united church front. The dissenting spouse is portrayed as sinful and ungodly. Worse, when children are involved, they are often caught in a good parent/evil parent situation, creating great guilt and confusion."

The downwardd spiral of mental illness continues with, as Booth notes, "[d]ysfunction beget[ting] dysfunction.. The religious co-dependent spouse often ends up adopting unhealthy rules of caretaking which include:

--"Peace at any price.

--"Maintain the conspiracy of silence.

--"Never quit.

--"Never discuss feelings.

--"Try to appear normal."

The personal cost to all involved is horrific:

". . . [F]or the religiously addicted family, any failure, imperfection or scandal is seen as a disgrace to God, the church, the ministry or the preacher. The taboos against expression of feelings and the urgent need to look normal make the religiously enmeshed family a breeding ground for the secret addictions of anorexia, bulimia, sexual addictions, compulsive spending, gambling, workaholism. With these come the need for silence, never giving up, never discussing feelings and above all, peace at any price."

(Chapter 4, "Religion Addiction: A Family Disease," pp. 111-14, 120)
_____


--Research Findings on How Religious Belief Contributes to Mental Illness--

In his chapter on “Christianity and Mental Health: The Research Findings,” Watters cites an expansive project conducted by Daniel C. Batson and W. Larry Ventis, “The Religious Experience” (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1982).

Its researchers made a detailed examination of 57 studies correlating “being religious” with characteristics of mental health, racial prejudice and concern for other people. Their conclusion, notes Watters, was that “the means [to an end] orientation to religion had “a rather pervasive negative relationship” to mental health REGARDLESS OF HOW MENTAL HEALTH IS CONCEIVED. “In other words," Watters writes, “people who are religious for short-term social rewards are not very mentally healthy when measured by [the following] characteristics: freedom from worry and guilt, personal competence and control, self-acceptance or self-actualization and open-mindedness and flexibility.”

By contrast, when reviewing “the end orientation to religion,” Watters reports that the two researchers found “it was not a personal competence but a blind reliance on the omniscience and omnipotence of the deity” that gave long-term religious people an increased sense of “personal competence and control” when compared to non-religious people. In other words, notes Watters, “[a]s the authors point[ed] out, the greater [finding of] 'personal competence and control' were based on reliance on God, not on oneself”--meaning, essentially, that it wasn't really personal at all.

The definition for this attitude, Watters states, is religion-manufactured “smugness”:

“[The] combination of apparent freedom from worry or guilt [as detected in the end orientation portion of the examination], combined with an apparent sense of personal competence that is really a reliance on God, coupled with a [lingering] lack of open-mindedness and flexibility is actually a definition of smugness, a quality especially characteristic of the 'born again' Christian.”

Watters quotes Baston and Ventis' conclusion that “[t]he intrinsic end orientation [towards religion] leads to freedom from existential concerns and a sense of competence based on ones connectedness to the Almighty, but at the same time an inflexible bondage to beliefs. In contrast, the quest orientation [toward science and open-mindedness] leads to neither.”

Watters explains the reason for the difference between the two approaches:

“The social desirability factor most certainly operates here . . . Christians are not supposed to feel guilty if the guilt has been washed away by the blood of Jesus, so there is a marked tendency for Christians to deny guilt even when it is clearly operating in their lives and helping to shape their behavior. Many Christians lead restrictive, austere, pleasure-free lives, as a way of minimizing the opportunities for guilt to arise. The more religious the individual, the more guilt is denied, a finding that any sensitive psychotherapist will confirm. Hence Christians, when answering a questionnaire, are likely to show the same degree of denial that they demonstrate in the clinical situation. By contrast, people with a quest orientation to life have no such need to deny any guilt they may feel; it is more acceptable for them to be open and honest.”

The research confirmation, Watters announces, of Christians being guilt-laden underscores the fact that “[t]he price religious people have to pay for the existential nostrums offered by Christianity is to have a straitjacket placed on their human potential.”

“Many Christians,” he continues, "especially those engaged in scientific pursuits, try to deny that this is the case; they even talk about science as being a gift from God to enable humans to conquer the earth and subdue it as the Bible instructs. Some Christians claim to be scientific about some areas of life, but even for them a truly scientific approach to the totality of human existence is impossible; it would be too painful emotionally for them to turn the telescopes and microscopes on the human need for a sustaining deity, and the strategies used by religious institutions to keep that need alive in human beings.”

Watters concludes that the nature of these findings do not bode well for the overall mental health of religious believers:

“The gist of all this is that being religious is quite definitely not associated with greater mental heath when compared to a scientific, questing approach to life. The latter approach's association with more 'worry and guilt' is probably traceable, in large part, to early Christian socialization and a lesser need to deny emergency emotions. But even if this is the case, surely this is a small price to pay for the great 'open-mindedness and flexibility' that characterizes the quest orientation.“

Watters highlights some of the project's other, particularly disturbing findings:

*The More Religious, the More Prejudiced

The Batson-Ventis examination found that, overall, devout Christians demonstrated a noticeable degree of racial prejudice. “Why,” asks Watters, “when Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love, are Christians more intolerant of those who do not have the same skin color? . . . The question may be asked another way: Why are those who have grown beyond the need for the comfort of the Christian religion, or who were minimally exposed to it, more racially tolerant than those who are still believers? Is there something about the doctrine of the Christian church that tends to make people seek and find scapegoats?

“The answer to this question," Watters asserts, “is undoubtedly a resounding yes. An individual burdened with as much guilt as a Christian is encouraged to bear would, if he or she does not become completely psychotic, have to externalize some of the self-hatred which characterizes the true Christian. Scapegoats for that hatred have never been hard to find..”

(Chapter 9, "Christianity and Mental Health: The Research Findings," pp. 156-59, original emphasis)
_____


*No Noticeable Difference in Concern for Others Among Religious Believers and Non-Believers

Watters notes that when studies have been conducted that are designed to filter for “socially desirable” answers (such as one finds in self-reporting questionnaires), “religious people were no more or less helpful than non-religious ones.”

Moreover, from the several studies reviewed by Batson and Ventis, Watters reports that “it appears . . . that Christians can associate themselves with projects that give them a sense of being good Christians, when the helping is not on an interpersonal level and when they are not required to tailor their help to the real needs of a human situation. Otherwise," he observes, “Christians are no more helpful than non-religious people; indeed, if [one of the conducted studies] is measuring a real dimension, Christians are more insensitive since they tailor all their efforts to their need to ingratiate themselves with the deity. . . .

“[As an indicator of this,] [i]n their book, 'The Long Dying of Baby Andrew,' Robert and Peggy Stinson described their experiences with the medical staff with whom they had contact during the tragic circumstances surrounding the birth and eventual death of their premature infant. It was their experience that non-Catholic doctors, especially non-Christian doctors, were more responsive to patients' concerns and feelings than were the strongly Catholic physicians, who insisted on following their own rigid religious program.”

Watters further reports on the telling results of a study patterned after the New Testament parable of the Good Samaritan:

“Theology students were tested to see what determined whether or not they would stop on their way to class to help someone in obvious stress. It turned out that a religious orientation did not seem to determine their behavior. Rather, it was more a question of how rushed students were to get to their class. However, among those who did stop, there was a distinct difference in one aspect of helping behavior between those with [religion as] an end orientation and those with the [scientific] quest orientation. The person taking the role of a sick derelict lying in the doorway of a building was instructed to insist that he could manage on his own and did not need the student to do anything . Those with a quest orientation respected his wishes more than those with an end orientation. The latter appeared to have an internal need to help that overrode their ability to be sensitive to what the other person really needed.”

(ibid., pp. 159-60)
_____


--Final Assessment: Religious Belief Constitutes a Negative Force in Personal Mental Health--

As Watters knits it together:

“It is safe to conclude that committed Christians, when compared to those with a more scientific approach to life, do not fare very well when it comes to mental health, racial prejudice and concern for others.

"On self-report, Christians appear less best with worry and guilty than non-religious people; however, the psychological mechanism of denial and the need to give socially desirable answers may account for the difference.

"They appear to manifest as much personal competence and control as those with a scientific questing orientation; but this, too, is spurious, for it is not a real sense of personal competence but rather a reliance on an omnipotent deity.

"Committed Christians shows more racial prejudice than those with a humanist orientation, while in interpersonal situations they are no more helpful than non-believers. Indeed, Christians may be less so, since that are insensitive to the real needs of the person in distress as they persist in acting according to their Christian belief system.

"Summing up their research, Batson and Ventis conclude: 'This evidence suggests that religion is a negative force in human life, one we would be better off without.'”

(ibid., p. 160)

Watters then adds his own blistering assessment of mental illness-producing religion, followed by his prescription for cure:

“Religions--Christianity most of all--are the enemy of human morality. . . . [M]any of Christianity's doctrinal beliefs work against the development of the full moral potential of human beings. It is ludicrous to believe that men and women can develop into moral beings by manipulating their guilt, treating them like small children, and urging them to be afraid of their natural impulses.

“Those who set themselves up as the deity's interpreters form institutions that develop their own strategies, which are designed to expand and consolidate power over the believer. In the case of Christianity, these god-talking shepherds have been able to convince the sheep that that are innately evil and that 'all good things come from God.' The first step for the pilgrim on the road toward humanism is to understand this, 'the great projection.' The next step is to repudiate the destructive myth of innate evil.

“'It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man,' says Psalm 108, verse 8. . . . [T]his belief, ingrained as it is in the religious consciousness of Western society, has had a devastating impact on inter-personal relationships and human health. The medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, and high-tech medicine are collectively blamed for the high cost of health care, some of which is well-deserved. However, no accusing fingers are ever pointed at the institution that promotes suffering as a valuable strategy, and whose doctrines have been shown to compromise human health in a variety of ways. . . .

“There is an evolutionary process at work here, At one time, a 'man's home was his castle,' and the state had no right to intervene if a man chose to beat his children in obedience to the biblical injunction about sparing the rod and spoiling the child; or if he abused or raped his wife, since she was his property. Now the state takes a radically different view of all such forms of abuse, to the extent that health care professionals can be charged if they fail to report suspected instances of spouse or child abuse. Admittedly, in comparison with physical and sexual abuse, the matter of mental and emotional abuse is proving more difficult for the justice system to deal with; however, there are signs that these forms of maltreatment are gradually acquiring judicial legitimacy. . . .

“Whatever we do, we must ensure that education, not legislation, is the strategy used to effect change. There must be no attempt to use the state to outlaw religion, even if Christianity has no compunction about
using the state to extinguish other faith systems. . . .

“Only if Homo religiosus evolves into Homo sapiens can our species hope to survive. Surely it is time we . . . completed what others started at the time of the Renaissance.”

(Chapter 12, “The Future: Homo Religiousus or Homo Sapiens?,” pp. 191-92)
_____


Booth offers his own recommendations to mental health care professionals for dealing with the debilitations to their patients brought on by abusive religious belief systems.

He urges that those being assisted be encouraged to address "spirituality as being different from religion," with focus placed on the "mental, emotional and physical wellness that promotes healthy spirituality."

He suggests access to "treatment centers [that] combine lectures, medical education, family therapy and recreational therapy as well and individual and group therapy sessions."

He recommends that lecture topics "address all obsessive-compulsive behaviors, INCLUDING RELIGION."

(Appendix 11, "Treatment: A Guide for Professionals," p. 252, emphasis added)
_____


"Including religion."

Indeed.

Which leads to the last, inclusive point: Mormonism is like Christianity.

They both create and foster mental illness.


(**related RfM link: "Kraziness from Kooky Koenig: The Touted Benefits of Religious Belief," at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,912828)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2013 06:50PM by steve benson.

Well, according to the Mayo Clinic, those insane theists are stuck with "greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11761504

And the American Journal of Psychiatry agrees that atheists are more likely to be suicidal: "Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15569904

A Phd in Psychiatry out of UCLA argues that it's actually the atheists who are mentally ill. So perhaps those of you who are deluded into believing religion is a form of mental illness should seek some professional help, eh?

http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Personality-Disorder-Addressing-Distorted/dp/1438992793

No need to reply with the usual invective, Steve. Just sayin you can locate a learned study to support your personal bias on pretty much anything. Can't we all just get along?

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2013 06:57PM by steve benson.

Mayo Clinic: Religious people live longer, are healthier, cope better, have less anxiety, less depression, and fewer suicides.

American Journal of Psychiatry: Non-religious people and their first-degree relatives are significantly more likely to commit suicide than those who endorse religion.

Steve Benson: I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that religion is a form of mental illness.

I withdraw my previous request that you refrain from your usual invective. You actually make more sense when you resort to name calling and personal attacks.

. . . from critical examination of your Christian beliefs and the negative consequences associated with them.

You must think that you and your faith system are somehow unique in deserving a pass from critical thinking and analysis but here's the reality: You aren't--especially since you have gone on this board to strongly criticize Mormon belief and practice, the statements of Glenn Beck and the views of atheists. So much for the sincerity of your plea that "we all just get along." You certainly aren't going out of your way to get along with the groups and individuals mentioned above and yet you want others to lay off your religious belief system?

Who died and made you God? :)



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 08:31PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . from critical examination of your Christian
> beliefs and the negative consequences associated
> with them.

I ask for no special treatment at all. I enjoy a well-reasoned vigorous debate. That was the process that led to much of what I embrace as a theist. But I find you have a tendency to take a certain tack that is fairly predictable, and you often choose to personally attack or be dismissive against anyone who may disagree with you rather than actually engaging them on a truly intellectual level. You've mastered one-liners, but you run pretty shallow on substantive defenses of some topics you champion.

Frequent visitors to the forum will realize that you do extensive research to find sources that support your specific atheist agenda. There's no real fault in that, but it's important to evaluate the quality of your sources. You often fail in that regard.

Remember when you cited Kanazawa's research that atheists are more intelligent than theists? I pointed out to you that Kanazawa has also produced studies showing that black women are less attractive than caucasians, and Africans are less intelligent than other global populations. You demurred a bit after that.

I see that it's been about one year exactly since the last time cited Watters research. You refer to him as a "highly-regarded critic." Will you provide me some of those references for those accolades? I've not been able to find any. And the book is the product of his personal experience, not peer reviewed, not extensively researched. It's one scholar telling us what he thinks.

The problem is that you seem ill equipped to handle any follow up questions about some of the topics you tackle. If you want to demonstrate that religion is a form a mental illness, you need to do more work on your subject beyond citing a couple of very thin sources. You appear to have no response to substantial research that shows the opposite is actually true.

That's why I joked with you about your use of invective. It's what you do. You find no substance whatsoever to a Mayo Clinic study that directly contradicts your hypothesis, but feel you somehow enter this fray by starting an entire thread devoted to attacking me? I could be the devil himself, but if you cannot demonstrate that the Mayo Clinic's study was flawed, you've spent a long time and scattered a lot of words on a completely worthless hypothesis.

So I kidded with you about withholding and then releasing your invective, and you took the bait. But what you failed to do was provide any actual response to my evidence that your post was based upon thinly researched work and has been contradicted by a much more substantial study by the Mayo Clinic.

I realize that personal attacks are very satisfying. As you've noted I've done some of those myself. But I'm not attacking you in this post. I'm demonstrating that you're wrong in your presupposition -- just as I've shown in past posts that you've been wrong.

So, what will it be? Will you provide any specific information to refute the Mayo Clinic study that shows individuals who embrace religion demonstrate generally better life skills (i.e.mental health), or will you jump into some form of personal attack or change the subject into some attack on theism that does nothing to demonstrate you can actually defend the topic you opened with this post?

. . . your religious beliefs to be accepted here in an aura of peaceable-kingdom congeniality. Unfortunately for you, you clearly--and on this board--don't accept the beliefs of Mormonism, the claims of Glenn Beck or the position of atheists. That you have made abundantly clear (and have done so in less than an accepting fashion of views running contrary to your own (I can quote them if you wish).

All that is is fine but you can't bamboozle me with your less-than-specatucular, see-through effort to portray yourself as the Kumabaya Guy 'round these parts.

If you truly believed in your "can't we all just get along," you wouldn't be on this board criticizing those targets of yours I have listed above.

Quit trying to blow smoke, Tall/Short. You don't have to accept the research findings I have offered for my posit that religious belief is a mental illness but spare me the sing-song silliness that you are supposedly here to bring us all together through Rodney King-style outreach.

Your own posts here completely undercut your totally unpersuasive assertion of supposedly striving to "get along." Unlike you, I am not attempting to portray myself as doing something I ain't actually doing.

Just live by your own standard, T/S, and quit being such an unChristian hypocrite.



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 09:26PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . your religious beliefs to be accepted here
> in an aura of peaceable kingdom congeniality,
> when you clearly--on this board-- don't accept the
> beliefs of Mormonism, the claims of Glenn Beck or
> the position of atheists. That you have made
> abundantly clear--which is fine--but you can't
> bamboozlement with your effort to portray yourself
> as the Peace Guy 'round these parts.
>
> If you truly believed in your "can't we all just
> get along," you wouldn't be on this board
> criticizing those targets of yours I have listed
> above.
>
> Quit trying to blow smoke, Tall/Short.
>
> Your own posts here completely undercut your silly
> assertion striving to "get along." Unlike you, I
> am not attempting to portray myself as doing
> something I ain't actually doing.
>
> Just live by your own standard, T/S, and quit
> being such a hypocrite.

Steve, if you'll glance up at the top of the page, you'll see that this topic is titled, "Religion Itself is a Form of Mental Illness . . ."

My request for getting along is asking that you would please pause before posting such amazing drivel that you cannot support. You're entitled to your atheism. But when you post such poorly researched and clearly contradicted topics like this, you're just bearing your testimony.

And is your phrase "amazing drivel that you cannot support" your idea of what it means to "get along"?

You and your "agenda." I've provided citations from peer-reviewed publications for the research I cite. Your religious mindset simply doesn't wish to accept it--which is understandable, since you are wedded to a supernaturalistic belief system that does not come off looking all that great in the research to which I have referred.

Chuckle.

Now, quit lying about wanting to get along and just admit that you're here to conquer your non-Christian enemies with the weight of your mighty logic. You're about as peaceable as a train wreck.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 09:25PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And is your phrase "amazing drivel that you cannot
> support" your idea of what it means to "get
> along"?
>
> You and your "agenda." I've provided citations
> from peer-reviewed publications for the research I
> cite. Your religious mindset simply doesn't wish
> to accept it--which is understandable, since you
> are wedded to a supernaturalistic belief system
> that does not come off looking all that great in
> the research to which I have referred.
>
> Chuckle.
>
> Now, quit lying about wanting to get along and
> just admit that you're here to conquer your
> non-Christian enemies with the weight of your
> mighty logic. You're about as peaceable as a
> train wreck.


It's interesting that in all your bluster, you have yet to respond to the actual substance of my post. Can you take a moment away from your outrage at my posturing and explain why the Mayo Clinic study contradicts your hypothesis?

. . . wanting to get along.

Nailed.

You and your Jesus, that is. :)

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . wanting to get along.
>
> Nailed.
>
> You and your Jesus, that is. :)


Steve, maybe you missed this in my prior post . . .

It's interesting that in all your bluster, you have yet to respond to the actual substance of my post. Can you take a moment away from your outrage at my posturing and explain why the Mayo Clinic study contradicts your hypothesis?

This has been up on RfM for awhile. Perhaps you should read the Bible less and the board more (I suggest that because your Bible verse-by-verse studying certainly hasn't helped you come to self-awareness on your in-name-only "peace-train" hypocrisy).

--Kraziness from Kooky Koenig:The Touted Benefits of Religious Belief--

In a now-closed thread, RfM poster "robertb" suggests examination of a paper that deals with religion and mental health. It is offered as recommended reading in order to counter the premises put forth by professor emeritus of psychiatry at Ontario's McMaster University, Wendell W. Watters, M.D.; namely, that religion--specifically, Christianity--fosters mental disorder and dysfunctionality. (see Watters, "Deadly Doctrine: Health, Illness and Christian God-Talk" [Albany, New York: Prometheus Books, 1992], 198 pp.)

As "robertb" notes about the recommended review:

"In a 2009 study titled 'Research on Religion, Spirituality, and Mental Health: A Review,' Dr. Harold G. Koenig writes:

"'Religious and spiritual factors are increasingly being examined in psychiatric research. Religious beliefs and practices have long been linked to hysteria, neurosis, and psychotic delusions. However, recent studies have identified another side of religion that may serve as a psychological and social resource for coping with stress. After defining the terms religion and spirituality, this paper reviews research on the relation between religion and (or) spirituality, and mental health, focusing on depression, suicide, anxiety, psychosis, and substance abuse. The results of an earlier systematic review are discussed, and more recent studies in the United States, Canada, Europe, and other countries are described. While religious beliefs and practices can represent powerful sources of comfort, hope, and meaning, they are often intricately entangled with neurotic and psychotic disorders, sometimes making it difficult to determine whether they are a resource or a liability." Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):283-291.' . . ."

("Research since Watters' book was written nearly 30 years ago shows a different picture," by "robertb," on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 28 November 2011)


The reference is appreciated and I've, in fact, read the entire paper.

While interesting in proposing that people utilize religion as a mechanism to “cope with stressful health problems and life circumstances” (p. 11), what is not mentioned in your introduction to the paper is Koenig's own admission about the possible consequences of his review.

He confesses, for instance, that “clinical implications” of his paper include the following potential negative:

“Religious beliefs may contribute to mental pathology in some cases.”

Koenig also admits:

“My review of recent studies is selective, not systematic." (p. 1)

Furthermore, although Koenig states that “religious involvement is an important factor that enables [certain] people [such as ‘medical patients, older adults with serious and disabling medical conditions and their caregivers’] to cope with stressful health problems and life circumstances,” he nonetheless concedes that “this may not be true in all populations . . . ." (p. 11)

Where that isn't always true will be dealt with shortly.

To his credit, Koenig acknowledges evidence of bias in studies regularly produced by pro-religion researchers. He notes that, methodologically speaking, analyses of human spirituality have in recent years frequently been tainted by that bias, with the examined areas ”often [being] assessed either in terms of religion or by positive psychological, social, or character states. . . . For example, standard measures of spirituality today contain questions asking about meaning and purpose in life, connections with others, peacefulness, existential well-being and comfort and joy.

"This is problematic, as it assures that spirituality in such studies will be correlated with good mental health. In other words, spirituality--defined as good mental health and positive psychological or social traits--is found to correlate with good mental health. Such research is meaningless and tautological." (p. 2)

Despite his apparent nod to rigorous sciencitific methodology, Koenig remains a big fan of supernaturalism's benefits.

He writes that while “a handful” of systematic studies have reported “negatives associations [between religious involvement and mental health’], the majority [of] quantitative studies prior to the year 2000, based on a systematic review, reported statistically significant positive associations.”

Koenig’s own admittedly selective review of the literature concludes that in areas of what he classifies as negative human behavior, there is a measurable positive association between religious beliefs/practices and mental health:

"Religious involvement is related to better coping with stress and less depression, suicide, anxiety and substance abuse. While religious delusions may be common among people with psychotic disorders, healthy normative religious beliefs and practices appear to be stabilizing and may reduce the tremendous isolation, fear and loss of control that those with psychosis experience." (p. 3)
_____


Koenig then examines five specific areas for evidence of the positive influence of religious belief and practice on negative mental conditions:

--Depression--

Although Koening asserts that non-psychotic religious practices and beliefs have an overall postive affect on reducing depression, he also notes that at least one Canadian study examining the connection between religion involvement and depression found a negative relationship:

“[The researchers] followed teenaged mothers . . . (87% unmarried) before delivery and four weeks after delivery in southwestern Ontario. They examined the relation between religion and depressive symptoms during the first few weeks after babies were born.

“Catholics and teenagers affiliated with more conservative religious groups scored significantly higher on depression and those who attended religious services more frequently also had higher depression scores. However, the highest depression scores were among girls who cohabitated with someone while continuing to attend religious services.” (ibid.)

That last observation is most likely connected to a sense of guilt induced by religious teaching, as will be seen.

Koenig further acknowledges that even in a different study (one which found religious attendance correlated positively with less depression), “participants [who] indicat[ed] that spiritual values were important or perceived themselves as spiritual or religious had higher levels of psychiatric symptoms.” Significantly, Koenig adds that this study was “conducted in largely healthy community-dwelling adults with relatively low stress levels.” (ibid.)

In other words, in locales not typified by high personal stress levels, religious beliefs and practices created high personal stress levels.

Koenig further admits that while “studies in medical patients, older adults with serious and disabling medical conditions, and their caregivers suggest that religious involvement is an important factor that enables such people to cope with stressful health problems and life circumstances, . . . , this may not be true in all populations, as studies of pregnant unmarried teenagers and non-stressed community populations above suggest.” (p. 4)

Adding another factor that religion can't seem to effectively overcome, Koenig also notes that high rates of religion-related depression may be tied to genetic realities:

“Critics say that most studies reporting positive results are observational and that some unmeasured characteristic may be related both to religion and to depression, confounding the relation.

"In particular, genetic factors have been implicated. In a fascinating study that examined the relation of spirituality to brain 5-HT1A binding using positive emission tomography, investigators found that 5-HT1 A binding was lower in people who were more spiritually accepting.

"Note that lower 5-HT1 A binding--the same pattern seen with spirituality--has been found in patients with anxiety and depressive disorders. Thus, rather than being genetically less prone to depression, RS [Religion/Spirituality]-oriented people may be at increased risk for mood disorders based on their 5-HT receptor binding profile.” (ibid.)

Simply put, religion doesn't fool Mother Nature.
_____


--Suicide--

Koenig writes that his study of the relationship between religion involvement and suicide points largely to a positive result:

“Religious involvement may . . . help to prevent suicide by surrounding the person at risk with a caring, supportive community.”

He does acknowledge, however, that some studies found either no association one way or the other bewtween religious involvement and suicide, or produced mixed results. (ibid.)
_____


--Anxiety--

Koenig reports that religious teachings significantly help reduce anxiety.

However (and somewhat ironically), he also reports that anxiety which is produced by religion itself can bring about reduced anxiety by forcing socially acceptable behavior:

“While religious teachings have the potential to exacerbate guilt and fear that reduce quality of life or otherwise interfere with functioning, the anxiety aroused by religious beliefs can prevent behaviors harmful to others and motivate pro-social behaviors.” In a related vein, Koenig also reports that multiple recent studies indicate that “anxiety and (or) fear is a strong motivator of religious activity.” (ibid.)

So, social pressure combined with religious indoctrination can induce fear-driven anxiety which leads individuals to engage in religious activity the reduces their anxiety. A strange way to achieve the desired result.

On the issue of death-related anxiety, Koenig writes that one study found “no linear relations between religiousness, fear of death and fear of dying.” Interestingly enough, he notes, “[s]ubjects with the lowest anxiety levels were those who were either high or low on religiousness.” Those who believed in an afterlife but did not regularly attend religious services were found to be more death-anxious than those who received religious teachings at church. (p. 5)

Meaning, possibly, that the more one is indoctrinated in church settings to accept the myth of immortality, the less one is concerned about dying. (Put another way, burying one's head in the sand about the reality of death's finality might mean less anxieity about being permanently buried).

Koenig admits, however, that not all types of religious friction produces anxiety reduction:

“While positive forms of religious coping may reduce anxiety in highly stressful circumstances, negative forms of religious conflict may exacerbate it. For example, one recent study of women with gynecological cancer found that women who felt that God was punishing them, had deserted them, or did not have the power to make a difference, or felt deserted by their faith community, had significantly higher anxiety. These results persisted after multiple statistical controls, and are consistent with other studies in medical patients.” (p. 5)

In other words, individuals feeling abandoned by God and/or
by God's people as a result of their personal sinful behavior experienced higher anxiety--which is understandable, given the immense guilt trip on which judgmental religious systems send their followers.
_____


--Psychotic Disorders--

Koenig describes the correlation between weird religious delusions and psychotic states:

“Psychiatric patients with psychotic disorders may report bizarre religious delusions, some of which can be difficult to distinguish from so-called normal religious or cultural beliefs. About 25% to 39% of psychotic patients with schizophrenia and 15% to 22% of those with bipolar disorder have religious delusions.”

Koenig then asks:

“Do religious beliefs play a role in the etiology of psychotic disorders or might they adversely affect the course of these disorders or response to treatment? Alternatively, might non-delusional religious beliefs and practices help these patients to cope with psychological and social stresses, thus serving to prevent exacerbations of illness?”

Answering his own question, he declares:

“Unfortunately, there are relatively few studies--particularly from the United States or Canada--that have examined the relation between religion and psychotic symptoms. In an earlier review [conducted by Koenig] of the literature, . . . . [a] mong . . . 10 cross-sectional studies, four found less psychosis or psychotic tendencies among people more religiously involved, three found no association, and two studies reported mixed results.” (p. 5)

4-3-2. Sounds like a fairly tight horse race.

Koenig reports a higher practice of religion among those suffering from depression and schizophrenia:

“The final study, conducted in London, England, found religious beliefs and practices significantly more common among depressed and schizophrenic psychiatric in-patients, compared with orthopedic control subjects.” (p. 5)

Koenig also found that patients suffering from religious delusions suffered more psychotic disorders and that these mental maladies were more severe than those experienced by non-religiously delusional patients:

“Subjects with religious delusions (24%) had more severe symptoms, especially hallucinations and bizarre delusions, poorer functioning, longer duration of illness and were on higher doses of anti-psychotic medication, compared with patients with other kinds of delusions.”

Koenig also reports that culture-based religious teachings can exacerbate psychotic disorders:

“In the largest study to date, 62 investigators compared the delusions of inpatients with schizophrenia in Japan with patients in Austria and in Germany. . . .

"[R]eligious themes of guilt and (or) sin were more common among patients in Austria and Germany than in Japan; whereas delusions of reference (such as being slandered) were more prevalent because of the role shame plays in Japanese culture.” (ibid.)

No surprise there.

Koenig notes the existence of disagreements over the relationship between religious delusions and the presence of psychotic problems, but adds that patients suffering from such delusions had more severe problems:

“While some studies report that patients with schizophrenia and religious delusions have a worse long-term prognosis, others do not. In one of the most detailed studies to date, [researchers] did not find that patients with religious delusions or patients who described themselves as religious responded less well to four weeks of treatment than other patients.

"However, patients with religious delusions had more severe illness and greater functional disability than other patients.” (p. 6.)

While Koenig writes that most recent studies have pointed to positive affects on schizophrenic patients who attend church, not all of these patients are shown to benefit from religion as a coping mechanism, with some of them reporting that “religion . . . induced spiritual despair.” (ibid.)

Gimme that old-time despair-inducing religion.
_____


--Substance Abuse--

Koenig reports that, based on studies conducted by others (mostly of high school and college students), “90% . . . found significantly less substance use and abuse among the more religious.”

Koenig also cites a subsequent study from Columbia University that found the following negativer results among examined adults who did not place a high value on religion:

“Adults who did not consider religion very important were 50% more likely to use alcohol and cigarettes, three times more likely to binge-drink, four times more likely to use illicit drugs other than marijuana and six times more likely to use marijuana, compared with adults who strongly believed that religion is important. The same pattern was seen for religious attendance and an even more pronounced inverse relation between religion and substance abuse was evident in teenagers.

"In addition, people who both received professional treatment and attended spirituality-based support programs (such as 'Alcoholics Anonymous' or 'Narcotics Anonymous') were far more likely to remain sober than if they received only professional treatment.” (p. 6)

Still, Koenig reports that substance abuse (as well as heart problems) can be heightened by strict religious treatment that induces guilt, shame and isolation:

“While religious influences on substance abuse appear to be generally positive, this is not always the case. When people from religious traditions that promote complete abstinence start using alcohol or drugs, substance use can become severe and recalcitrant. Those people may completely withdraw from religious involvement, resulting in social isolation and worsening mental health owing to feelings of guilt and shame. Further, religious traditions that advocate complete abstinence from alcohol may deprive members of cardiovascular benefits of moderate, controlled drinking.” (p. 7)
_____


--Koenig’s Summary and Conclusions--

Religious practice and belief, Koenig writes, is not necessarily a benefit to the mentally ill, the emotionally troubled or the situationally challenged; to the contrary, he acknowledges that they can actually be harmful:

“Many people suffering from the pain of mental illness, emotional problems or situational difficulties seek refuge in religion for comfort, hope and meaning. While some are helped, not all such people are completely relieved of their mental distress or destructive behavioral tendencies.

"Thus it should not be surprising that psychiatrists will often encounter patients who display unhealthy forms of [religious] involvement. In other instances, especially in the emotionally vulnerable, religious beliefs and doctrines may reinforce neurotic tendencies, enhance fears or guilt and restrict life rather than enhance it. In such cases, religious beliefs may be used in primitive and defensive ways to avoid making necessary life changes.” (p. 7)

Koenig also concludes, on a conditional happer note, that “religious involvement is related to better coping with stress and less depression, suicide, anxiety and substance abuse," while admitting that “religious delusions may be common among people with psychotic disorders.”

Nonetheless, he ultimately argues that “healthy normative religious beliefs and practices appear to be stabilizing and may reduce the tremendous isolation, fear, and loss of control that those with psychosis experience.” (ibid.)

Which begs the question: Are the religious beliefs and practices of Mormonism or Christianity healthy? I’m with Watters on that one: No.

(see: "Mormonism, Mental Illness and Other Similarly-Rooted Religious Manifestiaons of Dysfunction and Disorder," by Steve Benson, on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 28 November 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,352408,352408#msg-352408)
____


--Revews from His Professional Colleagues: Koenig's “Research” on "Intercessory Prayer" Doesn't Have Much of a Prayer--

While some may enthusiastically embrace Dr. Harold G. Koenig and his penchant for the religiously ridiculous, that faithful fervor is not shared by colleagues in fields of rigorous discipline who value sound science over the silly supernatural.

Indeed, according to some of his peers, Koenig is something of a religious quack.

To be sure, Koenig has detractors in the halls of empirical investigation, as evidenced in the article, “Faith Healing: Can Prayer Do Anything More Than Make You Feel Better?”

Hard-science professionals concluded that Koening's prayers didn't, well, have a prayer:

“Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of Duke University’s Center for the Study of Religion/Spirituality and Health, has spent his entire professional life looking at how spirituality affects a person’s physical well-being. . . .

“Koenig is the author of ‘The Healing Power of Faith,’ . . . , a compilation of scientific studies that examine the impact of religious belief on physical and mental health. ‘These studies are inexplicable within the realm of science,’ he says. ‘There’s no traditional scientific mechanism in action, and scientists have a problem with that.’

“Dr. Stephen Barrett has a big, big problem with that. ‘This study is a well-designed waste of time,’ says Barrett, board chairman of the health fraud watchdog organization ‘Quackwatch.’ ( http://www.quackwatch.com/ ) ‘You can’t generate magical forces with magical thinking. It’s absurd.’"


The matter at the heart of the contention:

“A massive study published in the October 25 [1999] issue of the ‘Archives of Internal Medicine’ (a journal of the American Medical Association) showed that heart patients who had someone praying for them suffered fewer complications than other patients.

“Researchers at the Mid-America Heart Institute of St. Luke’s Hospital in Kansas City studied 990 patients admitted to the institute’s coronary care unit in a one-year period. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. One group was prayed for daily by community volunteers--intercessors--and the other patients had nobody assigned to pray for them. The intercessors were given the patients’ first names and were asked to pray daily for 'a speedy recovery with no complications.' It was a blind trial: None of the patients knew they were involved in a study.

“The researchers, led by Dr. William Harris, created an itemized score-sheet to measure what happened to both groups of patients and after four weeks there was a striking result: The prayed-for patients had suffered 10 percent fewer complications, ranging from chest pain to full-blown cardiac arrest. The study concludes, ‘This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care.’"

“ . . . Barrett dismisses the entire study as a roll of the dice. Though the 10% difference may seem like divine intervention, he says the study has no clinical significance. ‘What it reflects is a lucky hit,’ he says. ‘A chance phenomenon.’

“The researchers acknowledge an element of chance in their study--as well as an element of distortion, since patients in the control group most likely had friends and family praying for them, too. Harris writes, ‘It is probable that many if not most patients in both groups were already receiving intercessory and/or direct prayer from friends, family and clergy.'

“There’s no telling, in other words, how much ‘supplementary prayer’ went unaccounted for. Which raises another devilish question from Barrett: What if someone out there was praying for one of the sick patients to get worse? Wouldn’t that skew the results?

“’What if you pray against somebody?,’ Barrett says. ‘Can that do harm? Is health determined by who prays harder?’ . . .

“More fuel for Barrett’s fire: ‘I would be appalled if the government or any research foundation funded this. I wouldn’t want my tax dollars going to support it,’ he says. ‘You’re much better off spending research time and money on activities that might yield practical results.’”

(Jon Bowen, “Faith Healing: Can Prayer Do Anything More Than Make You Feel Better?,” under “Health,” in “Salon” magazine, 3 November 1999, at: http://www.salon.com/1999/11/03/prayer/singleton/)


When confronted with scientific evidence that undermined his belief in the magical, Koenig predictably fell back on an old religionist defense.

Science, he claimed, "is not designed to study the supernatural.”

That’s assuming, of course, that the subject being studied is actually supernatural. (So much for expunging that pro-religious bias Koenig supposedly opposes).

Specifically, a prayer study (for which Koenig played booster but in which he didn't actually participate) was eventually scientifically analyzed.

The result didn't turn out good for God.

From the article, “Power of Prayer Flunks an Unusual Test”:

“In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

“Researchers emphasized that their work can't address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said.

“They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them.

“Critics said the question of God's reaction to prayers simply can't be explored by scientific study.

“The work, which followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centers, was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into science and religion. It will appear in the ‘American Heart Journal.’

“Dr. Herbert Benson [no relation] of Harvard Medical School and other scientists tested the effect of having three Christian groups pray for particular patients, starting the night before surgery and continuing for two weeks. The volunteers prayed for 'a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications' for specific patients, for whom they were given the first name and first initial of the last name.

“The patients, meanwhile, were split into three groups of about 600 apiece: those who knew they were being prayed for, those who were prayed for but only knew it was a possibility and those who weren't prayed for but were told it was a possibility.

“The researchers didn't ask patients or their families and friends to alter any plans they had for prayer, saying such a step would have been unethical and impractical.

“The study looked for any complications within 30 days of the surgery.

"Results showed no effect of prayer on complication-free recovery. But 59% of the patients who knew they were being prayed for developed a complication, versus 52% of those who were told it was just a possibility.”

Enter Koenig to try to explain it away:

“Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the Duke University Medical Center, who didn't take part in the study, said the results didn't surprise him.

"’There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no real theological grounds to expect a result either,’ he said. "There is no god in either the Christian, Jewish or Moslem scriptures that can be constrained to the point that they can be predicted."

“Within the Christian tradition, God would be expected to be concerned with a person's eternal salvation, he said, and ‘why would God change his plans for a particular person just because they're in a research study?’"

Why would he, indeed? Koenig throws in the towel, while throwing his support behind that religious bias he supposedly bemoans:

“Science, he said, ‘is not designed to study the supernatural.’”

(“Power of Prayer Flunks Unusual Test: Large Study Had Christians Pray for Heart Patients,” by “Associated Press,” 30 March 2006, at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/ns/health-heart_health/t/power-prayer-flunks-unusual-test/#.TtR6f0axjqI)


Mind you, this is the same fellow who wants to be taken seriously when touting the supposedly overwhelming mental health benefits of religion but who can't explain why God demonstrably doesn't answer scientifically-scrutinized prayers of the faithful--unless you buy his supernaturalistic spin that God's too busy focusing on eternally saving you and therefore can't be bothered with your measly prayers offered heavenward in some research study.

So much for God paying attention to every sparrow that falls.
_____


--Further Proof that Koenig's Claimed "Scientific" Approach. to Research Fails the Empirical Test--

Keep in mind how Koenig gives lip service to objective research but when scientifically disproven in his attempts to defend the nutty notion that intercessory prayer works, invokes the supernatural:

First, the "balanced" Koening:

Koenig acknowledges evidence of bias in studies regularly produced by pro-religion researchers. He notes that, methodologically speaking, analyses of human spirituality have in recent years frequently been tainted by that bias, with the examined areas ”often [being] assessed either in terms of religion or by positive psychological, social, or character states. . . . For example, standard measures of spirituality today contain questions asking about meaning and purpose in life, connections with others, peacefulness, existential well-being and comfort and joy.

"This is problematic, as it assures that spirituality in such studies will be correlated with good mental health. In other words, spirituality--defined as good mental health and positive psychological or social traits--is found to correlate with good mental health. Such research is meaningless and tautological." (p. 2)

Now the clearly unbalanced Koening:

“Science, he said, ‘is not designed to study the supernatural.’”

“Within the Christian tradition, God would be expected to be concerned with a person's eternal salvation, he said, and ‘why would God change his plans for a particular person just because they're in a research study?’"

Geezus.

Below are specific--and serious--objections raised by the professionally-credentialed class to Koening's tendency toward sloppiness:

**“Dr Nazar Mansour, SPR Old Age Psychiatry. NHS:

“The author [Koenig] highlights many aspects of understanding patients' religious beliefs with which I totally agree. However, it seems he has underestimated the influence of experience in psychiatric management. The statistical findings presented were the result of surveys which can never replace high quality evidence-based research or well designed qualitative studies. Psychiatrists in the UK have been under enormous strain to maintain a fine balance between legal and clinical responsibilities. The results of the author's suggestions are not measurable and could raise a variety of medico-legal issues. For example; how to decide which patients should be involved with their psychiatrists for joint prayer? I believe, this could be dangerous ground upon which to tread. Religion is a personal activity and psychiatrists could explore the interface between religious beliefs and psychopathology. But, they should definitely not cross sensitive boundaries. ... less

“Submit response
Published June 16, 2008”


**”Religion, Psychiatry and Professional Boundaries.

“Rob Poole, Consultant Psychiatrist Robert Higgo, Gill Strong, Gordon Kennedy, Sue Ruben, Richard Barnes, Peter Lepping, Paul Mitchell North East Wales NHS Trust:

“We were alarmed to read the editorial on religion and mental health (Koenig, 2008). Some of the assertions are highly contentious, and we believe some of the recommendations for clinical practice are inappropriate. The invited commentary by the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (Hollins, 2008) is cautious, but nonetheless seems to endorse Koenig’s point of view. In doing so, she lends a certain credibility to Koenig’s recommendations. Closer integration of religion and psychiatric practice is a key aspiration of an element within the Spirituality and Psychiatry Special Interest Group of the College. We believe that there is an urgent need for a serious debate on the implications of such attempts to shift the boundaries of psychiatry and the other mental health professions.

“Koenig uses some statistics that are questionable. For example, the World Chrisitian Database may say that 1.4% of the British population are atheist, but the British Humanist Association website cites recent figures from the National Census, a Home Office survey and a MORI poll ranging from 15.5% to 36%. However, it is his fundamental argument that is seriously flawed.

“Koenig uses the rhetorical ploy of suggesting that religion is denigrated and under attack by psychiatrists. He states that psychiatry has traditionally regarded religion and spirituality as intrinsically pathological. We have been involved in mental health care in the UK since 1978, and none of us has ever known this to be suggested by a mental health professional. He states that there is wide spread psychiatric prejudice against religious faith and that psychiatrists commonly do not understand the role of religion in patients’ lives. However, the research that he cites can be interpreted as suggesting that psychiatrists, by and large, believe that religion can be both helpful and problematic to patients and that they enquire about religious matters when these are relevant. As the salience of religious issues will vary between patients, this seems to us to be the appropriate approach.

“Our major concern about Koenig’s paper is his suggestions for practice. No one could seriously challenge some of his assertions, for example that we should always respect people’s religious or spiritual beliefs and that we should some times make referrals to or consult with appropriate priests or religious elders. However, these are well established parts of routine practice. They are within the limits of existing codes of professional behaviour. Some of his other suggestions constitute serious breaches of professional boundaries, for example:

“1. Psychiatrists should routinely take a detailed ‘spiritual history’, even from non-believers. He recommends that when patients resist this, the clinician should return to the task later. This seems to us to be intrusive and excessive. The insistence that even non-believers have a spiritual life shows a lack of respect for those who find meaning within beliefs that reject the transcendent and the supernatural.

“2. Some spiritual or religious beliefs should be supported and others challenged. This involves the application of the clinician’s values, which is incompatible with the maintenance of an appropriate degree of therapeutic neutrality. It is unnecessary and inappropriate for clinicians to take a position on highly sensitive matters of personal conviction, such as the existence and nature of evil, the meaning of unanswered prayer and doctrinal intolerance of homosexuality.

“3. It is sometimes appropriate to pray with patients. Even when patient and psychiatrist share a faith, the introduction of a completely non- clinical activity carries a grave danger of blurring of therapeutic boundaries and creates ambiguity over the nature of the relationship.

“We have personal experience of dealing with the adverse consequences of religious breaches of therapeutic boundaries. For the most part, these have been well intentioned but ill advised; for example, patients who want to pray with psychiatrists at one point in their treatment can become persistently distressed over having done so when their mental state changes. We have encountered more worrying breaches of boundaries where clinicians have proselytised in the consulting room. Occasionally we have encountered frankly narcissistic practice, where clinicians have been emboldened by the certainties of a charismatic faith and take the position that their personal beliefs and practices cannot be challenged because they are supported by a higher authority than secular professional ethics.

“The problem with blurring the boundaries, by inviting an apparently benign spirituality into the consulting room, is that it makes it more difficult to prevent these abuses. Having moved the old boundary it is then very difficult to set a new one.

“Psychiatrists will always have to understand patients who are different to them in gender, class, ethnicity, politics and religious faith. Understanding patient’s lives, the contexts they exist in and the resources that give them strength is a key skill in psychiatric practice (Poole and Higgo, 2006). Religion can be an important source of comfort and healing, though it can also be a source of distress. Of course, it can be intertwined with psychotic symptoms. Spiritual matters, however, exist in a different domain from psychiatric practice. There are others in our communities who have a proper role in helping patients spiritually and who can be an important source of advice to us. Quite apart from the obvious dangers inherent in confusing these roles, it is completely unnecessary to do so.

“Psychiatry has done much to improve the lot of people with mental illness, though it has also been guilty of some major historical errors. Our professional roles and professionalism are under sustained attack from a variety of sources (Poole and Bhugra, 2008). In order to resist these attacks, we need to be clear about our important and distinctive roles in helping people with mental illness. Psychiatrists are essentially applied biopsychosocial scientists, who work within a clear set of humanitarian values and ethical principles, in order to get alongside patients and facilitate their recovery from mental illness. Psychiatry does not hold all the answers, and other professions, agencies and individuals have different distinctive roles. Within psychiatry, we have to struggle with the internal threat of crude biological reductionism. Equally, if we break the boundaries of our legitimate expertise and become generic healers, we will have lost all usefulness and legitimacy.

}Declaration of interest

}The authors have a range of personal convictions, including atheist, Buddhist, Methodist, Roman Catholic and non-denominational faith.

“References

“Hollins S (2008) ‘Understanding religious beliefs is our business. Invited commentary on….Religion and mental health’, Psychiatric Bulletin, 32, 204.

“Koenig HG (2008) ‘Religion and mental health; what should psychiatrists do?’ Psychiatric Bulletin, 32, 201-203.

“Poole R, Bhugra, D (2008) ‘Should psychiatry exist?’ International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 54 (3), 195-196.

Poole R, Higgo, R (2006) ‘Psychiatric interviewing and assessment’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

“Submit response
Published June 26, 2008”


**”Psychiatrists and Role of Religion in Mental Health

“Imran Mushtaq,MRCPCH,MRCPsych, Associate Specialist-Child & Adolescent Psychiatrist Mohammad Adnan Hafeez, MRCPsych, Forensic Psychiatrist Sp-CAHMS, Eaglestone Centre, Standing Way, Milton Keynes MK 6 5AZ

“Koenig’s message (Psychiatric Bulletin, June 2008, 32, 201-203) is very clear for psychiatrists that they should respect patients' religious beliefs and a sensible way to address this is through time investment in taking a spiritual history, respecting and supporting patients' beliefs. Challenging beliefs and referrals to clergy should be welcomed but praying with patients is highly controversial and should be treated with caution.
“There is a fine line between religiosity and religious conviction becoming a part of a complex delusional system. In clinical experience some patients are not religious prior to the onset of their mental illness. For such patients, becoming religious may be indicative of a relapse of their mental illness.

“Religion and psychiatry are usually considered as two totally different ways of healing. A number of UK, USA and Canadian studies confirm that psychiatrists are less likely to be religious in general, and are more likely to consider themselves spiritual but not religious. Religious physicians are less willing than non religious physicians to refer patients to psychiatrists (Curlin et al, 2007a). The Australian experience is not different either (D’Souza et al, 2006).

“References:

“CURLIN, F. A., ODELL, S.V., LAWRENCE, R. E., et al (2007a) The relationship between psychiatry and religion among US physicians. Psychiatric Services, 58, 1193 –1198.

“D'Souza et al (2006) Spirituality, religion and psychiatry: its application to clinical practice. Australasian Psychiatry, Volume 14, Number 4, 408-412(5).

Authors:

“Imran Mushtaq, MRCPCH, MRCPsych, Associate Specialist-Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, Sp-CAHMS, Eaglestone Centre, Standing Way, Milton Keynes MK 6 5AZ

“Mohammad Adnan Hafeez, MRCPsych, Forensic Psychiatrist Edenfield Centre, Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Trust Bury New Road Prestwich M25 3BL

“Declaration of Interests: None declared.

“Submit response
Published June 26, 2008”


**” The Neglect of the Non-Believer

“Peter Lepping, Consultant Psychiatrist/Associate Medical Director/Honorary Senior Lecturer
North East Wales NHS Trust/University of Wales Correspondence in Response to the Recent Article on religion and mental health (Koenig, 2008).

“I was amazed and alarmed to read Koenig’s article on religion and mental health and the president’s lukewarm support of the article as it presents no scientific evidence that any of the suggested working practices improve patient care. The few figures it uses are not supported by other studies. Koenig claims that only 1.4% of the British population are atheists. His source is the World Christian Database, hardly an unbiased source of information. This low level has no face validity to anyone working in this country. A recent study (Huber & Klein, 2008) funded by the conservative Bertelsmann Institute looked at religious beliefs in 18 countries (8 of them European) across the developed and the developing world. It used a very broad definition of religion and spirituality focussing on Pollack’s work on the belief in the transcendence as the core of substantial spirituality (Pollack, 2000). In other words, it looks for the belief in something spiritual that may or may not be related to formal religion. They professionally polled tens of thousands of people in the 18 countries making it by far the largest and most comprehensive study into the subject so far.

“Their findings confirms Britain to be amongst the least spiritual countries amongst the 18 examined across a wide range of factors including prayer, church attendance, personal religious experience, religious reflection, pantheistic influence etc. It finds that across European Christians more than 10% of those who formally belong to a church do not believe in anything spiritual at all. This makes census data potentially quite unreliable when it comes to assessing people’s real religious believes. In Britain 19% of those polled were classed to be highly religious, 43% as religious, 38% as non-religious using a broad definition of spirituality. 55% of Britons consider prayer to be non-significant for their lives and only 33% have personal religious experiences.

“Far from religion being pervasive throughout the majority of society, in Britain at least the opposite seems to be the case. Moreover, there is already a well organised provision of support for people who follow organised religion in all hospitals with easy access to religious elders and prayer rooms. However, no provision exists for non-believers who look at questions of meaning of life and morality in a non-spiritual way. It is that group that is disadvantaged rather than those who follow organised religion. It follows that rather than insisting on getting a “spiritual history” of each patient we should show respect to those who can discuss meaning of life without spirituality and find solution to identify and facilitate their needs in an increasingly secular society.

“Yours sincerely

“Dr P Lepping, MRCPsych, MSc

“References

“HUBER S & KLEIN C (2008): http://www.bertelsmann- stiftung.de/bst/de/media/xcms_bst_dms_23399_23400_2.pdf

“KOENIG HG (2008), religion and mental health: what should psychiatrists do? Psychiatric Bulletin, 32, 201-203

“POLLACK D (2000), What is religion? In Waltraud Schreiber (ed.), The religious dimension in history lessons in European schools: an interdisciplinary research project, p.55-81, Neuried: ars una (in German)

“Submit response
Published June 26, 2008”

(“Thank you for validating my point." citations posted by "jacob," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 29 November 2011)

*****


--Summing Up Koenig's Fundy-Mental Problem--

As RfM poster “OnceMore” succinctly observes:

“Koenig edged toward conducting real science based on real research, then he stepped back and indulged in confirmation bias instead.

“He is misusing his education and his position of authority.

“In reading his work, you can feel the strain. He wants to include enough objectivity to earn the respect of non-religious peers, but at the same time, he feels obliged to put his thumb on the scale in judging the effects of religion.

“You can see that thumb. You can feel it.

“I feel sorry for him. He can't quite allow himself to be completely ethical and logical. He has to weight the scale. But he does have a working brain, so he lets a few facts past the filter.

“I would not be surprised to find that he is an example of anxiety caused by the strain of constantly working to fit reality into his confirmation bias.

“You are right of course that it is absurd. Here are some responses to the report that you pointed me to.”

(“Re: (cont., Part 2) Koenig the Seminarian: A Barnstorming Believer Who Wants to Be Taken Scientifically Seriously in His Pitch for the Mental Health Benefits of Supernaturalism,” posted by |"OnceMore,” on “Recpveru from Mormonsm,” bulletin board, 28 November 2011)
Date: November 29, 2011 02:34PM


(**related RfM link: Religion Itself is a Form of Mental Illness," at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,912246)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 09:55PM by steve benson.

I take it you've read and embraced the recent findings published in the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2333165/The-best-way-win-argument-Shout-louder-people-simply-assume-youre-right.html

Can you explain how your attack on Koenig in any way references or impacts the specific findings of Drs. Mueller, Plevak, and Rummans who conducted the Mayo Clinic study? Or do you live in a world where direct hits are gauged by the general direction you aim?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 10:05PM by steve benson.

Re: Nice attempt at dodgeball. I see that you didn't respond to these findings


We finally agree on something.

who practice a "live and let live" attitude toward the beliefs of others. I'm ot so sure what's seriously wrong with what they're doing as long as they're not making it a habit if trying to recruit and if they're either non-judgmental or keep their judgmentalism to themselves.

It gives my wife tremendous pleasure each year to set out, along with the other Christmas decorations, the creche and the manger scene. I don't understand who in the world she could possibly be hurting by doing this, even if you are correct that Christianity is a mental illness.

Each time my wife has another serious episode of illness, my LDS family and my wife's catholic family join together to pray for her. Mental illness or not, I don't see how this harms anyone. If my wife were being denied medical care while everyone prayed for her, it would be a different story.

Well, thank you Steve, for taking my writing seriously enough to quote me. :-)

One of the reasons that I left Catholocism is the habit of intense self-examination that is encouraged in that faith. I didn't feel that it was mentally healthy to be consumed by guilt over every little thing. In that regard, Catholocism appears to be similar to Mormonism.

I also didn't like how women are second-class citizens in the Catholic church. I didn't feel that was helpful in terms of my building a positive self-image. Years later, when I entered an Episcopal cathedral, and saw a woman priest, it rocked my world. For the first time, I could "see myself" as a woman in a position of religious authority and power. Very liberating.

That is not to say that the Catholic church is all negative in terms of maintaining mental health, in my view, it isn't. It's just that for me the negatives outweighed the positives.

Watters feels that religiosity is akin to addiction. While I think some people are addicted to their faith, I think that most aren't. Remember, the indoctrination in most Christian churches is not nearly as intense as in Mormonism. You go for about an hour a week and that's it. No classes nor church jobs, unless you are really, really interested, no Family Home Evening, no daily seminary, no one knocking on your door to share a spiritual message, etc. Most Christians are a whole lot less engaged with their religion. It's a part of their lives, but not the focus of their lives. They have other things to do.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2013 07:26PM by steve benson.

quinlansolo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> religion harms every healthy mind.

This generalization is obviously inaccurate and not scientifically provable.

I don't know if calling it a mental illness is all that helpful. You put labels on stuff and the label can become the cart that drives the horse. For the same reason I don't call Mormonism a cult around believer types (even though it's easy to make a case for it), because it has such a loaded connotation and polarizing effect. I rather keep any dialog moving forward rather than stop it cold.

Religion is also very tribal, so any analysis of it must include a look at it from a sociological standpoint. Many people get sucked into it simply because they are doing the very human things that humans do in a group dynamic situation. We're primates, but we also have instinctive group behaviors like bees and ants.

Also the brain is a mysterious place, and I think we've only scratched the surface thus far. What is and isn't a "mental illness" is a bit murky and will undoubtedly morph over time.

Of course, if you're just preaching to your choir (which, let's face it, is what mostly goes on here), I guess it's not that big of a deal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2013 09:39AM by mrtranquility.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2013 07:28PM by steve benson.

Whether it is or not, I am sure that Pfizer is actively working on a costly daily treatment with extensive side effects for it. I have yet to meet someone who isn't a little nutty in some way, including myself. Maybe our propensity to label everything a mental illness might be getting a little out of hand.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2013 10:07AM by ladell.

You might like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Mental_Illness

I know he worked with Scientology, but I think he has a point.

The commercialization of a therapeutic society, I believe, is well underway.

autonomous...this word stood out in the narrative in an astounding way for me, though, only used once the word reflects a core value lacking in most people's lives. Acting independently and taking the liberty to do so is empowering. IMO people feel the need to comply with groups that doctrinaire with superior authority, especially in the name of god. One looks for justice or equality to be rectified by the group and reconciliation is usually postponed for the afterlife. We need autonomy along with critical thinking to control our own destiny.

Great article... Very thought provoking...but mental illness? I think therefore I am mentally ill.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2013 10:41AM by oldklunker.

A false belief in anything, whether religious or not, does not necessarily mean the individual has a mental illness. Many people with mental illness are religious, but their belief does not necessarily cause the mental illness. The lack of insight into their false belief is called, delusional disorder. Delusional Disorder, by definition, does NOT cause problems with everyday living. When false beliefs do cause problems with everyday living, then you cross into psychotic disorders like schizophrenia.

That being said, I work with mentally ill patients, and religious beliefs can sometimes make therapy very difficult. This happens because there are many different inhumane and illogical doctrines that cause humans to think they are either good or evil in the eyes of some god.

The complete lack of evidence for any doctrine or reality of a god, does not matter to most of the people in the world...therefore, trying to help patients understand that their belief is ridiculous because of the lack evidence, never works. It is very frustrating to say the least!!!!!

I don't think religion is not a form of insanity, check out " TABOO" that's a freaky show.

Hey Steve, I thought you learned your lesson.

You are committing journalistic bias again. We covered this already, the research on this topic is inconclusive and conflicting. True, some mentally ill people are religious, but so are some mentally healthy people. How do you explain mentally healthy people who are also religious?

I think you need to examine why you are so obsessed trying to prove that religion causes or equates to mental illness. The truth is, it doesn't. The causation doesn't exist.

I don't get why you are so obsessed with my views. Maybe because they threaten your beliefs.

You obviously have not learned your lesson: Religion is wacked. :)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 06:55PM by steve benson.

There are some very distressing things about being a sentient entity. You get to imagine your own death, know it is a certainty, and constantly wonder what it all means and what it's all about.

This is so unsettling that apparently the best way to deal with it is to make stuff up, then pretend to believe it.

That's where religion came from. There's as easier way, but not satisfying to many... Just admit we don't know. Works for me.

I was thinking about writing in disagreement just so I could get one of Steve's witty one liners.

I hesitate to call Religion a form of mental illness, I am inclined to say that it is an outlet for the mentally ill. To me the question is; can someone who is not mentally ill also be a religionist, I think the answer is yes.

However, there are some fucking nutty religions.

I've thought this through a little more and have something to add.Too often Religion sets itself up as a cure for so many real issues that the damage to personal mental health is far greater than its contribution to a functioning society. I am in the camp that Religion does more harm than it does good.

If Religion were to adopt the motto Primum Non Nocere than I would revisit the idea. Until then my position is religion hurts more than it helps.

Call in the sacred cows.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 07:22PM by steve benson.

Oh my gosh, when you get going, you keep on going! I can see and agree with alot of the idea about religion being a "problem". I don't think I'd say it is a mental illness. In some cases, it is. We've seen some very sick people use religion in ways that are very destructive, and to some degree or another religion is harmful. And sometimes helpful, but on the whole, I think we'd be better off without religion. Not without our own beliefs and hopes, but without the idea that someone else can tell us the un-knowable, and help us return to "heaven", for a small fee!

In a sense organized religion is poisining the minds of potential young "converts" by the weird ideas that they hold onto. I listen to the comments by people here and the story tends to be the same...I was a Mormon, tried to live it, had problems, didn't believe everything, didn't like this or that, then I discovered this or that historical/doctrinal problem(s) and left. Now I don't believe anything it's all crap.

It's all crap. And that is too bad, IMO. Yes, Baptists are weird, Catholics are fu%^ed up also, Islam is obviously a problem. So there isn't alot that looks like its worth the time looking into. And that is a false conclusion, IMO. A journey to find the "truth" is NOT hopeless. You'll still be left holding a smaller bag of faith, but you'll also have a bag of some answers and some proof...

. . . take it seriously since you have now posted at least three times on the subject (in two different threads)--and in your latest contribution have gotten to the point of punctuating your thoughts with exclamation marks.

Wow.

On top of that, you are expanding on the discussion and getting yourself into it deepr by adding actual thoughts to your original blow-off.

I knew it. This is not merely entertainment for you; otherwise you wouldn't be getting yourself so argumentatively involved as you are.

Do continue. :)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 06:55PM by steve benson.