Is pre-occupation of religion a neurotic behavior?

[2Dbunk]

Not being a trained psychologist ( I did have 3 or 4 credits of psychology in college which makes me a pseudo-expert), I have only myself as an observed case.


I was obsessive compulsive until I was 25. I suffered "bi-polar" disorder thru my early twenties. I considered suicide on numerous occasions, attempting it twice (my mother -- also bi-polar -- succeeded in doing it at the age of 67). Happiness was a rare blip on an otherwise low flat line ordinate. But I made it into college, "you think too much," as my fellow Marine reservists diagnosed.


There's no mystery why I took that course in psychology -- I wanted to figure myself out. And it helped to get me headed in a more positive direction, taking advantage of the thinking of the mentalist sages. It took another half-dozen years to shake off my mind's cobwebs, but when I did, voila I began to see clearly for the first time.


Before that time, I was as religious as they came. But no matter how hard I prayed, nothing came of it. I began to see the folly of it all in my reading of world history and biographies of famous people. Eventually, 51 years ago, I took my examination for professional certification and as a test I vowed not to pray for it but to study my arse off. I passed the examination on the first try -- and I've never looked back. Today, unhappiness to me is a rare low blip on a flat-line of high-ordinate value.


So in my early years, neuroticism kept me from seeing through the fog produced by religion. Or was it that religion kept me from seeing through the fog of my neuroticism? Which is it?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 38 by Realworldjack]

Disciplining your children by causing harm is now well understood to both fit the definition of abuse and be bad for the children. It is now understood to encourage violent behaviour for all parties and even other children who witness it. It is not incorrect to say that the Biblical mandates to use physical force on children is a request for parents to be abusive. There are Christians who recognise that this interpretation is not good and seek to demonstrate a more moral and constructive environment for children, see here

I agree that not only religious parents victimise children. I disagree that non-religious parents are more likely to do so. Do you have any sources? I would expect it to be like most other things, a pretty even spread between religious and non-religious.

After reading the article that you have supplied, you do understand that you are making my point, right?

In other words, "Jagella" is attempting to make the argument that Christianity is to blame for the abuse he allegedly experienced, and you have just demonstrated that Christianity would not be responsible, since the Bible never says a word about physical discipline.

Disciplining your children by causing harm is now well understood to both fit the definition of abuse and be bad for the children. It is now understood to encourage violent behaviour for all parties and even other children who witness it.

Who exactly is this understood by? I certainly will not attempt to argue that this sort of discipline is a good thing, because all I would have to go by is my own experience, and I can tell you I endured some very violent spankings, and I will assure you it kept me from making the same mistake twice. I cannot imagine where I would be without the threat of this sort of thing in my childhood.

It is not incorrect to say that the Biblical mandates to use physical force on children is a request for parents to be abusive.

Well again, it would be absolutely incorrect if the article you supplied is correct.

I disagree that non-religious parents are more likely to do so.

I did not in any way mean to suggest, "that non-religious parents are more likely to do so." Rather, I was simply pointing out the fact that, "Jagella" would be absolutely incorrect to say, "Children can only be victimized by parents who love an imaginary god more than their children and who blindly obey those who claim to speak for that imaginary god."

Next, when we consider all of the child abuse all over the world, and not simply by parents, there would indeed be far more abuse going on by those who would have no consideration for the Biblical instructions cited here, then those who would.

We need to stay focused on the fact that the Bible is being held accountable for the abuse of children, and you have supplied an article which would exonerate the Bible from even mentioning physical discipline, much less abuse.

I would expect it to be like most other things, a pretty even spread between religious and non-religious.

Again, let's be clear here. We are not comparing "religious, as opposed to non-religious." Rather, we are talking strictly about Christianity, since it is Christianity which is said to be guilty.

With that being the case, do you really need to have any sources in order to determine that there would be far less children being abused by Christians, than there would be by those who would not be Christians?

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 40 by Realworldjack]

The article I supplied is a more modern interpretation that is more so in line with current child psychology. There are other interpretations and a history of thought that go against the website I cited, specifically saying the Bible calls for corporal punishment for children; See:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/corporal_punishment
http://holinessadvocate.com/2016/09/04/ ... e-teaches/

You can speak of your own experiences and how beneficial you feel they were but this is simply not in line with modern child psychology which advises that violence used on children begets more violence, no matter how deserved it may be considered to be by the parents. This form of discipline has been recognised to not be a good method to raise children. Feel free to read more here.

Yes, I agree with you over Jagella's statement, I'm sorry if that was unclear.

You stated " I certainly hope you understand that there would be far more children who are abused by those who have no belief in god, than those who do."

I took this to mean those who are not religious. Please correct me if my understanding is mistaken.

So to clarify, The Bible can be interpreted both ways, that corporal punishment should and shouldn't be used on children and there are a large amount of people that believe it both ways and others again that don't think of religion when disciplining their children with or without violence. I don't imagine any religion or lack thereof has terribly different statistics regarding abusive behaviour towards children or even others.

[Jagella]

Could you please explain how in the world the phrase, "do not spare the rod" would translate into anyone's mind to be a command for, "child abuse?"

Tragically, Proverbs 13:24 has been used for centuries as a reason to beat kids with objects like sticks and belts. Christian beliefs are violent and prescribe violence; this cruel violence has so often been inflicted on innocent and defenseless people including adults as well as children.

So while you seem to think this sort of discipline would be abuse, there are millions, upon millions of folks who experienced this sort of discipline, and are thankful for it.

I don't know where you live, but here in America child abuse has been outlawed and that includes hitting kids. So those Christians "not sparing the rod" can now be imprisoned for exercising their Christian beliefs.

There are children, everywhere, all over the world who are being abused, and it would be from those who have no consideration for any sort of god.

I did some searching, and I couldn't find anything about atheists beating their kids. Even if there is such evidence, it would be irrelevant to the issue of Christian child abuse. Besides, you are equivocating "beliefs" for "believers." I'm not arguing that Christians abuse their kids but that some Christians abuse their kids as a result of their Christian beliefs.

...your theory that, "children can only be victimized by parents who love an imaginary god more than their children" is now proven to be false...

You misunderstand what I said. I meant that if parents love an imaginary god more than their kids, then those parents may abuse or neglect their kids if they believe that god requires it. Andrea Yates is a real-life example of a Christian who murdered her children as a result of her belief in the Christian god.

Note that I'm not saying Yates merely being a Christian caused her to drown her kids but that her following her Christian beliefs caused her to drown them.

...it would be a fact, that FAR, FAR, more children are abused by parents who have no care about any sort of god, than those who believe in god.

Do you have any evidence for this claim, or are you making it up? Again, any alleged abuse on the part of atheists is irrelevant because that abuse in no way frees Christianity from guilt for child abuse.

Well, I guess my parents did ignore this passage, in that they never used a "rod" because they used a leather belt. However, it was only used when it was clear that I had blatantly decided to ignore all other instruction, and although I was always angry about it at the time, I cannot imagine what I would have become without this sort of discipline?

Have you beat any kids with a belt? If not, then you don't practice what you preach. If yes, then please supply with me all the pertinent information, and I will contact the authorities.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by 2Dbunk]

I am in complete agreement with you about organized religion. Being “born again� was usually a concept of Baptist or Southern Baptist or some other organized fundamentalist religion.

The 'born again' idea was resurrected in these modern times, where traditional Christians/Christianity had long established its representative rituals and the notion of being born again had lost any significance.
As the traditional religions of Christendom lost their hold on folk and new denominations popped up like mushrooms, and scanned the bible text, grabbing hold of one theme or another - the idea of being born again found a voice in some of those denominations and grew in popularity... and became a part of ritual in those establishments.

My own understanding of being born again is to unlearn the previous things that I had been taught in order to shape me through the traditional social processes.

I gather you are born again in the spirit of your Lord but with no affiliation with any organized sect?. I can see why you’ve been relieved of peer pressure to march to that (those) certain dogmatic drummer(s).

Yes - it was important to the process of being born again that I considered Jesus as 'Lord' and 'Master' for the purpose of focus on something other than the blind obedience to the peer pressure of those institutional norms which - up until that time - had been shaping me as an individual...and not just the religious institutional norms...

That is an interesting admission, that you are no longer affiliated with any organized religion. You are now one of the un-affiliated just like Jag and I am. We no longer count in those two population reports I cited in my last post (at least as Christians). We are of the “unaffiliated� group which is expected to decrease percentage wise in the next thirty years -- bummer.

Unlike both you and Jag, I am a Theist - in the sense that I recognize GOD exists.

But you claim, contrary to Jag and I, a seemingly mechanical answer to your psyche's demand for solace. Hypnosis seems viable, but a Ouija board -- ysssh. Not to say that Jag and I received solace in the same manner -- probably not because of differing environments.

Your own expression above allows me to see that your own studies to do with self help through deep introspection allows for one (hypnosis) but not the other (ideomotor effect) but you provide no immediate reason for this attitude against it.
I would hazard a guess that this attitude has something to do with how the popular interpretation of use of such device has developed?

My own use of that device allowed for me to set aside the things I had been taught about that, as part of the process of being born again. In that, I soon enough learned that the popular social use of the device, was actually abuse. Tools are best used for their purpose and deep introspection (to do with healing the psyche) cannot be undergone if the user is simply looking for cheap and shallow entertainment.

And I did not turn to atheism upon my epiphany but rather agnosticism (I use the term atheism to tell fundamentalists which side of the fence I would come down on if they called me a fence-rider).

Whereas anyone who calls me a 'fence-rider' would be seen by me for who they are and not paid attention to, to that point where I change to suit their agenda. The pressure to conform to social norms has been unlearned.

As you well know, agnosticism (and atheism) are not religions but are merely conditions of unbelief of any religion.

Again, these are common social interpretations (norms) which shape us but are still questionable.
As an agnostic, I do not hold that all religions are without their truth. As a Panentheist, I regard all religions as have some truth which is worth paying attention to.

That in itself does not make me religious or a considered member of any religion.

So I didn't turn to anything, but dropped the baggage and proceeded on with the rest of my life.

Tarot is about the central figure - The Fool - and the imagery of that has the individual carrying a certain amount of the tried and true. One does not simply 'drop all' but rather one tests all and drops that which has proved to be worthless. I have not dropped GOD, only worthless notions of GOD.

Isn't getting beyond neurosis the dropping of accumulated defense mechanisms built up over many years of trying to cope?

Have I been arguing any differently?

[Mithrae]

That was an article summarizing a range of studies; but yes, religion can certainly have negative impacts on the mental health of current or former adherents too. The thing is that I'd be inclined to suspect that one of if not the strongest selective pressures operating on the memetics of religion - particularly in modern secular countries - is how well they meet adherents' needs for meaning, satisfaction, happiness and purpose in their lives. What would keep people going to their church or mosque if it's not improving their lives somehow? Family/social pressure is certainly a factor particularly in smaller/rural or intensely religious areas, but even then if the local variety of religion wasn't working out well for the community there'd be some reason to expect the community as a whole to drift towards a more positive interpretation or expression of their faith.

In an increasingly urbanized, mobile and interconnected world as a whole, more and more people are increasingly confronted with a variety of options, and its no secret that religions themselves tend to change over time: These two facts suggest that more often than not in the past decades or even centuries, the people who choose or stick with some particular variety of religion or other are doing so because it benefits them, not because it harms them. So while it may be the case that even the 'best' varieties of religion will not be suited to the personalities and needs of all people and thus potentially a negative experience or influence for some adherents, there's good reason to suppose that many of the more mainstream varieties of religious expression in modern secular countries are likely to have a positive effect on adherents' wellbeing, on balance.

I think what this overlooks the power many religions have in the minds of their followers. The ultimate danger a person could face would be the threat of eternal suffering. Those religions that rely on such a threat don't need to provide a positive effect for its followers presently. They promise a better future for those who follow its dictates. People who believe in an afterlife will endure mistreatment now in order to attain a more positive afterlife.

That's a powerful factor sustaining some religious beliefs, yes, but it doesn't prevent incremental improvements. Even those few who do believe in an eternal lake of fire can decide (over time as communities if not as individuals) that the terms of 'salvation' and what constitutes 'sin' are different than what they'd previously assumed, so even if that type of afterlife belief itself remains harmful to their mental health their religion can still improve in other areas and perhaps even provide a net benefit in spite of that big negative. Furthermore such a belief does not figure at all in some of the world's major religions, and even in Christianity it's quite possibly a minority view; many if not most Christians hold a range of views such as annihilationism, that 'hell' is separation from God rather than literal physical torment and/or the possibility of redemption even after death. It's worth noting that the biggest reason for the existence of afterlife beliefs in the first place is as a form of wish fulfillment of our desire for justice and closure, that the good be rewarded and the bad punished as a counterbalance to the perceived injustices of this world and (especially) that we'll see our loved ones again in the afterlife. While the most extreme afterlife beliefs may be psychologically damaging, odds are that the more moderate ones are generally more comforting than harmful regardless of whether or not they're true.

Again from your link:

• Wilkinson and Coleman (2009) did compare coping between matched older age groups of strong religious believers against strong atheistic believers. Their results found equal positive adjustment (physical and psychological) among both groups.
  
  This suggests that a well-formed belief system (in either direction toward the belief in God) is likely linked with better psychological and physical outcomes. Taken with the prior research in religious struggles, this implies that conflicted or uncertain beliefs can lead to psychological and physical vulnerabilities.

That's something that's long bothered me about the atheist-theist confrontation, presumably because my own abrupt loss of faith was so turbulent for me. Atheism, and particularly the increasingly popular (or at least increasingly vocal) trend of weak atheism, does not even offer a strong alternative metaphysical belief, let alone a belief system encompassing existential and moral needs or anything to replace the community aspect of religious affiliation. I've often noted that if someone is inclined towards a radical or fundamentalist religious mindset, odds are that convincing them their religion is untrue isn't going to 'fix' them, it'll just lead them towards a radical political or social or anti-religious ideology instead. And what's particularly troubling is that the ideology that we are most consistently bombarded with from near 24/7 advertising utilizing increasingly-sophisticated psychological techniques are the extrinsic values of material consumerism; always buy more, always own more, always be conscious of how you look and what kind of status you're projecting and above all never, ever be satisfied with what you've got!

By contrast, the less confrontational approach of highlighting and exploring more reasonable ways of thinking about a religion seems to be a productive rather than destructive way to discuss the subject; acknowledging the good (or potential good) that religion has provided and continues to provide for many, many people whilst still addressing the bad. Religion may not be for everyone - I myself am not religious, after all - but I don't really think we've got anything else that might serve as an adequate replacement.

The main point I am trying to make is that it is unquestionable that religion can and in some cases does cause mental destress and even mental health issues. This is not to deny that it can provide and in some cases does provide benefits. To say it is always detrimental goes too far. To say it is never detrimental would require outright denial of facts.

Yes, religion can and in many cases does cause psychological harm and mental health issues. But I think the evidence suggests that on balance the effects of religion - "particularly when imbedded within a long-standing, well-integrated faith tradition" - lean pretty heavily towards the positive side; and plenty of reason to expect and hope that mainstream varieties will continue to evolve even more positively along with society. A "life extension of an average of seven years for those engaged in religious activities" is really quite astonishing, if true!


#####
#####

[Replying to Mithrae]

That phrase 'religious struggles' really catches my eye: Isn't that exactly what folk are potentially inducing by trying to get religious believers to doubt or deny their deepest beliefs? Or more to the point, trying to get religious believers to doubt or deny their deepest beliefs without offering anything substantial to replace or fill that void?

Why do adherents of a certain (destructive) religion have to replace it with another potentially mind-boggling religion? all one has to do is drop it -- look around and smell the flowers; get on with one's life; scuttle the notion that belief in any fantasy will carry you through to death. To do so is a waste of precious lifetime.

But if one is content with their religion, then by all means, they should ignore the above apostasy. The "void" isn't for everyone, and I'm sure their deep faith will get them over what I have written.

The evidence seems to suggest that well-chosen religious beliefs and practice are anything but a waste of time. Again, a "life extension of an average of seven years for those engaged in religious activities" from Tcg's earlier link is really quite astonishing, if true!

But as I also quoted in my post, it seems that "a well-formed belief system (in either direction toward the belief in God) is likely linked with better psychological and physical outcomes" and "conflicted or uncertain beliefs can lead to psychological and physical vulnerabilities." This suggests that a purely contrarian approach of attacking religious beliefs rather than promoting a coherent alternative system is likely to be purely destructive rather than constructive - if and to what extent it has any success, that is. In particular 'weak atheism' is quite explicit in its definition of offering no positive content whatsoever, yet seems to be a very common or vocal presence in these debates.

As you note, it's quite possible that views with more depth behind them won't be particularly challenged by mere contrarianism. But it seems broadly in line with the thread topic to note not only that religion likely has on balance positive mental health effects, but also that lacking a strong belief system to ground one's moral, existential and social orientations may well have net negative impacts on mental health. One needn't turn to a religion to fill that role - secular humanism and/or socio-political ideologies such as environmentalism, global justice and so on are possible alternatives, even if not as deep or broad in scope as religions tend to be - but insofar as discussions on this forum go we really don't see much justification offered for those in contrast to religion and in fact the most common line of attack against religions, the demand for a particular threshold of verifiable evidence, would probably scupper those other ideologies at least as well!

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 40 by Realworldjack]

Next, when we consider all of the child abuse all over the world, and not simply by parents, there would indeed be far more abuse going on by those who would have no consideration for the Biblical instructions cited here, then those who would.

The last sentence above seems to forget the Catholic Clergy Holocaust (google ABOVE AND BEYOND HYOCRISY) of abusing young children in the church (and in the name of the "One true Church." Lest we forget, this scandal is rolling across America, exposing diocese after diocese to this day and probably will continue until all dioceses are accounted for.


And this isn't just lay parents, but those INSTRUCTED in Church law and with the "Word of God!"

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 40 by Realworldjack]

Next, when we consider all of the child abuse all over the world, and not simply by parents, there would indeed be far more abuse going on by those who would have no consideration for the Biblical instructions cited here, then those who would.

The last sentence above seems to forget the Catholic Clergy Holocaust (google ABOVE AND BEYOND HYOCRISY) of abusing young children in the church (and in the name of the "One true Church." Lest we forget, this scandal is rolling across America, exposing diocese after diocese to this day and probably will continue until all dioceses are accounted for.


And this isn't just lay parents, but those INSTRUCTED in Church law and with the "Word of God!"

Additionally, the Catholic Church is not the only religious group guilty of child sexual abuse and cover-up:

• From the article titled, The Privilege of Predators: Church Sexual Abuse And Society’s Deference to Religion:
  
  What is even more disturbing is that this isn’t a problem exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church. Other Christian denominations, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Evangelicals, and Presbyterians have had their own scandals and allegations of cover ups. And this is by no means limited to Christianity. Trials are ongoing in the United Kingdom regarding ‘grooming gangs,’ and the role of Islamic fundamentalism in them, and there are reports of significant underreporting of child sex abuse in American Orthodox Jewish communities.
  
  Later in the article
  
  And not only does the religious dynamic provide opportunities for abusers, the privileged position our society grants to religion enables the cover-ups of these predators. Some states grant the same privilege to conversations with religious officials as they do to conversations with therapists and spouses.
  
  https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/the-p ... predators/

Tcg

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 46 by Tcg]

The Catholic church introduces some additional risk factors for abuse such as its much more explicit pretense of infallibility standing in the way of accountability and improvement, the power and temptation dynamics introduced by the confessional process, and the additional stress (or selection) factors of denying its priests any acceptable sexual outlet. But more broadly sexual abuse seems to be more prevalent in any institutions with explicit power disparities and limited transparency/set apart from general society. The military is a good secular example with numerous cases of abuse and apparent systemic failures to deal with them, likewise for prison systems. I've looked (albeit briefly) and been unable to find any comparative information on prevalence of sexual abuse in the military vs. churches; I suspect that it would be higher in the church because power disparities will always be greater when there's children involved, but perhaps not as much more common as folk might assume from the media coverage. The historical lack of transparency in many church institutions is a problem of course, but it's not a uniquely religious phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination. There's nothing in general Christian doctrine which encourages sexual abuse - quite the opposite - which suggests that the issues are structural or institutional rather than a fault of religion itself.

[Jagella]

And this isn't just lay parents, but those INSTRUCTED in Church law and with the "Word of God!"

Knowing Jack, he'll argue that those priests misinterpreted or ignored the Bible and what it says Jesus taught. To do so is a common apologetic. I must wonder how and why so many people just don't get how Jesus taught love and goodness and end up hurting people. If I taught love only to have my students abuse their kids, then I'd change what I'm teaching them realizing that I'm not getting my message through.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 45 by 2Dbunk]

Here's a great video, Janet Heimlich on Religious Child Maltreatment at Atheists United on this tragic subject.

[youtube][/youtube]