I keep getting asked, So Do You Believe in God?
So do you believe in God?
As a therapist working to help people recover from the damage of religion, I get this frequently. So I’ve decided to make a better effort to reply. To be honest, I don’t like the question because it presumes we know what those words mean. Here are some responses, touching on more or less serious aspects of the topic.
1. Which god? Do you mean Zeus, Baal, Athena, Shiva, Allah, Jehovah, or some other? If you mean one of those, then no. I am not a theist. I don’t believe in an individual being that created and now controls the world.
2. What is belief? Is it a cognitive conclusion that I have reached basic on logical consideration of evidence? That would assume I have access to all the information, and I do not. Is it an emotional feeling for something beyond myself? Well, my emotions vary, and some days are hopeful, other days are dark. Emotions are a rocky basis for “belief.” Do I make a leap of faith, not knowing anything really, but simply wanting to “believe,” and putting stock in a “scripture” to give it support? This is also difficult because knowing about the origins of “scripture,” I know the complexity; they were not simply dictated. Also, the strength of my blind faith can also vary and I’m not sure how completely I am supposed to convince myself in order to say I “believe.”
3. The concept of “God” usually meant by this question is some sort of being that exists “out there.” The god of the Bible is very separate, superior to humans, but anthropomorphic in many ways. Other gods are also considered “out there” and have controlling powers we do not have. A more New Age notion of god includes “the divine” in all of us, and still involves the notion of “spirit” infusing people. There is an assumption in most approaches to spirituality of a kind of “force,” which can be called by different names, but which is a thing in a universe of other things. As such, I do not resonate with this idea of “god” as an entity.
4. If I must use the concept at all, I would equate it with the “nature of being.” This is close to “ground of being,” a phrase coined by John Robinson many years ago in Honest to God. For me it involves a perception of existence grounded in the profound science of modern physics. Most ordinary people do not know much about this. Yet, we now know from findings in both relativity theory and quantum physics, that the universe is much more strange and incredible than we ever realized. It calls for massive humility because there are things no one understands, yet we now have good reason to question all of our basic assumptions about “reality.” The difference is bigger than finding out the world is not flat. We have evidence for questioning our ideas about matter, linear time, cause and effect, and more. String theorists agree there are eleven dimensions. Yet the general population operates all day every day assuming things that are completely out of date. The knowledge has not reached the masses. This is akin to having everyone act as if the earth is still flat. The issues are intensely profound, with implications for everything we do. The big words for me are “mystery” and “possibility.” Feelings are humility, awe, and excitement. There is no religious description of “god” that matches the grandeur of the universe as it is – elusive, ever-changing, impossibly mind-boggling. And this includes us. We are part of the fabric; there is no separation. If this is believing in god, then by all means, a hundred times YES! But I’m still not drawn to the language.
A couple of quotes that I find consistent with this:
“How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant’? Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.”`
-Carl Sagan
“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
-Albert Einstein
5. Dispensing with the “god” word, it makes a little more sense for me to address “spirituality,” although this word has often meant a focus on other-worldly things. I prefer to describe spirituality as a way of living which is here-and-now. These are attributes rather than a definition. They involve feelings and perceptions and experiences which depend on openness. This openness can be chosen and developed. Rather than escaping into a different realm, I think of spirituality in terms of how we live our lives – the choices, the consciousness, the texture of daily life. There are several aspects of this:
Accord. This is the experience of feeling attuned with the rest of existence - a feeling of belonging on earth, being a part of the rest of nature, and in harmony with everything around. When you are in accord, you move along with the vast river of evolutionary change, feeling connected in a fundamental way with the harmony and power of the whole. You feel as though you are tapping into a rich resource that is beyond you, much larger than yourself. Your inner spring of god-within connects with the vastness of god-beyond, a "deeper power" rather than "higher power," a subterranean aquifer connecting all of life. This produces a sense of trust and safety, a knowledge that you fit, that you have a place.
Awareness. With awareness you are alive and awake, fully experiencing life. This means being totally grounded in the here and now. Your sensory experiences are vivid, and you notice what is happening when it is happening, both around and inside you. You do not reject uncomfortable experiences or deny pain; you are open and embracing of all that life has to offer. This makes it possible for you to enjoy things more intensely and to learn from difficulties. You are not trying to be on some other plane of existence, but are willing and happy to be here now, like a curious child.
Growth. Growth is a natural process. You are not static or inert; you are a changing, growing being. And your experiences can propel you to develop further. As a plant needs the attention of water and food to grow, you need to attend to your needs and consciously make opportunities to learn and change. This aspect of spirituality is active, complementing the more receptive elements of accord and awareness. As humans we are granted the exciting option of making conscious loyal commitments to move in positive directions. Learning will often occur anyway, as a neglected plant will often survive, but informed with a sense of accord and awareness, you can take action on your own spiritual behalf.
Transcendence. There are moments of awe for us in life, those times of being overwhelmed with wonder at beauty, or love, or natural power. At these moments you get clues about the immensity of the cosmos, like pinpricks in the veil around your limited consciousness. You are humbled and thrilled as you gaze at a sunset or a torrential waterfall. A moment of pure love can be ecstatic. Let your vision extend into the night sky, and you may experience a blissful dissolving of your individual ego. Not needing to understand or control, you can experience a sense of total Mystery. These moments are gifts that reflect your spiritual capacity, gifts that become more available as you open to your sense of the ultimate. This is not ultimate in the sense of above or better, but simply beyond your usual mode of consciousness. These are moments of realization knowing that the sense you have of “god” within is not only in contact with but one and the same as the transcendent “god”-beyond. You are a wave in the ocean, individual in a sense but also part of something much bigger – the immensely huge and powerful ocean of existence. You don’t understand and you don’t need to understand. All of this is multiverses away from “believing in God.”
So even though I would have to say I don’t believe in God and I am an atheist in the true definition of the word, ie, not a theist, I obviously feel compelled to question and reclaim the language being used and make this rather inadequate stab at describing my lived experience. It’s a bit defensive and that’s because the stereotype of the cold, shallow, hedonistic, selfish atheist needs to be challenged. In my opinion, it’s all about how we live, and not what we “believe.”
28 comments:
Marlene-
Well put. I especially like your discussion of the aspects of spirituality as a way of living life, of attending to the "texture of daily life", as you described. I found this to be the case for me -- its about how you live, not what you believe. (Once I deconverted, this emphasis Christians place on *belief* began to sound really curious and misplaced. Why is what we believe so much more important than how we live?)
Indeed, it was precisely the fact of my deconversion that allowed me to really see and taste the sweetness of life itself. Its funny, now, as I think back and remember just how scary this was to me at the time -- if there was no God, no afterlife, it seemed as if nothing mattered. Nihilism was a real fear for me. Existentialists call it "finitude" - the fact that our lives are limited, both in time and the success of our aspirations, that our joys are transient, relationships are imperfect and eventually end, etc. is a real issue to be struggled with. But I was surprised (by joy?)to discover that, rather than meaninglessness, exactly the opposite obtained: it is precisely because life is limited, finite, and imperfect that it is so sweet.
Freud called this experience of being a part, immersed, in something larger than oneself the "oceanic feeling." I always liked that phrase. I think that nontheists would do well to capture better the nature of these sorts of experiences -- perhaps a bit more fully, and concretely -- because I suspect that at least one of the emotional obstactles many doubting, questioning believers must overcome in order to really examine their faith (and, perhaps, leave it) is just this issue, that of meaninglessness.
Richard
Thank you, Marlene--for both the time and energy in putting this into words. This is very nearly exactly what I have experienced.
Richard said:
...it is precisely because life is limited, finite, and imperfect that it is so sweet.
Exactly. I have felt that I have been able to accept things as they are, with the attending sweetness and the sorrow. Questions remain, but they are uncomplicated by the perpetual second guessing (with regard to "where is God in this, what is God trying to tell me here") I have lived with for much of my life, accompanied by immense feelings of guilt and fear of not "getting it right."
And I appreciated your question, Richard--why is what we believe so much more important than how we live?
Peace...
Well done Marlene. Aside from the assumption that atheists must be immoral, I am most bothered by the idea that atheists cannot experience the numinous. I find myself echoing Sagan; the universe is so much more awesome and grander when I do not try to pin it on one of man's small gods, but rather allow myself to be swallowed by the immensity and queerness of it all.
Well, I don't know if Marlene will have a minute to drop by and read the replies.
But I'd like to thank her for her book, Leaving the Fold. I don't know what I would have done without that book. I was so lost, confused, and lonely when I decided to leave the faith. The book was a lifesaver.
As for this particular article. Marvelous. That's all I can say. I couldn't agree more.
Even as a theist, I find this to be profound... but maybe my love for physics drew me into that section. Well written, well reasoned, and objectively stated.
:)
Marlene wrote: "For me it involves a perception of existence grounded in the profound science of modern physics. Most ordinary people do not know much about this."
This sounds like the 'god' described in item #3.
People as the sole source of ultimate empowerment? The best of luck with that.
Thanks, MMM
how do you explain the fact that a major portion of shrinks in certain areas, such as transactional analysis (Maslow) now say religion is not negative it is not back it is not pathology,its basically the norm for humans?
I have over 300 studies that prove this and a tongs quote from all manner of social scientists. In fact the Matthews literature search found 2000 articles that don't support religion per se but show it as a major positive for self actualization.
I do not mean to spam your post. In fact I am going to respond in length on my own blog. But I do have one additonal commment here:
"Which god? Do you mean Zeus, Baal, Athena, Shiva, Allah, Jehovah, or some other? If you mean one of those, then no. I am not a theist. I don’t believe in an individual being that created and now controls the world."
Theism does not mean belief in a contingency as God. Christian belief does not posit that God is a little individual with an origin like Zeus. This is a misrepresentation of the Christian position. that's the problem one encounters in going by the bible alone instead of the bible plus the theological tradition as it has evolved over the centuries.
J Hinman has already referred to my question, which is quite genuine Marlene. You say that you are a therapist for those who have suffered from religious trauma but what do you make of the massive (and increasingly clear) indication that religion leads to people being healthier and happier. This doesnt mean its true but for someone basing their career on the harm caused by religion you must have something to say on this issue.
J.L.- At the risk of appearing to speak for her, I dont think Marlene was suggesting that religion, qua religion, is necessarily pathological. I dont find that anywhere in her post. She was focusing on the problems she has with traditonal conceptualizations of God and her alternative to them.
The relationship between religion and mental health is complex and not fully elucidated. It is, at bottom, an empirical question, and our evidence is mixed so far. There is clearly some empirical suggestion that religious affiliation can provide some psychological benefits, and obviously often inspires many people to be better people (at least by their own report). At the same time we cant ignore the evidence of suicide bombers and cults, and it is hard to argue these aspects of religion are not in fact profoundly maladaptive and destructive. (To say they are not "real" religion is, it seems to me, to evade the problem by tinkering with defintions.)
So relax! So no one is saying all religionists are ill or potential terrorists or anything like it. I do think a case can be made that fundamentalism costs individuals (and society) a heavily psychological price that for many is more detrimental than not. Marlene treats people who have paid that price and suffered for it, and surely that influences her perspective. Overall, though, for my part, I think religion is like anything that is powerful in human affairs, like technology, or government, or sex, or (for that matter) fire: it can be positive and used for individual and collective betterment, or it can be destructive and used for ill. Usually, I imagine, it is a mixture of both. It mainly comes down to what it means to you, and what you do with it.
how do you explain the fact that a major portion of shrinks in certain areas, such as transactional analysis (Maslow) now say religion is not negative it is not back it is not pathology,its basically the norm for humans?
I think it is unarguable that religion is the norm; that is, indeed, the only reason it would not be catagorized as a delusion in the DSM-IV. I would also agree that religious participation is often a benefit just like most kinds of social participation. I could also be convinced that religion can facilitate a placebo effect, just like any other placebo.
I have not seen a preponderance of evidence that suggests religious belief itself is a health positive. I could imagine that certain kinds of religious belief has certain positive effects on certain aspects of the human psyche, but I could imagine the same to be equally true of certain secular philosophies. To take your example of Maslow's self-actualization, I could see how belonging to a religious community could aid someone in developing feelings of belonging and possibly peer esteem, but it would make it difficult to embrace reality and facts, and often makes it more difficult to be accepting of others, both common characteristics of self-actualized people.
Theism does not mean belief in a contingency as God.
That's untrue--theism is the belief in the existence of one or more deities, and the Greek Pantheon falls firmly within this definition. Your theology may not believe in such, but others' do. You are not the measure of all things.
This is a lovely post, very eloquent, thoughtful, and moving. Thanks.
Thank-you everyone for your comments. I'm happy to see some familiarity with the work I've been trying to do for some time now. And I'd like to clarify a few things. My focus as a therapist has been to help people heal from the most negative effects of dogmatic, authoritarian religion, and these are people who have already decided to leave. I am not a deprogrammer nor am i interested in arguing the existence of god or the value of religion in general. Someone commented here about the empirical research being mixed, and indeed it is very interesting. Some years ago I read "The Psychology of Adaptation To Absurdity: Tactics of Make-believe," by Seymour Fisher, Rhoda L. Fisher, and Rhoda Fisher, which I highly recommend. The authors expected to find that all types of self-delusion were dysfunctional and that religion was one of the worst systems of delusion. What they found was that we ALL delude ourselves to some degree and that to some extent, it helps us to survive. From other research we know that depressives are actually more accurate in tests of perception.
So can it help to have an adult imaginary friend? Of course. And does it help in this alienated society of ours, to have a social club called church where everybody knows your name? Certainly. "Mental health" is a very slippery concept, and I could write a lot about just that.
But regarding religion, simply believing something and having it make you feel good, doesn't make it true. And if it makes you a better person, that's nice too, but it's not the only way to do that. My longstanding problem with authoritarian religion is that it 1) robs people of their right to think and feel for themselves to the point of causing atrophy of these abilities, and 2) it infringes on the lives of others, at best preventing intimate human connection, and at worst causing violence. I consider it to be child abuse to terrify a small child about hellfire, instill guilt for the bloody death of Jesus on the cross, and create a sense of deep shame about one's essential being. These are effects that can last a lifetime despite intellectual changes. That's why therapy involves much more than rational argument (although it is critical to get new information). Just in case you can't tell by now, I can get pretty heated about the damage done because I frequently talk with people who are in their fifties or sixties, long past the religion of their youth, functioning well in many ways, and still plagued by secret fears that crop up. Many thousands of children in this country were forced to watch "Thief in the Night" about the second coming and then were terrified every time they couldn't find mom around the house. Fear of abandonment - its the deepest fear we humans have.
But back to the experience of the spiritual. I mentioned the texture of life and the dailyness of it - the Buddhist joy of "chop wood, carry water." Another aspect is the immediacy that is possible for our experience. Clients tell me how wonderful it is to simply enjoy something in nature instead of always thinking, "How wonderful what our Creator has made - look at his handiwork." Instead you feel the sun right on your skin or you look right at a seashell. I have a poem from a client who woke up early one morning while she was in this process of letting go of having "god" mediate everything good. She lay on her living room floor listening to the birds outside the window and started to cry - just letting the tears flow as she realized she was hearing the birds sing for the first time. To me that's what it's all about - letting the experience of being alive permeate my being directly. No mediator, no explanation, no purpose. Erich Fromm said the meaning of life was in the living of life. I like to compare it to listening to music. What is the purpose of that? And during the piece, are we troubled by knowing it will end? Does the finiteness take anything at all away from its grandeur? Even "new agers" go on about purpose and meaning and I find it so unnecessary. The meaning of life is living life.
So after a long stint in the cocoon of religion which provided pseudo-solutions for all of life's issues, the recovery involves reclaiming and rebuilding. You still have all the same basic needs, the same existential dilemmas; the difference is that you have to take responsibility like the rest of us and creatively build a life of your own choosing.
We still need community and we need to pull together and have courage - the world is not an easy place; not the "domain of Satan," full of danger and evil at every turn, but enough of a challenge that we need to love each other as much as we can.
Sorry for the long rant, but there you go. I haven't participated here much so maybe I'm making up for lost time. But if you come to a retreat, I promise we will do things and not just talk. :-)
Thank you, Marlene, for the 'rant,' I could see myself in the whole thing. I had shared privately with someone else here how easy it is to still go on some kind of automatic pilot, finding the old phrases come so easily to the mount, the deep fear that can still be triggered by certain things; fortunately I can now let go of these things nearly as soon as they bubble up.
I especially resonate with the living with experiences without having to mediate everything through some idea of God. I still find myself in tears, often in anger, for what seem like wasted years of guilt, self judgment and perpetual second-guessing of my motives in doing almost anything.
One question--you mentioned this problem:
robs people of their right to think and feel for themselves to the point of causing atrophy of these abilities
Do you have any suggestions for re-strengthening or training of these abilities. One of the things I most mourn the loss of is my ability to quickly process things logically. I'm aware that some of this may be age, but I'm sure it's also a result of my own denial of questions, thoughts, ideas, over the years that were in conflict with those folks I respected and loved in my faith community. It's taken me a long time to actually have the courage to trust my judgment. There may not be specific tools out there to help, other than just keep thinking! :-)
Thank you again. Your words have been a tremendous help.
At the risk of getting myself in trouble among people with more solid education in this area than I have, here is my theory on what we try to label 'sprititualism':
we still have layers of brain from our reptilian and early mammal days wrapped inside our human brain. what separates us from other animals? it is the parts of our brain that give us awareness of past and future. from my understanding, other animals live pretty much in the present. primates that develop tools do it in the present to get at the food they are actively seeking, but they do not sit and make tools while they are not hungry. they nap or play while not hungry and build shelter when they need to because it is getting cold or rainy. they live in the present and are operating in reaction to input to their senses now and not based on analyzing the past or planning the future. they operate on 'instict' processing current input.
The times we feel that oneness with nature is when we go back to living that way. We stop thinking of past and stop worrying about future and allow all our senses to wake up and gather data about the world around us and we just experience it and let it flow in. We are essentially in those moments 'regressing' to living 'in the moment' and ignoring our human compulsion to process the past to plan for the future. It is nothing about a soul or a spirit about about the brain being aware in the present to input from all the senses with the 'human' processors turned off.
Hi Marlene - thanks for expanding a bit more on your post.
You wrote in the original post, "it's all about how we live, not about what we "believe"". By faith, I have learned that belief and action can by harmonized.
Sometimes it's difficult to express words that adequately describe my faith in Y'shua. But the post you wrote prompted me to articulate one of the biggest changes that I have experienced and that is of internal orientation and harmony.
One of the names of the Holy Spirit is counselor. What happened to me was that the Spirit enlightened and uncovered an ulterior engine (one might call it a subliminal belief) that was driving my life towards inner perishing. Although I was no longer involved in illegal activities, inwardly I had difficulty feeling secure and confident - I had many intimacy issues. The covert message that was foundational in my life was "I'm an imposition". Although those words were never spoken, whenever I would, as a child, approach authority for help, my needs would be discarded or scoffed at. I would have adult expectations and demands placed upon me, so much so, that Y'shua's words to come to Him as a little child, were not fully understood - childhood was a somewhat dangerous territory to run from - not go to. A God claiming to desire an intimate connection with no ulterior motive other than to "save" seemed offensive, foreign and suspicious.
By faith, I am learning to honor the promptings of a pure and unadulterated loving spirit. My natural inclination towards fighting or distancing in times of trouble is progressively diminishing and being replaced with a more authentic and courageous expression of love.
I am forever grateful to Y'shua for His healing revelation. I am not blind - I am sighted. My beliefs are increasingly expressed in my actions - they are becoming synchronized. I am given permission to be wholly and fully human with God - not something that most people are capable of allowing for others. Y'shua is a courageous lover of people - I don't have to defend Him -just express Him.
I once held Y'shua in contempt, in part, due to the portrayals of those you seek to debunk here. I was more in the habit of stigmatizing or condemning that which I did not understand than drawing close to get acquainted. As for me, what I once held in contempt has been found to be my salvation. The knowledge of internal and proactive peace in the midst of pressures and distress is what I find to be of eternal value. I do believe that the practices and heartfelt values we embrace here will travel beyond the death of our physical bodies - I do believe that the soul to spirit connection is one of ultimate value and pursuit.
Thanks! MMM
"Erich Fromm said the meaning of life was in the living of life..... Even "new agers" go on about purpose and meaning and I find it so unnecessary. The meaning of life is living life. "
This was precisely the conclusion I arrived at during the process of my own deconversion. Im delighted to see it echoed here, and in the Fromm quote. I arrived at it in a ratrher roundabout way, through existentialist philosophy (Im a pretty nerdy guy). I remember especially a book I read during that time, "Irrational Man" by William Barrett. One of its themes is that, basically, it is both possible and undesirable to abstract oneself from ones own life.
Its a bit like someone who has a wonderful theory about love but has never been in love. I think it is possible to be so enamoured of your theory about the meaning of life that you are no longer attending to life itself.
The idea is that language is, by definition, an abstraction -- a set of symbols. A word is not the thing itself. Thus, to even ask the question, "what is the meaning of life" is immediately to use language and, thus, abstract oneself from it. Existentialism teaches that eventually you need to stop thinking about the meaning of life and live your life. They call it "immersion." When you cease pursuing that question, well, obviously it ceases to be a question.
I remember a story told in Zen Buddhism. Someone asks a Master, "what is Zen?" The master says nothing, but just points at the moon. The finger can help guide you to see the moon, but it is not the moon itself. Eventually, you must look at the moon for yourself, or not see it at all.
Christianity didnt even teach you to look at the moon, it just taught you to look at itself. I, for one, never saw the moon until I stopped being a Christian. Now I look at it all the time. It is breathtaking.
Richard
maybe the inability to see the moon through religion is why we as a 'christian nation' have so much trouble being good stewards of the environment. it gets in the way of seeing how the natural world really works and seeing how a part of it we really are and it makes us think the all powerful god will fix anything we mess up and keeps us from taking responsibility. if global warming kills us, can we blame god? or at least christianity and its hold on our nation?
Dear Stargazer,
First of all - love your name.
Yes, you can recover your abilities to think and feel for yourself. I would need to ask you a few questions to be most helpful and it seems a bit too personal to do here, so please feel free to contact me privately. But in general, I can say that a big step in healing and personal development is to recognize that your primary relationship is with yourself. This sounds cliche but needs to be taken seriously. Using the power of symbols and metaphor, which the brain undertands at the deepest level, you can take steps to build and strengthen the inner resources you need. In my experience with people recovering from all sorts of backgrounds - Christian fundamentalism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, Eastern cults, Christian Science, you name it, - the essential recovery is to regain self-trust - that basic confidence that your gut-level intuitions are good. By that I'm not referring to morality; I mean solid and sane, like other animals that have to make judgments all the time. You are not basically bad, weak, crazy, stupid, in need of external authority to function. You can mature, learn from experience, and love yourself. From that bedrock, other relationships are possible and thriving in the world is possible. The process of healing the wounds and moving forward in this way is more than just cognitive, as I have said. Some of the guidelines are in my book and can be done on a self-help basis. Deeper work really has to be more personal and it's hard to say much more about it in this format. I'm also reluctant to say too much here because there is a risk of being misunderstood. For example, the "inner child" is a powerful metaphor in this work but requires some careful understanding. If you are serious, please go to my website to get in touch. I sincerely wish you all the best, and I can assure you that there is hope.
The relationship between religion and mental health is complex and not fully elucidated. It is, at bottom, an empirical question, and our evidence is mixed so far. There is clearly some empirical suggestion that religious affiliation can provide some psychological benefits, and obviously often inspires many people to be better people (at least by their own report). At the same time we cant ignore the evidence of suicide bombers and cults, and it is hard to argue these aspects of religion are not in fact profoundly maladaptive and destructive. (To say they are not "real" religion is, it seems to me, to evade the problem by tinkering with defintions.)
That's a good point. I agree that religion can be traumatizing. I know first hand that it can be. But what's also amazing and neat is that the view of God she endorced, the ground of being, is my view! Although it was not started by Robinson, but that's no big deal.
I think it is unarguable that religion is the norm; that is, indeed, the only reason it would not be catagorized as a delusion in the DSM-IV. I would also agree that religious participation is often a benefit just like most kinds of social participation. I could also be convinced that religion can facilitate a placebo effect, just like any other placebo.
Yea everything good is a placebo right? that's the atheist answer to anything that counts against their view. every thing's a placebo. But placebo is just not universal to all things good. Placebo requires expectations, it only applies to medicine. Religion is not always expected by those who find its truth value.
I have not seen a preponderance of evidence that suggests religious belief itself is a health positive.
Have you tried? it's abundant. It should not be hard to find. One literature search found 2000 social science journal articles that demonstrate positive value to religion. 300 studies on value participation, 26 on mystical experince. the use of the M scale as invested by Hood revolutionized the study of mystical experiences. Maslow's work led to the establishment of an entire discipline in psychology.
I could imagine that certain kinds of religious belief has certain positive effects on certain aspects of the human psyche, but I could imagine the same to be equally true of certain secular philosophies. To take your example of Maslow's self-actualization, I could see how belonging to a religious community could aid someone in developing feelings of belonging and possibly peer esteem, but it would make it difficult to embrace reality and facts, and often makes it more difficult to be accepting of others, both common characteristics of self-actualized people.
Konig study shows that when social participation and support is controlled for religious believers still do better. in fact when smoking is controlled religious smokers do better than non religious smokers.
I am not trying to put you down Marlene, I'm truly not. but why don't you work with people who have been traumatized by atheists? I have.
Is your cure for them to become atheists? Why don't you help them find good, positive, healing religion? Or perhaps you do?
to the question of whether religion is 'good' for a person, i am sure that for many it is. that does not make it 'right' in the sense of being good for society or for other individuals around them. to beleive that sins are forgiven and that there is an afterlife surely MUST make one feel less accountalbe for ones actions here and now and might lead the person to be happier and more content but those around them to suffer from their bad behavior.
example: certainly beleiveing with each other that homosexuality is bad gives those who beleive so a feeling of being on higher moral ground and superiority and discussing it indignantly with each other builds social bonds, so such a stong beleif based on religion could be said to benefit the individual, but certainly harms society in general and specifically harms gays whose rights are trampled.
and whther something makes a person happier or healtier has no bearing on whther it is 'real' or 'true', does it?
here is my response to this peice
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/
to the question of whether religion is 'good' for a person, i am sure that for many it is. that does not make it 'right' in the sense of being good for society or for other individuals around them.
Its' empirically proven with 300 studies to be good for society and the individual. adultery, rape murder lies anger bitterness are not good for society. We all agree to that. these are not things atheists like or seek to cultivate. but religion is effective in erasing them if one does it right.
Of course we can screw it up and use religoin wrongly. Humans can always screw things up.
to beleive that sins are forgiven and that there is an afterlife surely MUST make one feel less accountalbe for ones actions here and now and might lead the person to be happier and more content but those around them to suffer from their bad behavior.
but it doesn't. that's empirically proven too.
example: certainly beleiveing with each other that homosexuality is bad gives those who beleive so a feeling of being on higher moral ground and superiority and discussing it indignantly with each other builds social bonds, so such a stong beleif based on religion could be said to benefit the individual, but certainly harms society in general and specifically harms gays whose rights are trampled.
these are assumptions not in evidence. Could you find some data to back that up?
and whether something makes a person happier or healthier has no bearing on whether it is 'real' or 'true', does it?
yes I think it does. It think thats' proof it is real.. Just what's the proof we need food? when you eat it it makes you feel good and body works right. ergo, we need food.
we don't need unreal stuff. Our bodies are designed such that the real needs we have are for things that are really in nature. that religion does so much to make us better people and make socieity work better is an indication, not proof but an indication that there is soemthing to it.
otherwise why do you spend so much time talking about religion being harmful?
I hope that I've said a few things here that have been helpful; however, I do not presume to take on the entire subject of health and happiness in this blog or to explain the entirety of my work. Yes, I work with people who have been traumatized by a lot of different things. Recovery from religion is only one area of my work and it is interwoven and complicated by many other factors, including family dynamics, personality, and contextual issues. I believe, for one thing, that we live in a very sick society. (I could go on for pages). Simply leaving religion does not solve everything. And no I don't push people to be atheists; I don't even suggest leaving religion. To clarify again - I help people with the negative effects of dogmatic religion, which can be severe and worse because of not being named. (There is also a section in my book about positive aftereffects, incidentally). Re. empirical research on positive mental health, I suggest Martin Seligman and the "positive psychology" movement for some interesting material. I currently run a group called "Reclaiming Soul" which addresses the challenge of living our truest values in a culture that makes it very difficult. The word "soul" is in the Thomas Moore sense or the musical sense, rather than a disembodied entity. I don't think there are easy answers to the alienation, materialism, and individualism of this culture. That's why I said we need to love each other as best we can and strive for community in any way we can find it. And hug your mom. .. . and your kids, . . . your neighbor if they will let you :-) Ok, I'm getting mushy now. One more thing - don't forget to do your art - your singing, your poetry, your painting. Me - I'm working on learning stand-up comedy. I'll stop now - whew!
Thanks, Marlene, for your kind response. I will visit your website.
Peace...
j.l., when you continually cite some number of studies that prove what you say they do (and neglect to cite numbers of ones that contradict your claim), you are reminiscent of Creationists who say that x number of papers debunk evolution, when often they count anything that disagrees with any small aspect of the current synthesis. I would like to see some citations and results, if you please. And yes, I have looked at the research somewhat; I cited several articles in another blog post on this blog that gave differing results as to if religious belief is healthy or not (I cannot remember off the top of my head which one it was; I will.)
Yea everything good is a placebo right? that's the atheist answer to anything that counts against their view. every thing's a placebo. But placebo is just not universal to all things good. Placebo requires expectations, it only applies to medicine. Religion is not always expected by those who find its truth value.
No, not everything good is a placebo; controlled experiments are designed to determine what is placebo and what is not. You are claiming religion has positive health effects, which is a medical claim; the placebo effect is a proven factor for these claims--where are your controls? I can indicate controls for you, but you won't like them...look at the efficacy of religions making different truth claims, and see how they affect health. We have one religion (it doesn't matter which one--indeed, it is better that we don't know for a double-blind experiment) that is true, or at least more true, vs. another religion that is false (as they make contradictory claims). One is the placebo, one is the "medicine" that should give health benefits. If the true belief itself yields health benefits, then we should see a statistically significant difference in health outcomes in one religion versus another. Do we?
See, Joe, when you make factual claims about religion, you violate Gould's NOMA and step into the realm of science. Are you sure you want to do that?
Post a Comment