Opposing Religions and the Therapist/Patient relationship?

[Ceke2002]

This is a discussion point/topic of concern that does come up quite frequently on patient support boards - the idea that the patient won't be able to work effectively with a therapist who has what they consider to be an opposing religious or spiritual point of view, or that the therapist won't be able to work effectively with them. From a provider's point of view how often is this actually an issue? I assume it depends on the individual provider, and of course there's the idea of unconditional positive regard, but how does a therapist handle it when they're faced with a patient who does have what might be considered a completely opposing spiritual viewpoint to their own - especially if the patient wishes to incorporate discussions of spiritual matters into the therapeutic process as often seems to be the case in this particular situation - which more often than not does appear to end with the patient choosing to see an alternate provider of their own volition, but again what about the therapist themselves, can you ethically refuse to treat a patient based on opposing spiritual points of view?

And my gods I'm just full of questions lately aren't I.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[birchswing]

I've always wondered what the conversation is like when a doctor is asked to vet a person who is to undergo an exorcism. I guess you can just give the answer as requested (does this person have a medical problem), but what would your stance be if you couldn't technically diagnose a medical problem but you thought the exorcism would be harmful? Would you cross the line to say that? Or even more strangely, what if a Catholic psychiatrist were treating a patient and strongly believed that demonic possession was the problem and that it wasn't a psychiatric issue, but that he/she felt they couldn't say that.

 

[splik]

I actually know of a (non-catholic) psychiatrist (who I think has lost the plot) who believed that mental illnesses were often caused by spirit attachment, and referred a patient for exorcism. the priest in that case did not want the psychiatrist seeing the patient for therapy at all though. i am sure if the psychiatrist believed that demonic possession was the cause they would treat and refer appropriate. no good psychiatric textbook is complete without a discussion of possession states.

 

[Ceke2002]

I've always wondered what the conversation is like when a doctor is asked to vet a person who is to undergo an exorcism. I guess you can just give the answer as requested (does this person have a medical problem), but what would your stance be if you couldn't technically diagnose a medical problem but you thought the exorcism would be harmful? Would you cross the line to say that? Or even more strangely, what if a Catholic psychiatrist were treating a patient and strongly believed that demonic possession was the problem and that it wasn't a psychiatric issue, but that he/she felt they couldn't say that.

With the Catholic psychiatrist I would assume they would turn it over to the Church to decide in that situation, perhaps seek guidance in the confessional which is wholly and completely sacrosanct - of course this is assuming the patient is Catholic themselves and holds the same, or at least similar beliefs in regards to possession. It would certainly be an interesting conversation at the least I would imagine. If you're talking the Roman Rite ritual for exorcism, as opposed to the more 'deliverance' type affairs that are performed in Pentecostal type churches, or similar, then I would assume the Catholic Church would have a network of Doctors on which to call who are understanding of such a situation and trusted to give an accurate assessment of the situation. I mean I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church doesn't go around exorcising people willy nilly.

 

[Ceke2002]

I actually know of a (non-catholic) psychiatrist (who I think has lost the plot) who believed that mental illnesses were often caused by spirit attachment, and referred a patient for exorcism. the priest in that case did not want the psychiatrist seeing the patient for therapy at all though. i am sure if the psychiatrist believed that demonic possession was the cause they would treat and refer appropriate. no good psychiatric textbook is complete without a discussion of possession states.

Although I've never heard of a Pagan Doctor endorsing such beliefs, the idea that all manner of ills can be attributed to some sort of psychic or spiritual attack/manifestation/attachment/whatever else, isn't confined to (quote, unquote) 'mainstream religion'. As a practicing witch I've met a number of people over the years who were absolutely convinced they were under some sort of other worldly attack, when the actual cause was something entirely mundane like illness, stress, or prolonged periods of insomnia.

Has anyone done any sort of brain scan studies on self induced possession states? Just out of interest. I mean the sorts of possession states that result from purposeful ritual practices designed to call a deity or spirit into the person. Similarly to ritual trance states I'd be fascinated to know the underlying brain chemical neuron thingy changes that occur.

 

[DrBacchi]

I've been wondering lately, how do you distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and pathological religious delusions?

 

[clausewitz2]

I've been wondering lately, how do you distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and pathological religious delusions?

That does strike me as practically tricky. I know somebody who is quite certain that Baron Samedi personally instructed him to drink a certain amount of rum at a certain time of day every week and get a very distressed if anything interferes with this. His reality-testing seems (mostly) intact otherwise.

 

[wolfvgang22]

Regarding the original post, its never been a problem for a few reasons:
1. My job is to help the patient reach his or her goals, not mine, and to help the patient function in society rather than be in jail, or suffer from poor health. I'm here to protect the patient and others from harm as much as I can. I'm not here to proselytize anyone. I'm a paid professional, doing the job I was trained to do. I easily reconcile this with my faith, which instructs me to do the best job I can, all the time.
2. Pretty much every religion or culture shares the same broad, basic values - treat others the way you want to be treated, don't kill people, don't harm innocents, improve yourself as much as you can, etc. This is why it's generally illegal to commit murder in every country, for example. People have more in common than not. We have laws and guidelines about these things that most of us (society) have agreed upon.
3. On a personal, religious level (I'm Christian), I feel that the truth always eventually comes out, either now to those who look for it, or later in the afterlife. The truth and God can look after themselves, they don't absolutely need me as the great defender of the faith. People have the right to make their own choices. I'm just a guy, working through life.
I'm sure I can come up with four or five more reasons.

 

[wolfvgang22]

I've been wondering lately, how do you distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and pathological religious delusions?

Do other people within the patients religion or culture generally have the same beliefs, or is this person a severe outlier? And , separately, does the patients belief result in harm to himself or others?
If the first question's answer is no, other people don't share the belief, then it's probably a delusion.
If the answer to the second question is yes, then something should be done about it. A patient can believe the sky is hot pink all year long, but that's unlikely to matter. Real example: one of my patients believes there is a purple UFO in his backyard. But, he's cool with it now, so who cares? Just don't tell him it's not real and he won't punch you. He has other problems that are much more important.

 

[clausewitz2]

So what about religions that don't share some of those values? I am thinking about things like Asatru that can be read as making vengeance a moral obligation wrt someone who has harmed your community or kin, or says its fine to do what you please to someone who is proven to be not trustworthy.

Not that this is such a hugely common religious persuasion, but more prevalent than some people realize, and there are a number of non-Abrahamic faiths that might recognize the sentiment.

 

[F0nzie]

My wife had 1 patient in the last 2 years request a Christian-based psychiatrist. Her response "I am Christian, however, I do not incorporate religion into treatment". The patient ended up seeing another Psychiatrist that incorporated Christianity into her practice. In networking with other therapists, a few have asked us the same question.

I have also had a few patients that would only want to see Christian-based therapists.

 

[wolfvgang22]

So what about religions that don't share some of those values? I am thinking about things like Asatru that can be read as making vengeance a moral obligation wrt someone who has harmed your community or kin, or says its fine to do what you please to someone who is proven to be not trustworthy.

Not that this is such a hugely common religious persuasion, but more prevalent than some people realize, and there are a number of non-Abrahamic faiths that might recognize the sentiment.

I'm not going to condone any belief that one person should harm another personally.
Regardless, the psychiatrist's religion need not enter the conversation with the patient. As you said, a belief in vengeance is typically not a mainstream belief these days, and harming others is generally against the law. I suppose a patient can hate others all he or she wants so long as he or she does not infringe on the rights and well being of others, or physically harm him or herself. It is widely recognized in psychiatry that aggressive behavior is harmful to both the patient and others. This is why the only times we violate confidentiality is if we believe there is a danger to the well being of the patient or others. This is the basis for involuntary psychiatric care. The majority of people in our society as (ideally) represented in our nations laws agree on this (in most civilized countries). This may not be perfect, as there may always be a few that disagree, but it seems to be the most reasonable course of action.

 

[clausewitz2]

I'm not going to condone any belief that one person should harm another personally.
Regardless, the psychiatrist's religion need not enter the conversation with the patient. As you said, a belief in vengeance is typically not a mainstream belief these days, and harming others is generally against the law. I suppose a patient can hate others all he or she wants so long as he or she does not infringe on the rights and well being of others, or physically harm him or herself. It is widely recognized in psychiatry that aggressive behavior is harmful to both the patient and others. This is why the only times we violate confidentiality is if we believe there is a danger to the well being of the patient or others. This is the basis for involuntary psychiatric care. The majority of people in our society as (ideally) represented in our nations laws agree on this (in most civilized countries). This may not be perfect, as there may always be a few that disagree, but it seems to be the most reasonable course of action.

That seems a good approach. I should make clear that I do not subscribe to any doctrine that requires harming other people, but I am less confident than you are that the majority of people in our society are in complete concordance about the desirability of aggressive action. Recall that not very long ago the failure of a candidate to endorse the slaying of a hypothetical person who killed his wife was seen as a turning point in a presidential campaign. If you frame it right you can probably get quite a lot of people to endorse pretty extreme interpersonal aggression.

 

[Ceke2002]

I've been wondering lately, how do you distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and pathological religious delusions?

That does strike me as practically tricky. I know somebody who is quite certain that Baron Samedi personally instructed him to drink a certain amount of rum at a certain time of day every week and get a very distressed if anything interferes with this. His reality-testing seems (mostly) intact otherwise.

Do other people within the patients religion or culture generally have the same beliefs, or is this person a severe outlier? And , separately, does the patients belief result in harm to himself or others?
If the first question's answer is no, other people don't share the belief, then it's probably a delusion.
If the answer to the second question is yes, then something should be done about it. A patient can believe the sky is hot pink all year long, but that's unlikely to matter. Real example: one of my patients believes there is a purple UFO in his backyard. But, he's cool with it now, so who cares? Just don't tell him it's not real and he won't punch you. He has other problems that are much more important.

I agree with Wolfvgang's assessment here. The example of the guy drinking rum for Baron Samedi seems perfectly reasonable to me, but if that same guy then took the belief into the realms of 'Baron Samedi commanded me to drink rum, because it will give me the power to raise a zombie army and take over the world with the help of the lizard people', then I'd say those beliefs were a tad off kilter.

I had a friend who was raised Catholic who believed he was the second coming of Christ, who had been personally anointed by the Pope during a psychotic episode. Those beliefs might be religious based, but they don't fit with any actual doctrine of Catholicism and fail the test of reality as well. He also believed I was an incarnate goddess, and once had a rambling phone conversation with me regarding his belief that a rogue group of Buddhist's with mental death rays were trying to assassinate the Dalai Lama to prevent the ascension of the Pope, and it was imperative that he get to the Airport and chant. Again, clearly a delusional set of beliefs centred around a religious basis.

Within my own belief system it would be something like the difference between believing in spell casting as a way to tap into a person's subconscious to affect the change they are after, and believing you can literally shoot sparks of lightning out of your fingers.

 

[Ceke2002]

So what about religions that don't share some of those values? I am thinking about things like Asatru that can be read as making vengeance a moral obligation wrt someone who has harmed your community or kin, or says its fine to do what you please to someone who is proven to be not trustworthy.

Not that this is such a hugely common religious persuasion, but more prevalent than some people realize, and there are a number of non-Abrahamic faiths that might recognize the sentiment.

Although I'm not intimately familiar with all the nuances of Asatru beliefs, the vengeance as a moral obligation that you talk about is part of the Nine Noble Virtues and falls specifically under fidelity - loyalty. Loyalty includes a commit to the Gods of Asatru, your fellow Asatru kin, and a commitment to make the world a better place. It is true that in Asatru beliefs there is a commandment of sorts that a faltering of fidelity cannot be permitted on any level, but that doesn't necessarily translate to 'and if someone fails in this, then it's a total free for all'. For example if someone of the Asatru faith were to commit murder, that doesn't mean their Asatru kin then have the moral obligation to then take their life in punishment, but under the code of truth and fidelity-loyalty both could be interpreted as the group having the moral obligation to turn that person over to the police, and co-operate to the fullest extent within any legal inquiries. The examples of blood vengeance and death sentences being handed out, in what Asatru practitioners term 'the elder times', to me reads more like a reiteration of how serious the Nine Noble Truths should be taken, not a literal call to do harm - more like saying 'If our ancestors were willing to take a life, or lay down their own in defence of these virtues, then we should damn well be willing to do something as simple as speaking the truth about any crime committed by one of our own, or to speak out against injustices, etc'.

 

[Ceke2002]

Or even more strangely, what if a Catholic psychiatrist were treating a patient and strongly believed that demonic possession was the problem and that it wasn't a psychiatric issue, but that he/she felt they couldn't say that.

Just thinking about this some more, I do think there may be the rare times when indulging a patient or person's spiritual beliefs, even if that means stepping outside the bounds of evidence based practice, is in the best interest of that person. If someone is absolutely convinced they are possessed, and no amount of therapy or medication or any other medical intervention has changed that belief, then I don't see a problem with calling in a Priest to perform an exorcism as way of treating via a placebo effect.

I can't remember if I've told this story before, I may have, but going back some years now (to the late 90's) there was a gentleman who lived in one of the apartments above me in the apartment block I was living at the time. One day he offered to help me out with some boxes I was moving, we struck up a conversation, he invited me to his place, and within less than 2 seconds of stepping through the doorway it was abundantly clear that this guy was a heavy speed user. He then noticed the pentagram I was wearing around my neck, asked if I was Wiccan, to which I replied, "yes", and then proceeded to go into this pleading, desperate speech about how he was under psychic attack, and he was terrified, and nobody had been able to help him, and could I please, please perform a spell for him to make the bad spirits go away' (paraphrased). Now in Wicca we are taught to always look for the mundane before contemplating the mystical, so I went through a check list of questions with him - "Had he seen a Doctor?" Yes he'd seen a Psychiatrist and was diagnosed with Bipolar Psychotic type, "Had he been prescribed any medication, and if so was he taking that medication as directed" Yes, and absolutely he was, but the medication just wasn't working so therefore it couldn't possibly be a psychotic type episode that was causing these hallucinations and paranoid thoughts he was having, otherwise the medication would have stopped it. "Okay then, had he considered that his medication just needed to be adjusted and that he should return to his Psychiatrist to report what was happening" Again he was absolutely adamant that no Doctor could help him, and adjusting his medication would do no good. I also broached the issue of his speed use and got the same response, absolutely not the cause of his problems, nothing to do with it whatsoever, end of discussion period!

Now clearly this guy was delusional (in laymen's terms) and not under any sort of psychic attack, but he believed otherwise and he was absolutely adamant in that belief. There was no way I was going to be able to convince him to return to his Doctor, look at getting his medication adjusted, reduce or stop his speed usage, or even consider that he might be better served by seeing his Psychiatrist for a possible Hospital admission - but then what he thought he was experiencing was obviously very distressing to him. So after a period spent in contemplation with my patron deities, I eventually agreed to perform a basic cleansing and protection spell for him. Within 2 weeks he was thanking me profusely, because everything he'd been experiencing had stopped and he felt totally back to normal and was no longer living in constant terror. So yay for me! Or not, considering all I really did at the end of the day was offer him a placebo effect - but he believed the spell would work, he believed it would be the only thing that would work, and so it worked. Nothing mystical or magical about it.

 

[Ceke2002]

My wife had 1 patient in the last 2 years request a Christian-based psychiatrist. Her response "I am Christian, however, I do not incorporate religion into treatment". The patient ended up seeing another Psychiatrist that incorporated Christianity into her practice. In networking with other therapists, a few have asked us the same question.

I have also had a few patients that would only want to see Christian-based therapists.

I must admit I might have difficulty seeing a Christian therapist, even if they didn't incorporate religion into their practice. That's not because I would have a problem with them being Christian, I'd just be concerned that I'd be making them uncomfortable by talking about my practices, which I do consider to be an essential aspect of my overall treatment/therapy so it wouldn't be something I'd feel I could leave outside the clinic door, so to speak.

 

[Ceke2002]

Regarding the original post, its never been a problem for a few reasons:
1. My job is to help the patient reach his or her goals, not mine, and to help the patient function in society rather than be in jail, or suffer from poor health. I'm here to protect the patient and others from harm as much as I can. I'm not here to proselytize anyone. I'm a paid professional, doing the job I was trained to do. I easily reconcile this with my faith, which instructs me to do the best job I can, all the time.
2. Pretty much every religion or culture shares the same broad, basic values - treat others the way you want to be treated, don't kill people, don't harm innocents, improve yourself as much as you can, etc. This is why it's generally illegal to commit murder in every country, for example. People have more in common than not. We have laws and guidelines about these things that most of us (society) have agreed upon.
3. On a personal, religious level (I'm Christian), I feel that the truth always eventually comes out, either now to those who look for it, or later in the afterlife. The truth and God can look after themselves, they don't absolutely need me as the great defender of the faith. People have the right to make their own choices. I'm just a guy, working through life.
I'm sure I can come up with four or five more reasons.

Thank you for this, I think you've covered a lot of what people of shall we say 'alternate' belief systems are concerned about when seeking a Psychiatrist/Therapist. I said above that I would trouble working with a Christian therapist due to concerns about levels of comfort, but if I was assured of an attitude such as you've described here then it wouldn't be a problem. I don't expect my therapist to share the exact same belief system as I have, but I do expect them to respect it and the fact that I will want to incorporate it as part of my overall treatment even if it's just on an individual and personal level.

In regards to your second point on that list, I absolutely agree, and I have participated in interfaith discussions with people who were quite surprised to discover that our respective faiths have a lot more in common than what they otherwise first thought.

 

[clausewitz2]

Although I'm not intimately familiar with all the nuances of Asatru beliefs, the vengeance as a moral obligation that you talk about is part of the Nine Noble Virtues and falls specifically under fidelity - loyalty. Loyalty includes a commit to the Gods of Asatru, your fellow Asatru kin, and a commitment to make the world a better place. It is true that in Asatru beliefs there is a commandment of sorts that a faltering of fidelity cannot be permitted on any level, but that doesn't necessarily translate to 'and if someone fails in this, then it's a total free for all'. For example if someone of the Asatru faith were to commit murder, that doesn't mean their Asatru kin then have the moral obligation to then take their life in punishment, but under the code of truth and fidelity-loyalty both could be interpreted as the group having the moral obligation to turn that person over to the police, and co-operate to the fullest extent within any legal inquiries. The examples of blood vengeance and death sentences being handed out, in what Asatru practitioners term 'the elder times', to me reads more like a reiteration of how serious the Nine Noble Truths should be taken, not a literal call to do harm - more like saying 'If our ancestors were willing to take a life, or lay down their own in defence of these virtues, then we should damn well be willing to do something as simple as speaking the truth about any crime committed by one of our own, or to speak out against injustices, etc'.

While I recognize that folks more influenced by neopaganism generally endorse the "Nine Noble Virtues", in this country the Asatruar tend to be more reconstructionist (or hideously racist, less said about them the better). The recon folks point to pretty clear guidance in the Havamal that oathbreakers aren't really relevant moral beings and are pretty much fair game. Similarly, if one thing unites all the sagas, " lionization of blood feuds" is definitely a strong candidate.

Similar statements could be made about Tengrism.

 

[Ceke2002]

While I recognize that folks more influenced by neopaganism generally endorse the "Nine Noble Virtues", in this country the Asatruar tend to be more reconstructionist (or hideously racist, less said about them the better). The recon folks point to pretty clear guidance in the Havamal that oathbreakers aren't really relevant moral beings and are pretty much fair game. Similarly, if one thing unites all the sagas, " lionization of blood feuds" is definitely a strong candidate.

Similar statements could be made about Tengrism.

Thank you for clarifying this for me. As I said I'm not familiar with the nuances of Asatru beliefs; however in the neopagan religion of Wicca there is much that should be considered a matter of interpretation and/or counsel and not a literal and inviolate doctrine that all are obliged to follow. In this case I did make the assumption that Asatru practitioners may have held a similar position. Thanks again.

 

[Ceke2002]

While I recognize that folks more influenced by neopaganism generally endorse the "Nine Noble Virtues", in this country the Asatruar tend to be more reconstructionist (or hideously racist, less said about them the better). The recon folks point to pretty clear guidance in the Havamal that oathbreakers aren't really relevant moral beings and are pretty much fair game. Similarly, if one thing unites all the sagas, " lionization of blood feuds" is definitely a strong candidate.

Similar statements could be made about Tengrism.

Just re-quoting this for further discussion. So the Astruar who are reconstructionists, presumably having attempted to reconstruct an older form of belief and worship no longer practiced in the modern age, then take the path of believing in a literal interpretation of this reconstructed belief system, as in whatever writings, rules, or beliefs that have been reconstructed are adhered to in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian would adhere to a literal interpretation of the bible? I mean as a point of contrast Wicca could be viewed as an attempt to reconstruct ancient forms of tribal pagan practices (although strictly speaking it's not; however, one could interpret it that way) but you'd still be hard pressed to find a Wiccan who did take a reconstructionist view endorsing a literal interpretation. I mean in regards to something like the Nine Noble Virtues and/or the Havamal, Wicca, or at least Traditional Wicca, has what I assume might be considered the equivalent in the 'Old Laws' (Gardnerian Tradition) or the '161 Ardanes' in the Alexandrian Tradition practice. Now in Wicca's earlier history, when it was founded by Gerald Gardner in the mid 20th century, the Ardanes were believed to be the reconstruction of fragmented ancient writings (they're not), that had been passed down in secret for centuries through an unbroken line of hidden practicing covens of witches (they weren't), because at least a good portion of the early construction of Wicca was influenced by Margaret Murray's now disproven theory of an ancient and hidden surviving witch-cult. Even so having had the privilege to communicate with a very small number of Wiccans who were part of that earlier period of founding, the Ardanes were never really interpreted literally even back then, or at least not all of them, because the very fact that they were believed to be a reconstruction meant that a literal interpretation wouldn't be possible. In the more modern age of practice, where the Ardanes are now largely understood to have been written by Gardner himself, those Wiccans who still incorporate the Ardanes into their practice (raises hand) still don't apply a literalist interpretation and may even consider large sections of them to be ridiculously outdated and no longer applicable (even if they understand why they were written for the times they were written in). I take it the Astruar have a different approach to reconstructionism in this case?

Edited to add: And in terms of the 'Old Laws' in Wicca, it was awfully convenient that just as Gerald Gardner was engaged in an argument with his High Priestess this "ancient document" suddenly resurfaced just when it was needed, and lo and behold here be the rules damnit!

 

[heyjack70]

I tend to think patients using religion as an excuse to avoid or stop going to a therapist of a differing faith is an unhealthy defense against something. IMO, the therapist's religion is meaningless to the work at hand. A patient wanting to focus on religion is trying to avoid underlying emotions. I worry therapists wanting to lean on religion as a therapeutic tool are also trying to dodge the real work of therapy; you should not be spouting off some religious ideas to motivate change. You should not be praying with your patients. The therapist is there as an expert in treating mental illness by focusing on emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. If the patient is having a crisis of faith they shouldn't find a therapist with the same religion for guidance, they need to see or priest, minister, shaman, rabbi, etc.

 

[Ceke2002]

I tend to think patients using religion as an excuse to avoid or stop going to a therapist of a differing faith is an unhealthy defense against something. IMO, the therapist's religion is meaningless to the work at hand. A patient wanting to focus on religion is trying to avoid underlying emotions. I worry therapists wanting to lean on religion as a therapeutic tool are also trying to dodge the real work of therapy; you should not be spouting off some religious ideas to motivate change. You should not be praying with your patients. The therapist is there as an expert in treating mental illness by focusing on emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. If the patient is having a crisis of faith they shouldn't find a therapist with the same religion for guidance, they need to see or priest, minister, shaman, rabbi, etc.

Agreed, I think you've nailed it with this response. Just as a general observation of the discussions that are had about this issue on patient forums, there does seem to be this pattern that those who are the most adamant that they simply cannot, for any reason, whatsoever work with a therapist of a different faith to them, even when they do find a therapist of the same religious beliefs will then go on to find an entirely new reason why they absolutely cannot work with them.

And definitely there's a huge difference between, say for example in my case, wanting to feel comfortable enough with a therapist that if I'm asked to report on how I dealt with a negative emotion in a healthy manner, that I can then be honest and say 'Well I performed XYZ Wiccan ritual', and someone wanting to make religion the entire and only focus of therapy (which again seems to fit in with a pattern of wanting to find excuses not to engage in therapy in the first place).

 

[Mahavidya2]

As a patient, I would not go to a therapist who was religious because I would think he or she was too superstitious to take seriously, regardless of his or her religion. I think religion is pretty and good for many people, but I could not take the advice of someone "religious" (or "spiritual") seriously because of my Atheist beliefs. I could work with someone, live with someone, all kinds of things, but hope to find help from that person, psychologically? Impossible.

 

[Ceke2002]

As a patient, I would not go to a therapist who was religious because I would think he or she was too superstitious to take seriously, regardless of his or her religion. I think religion is pretty and good for many people, but I could not take the advice of someone "religious" (or "spiritual") seriously because of my Atheist beliefs. I could work with someone, live with someone, all kinds of things, but hope to find help from that person, psychologically? Impossible.

Why impossible? All things being equal, with the focus of therapy not being religious centric, what can an atheist therapist offer you that a non atheist one couldn't?

Edited to add: I mean the fact that my Buddhist Psychiatrist once hiked up a mountain and performed 108 prostrations to Padmasambhava, or the Guru Rinpoche, doesn't negate his abilities as a medical practitioner and/or therapist in my eyes, so why would something like that be different for you just because you hold no spiritual or religious type beliefs?

 

[clausewitz2]

Just re-quoting this for further discussion. So the Astruar who are reconstructionists, presumably having attempted to reconstruct an older form of belief and worship no longer practiced in the modern age, then take the path of believing in a literal interpretation of this reconstructed belief system, as in whatever writings, rules, or beliefs that have been reconstructed are adhered to in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian would adhere to a literal interpretation of the bible? I mean as a point of contrast Wicca could be viewed as an attempt to reconstruct ancient forms of tribal pagan practices (although strictly speaking it's not; however, one could interpret it that way) but you'd still be hard pressed to find a Wiccan who did take a reconstructionist view endorsing a literal interpretation. I mean in regards to something like the Nine Noble Virtues and/or the Havamal, Wicca, or at least Traditional Wicca, has what I assume might be considered the equivalent in the 'Old Laws' (Gardnerian Tradition) or the '161 Ardanes' in the Alexandrian Tradition practice. Now in Wicca's earlier history, when it was founded by Gerald Gardner in the mid 20th century, the Ardanes were believed to be the reconstruction of fragmented ancient writings (they're not), that had been passed down in secret for centuries through an unbroken line of hidden practicing covens of witches (they weren't), because at least a good portion of the early construction of Wicca was influenced by Margaret Murray's now disproven theory of an ancient and hidden surviving witch-cult. Even so having had the privilege to communicate with a very small number of Wiccans who were part of that earlier period of founding, the Ardanes were never really interpreted literally even back then, or at least not all of them, because the very fact that they were believed to be a reconstruction meant that a literal interpretation wouldn't be possible. In the more modern age of practice, where the Ardanes are now largely understood to have been written by Gardner himself, those Wiccans who still incorporate the Ardanes into their practice (raises hand) still don't apply a literalist interpretation and may even consider large sections of them to be ridiculously outdated and no longer applicable (even if they understand why they were written for the times they were written in). I take it the Astruar have a different approach to reconstructionism in this case?

Edited to add: And in terms of the 'Old Laws' in Wicca, it was awfully convenient that just as Gerald Gardner was engaged in an argument with his High Priestess this "ancient document" suddenly resurfaced just when it was needed, and lo and behold here be the rules damnit!

With the proviso that I am not describing any religious beliefs of mine, but those of people I have known:
The recons tend to be hard polytheists, I.e. they believe that the goes they honor are distinct beings with their distinct idiosyncratic preferences. Odin wants to be worshipped in a particular way, for example, and it is not the same as Frey. So for them it is less about textual literalism per se and trying to divine those preferences where they are expressed repeatedly and clearly. The Havamal is also an interesting case because it is not so much theology as a practically focused guide as to how you should conduct yourself, ostensibly written by Odin. Less about attributes of gods and more about how you shouldn't get into a fight until you are certain you can win it.

Generally in my experience they are quite willing to adopt other religious technologies where there are gaps in what there is evidence for. No one makes Odin candles, so burning a Jesus candle with the appropriate offerings and prayers is perfectly acceptable (the two have a fair amount in common anyway). Similarly, when it comes to seidr, many texts say something like "there was X problem, so then they did seidr" without specifying much more about what this ritual looked like. As a result, the recons frequently borrow from classic shamanistic practice and journeyworking.

I should probably stop here before this becomes a practical religious anthropology forum...

 

[Ceke2002]

With the proviso that I am not describing any religious beliefs of mine, but those of people I have known:
The recons tend to be hard polytheists, I.e. they believe that the goes they honor are distinct beings with their distinct idiosyncratic preferences. Odin wants to be worshipped in a particular way, for example, and it is not the same as Frey. So for them it is less about textual literalism per set and trying to divine those preferences where they are expressed repeatedly and clearly. The Havamal is also an interesting case because it is not so much theology as a practically a focused guide as to how you should conduct yourself, ostensibly written by Odin. Less about attributes of gods and more about how you shouldn't get into a fight until you are certain you can win it.

Generally in my experience they are quite willing to adopt other religious technologies where there are gaps in what there is evidence for. No one makes Odin candles, so burning a Jesus candle with the appropriate offerings and prayers is perfectly acceptable (the two have a fait amount in common anyway). Similarly, when it comes to seidr, many texts say something like "there was X problem, so then they did seidr" without specifying much more about what this ritual looked like. As a result, the recons frequently borrow from classic shamanistic practice and journeyworking.

I should probably stop here before this becomes a practical religious anthropology forum...

Yes, didn't mean to go completely off topic, was just interested to hear your point of view considering you seemed to have some more experience with the subject than I do. Thanks for your response, very interesting.

 

[erg923]

As a patient, I would not go to a therapist who was religious because I would think he or she was too superstitious to take seriously, regardless of his or her religion. I think religion is pretty and good for many people, but I could not take the advice of someone "religious" (or "spiritual") seriously because of my Atheist beliefs. I could work with someone, live with someone, all kinds of things, but hope to find help from that person, psychologically? Impossible.

An inability to effectively interact or learn from individuals who believe different things from you is all the more reason you should probably start interacting and learning from people with different beliefs than you.

 

[Ceke2002]

An inability to effectively interact or learn from individuals who believe different things from you is all the more reason you should probably start interacting and learning from people with different beliefs than you.

This, exactly, thank you.

Edited to add: One of my closest friends I met online, someone who has 'adopted' me as her cyber sister across the waves and vice versa, is a right wing, conservative Traditionalist (she refers to herself as 'Tridentine') Catholic - I am a left wing, alternative, practitioner of Wiccan witchcraft. Surprise, surprise we managed to find a common ground and forge a friendship that quickly moved into the realms of a shared sisterhood.

 

[Ceke2002]

@Mahavidya2 - With your response before, I am now genuinely wondering when you reported in the other thread that therapy hadn't worked for you, whether or not it hadn't worked because you may have gone in with the internalised thought process of 'no one who holds any spiritual or religious beliefs can ever help me psychologically' thereby automatically putting yourself on the defensive and at odds with the therapeutic process even if the person you're working with is an atheist. What happens if they convert to a religious belief? You say no one who holds any spiritual or religious beliefs can help you psychologically, but perhaps on an unprocessed level, because the fact is even atheists can and do convert, what you're really saying is 'no one can help me, because I won't let them help'. If you did find an avowed atheistic therapist, who you had absolute guarantee would never change their beliefs, then what if you both held differing philosophical, or scientific, or political, or ideological points of view? What then, and how is that any different to a person holding a differing point of view on spiritual and/or religious matters?

 

[erg923]

@Mahavidya2 - With your response before, I am now genuinely wondering when you reported in the other thread that therapy hadn't worked for you, whether or not it hadn't worked because you may have gone in with the internalised thought process of 'no one who holds any spiritual or religious beliefs can ever help me psychologically' thereby automatically putting yourself on the defensive and at odds with the therapeutic process even if the person you're working with is an atheist. What happens if they convert to a religious belief? You say no one who holds any spiritual or religious beliefs can help you psychologically, but perhaps on an unprocessed level, because the fact is even atheists can and do convert, what you're really saying is 'no one can help me, because I won't let them help'. If you did find an avowed atheistic therapist, who you had absolute guarantee would never change their beliefs, then what if you both held differing philosophical, or scientific, or political, or ideological points of view? What then, and how is that any different to a person holding a differing point of view on spiritual and/or religious matters?

They have chosen to believe that, because I believe a first century radical was the devine son of God, my suggestions that their depression might be treatable by engaging in activities that provide pleasure and mastery is invalid or somehow tainted. This is, of course, just plain silly, asa the two are in no way related. But it is their choice.

 

[Ceke2002]

They have chosen to believe that, because I believe a first century radical was the devine son of God, my suggestions that their depression might be treatable by engaging in activities that provide pleasure and mastery is invalid or somehow tainted. This is, of course, just plain silly. But it is their choice.

Why is this though? Why do some people become so adamantly fixed on one particular point of view or system of belief (and even atheism IS still a system of belief, imho). I mean if I came to you as a patient, because I was, say, having trouble sleeping, and you said something along the lines of 'When I'm having trouble shutting off at the end of the day, I personally find saying the rosary helps me to de-stress, is there anything you can think of that you feel might be helpful to you?' I wouldn't automatically assume you were trying to put forth the message that only Catholicism could be of any benefit to me. Which to me would be an example of an assumption in line with 'No one of a spiritual or religious background can ever help me as a therapist'. It's one thing to want to feel comfortable and connected with a therapist, but to have such a rigid criteria applied in such a broad manner, I don't get it. But then again I do admittedly love to learn about different beliefs, and to look to find a core similarity between them in terms of the human experience, so maybe in this case some of my own personal bias is seeping through.

 

[whopper]

I've had very few situations where the religion came into conflict with the treatment.

I did have a Scientologist patient. Now the good things were this. 1-She wasn't one of those deeply entrenched ones where if she sought psychiatric treatment she would be in fear of potentially being harmed or disappearing. She was merely just fiddling with it. She was depressed and I told her that it was her choice to take meds or not and thankfully her GAF wasn't bad to the point where I would've had a legal obligation to make her go to the hospital. We worked out a non-med treatment approach that worked for her.

I also had a Muslim patient with schizoaffective disorder. The guy wanted to treat his disorder through prayer alone and I told him it doesn't work that way (nicely of course and I explained to him the known science about it). His mosque encouraged him to use prayer alone. Well about 3-4 months later they're calling me up begging me to intervene and all telling me they were wrong to mess with this and realized he really did need meds.

During the time they encouraged him to avoid meds they meant well but didn't really know what they were dealing with, nor was the patient really telling them in detail his problems. He just told them he has a psychiatric disorder and was going to pursue spirituality to treat it. They didn't know any better. I was in a position where his GAF was too good to put him in the hospital so I just had to wait till his GAF was too low. As for trying to explain it to them? No. It'd be violating HIPAA and the patient didn't want me talking to anyone about it.

 

[Mahavidya2]

An inability to effectively interact or learn from individuals who believe different things from you is all the more reason you should probably start interacting and learning from people with different beliefs than you.

That's quite an indictment, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of my point. I do interact and learn from people with different beliefs than my own, but I'm also a rationalist, and as a rationalist, I'm really not sure what superstition can offer me. That doesn't mean that I do not respect peoples' religious views. I categorically do, and I would even go as far as to say that I believe the world does better because of the religious beliefs held by many, which seems to generally improve the greater social order; I just personally find religion impossible to believe. I am a rational-materialist who believes in science. Other people are entitled to believe in things that are not scientific, but it's hard to know what I might learn from those people when it comes to my own mind (this is not a thread about learning from people, in general, but about learning about your mind, specifically, from another person, specifically, in a set context, called psychiatry; avoid over generalizations). That's not to say that I'm intolerant of others' beliefs. Not in the least, and I find them quite culturally charming and personally often very lovely.

I should clarify that I do like some Eastern religious theology because some of it is very rational-materialist, at core. Also, I believe in science-not-yet-discovered, so I appreciate quantum physics and the fuzzy core of science, which may wind up someday rationally explaining what many believe to be "spiritual."

 

[Mahavidya2]

@Mahavidya2 - With your response before, I am now genuinely wondering when you reported in the other thread that therapy hadn't worked for you, whether or not it hadn't worked because you may have gone in with the internalised thought process of 'no one who holds any spiritual or religious beliefs can ever help me psychologically' thereby automatically putting yourself on the defensive and at odds with the therapeutic process even if the person you're working with is an atheist. What happens if they convert to a religious belief? You say no one who holds any spiritual or religious beliefs can help you psychologically, but perhaps on an unprocessed level, because the fact is even atheists can and do convert, what you're really saying is 'no one can help me, because I won't let them help'. If you did find an avowed atheistic therapist, who you had absolute guarantee would never change their beliefs, then what if you both held differing philosophical, or scientific, or political, or ideological points of view? What then, and how is that any different to a person holding a differing point of view on spiritual and/or religious matters?

Not following here because you talk about different philosophies, political beliefs, and other ideological points, but I'm only talking about religious differences because there is a great difference between differences of opinion or perspective and differences of belief. Psychiatry/psychology should be governed by science and reason, and if influenced by belief instead, I do not think that's healthy. Holding different philosophical positions, political views, and ideologies are things I can understand. Believing in a God of some sort is not something I can understand. It seems irrational to me. I want a psychiatrist who is rational, even if I don't agree with him or her.

If a psychiatrist had, say, some other specious belief that offended me, like a very racist point of view, for example, I would similarly tend to dismiss his or her "insights" as limited.

 

[VMSmith]

I actually know of a (non-catholic) psychiatrist (who I think has lost the plot) who believed that mental illnesses were often caused by spirit attachment, and referred a patient for exorcism. the priest in that case did not want the psychiatrist seeing the patient for therapy at all though. i am sure if the psychiatrist believed that demonic possession was the cause they would treat and refer appropriate. no good psychiatric textbook is complete without a discussion of possession states.

In medical school I encountered a Pentecostal psychiatrist who believed that borderline personality disorder was actually a form of multiple personality disorder (that's what he called it, not dissociative identity disorder) that was caused by demonic possession, and which would only respond to low doses of Abilify. He also believed in the Four Temperaments, and the psychoeducation he provided to patients was all based on what type of Temperament he identified them as.

As you can imagine, he had some evangelical Christian patients who loved him, but beyond that everyone just kind of wondered how he managed to keep his license and board certification.

 

[Ceke2002]

That's quite an indictment, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of my point. I do interact and learn from people with different beliefs than my own, but I'm also a rationalist, and as a rationalist, I'm really not sure what superstition can offer me. That doesn't mean that I do not respect peoples' religious views. I categorically do, and I would even go as far as to say that I believe the world does better because of the religious beliefs held by many, which seems to generally improve the greater social order; I just personally find religion impossible to believe. I am a rational-materialist who believes in science. Other people are entitled to believe in things that are not scientific, but it's hard to know what I might learn from those people when it comes to my own mind (this is not a thread about learning from people, in general, but about learning about your mind, specifically, from another person, specifically, in a set context, called psychiatry; avoid over generalizations). That's not to say that I'm intolerant of others' beliefs. Not in the least, and I find them quite culturally charming and personally often very lovely.

I should clarify that I do like some Eastern religious theology because some of it is very rational-materialist, at core. Also, I believe in science-not-yet-discovered, so I appreciate quantum physics and the fuzzy core of science, which may wind up someday rationally explaining what many believe to be "spiritual."

Not following here because you talk about different philosophies, political beliefs, and other ideological points, but I'm only talking about religious differences because there is a great difference between differences of opinion or perspective and differences of belief. Psychiatry/psychology should be governed by science and reason, and if influenced by belief instead, I do not think that's healthy. Holding different philosophical positions, political views, and ideologies are things I can understand. Believing in a God of some sort is not something I can understand. It seems irrational to me. I want a psychiatrist who is rational, even if I don't agree with him or her.

If a psychiatrist had, say, some other specious belief that offended me, like a very racist point of view, for example, I would similarly tend to dismiss his or her "insights" as limited.

Both of these are fair and reasoned responses. Although, and correct me if I'm misreading you in some way, they still seem to be based on the automatic premise that someone of faith wouldn't be able to treat you effectively without bringing their faith into the equation. I can understand you not feeling comfortable with a therapist who did work in a faith based way, but to say you would find it impossible for anyone of faith to help you is a tad absolute to my mind. Being a scientifically based rationalist, and also having a certain spiritual or religious belief system, one does not necessarily and automatically negate the other.

Edited to add: There's more to the discussion that I'd like to continue with, but for now you'll have to forgive me for having just woken up and not yet had my morning medication kick. The old brain, she is a bit fuzzy. I suppose my main point is just for you to be careful not to do yourself a disservice in finding the help you require, by cutting off an entire swathe of the therapeutic/psychiatric population.

 

[Ceke2002]

In medical school I encountered a Pentecostal psychiatrist who believed that borderline personality disorder was actually a form of multiple personality disorder (that's what he called it, not dissociative identity disorder) that was caused by demonic possession, and which would only respond to low doses of Abilify. He also believed in the Four Temperaments, and the psychoeducation he provided to patients was all based on what type of Temperament he identified them as.

As you can imagine, he had some evangelical Christian patients who loved him, but beyond that everyone just kind of wondered how he managed to keep his license and board certification.

Yikes!

 

[Mahavidya2]

Both of these are fair and reasoned responses. Although, and correct me if I'm misreading you in some way, they still seem to be based on the automatic premise that someone of faith wouldn't be able to treat you effectively without bringing their faith into the equation. I can understand you not feeling comfortable with a therapist who did work in a faith based way, but to say you would find it impossible for anyone of faith to help you is a tad absolute to my mind. Being a scientifically based rationalist, and also having a certain spiritual or religious belief system, one does not necessarily and automatically negate the other.

It's more like I would have trouble responding to that person because of how I might perceive them. Perhaps it's not as absolute as I make it out. I think about someone like Stephen Hawking, who is a fantastic scientist but who does believe in God. Then again, he's not my psychiatrist. Still, trust is at the core of a psychiatrist/psychologist relationship, and if one does not trust his or her therapist, how can that person help the other person? Say, for example, that your psychiatrist or therapist one day tells you that he or she believes that the sky is made of mold. You look up and see that the sky is nothing other than bright blue. "A-ha!" hypothetical-therapist announces, "It's blue because of the bacterial content, indeed, like bleu cheese. Now, let's get down to discussing how you've been feeling." At this point, there would be no way to take this person's advice seriously. Or, perhaps they've never made this sky-is-blue-mold announcement at all. Maybe you find out this information by happenstance. Perhaps you are just sitting quietly in their office, talking, when you notice a small book tucked into their book shelf called "The Sky is Blue Because It Is Made of Mold." With such a compelling title, you wait until the therapist walks out of the room, take a quick peek at the book, note the heavy annotations in the margins and the author's touching, personal inscription, "To Dr X, a True Believer, Sincerely Author Y."

How do you take this person seriously after that? It doesn't matter where the source of skepticism is it, does it? If someone believes something that you find so overarchingly and fundamentally absurd, how can they help you, other than in some very abstract way? It's not a problem concerning them and their comportment. They could be a consummate professional. Perhaps the matter would be so small, in some cases, that it would strike you as non-objectionable, a quirk of some sort. But if the matter is one that seems to go to the core of their being itself, as faith seems to, then it would be very hard to be receptive to that person about certain things. In day-to-day life, it wouldn't particularly matter if everyone around you was part of the sky-blue-mold society. Coffee from sky-blue-molders at the local Starbucks, no problem. Conversation, friendship, sports, cinematic marathons, travel, co-habitation in your neighborhood, all fine with the sky-blue-mold-people. But psychological help? You would sit around thinking that they need it more than you did.

 

[Ceke2002]

I've had very few situations where the religion came into conflict with the treatment.

I did have a Scientologist patient. Now the good things were this. 1-She wasn't one of those deeply entrenched ones where if she sought psychiatric treatment she would be in fear of potentially being harmed or disappearing. She was merely just fiddling with it. She was depressed and I told her that it was her choice to take meds or not and thankfully her GAF wasn't bad to the point where I would've had a legal obligation to make her go to the hospital. We worked out a non-med treatment approach that worked for her.

I also had a Muslim patient with schizoaffective disorder. The guy wanted to treat his disorder through prayer alone and I told him it doesn't work that way (nicely of course and I explained to him the known science about it). His mosque encouraged him to use prayer alone. Well about 3-4 months later they're calling me up begging me to intervene and all telling me they were wrong to mess with this and realized he really did need meds.

During the time they encouraged him to avoid meds they meant well but didn't really know what they were dealing with, nor was the patient really telling them in detail his problems. He just told them he has a psychiatric disorder and was going to pursue spirituality to treat it. They didn't know any better. I was in a position where his GAF was too good to put him in the hospital so I just had to wait till his GAF was too low. As for trying to explain it to them? No. It'd be violating HIPAA and the patient didn't want me talking to anyone about it.

Something you may be interested in for future reference:

http://www.journalofmuslimmentalhealth.org/

Role of Islam in the management of Psychiatric Disorders

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705684/

 

[hamstergang]

Perhaps it's not as absolute as I make it out. ...Still, trust is at the core of a psychiatrist/psychologist relationship, and if one does not trust his or her therapist, how can that person help the other person? ...If someone believes something that you find so overarchingly and fundamentally absurd, how can they help you, other than in some very abstract way?

Are you saying you can't trust a religious person?

The issue you seem to be missing is that pretty much everyone compartmentalizes. That is, their beliefs in one sphere may have no correlation with beliefs in another, and may in fact be contradictory. A psychiatrist's religious beliefs should have no bearing on the treatment they provide. And if you can't see past that religious belief, then perhaps you aren't as rational as you'd like to believe.

 

[heyjack70]

It's more like I would have trouble responding to that person because of how I might perceive them. Perhaps it's not as absolute as I make it out. I think about someone like Stephen Hawking, who is a fantastic scientist but who does believe in God. Then again, he's not my psychiatrist. Still, trust is at the core of a psychiatrist/psychologist relationship, and if one does not trust his or her therapist, how can that person help the other person? Say, for example, that your psychiatrist or therapist one day tells you that he or she believes that the sky is made of mold. You look up and see that the sky is nothing other than bright blue. "A-ha!" hypothetical-therapist announces, "It's blue because of the bacterial content, indeed, like bleu cheese. Now, let's get down to discussing how you've been feeling." At this point, there would be no way to take this person's advice seriously. Or, perhaps they've never made this sky-is-blue-mold announcement at all. Maybe you find out this information by happenstance. Perhaps you are just sitting quietly in their office, talking, when you notice a small book tucked into their book shelf called "The Sky is Blue Because It Is Made of Mold." With such a compelling title, you wait until the therapist walks out of the room, take a quick peek at the book, note the heavy annotations in the margins and the author's touching, personal inscription, "To Dr X, a True Believer, Sincerely Author Y."

How do you take this person seriously after that? It doesn't matter where the source of skepticism is it, does it? If someone believes something that you find so overarchingly and fundamentally absurd, how can they help you, other than in some very abstract way? It's not a problem concerning them and their comportment. They could be a consummate professional. Perhaps the matter would be so small, in some cases, that it would strike you as non-objectionable, a quirk of some sort. But if the matter is one that seems to go to the core of their being itself, as faith seems to, then it would be very hard to be receptive to that person about certain things. In day-to-day life, it wouldn't particularly matter if everyone around you was part of the sky-blue-mold society. Coffee from sky-blue-molders at the local Starbucks, no problem. Conversation, friendship, sports, cinematic marathons, travel, co-habitation in your neighborhood, all fine with the sky-blue-mold-people. But psychological help? You would sit around thinking that they need it more than you did.

IMO there is a difference between believing the sky is made of mold and believing in a religion. It's widely accepted in the mental health field that religious beliefs falling within accepted social norms do not amount to mental illness. In contrast, believing the sky is made of mold is not a widely held belief at all, and is potentially delusional, especially because it can be disproved with scientific observation. While I would have serious reservations being in treatment with a delusional therapist, I wouldn't be concerned about a therapist who believed in a religion different than mine, unless they were in a cult of some kind, but that is a big gray area in the "religion is not a mental illness" debate.

 

[Mahavidya2]

I'm not in the mental health field, and in my field/sub-field, it's widely accepted that religious beliefs warrant deep skepticism. Perhaps we just have discipline-specific paradigmatic schisms.

At any rate, I have been a psychiatric patient, and the question was partially geared towards patients, so I replied.

 

[touchpause13]

In medical school I encountered a Pentecostal psychiatrist who believed that borderline personality disorder was actually a form of multiple personality disorder (that's what he called it, not dissociative identity disorder) that was caused by demonic possession, and which would only respond to low doses of Abilify. He also believed in the Four Temperaments, and the psychoeducation he provided to patients was all based on what type of Temperament he identified them as.

As you can imagine, he had some evangelical Christian patients who loved him, but beyond that everyone just kind of wondered how he managed to keep his license and board certification.

I wish this surprised me.

My dad was raised pentacostal and he does advertise himself as a Christian psychologist BUT he is Christian in probably the broadest sense of the word and does a lot of work with people who have been victims of spiritual abuse. He definitely has evangelical and pentacostal patients, and it's helps that he can speak their language but the way that particular culture treats mental illness is a huge reason why he left the church (and he married my catholic mom haha)

 

[Ceke2002]

I'm not in the mental health field, and in my field/sub-field, it's widely accepted that religious beliefs warrant deep skepticism. Perhaps we just have discipline-specific paradigmatic schisms.

At any rate, I have been a psychiatric patient, and the question was partially geared towards patients, so I replied.

Skepticism, yes - even as a devoutly spiritual person I don't just believe without critical thought, self awareness and self experience. But sometimes the most rational thing we can do, and in my opinion a sign of psychological growth, is to try and understand that which we may find absurd, even offensive, and not just turn away from it, or dismiss it offhand as something that couldn't possibly be applicable to us, that we couldn't possibly learn from the 'absurdist' beliefs of others.

I was raised in an extremely racist household. My father espoused white supremacist points of view, and I was constantly reminded, although I never held with my father's beliefs, that only a very specific segment of the white population was to be considered worthy of respect - any one outside of that paradigm, all other races, were dangerous and disgusting and never to be trusted, they were 'less than'. When I was around the age of 11 I became involved in social justice movements, and by the time I reached my teen years I railed constantly against my Father's belief, because I thought it was the rational thing to do at the time. My Father's beliefs were so abhorrent, so irrational to me,that how could I not have argued and screamed and shouted against them. But then, as I got older, and began to find out more about my Father's life, the way he had been raised, the deep family rifts, I realised that I had been the one who had reacted irrationally as a teenager. My Father wasn't a racist, because he truly hated others who weren't like him, he held those views because his childhood had taught him that nowhere was safe, nowhere was constant, and everything could be taken away from you in an instant. Somewhere inside that vile bigotry espousing racist, was a very lost and frightened man who lived in an almost constant state of paranoia that the family he had finally hoped for would be taken away from him at any moment if he did not remain ever vigilant against anything he considered 'unknowable' and therefore 'unsafe'. All the screaming, and shouting, and foot stomping in the world wasn't going to change my Father's inner core, it was too fixed, I might as well have stood outside and shaken my fist at the sun for daring to rise every morning - the most rational thing I did, the most rational thing I could have done, was to understand 'why'. And now I use that understanding, that moment of what I consider personal, psychological growth, to try and understand others who might also hold the same or similar points of view, because it is my belief that by doing so, when possible, you are then able to approach someone with respect and understanding, no matter how vile you find their words and ideas, and through that respect and understanding dialogues can be established and real change can be forged.

That is what is rational to me.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

I wish this surprised me.

My dad was raised pentacostal and he does advertise himself as a Christian psychologist BUT he is Christian in probably the broadest sense of the word and does a lot of work with people who have been victims of spiritual abuse. He definitely has evangelical and pentacostal patients, and it's helps that he can speak their language but the way that particular culture treats mental illness is a huge reason why he left the church (and he married my catholic mom haha)

Speaking from the great empty spaces of Fly-over Land, I've found that there is a deep cultural fear and distrust of psychiatry and psychology among people of sincere religious belief. It is not simply superstition, but it does prevent people from taking steps toward healing and wholeness. Of course the numbers bear out that a mental health professional is less likely to hold a religious belief than a member of their community in general, but I can't tell you the number of times a patient has expressed that I would look down on their beliefs, or try to "convert them" away from belief. They're getting this message somewhere. I also know numerous pastors who feel devastated and powerless about the mental illness and related problems they see among their own congregations, and openly encourage their parishoners to "get professional help", but the stigma still exists. The distrust seems to flow in both directions.

Many times I'm asked for a referral by a patient asking for a practitioner who shares their belief system, and my response is almost always that I don't know what Dr. X or Therapist Y specifically believe, but that I know them well enough to trust that they will be respectful of the patient's beliefs and do their best to help them. That's usually enough. Occasionally I have a patient who shares my Protestant heritage to some extent, and I'll do what I can to use their language, bring in a scripture reference or quote from Martin Luther or someone, or use a bit of AA Theology to reinforce a point, etc., but it's never the core content of an interaction. For that we offer Chaplain Consults.

 

[Trismegistus4]

Speaking from the great empty spaces of Fly-over Land, I've found that there is a deep cultural fear and distrust of psychiatry and psychology among people of sincere religious belief. It is not simply superstition, but it does prevent people from taking steps toward healing and wholeness. Of course the numbers bear out that a mental health professional is less likely to hold a religious belief than a member of their community in general, but I can't tell you the number of times a patient has expressed that I would look down on their beliefs, or try to "convert them" away from belief. They're getting this message somewhere.

Given the semi-regular stream of snide comments about conservative religious people I've been overhearing from left-leaning colleagues since day 1 of medical school, that's not surprising. But then, if such people met a patient who had reservations about seeing them, they'd just blame conservative religion instead of their own smug, superior attitude.

 

[erg923]

Given the semi-regular stream of snide comments about conservative religious people I've been overhearing from left-leaning colleagues since day 1 of medical school, that's not surprising. But then, if such people met a patient who had reservations about seeing them, they'd just blame conservative religion instead of their own smug, superior attitude.

Do "left-leaning" Catholics burn you up just as much?

 

[VMSmith]

I wish this surprised me.

My dad was raised pentacostal and he does advertise himself as a Christian psychologist BUT he is Christian in probably the broadest sense of the word and does a lot of work with people who have been victims of spiritual abuse. He definitely has evangelical and pentacostal patients, and it's helps that he can speak their language but the way that particular culture treats mental illness is a huge reason why he left the church (and he married my catholic mom haha)

Yes, there is definitely a big difference between being able to understand the evangelical Christian culture and "speak the language," translating your medical knowledge to help patients understand/accept their illnesses and treatments in their own terms. It is whole 'nother thing to base your treatment plans and medication choices on your own personal religious beliefs, without regard to medical evidence or the beliefs of your patients.

 

[touchpause13]

Speaking from the great empty spaces of Fly-over Land, I've found that there is a deep cultural fear and distrust of psychiatry and psychology among people of sincere religious belief. It is not simply superstition, but it does prevent people from taking steps toward healing and wholeness. Of course the numbers bear out that a mental health professional is less likely to hold a religious belief than a member of their community in general, but I can't tell you the number of times a patient has expressed that I would look down on their beliefs, or try to "convert them" away from belief. They're getting this message somewhere. I also know numerous pastors who feel devastated and powerless about the mental illness and related problems they see among their own congregations, and openly encourage their parishoners to "get professional help", but the stigma still exists. The distrust seems to flow in both directions.

Many times I'm asked for a referral by a patient asking for a practitioner who shares their belief system, and my response is almost always that I don't know what Dr. X or Therapist Y specifically believe, but that I know them well enough to trust that they will be respectful of the patient's beliefs and do their best to help them. That's usually enough. Occasionally I have a patient who shares my Protestant heritage to some extent, and I'll do what I can to use their language, bring in a scripture reference or quote from Martin Luther or someone, or use a bit of AA Theology to reinforce a point, etc., but it's never the core content of an interaction. For that we offer Chaplain Consults.

Hey I happen to like flyover land!

Honestly though it is something on my radar, I'm not totally sure how I'm supposed to respond if a patient asks my religious convictions. Saying I was raised catholic is an obvious deflection, saying I'm a godless heathen might cause some friction Sooo