Religion = Happiness? Myth or Fact?

[zhenka11230]

The replies to the last post inspired me to start a thread about Happiness and Religion. I will do some research and post relevant articles. I want to get to the bottom of it.

Firstly i would like to say that happiness is insufficient reason to give unconditional respect to religion. Going by happiness criterion we should allow rapists rape because it makes them happy. We should allow drugs of all kinds. There was an experiment that showed that happiness in general is almost always inaccurate judgment upon reality(if we accept the idea that moods are judgments unto the world as a whole as opposed to emotions which are judgments upon specific events IN the world.)

I would like to point to this article:
http://spaninquis.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/on-happiness/


Experiment1:
http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/78/95776.htm

I don't know about all the experiments that are relevant but can we take this particular experiment as sufficient to make such generalization that religion makes one happier then atheists?

Of course religious people will fill out questioners in that way. Of course they will say they are happy and that they have meaning. THEY ARE TOLD TO! But what REALLY goes on in their minds? We can only guess by observing their behavior, since we have a famous problem of consciousness in philosophy here(eg... how can we know others are conscious? We infer that from their behavior.) How does a happy person act? How does an dissatisfied person act? Is bombing twin towers an act of satisfaction? Is exploding abortion clinics acts of satisfaction? Ok let us not go into extremes... Let us use everyday examples! Is PRAYER an act of happiness or satisfaction or is it a CRY IN DISTRESS? Is going to church an act of happiness? Is knocking on peoples doors to convert them to their religion an act of happiness? Is desire to go to heaven and not burn in hell an act of happiness? I rest my case.

I don't know where people get statistics about religion and happiness but a genuine look around the world shows it to be false.

Where does religion strive the most? POOR COUNTRIES soaked in suffering. Where does religion strive the least? Countries where living conditions are great(America is an exception). I think this at least hints to the idea that Religion is a product of unhappiness and not the product of happiness. When a person has a great life, he doesn't even think about the topic very often.

How is dreaming about "other worldly" things a sign of happiness?

I will add more later on(of to do more research).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[IT514]

zhenka

The APA recently came out with guidelines regarding religious prejudice. I think it is nicely done and displays an appropriate balance between the possible prejudices than can be perpetuated from both theistic, agnostic, and atheistic worldviews. Your post seems, to me, to fall into the dualistic tendencies of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism can manifest itself both theistically and atheistically. From your post, it appears that a worldview of atheistic fundamentalism is attempting to establish hegemony over theistic worldviews through generalized ridicule. Please, please correct me if I am wrong. Whether an attempt at hegemony comes from a theistic or atheistic worldview, it is wrong and this type of manipulation does not belong in the field of psychology.

The concept of religion and happiness has been misunderstood here. The relationship between religion and happiness is too complex to be reduced to a simple "true vs. untrue" dichotomy. Intuitively, let’s consider that there are religious happy people and happy people who are not religious. Sadness is also no respecter of worldview. You can research as much as you want. No matter what you find, if you do come to prove to yourself your hypothesis “that Religion is a product of unhappiness and not the product of happiness” it is going to be, ironically, a value judgment that is based on your belief. Further, what do you hope to gain from this inquiry? Will it make you happier to know that your hypothesis is true? I hope you get my point here.

Also, you use too many generalizations. For example, you say:

“happiness is insufficient reason to give unconditional respect to religion”

I agree that happiness is a shaky reason to give something legitimacy, but since the rape allusions hint at a polemic against religion, I have a question for you. Are you saying this because you don’t want to give respect to religion? What is your point? Also, the fact that your respect for other belief systems is “conditional” suggests that you are basing your argument on some sort of worldview foundation. In this sense, your whole argument seems internally inconsistent.

Another generalization you use:

“When a person has a great life, he doesn't even think about the topic very often.”

Since it sounds like you are trying to make a quasi-scientific argument, you might want to tighten that up a bit.

Finally, whatever your beliefs are, it does not give you the right to use them in a way to present your worldview as better than another’s…no matter how many statistics you have to back you up. Religion, spirituality, and lack thereof should be considered as diversity variables, not objects for ridicule among psychologists. See this article for some education into this matter:

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfmfa=main.showContent&view=fulltext&format=HTML&id=1989-09981-001

 

[IT514]

Sorry, the link didnt work. The article can be found at PsychNet and it is titled "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Religious Diversity" by
Miriam S. Meyer

 

[thewesternsky]

You mentioned on another thread that you'd be interested in empirical evidence linking mindfulness and well-being. I unfortunately don't have a lot of time tonight for debate, but a quick google search pulls up this:

http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~pgoldin/Buddhism/MindfulnessWellBeing_Brown_&_Ryan_2003.pdf

...among other things. I'm not as on top of the literature in this area as I wish I were (it's only very peripherally related to what I study), but from what I've gathered-- religion often leads to greater mindfulness and greater social support, both of which can protect against certain types of mental illness.

 

[socialcog]

You mentioned on another thread that you'd be interested in empirical evidence linking mindfulness and well-being. I unfortunately don't have a lot of time tonight for debate, but a quick google search pulls up this:

http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~pgoldin/Buddhism/MindfulnessWellBeing_Brown_&_Ryan_2003.pdf

...among other things. I'm not as on top of the literature in this area as I wish I were (it's only very peripherally related to what I study), but from what I've gathered-- religion often leads to greater mindfulness and greater social support, both of which can protect against certain types of mental illness.

I attended a science talk in SF hosted by Phillip Goldin on mindfulness and neuroscience. Pretty compelling research...robust and reliable across many labs. The research is supported by fMRI data as opposed to subject's self report. Goldin spent 4+ years with Buddhist monks and from there (I think) worked with Richie Davidson before post-docking at Stanford with James Gross.

 

[Ollie123]

I attended a science talk in SF hosted by Phillip Goldin on mindfulness and neuroscience. Pretty compelling research...robust and reliable across many labs. The research is supported by fMRI data as opposed to subject's self report. Goldin spent 4+ years with Buddhist monks and from there (I think) worked with Richie Davidson before post-docking at Stanford with James Gross.

Wowza.

Don't get a much more impressive "academic pedigree" than that.

I'm going to have to look up some of this guys work.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I believe I stumbled across that research not too long ago (small world!). For some reason I was looking into neuronal activity as it related to mindfulness (or meditation?), and there was at least one monk study....and IIRC, they scored far higher than the other group(s). If anyone knows the study I'm talking about, I'd love a citation, as I did one of those "hit and run" online database searches.

 

[Psyched77]

...but from what I've gathered-- religion often leads to greater mindfulness and greater social support, both of which can protect against certain types of mental illness.

On the greater social support note...

I've had psychology & sociology textbooks (undergrad level) that have talked about this. First, religions can certainly serve as social networks/support the same way a neighborhood, school, or workplace do. The fact that X & Y attend the same church beckons the law of proximity...not to mention the relational dynamics of believing in the same thing. Second, multiple sociological studies have found that the more oppressed &/or unhappy people are, the more likely they are to attend church regularly. So, women attend church more frequently than men; blacks & Latinos/as attend church more frequently than whites, etc. The theoretical interpretation of these findings is that unhappiness gives people a need to seek out that social support.

There is a little blip in the most recent issue of Monitor on Psychology (that I just received 2 days ago) that speaks to your argument about religion being a protective factor against illness. The piece in Monitor says that this is true for women, but the opposite is true for men. In other words, females who attend church are less prone to illness, whereas males who do not attend church are less prone to illness. This supports the sociological theory about oppressed people. Furthermore, I'd be interested to know more about the demographics of their sample, as I wonder if these results would translate the same for a black population.

Anyway...one thing that frustrates me about religious study designs is that they often compare believers to believers when comparing the benefits (or whatever) of church attendance. I think that an individual's feeling of guilt over not attending or history of "exile" from the church community (over something like a teen pregnancy or extramarital affair, etc.) can dramatically impact their self-reports of happiness, peace, etc. I think that researchers might find a different data set/results entirely if they were to compare a believing group to a non-believing group...or maybe even 3 groups: those just mentioned + the believing non-attending group. The point is that regardless of what any of our beliefs/habits are, I think we can objectively agree that non-believers are going to have vastly different motivations & interpretation of non-attendance. From a "social support" aspect, I'd be interested to see a study of 4 groups: (1) believing & attending, (2) believing & non-attending, (3) non-believing & attending [meaning...attending some sort of social group like a monthly Humanist or Atheist meeting or weekly coffee shop socials with said group], & (4) non-believing & non-attending. The comparisons between 1 & 2 would be interesting, as well as those between 3 & 4. Then, it would be interesting to compare the results of 1 v. 2 to the results of 3 v. 4.

 

[Psyched77]

Your post seems, to me, to fall into the dualistic tendencies of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism can manifest itself both theistically and atheistically. From your post, it appears that a worldview of atheistic fundamentalism is attempting to establish hegemony over theistic worldviews through generalized ridicule.

Maybe you took the post personally? I didn't get that impression of the post at all. I found it to be very similar to many other examinations of religion. It sounds to me like the poster was asking about causality & "treatment groups" (ie, active vs. non-active status, etc.). Ironically, the fact that you responded the way you did (defensive? angry?) makes you seem just as much of a fundamentalist as you accuse the poster of being.

The investigation of religion & religious peoples in & of itself does not make one an opponent, nor does it instantly categorize them as a fundamentalist. Open & honest dialogue goes a long way in studying religion, whether the researcher is a believer or non-believer in that religion. And really, it's not just the theistic vs. atheistic "dichotomy" you made it out to be. Christians study Muslims, Buddhists, Jewish, Janists, Hindus, etc., & I'm sure plenty of those groups have studied Christians, as well as each other.

I'd recommend that you go back & reread the first post. Pretend that the poster is talking about one high school, Franklin High, in X City. She/he is comparing it to a high school, Washington High, in Y City. Reread the post with "Franklin High" or "students of Franklin High" inserted for every mention of religion. I think that'll make you more objective to see that the poster was not indeed engaging in "ridicule."

 

[zhenka11230]

zhenka

The APA recently came out with guidelines regarding religious prejudice. I think it is nicely done and displays an appropriate balance between the possible prejudices than can be perpetuated from both theistic, agnostic, and atheistic worldviews. Your post seems, to me, to fall into the dualistic tendencies of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism can manifest itself both theistically and atheistically. From your post, it appears that a worldview of atheistic fundamentalism is attempting to establish hegemony over theistic worldviews through generalized ridicule. Please, please correct me if I am wrong. Whether an attempt at hegemony comes from a theistic or atheistic worldview, it is wrong and this type of manipulation does not belong in the field of psychology.

The concept of religion and happiness has been misunderstood here. The relationship between religion and happiness is too complex to be reduced to a simple "true vs. untrue" dichotomy. Intuitively, let’s consider that there are religious happy people and happy people who are not religious. Sadness is also no respecter of worldview. You can research as much as you want. No matter what you find, if you do come to prove to yourself your hypothesis “that Religion is a product of unhappiness and not the product of happiness” it is going to be, ironically, a value judgment that is based on your belief. Further, what do you hope to gain from this inquiry? Will it make you happier to know that your hypothesis is true? I hope you get my point here.

Also, you use too many generalizations. For example, you say:

“happiness is insufficient reason to give unconditional respect to religion”

I agree that happiness is a shaky reason to give something legitimacy, but since the rape allusions hint at a polemic against religion, I have a question for you. Are you saying this because you don’t want to give respect to religion? What is your point? Also, the fact that your respect for other belief systems is “conditional” suggests that you are basing your argument on some sort of worldview foundation. In this sense, your whole argument seems internally inconsistent.

Another generalization you use:

“When a person has a great life, he doesn't even think about the topic very often.”

Since it sounds like you are trying to make a quasi-scientific argument, you might want to tighten that up a bit.

Finally, whatever your beliefs are, it does not give you the right to use them in a way to present your worldview as better than another’s…no matter how many statistics you have to back you up. Religion, spirituality, and lack thereof should be considered as diversity variables, not objects for ridicule among psychologists. See this article for some education into this matter:

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfmfa=main.showContent&view=fulltext&format=HTML&id=1989-09981-001

The point is, religion is false. People should not believe something with no evidence, regardless of happiness factor.

 

[clinhopeful]

errr.....i'm not a grad student yet.....but how can you say something's "false" because there's "no evidence for it"????

i have taken a bunch of philosophy....and am pretty sure that statement would be torn apart by the philosophers i learned from! you seem to be buying into a system of evidence-based decision-making by saying it is irrational for people to believe something without evidence. so where is yours....? because without it you are sounding a lot like these people you talk about, believing something is untrue without citing any evidence against it.

 

[Psyched77]

The point is, religion is false. People should not believe something with no evidence, regardless of happiness factor.

Well ok. There's no "Franklin High" explanation out of that!

 

[MaddieMay]

The point is, religion is false. People should not believe something with no evidence, regardless of happiness factor.

But you can't prove that religion is false. There is no evidence that religion is false. And I'm not religious myself, I'm agnostic.

 

[zhenka11230]

Psyched77, thanks for standing up for me : )

Religion is such a taboo that when you speak against it, people automatically think you are wrong. Religion is supposed to be something "holy" that gets a special privilege of being resistant to criticism. There is not a doubt in my mind that religion IS the cause of mental illnesses for many individuals(and by religion i mean irrational beliefs.) The point is that all those beliefs such as karma, cosmic judge, heaven, hell, free will, are bound to hit the harsh wall of reality and the conflict will emerge. The reality is less romantic. We are told we are product of evolution, and we are our brain which decays at death. Bleak as it is, it is the truth.

A person in the habit of following what he WANTS to be true rather then what IS true is probably the chief reason for neurosis nowadays. Whatever happened to finding out the truth and adopting to it rather then futile attempts to craft reality into what you want it to be.

Look at the Richard Dawkins forums; all the people who drop their irrational beliefs describe it as an amazing relief and a breath of fresh freedom, likeness of which they never felt before under grips of religion. If religion makes people so happy why is there soo many personal stories/confessions about how miserable it was for them.

As Freud said, we have a constant conflict of what our ego can face and what it can't. What religion fails to do it to train a person to learn to face everything without suppressing any of the reality that creates neurotism.

 

[Psyched77]

you seem to be buying into a system of evidence-based decision-making by saying it is irrational for people to believe something without evidence. so where is yours....?

If we're going to go that route with this conversation...

I believe there is a teacup on an orbit somewhere in our universe. We can't ever see it, because its orbit patterns keep it behind other planets & therefore out of our site. I know its there though, because I have faith that it is there. One day, it will come to pick up the true believers of the teacup.

I say its true; therefore, it must be true. (reification)

Since you say it's not true, it is your responsibility to find the appropriate evidence to prove that it's not true.

 

[erg923]

"The point is, religion is false. People should not believe something with no evidence, regardless of happiness factor."

Is this scientific thinking? If you think it is, please explain.
Then you must not be very happy living in the United States....where we believe people have the right to believe whatever the hell they want as long as they are not hurting people. Giving people this right must be torture for you...no?

Perhaps you should move to less tolerant countries. There is a good list on Amnesty Internationals website. Would you like the list? But, by the way....if you like having the right to express your views (like you are doing now), you might not like those other countries so much. See, unfortunately, telling people what to believe also means you can tell them what they can say. Since you obviously love to share your views, a quick death in countries with less freedoms would surely await. Therefore, if you cherish your right of free speech of your beliefs, maybe you should cherish the rights of others as well..no? It has to work both ways right?

 

[zhenka11230]

Not to mention religion often makes one despise a certain part of their psyche like The Shadow(jungs term) and Ego. That just can't be healthy. All those people who think their evil thoughts are devils work are inevitably suffering from self hate(not devil hate!). All those people who try to get rid of their ego are inevitably suffering from stress because it is impossible. It is BIOLOGICALLY WIRED INTO US. Selfish gene is a selfish gene and denying our nature only leads to more suffering. What those religious folks do is twist and turn the reality to make themselves "holy and good and righteous" while remaining unconsciously under grips of the selfish gene. This inevitably leads to a very poor OBJECTIVE reality interpretation skills which are indeed important for mental health.

The list of negatives of religion is ENDLESS. How can anyone compare religion to happiness?

What can a religious person have that an atheist/skeptic/rational being can't? We can replase old values with new values and have a happy meaningful life free of distortion. We can have faith in technology and each other. We can have hope in ourselves and others. We can have meaning in what we do for humanity and what they do for us. In fact there already is a perfect system for such world view which is called transhumanism.

Now as Hitchens points out, there is a lot of things that an Atheist can have that a religious person can't. Such as freedom. There are evil things that religious people do out of their irrational beliefs while by nature being good(maybe twin towers happened this way). While an atheist, when he does bad, he does it knowingly of it being evil.

"Without religion, good people do good things and evil do evil, but for a good person to do evil, that takes religion!"
I think this perfectly sums up the danger of religion in our society and i hope more people will get on the bandwagon to eliminate it(yes i said eliminate). **** tolerance. Why don't tolerate murder, why should we tolerate religion? What gives it a free ride in our society?

 

[erg923]

Should I interpret your refusal to answer my questions as defensiveness, or lack of justifiable answers? I can relist them if you like....

 

[zhenka11230]

"The point is, religion is false. People should not believe something with no evidence, regardless of happiness factor."

Is this scientific thinking? If you think it is, please explain.
Then you must not be very happy living in the United States....where we believe people have the right to believe whatever the hell they want as long as they are not hurting people. Giving people this right must be torture for you...no?

Perhaps you should move to less tolerant countries. There is a good list on Amnesty Internationals website. Would you like the list? But, by the way....if you like having the right to express your views (like you are doing now), you might not like those other countries so much. See, unfortunately, telling people what to believe also means you can tell them what they can say. Since you obviously love to share your views, a quick death in countries with less freedoms would surely await. Therefore, if you cherish your right of free speech of your beliefs, maybe you should cherish the rights of others as well..no? It has to work both ways right?

IF we lived in a world where beliefs didn't influense actions, i would be all for it! But we live in a world where there is direct causality between world view and once actions. Because of the damn religion, we have no right of euthanasia, we have limited science progress, we have all kinds of wars, we have all kinds of irrational things and needless suffering going on. A person has no right to believe something that has no evidence for.

Say i believe that WE SHOULD ALL FOLLOW SATAN. We should sacrifice all out children( put in any irrational thing here). Now if that belief wouldn't eventually lead to that particular actions i wouldn't give a crap what he believes but it does! Eventually a person who believes America is evil will bomb the twin towers believing he is going to heaven for that! And guess what? THEY DID!

 

[zhenka11230]

Should I interpret your refusal to answer my questions as defensiveness, or lack of justifiable answers? I can relist them if you like....

There is soo much refutation of religion out there, i will not waist my time. GO READ THE GOD DELUSION. Or Breaking the spell or God is not great or just read the moral animal and learn about evolution.

 

[erg923]

This is a tangential rant, and does not directly address the issues I brought up. Shall I relist my questions so you can understand them....

 

[clinhopeful]

zhenka,
i am going to address this directly to you since you didn't respond to my last post!
the first thing i want to say, which should really not be necessary but i will say it anyway, is that i am an athiest. so i resent your argument that arguments against religion are taboo. i think this is distracting from the real, logical flaws in your thinking on this issue.
good philosophy is grounded on logic. i am absolutely willing to entertain arguments that are logic-based without the existence of concrete experimental evidence. however, in this thread you seem to be muddying the waters by hopping back and forth between the logic-based and evidence-based arguments when it is convenient for the sake of the points you want to make.
one statement you made, you very clearly said "...religion is false. People should not believe something with no evidence..."
logically, this is 100% groundless. let's call the truth of religion y (with the shorthand "religion" standing in for whatever it is you mean, existence of God or some other thing). let's say evidence for religion is x. your argument rests on the knowledge that x->y, which we will assume to be correct, that evidence FOR religion implies religion is true. and then you use that information to justify saying ~x->~y. that is the crazy part. the most basic logic classes start with the idea that this is a fallacy (commonly referred to as "false implies true").
keep in mind, this is totally setting aside the question of whether people's beliefs "should" be based on logic. that is a totally separate question. (as well as many many other issues, such as the fact that "religion" is NOT in fact one thing. but i think these take away from the clarity of the incoherence of your argument!)
but at the most basic level, YOUR logic is way off base. and i think changing the subject away from the only post that clearly and succinctly stated a point is a reflection of this. people cannot argue with a moving target.
sincerely,
clinhopeful

 

[erg923]

You are not comprehending the underlying message of my posts. In case you haven't noticed, I have never engaged in the religious topic with you. I am interested in your personality here. I'm a psychologist, not a theologian dude...duh.... The more I get you to talk, the more you open the window to your personality and the deeper you dig your own hole. Get it now?

PS: Good social skills and the ability to "read between the lines" and are important for psychologists.

 

[IT514]

Psyched77,

Obviously you did not read my post with care. Or maybe I did not explain myself well enough. It sounds like you just read the first paragraph and took inappropriate inferences. Also you summarize my main points for me, mainly that:

"Open & honest dialogue goes a long way in studying religion, whether the researcher is a believer or non-believer in that religion."

To your claim that my interpretation (of hegemonic tone) of the first post in this thread is off...I honestly wondered about that myself. However, zhenka's response to my post confirms my initial worry, as it reads:

"The point is, religion is false. People should not believe something with no evidence, regardless of happiness factor."

What worries me is that this is a value statement which is being used to ridicule other beleif systems. This is far from the "open and honest" inquiry that we both agree with. Thus, I would say that I was legitimate in my concern, and I'll reiterate my point that all types of belief, be it theistic, atheistic, or what have you, should be seen as diversity variables and not as objects for generalized ridicule.

Other than that, Psyched, I think you make great points, particularly your idea of the 4-group social support study.

 

[empathiosis]

...

 

[IT514]

*sorry, double post*

 

[MaddieMay]

logically, this is 100% groundless. let's call the truth of religion y (with the shorthand "religion" standing in for whatever it is you mean, existence of God or some other thing). let's say evidence for religion is x. your argument rests on the knowledge that x->y, which we will assume to be correct, that evidence FOR religion implies religion is true. and then you use that information to justify saying ~x->~y. that is the crazy part. the most basic logic classes start with the idea that this is a fallacy (commonly referred to as "false implies true").

This is the basic problem I am having with zhenka's agrument, but you put it much more eloquently.

 

[Psyched77]

Psyched77,

Obviously you did not read my post with care. Or maybe I did not explain myself well enough. It sounds like you just read the first paragraph and took inappropriate inferences. Also you summarize my main points for me, mainly that:

"Open & honest dialogue goes a long way in studying religion, whether the researcher is a believer or non-believer in that religion."

To your claim that my interpretation (of hegemonic tone) of the first post in this thread is off...I honestly wondered about that myself. However, zhenka's response to my post confirms my initial worry, as it reads:

"The point is, religion is false. People should not believe something with no evidence, regardless of happiness factor."

What worries me is that this is a value statement which is being used to ridicule other beleif systems. This is far from the "open and honest" inquiry that we both agree with. Thus, I would say that I was legitimate in my concern, and I'll reiterate my point that all types of belief, be it theistic, atheistic, or what have you, should be seen as diversity variables and not as objects for generalized ridicule.

Other than that, Psyched, I think you make great points, particularly your idea of the 4-group social support study.

Fair enough.

In my defense, "The point is, religion is false. People should not believe something with no evidence, regardless of happiness factor," had not yet been posted when I was writing, so that put an entirely different spin on things. (My rebuttal was entirely based on the first post.) I may or may not agree with the above line of thinking in my personal life, but I think that one thing you & I both agree on is that theistic/atheistic perspectives of the psychologist should not inappropriately translate onto the client.

 

[paramour]

Granted, I very quickly read through this thread--but it seems slightly odd that one can simultaneously dislike religion for its lack of empiricism and quote Freud (who is so well-known for being empirically supported)? What am I missing here?

 

[IT514]

I think that one thing you & I both agree on is that theistic/atheistic perspectives of the psychologist should not inappropriately translate onto the client.

Completely agree. The APA's 2007 Resolution on Religious, Religion-Based and/or Religion Derived Prejudice, I think, provides some well-balanced guidelines into this topic. Anyone else have thoughts about this document?

http://www.apa.org/pi/religious_discrimination_resolution.pdf

 

[cara susanna]

Ohh, I didn't know this would be about mindfulness. There are several studies that link mindfulness to positive mood; I know this because I am researching it for a potential study. We know for a fact that it decreases negative mood, too.

 

[KTpsych]

There is soo much refutation of religion out there, i will not waist my time. GO READ THE GOD DELUSION. Or Breaking the spell or God is not great or just read the moral animal and learn about evolution.

Zhenka, the point isn't necessarily about whether God exists, but about allowing others to believe so. I am an atheist and do not believe that any sort of deity exists (not speaking for others on the board, but I am guessing there are a fair number of agnostics/atheists in academia). But to refuse to allow others to believe, to assert that religion is frequently twisted into hateful actions (re: your reference to the WTC), to insist that lack of evidence for religion proves its absence, is unlikely to win you any agreement. That reasoning is illogical, irrational, immature, and unsupported by research.

Besides, we all have things we believe in. Even as an atheist, I believe that people are generally good and that things will turn out all right. I also believe that carrot cake counts as a vegetable. I am not interested in having someone "correct" these "falsehoods".

 

[cara susanna]

zhenka, what about mass murder at the hands of atheists compelled to force their beliefs on others, such as communists persecuting certain religions?

 

[socialcog]

The point is, religion is false. People should not believe something with no evidence, regardless of happiness factor.

Should I go tell my son that there is no Santa?

 

[BoubtingThomas]

I see where both perspectives are coming from. Most (if not all) supernatural propositions are very irrational and unsubstantiated, there is no doubt about that. But whether or not you as a clinician agree with your client's beliefs is a non-issue. You're there to simply alleviate their presenting distress (whether it be Depression, Anxiety or whatever). So, the clients religion, for the most part, should not be a substantial issue during sessions.

Having said that, what happens if you see that the client's presenting issues are directly caused/related to his or her religious teachings? What if the client's adherence to these beliefs is perpetuating the issue and causing for a major hindrance to therapy? do you at this point terminate therapy? Feedback from current students is appreciated.

 

[Ollie123]

The classic example I always think of is a christian homosexual who is experiencing anxiety/depression/general distress of some kind over the issue.

I don't think you terminate. I think you help them understand why they feel one way or the other, decide if one role is more important to them, etc. Barring that just teaching them how to cope with the distress and role conflict, accept themselves despite the role conflict and acknowledge that everyone has some flaws (if they want to view it in that way) and hopefully make it less distressing even if it can't be completely resolved.

Personally, I'd WANT to tell them that the church's beliefs on that matter are a load of garbage and as long as you're not hurting anyone else they have no right to tell you how to live. That's not my job as a therapist though and it would be unethical, unprofessional, and irresponsible of me to say so. If I didn't think I was capable of keeping such statements in check, I would refer the client elsewhere because I wouldn't consider myself competent to treat that individual.

 

[BoubtingThomas]

I know all of you will counter me with a vengeance on the point I'm about to make, but this issue REALLY isn't as clear-cut or as discrete as "Religion as Diversity" would have you believe.
Although it would be unethical to explain to a client how evil their religion is, I still can't see myself being politically correct regarding some issues that i feel strongly about. I have lived in the middle east for some time, and I'm fairly familiar with the dominant religion at that region (I'm not going to name it, but you can easily guess). It is not a coincidence that women at that region are extremely disfranchised and treated with utter disregard. The situation is truly heart-wrenching to any humanist out there. The politically correct view would have you believe that religion has nothing to do with women's disfranchisement in the middle east, but a deep probe of this issue reveals otherwise.
To conclude this rant, I think its important to realize that one has to draw a line somewhere. We must distinguish between diversity and oppression, since not all "diversity" is humane. So, this topic is very hazy and under studied and one shouldn't be very dismissive of it just because the APA published a few articles.
I think its very improbable that a clinician will face this sort of ethical challenge often, but its important to recognize its intricate nature.

 

[psychwanabe]

The point is, religion is false. People should not believe something with no evidence, regardless of happiness factor.

There is a great line in the movie "Contact" in which a religious person is talking to a scientist who is also a staunch atheist. She says that she couldn't believe in something for which there is no proof. His response: "Did you love your father?" She: "Yes, very much." He: "PROVE IT."

There are many things for which there exists no proof. Just because we don't like some of the things we see coming out of religion does not mean that religion itself is inherently bad. There are reams of data to show the positive results that people experience because of their religious affiliation.

 

[IT514]

I know all of you will counter me with a vengeance on the point I'm about to make, but this issue REALLY isn't as clear-cut or as discrete as "Religion as Diversity" would have you believe.
Although it would be unethical to explain to a client how evil their religion is, I still can't see myself being politically correct regarding some issues that i feel strongly about. I have lived in the middle east for some time, and I'm fairly familiar with the dominant religion at that region (I'm not going to name it, but you can easily guess). It is not a coincidence that women at that region are extremely disfranchised and treated with utter disregard. The situation is truly heart-wrenching to any humanist out there. The politically correct view would have you believe that religion has nothing to do with women's disfranchisement in the middle east, but a deep probe of this issue reveals otherwise.
To conclude this rant, I think its important to realize that one has to draw a line somewhere. We must distinguish between diversity and oppression, since not all "diversity" is humane. So, this topic is very hazy and under studied and one shouldn't be very dismissive of it just because the APA published a few articles.
I think its very improbable that a clinician will face this sort of ethical challenge often, but its important to recognize its intricate nature.

Actually, I've faced it quite often in my young career and expect it to be an issue I face regularly. You are right that not all "diversity" is humane. However, I think that you are using the term 'diversity' when you should be using 'aspects within the diversity' to describe what you mean. Seeing religion as a diversity variable does not discount the complexity of the issue, as your language seems to assume. Religion as diversity is a broad starting point. From there, yes, it gets very complicated. However, just because there are certain aspects of theistic/atheistic belief that have been hurtful, thats not enough discount theism or atheism altogether. The aspects of some forms of religion regarding treatment of women that you bring up are, indeed, heart-wrenching. But again, they are aspects of religion, not religion as a whole. Similar to the treatment of Christians in Stalin's reign, or at the tragedy of Columbine, I understand that there is more going on there than atheism.

 

[BoubtingThomas]

Actually, I've faced it quite often in my young career and expect it to be an issue I face regularly. You are right that not all "diversity" is humane. However, I think that you are using the term 'diversity' when you should be using 'aspects within the diversity' to describe what you mean. Seeing religion as a diversity variable does not discount the complexity of the issue, as your language seems to assume. Religion as diversity is a broad starting point. From there, yes, it gets very complicated. However, just because there are certain aspects of theistic/atheistic belief that have been hurtful, thats not enough discount theism or atheism altogether. The aspects of some forms of religion regarding treatment of women that you bring up are, indeed, heart-wrenching. But again, they are aspects of religion, not religion as a whole. Similar to the treatment of Christians in Stalin's reign, or at the tragedy of Columbine, I understand that there is more going on there than atheism.

Yes, thats exactly my point. Sorry about the equivocation; what i meant to say is that some views within a specific culture or religion should not be tolerated for ethical and practical reasons. I think the ultimate point we glean from this discussion is that dogma, in which ever form it takes (theistic or atheistic) is counterproductive. One should be flexible and have the ability to discriminate against certain views. Saying that "all religious and cultural practices are made equal, therefore we should be tolerant of all of them" still misses the point and is a form of the philosophically bankrupt idea of "moral relativism". On the other hand, saying that "all religious teachings and practices are bad, therefore we must combat religion whenever we can" is equally fallacious. Critical reasoning, observation, and a vast cultural awareness are very much needed for any practicing psychologist.

 

[BoubtingThomas]

There is a great line in the movie "Contact" in which a religious person is talking to a scientist who is also a staunch atheist. She says that she couldn't believe in something for which there is no proof. His response: "Did you love your father?" She: "Yes, very much." He: "PROVE IT."

There are many things for which there exists no proof. Just because we don't like some of the things we see coming out of religion does not mean that religion itself is inherently bad. There are reams of data to show the positive results that people experience because of their religious affiliation.

Agreed. Like i stated in the previous reply, "religion" is a very complex system that has multiple features. Universally labeling this complex system as "good" or "evil" demonstrates naivety and oversimplification. For example, although on the whole religion appears to be psychologically beneficial, I know that there is quite a number of studies that have identified a link between catholicism and OCD (I can understand why). So, some aspects of religion are not all that pleasant.
I think we should allow NO room for the supernatural in science. Therefore, if i read in a journal article that religious people feel the way they do because they are under the influence of an unknown, unobserved phenomena i would quickly dismiss this as complete rubbish (hopefully some of you agree on that point). We should understand that religion is a natural phenomenon.
We should leave plenty of room for religion in the clinic, however, since what goes on inside the clinic is for the sole benefit of the client and not for the advancement of science.

 

[GiantSteps]

1. Don't mistake religion for religions. The term religion is too vague (remember, you people can't even settle on a decision as to what actually distinguishes a Ph.D. from a Psy.D ). Zhenka's lumping all individual religions into one term "religion" for the topic of this thread has created an entire thread of essentially meaningless generalities with no applications based in reality. Individual religions are can be and are radically different from each other. I am not even sure if the term Religion necessitates a belief in a divine being.

2. If any of you do want to be involved in a linguistically and pragamatically meaningless discussion on the term "religion" I suggest the following:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080220/lf_nm_life/religion_god_dc_1

This is a new British study on why people are religious which has funding of almost 2 million pounds (about $4,000,000). Zhenka's thread offers $0. I say Zhenka should put up an equivalent amount or we are all out of here. In fact, based on the fact that I just found $4 million for all of you to do what you are currently doing here for no compensation, I would say that you have all just experienced the closest thing to a miracle that any of you have or will ever see! (remember the burning bush?) Has anyone ever presented $4 million, ex nihili, to a bunch of SDN Psychology posters before in the entire history of the Universe? No! And you are all witness to it! And since I was the one who brought you all this revelation, I think you should all start praying to me. Your new spiritual belief (a much better phrasing that "religion" will be call GiantStepism (SDNer's from any religion or lack of religion are welcome - Zhenka too). I still have to formulate your rules but since I am omniscient and omnipotent (remember the miracle), this should not be at all difficult. Have faith!

3. In order to enhance the spiritual experience with GiantStepism for all of you, I would like to try to incorporate this newly released study by a Psychologist (I wonder where he went to school) on Moses from the Bible. Wait until all of you read what Moses was allegedly doing at Mt. Sinai. After all, Moses was able to help bring about Judaism which has been around for over 4,000 years and I would like GiantStepism to be around for at least that long.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080304/od_nm/moses_dc;_ylt=Aqdsa25rx0AUxoq6BUnbKI6s0NUE

 

[zhenka11230]

You are not comprehending the underlying message of my posts. In case you haven't noticed, I have never engaged in the religious topic with you. I am interested in your personality here. I'm a psychologist, not a theologian dude...duh.... The more I get you to talk, the more you open the window to your personality and the deeper you dig your own hole. Get it now?

PS: Good social skills and the ability to "read between the lines" and are important for psychologists.

I encounter this quite often when arguing with psychologist. They have this fallacy to assume they prove their point by guessing your motivation for making an argument. It goes along the lines of
Me: There is no god
Psychologist: You are just depressed.
Me: what the hell does that have to do with the argument?

For a psychologist you sure sound like an ***. Yeah go ahead live in your illusion that you "figure" people out.

 

[zhenka11230]

zhenka, what about mass murder at the hands of atheists compelled to force their beliefs on others, such as communists persecuting certain religions?

This is a classic fallacy. Communists didn't do it for atheism, they did it out of political convictions, they just happened to be atheists. It is no more the cause of their actions as his mustache.

 

[zhenka11230]

zhenka,
i am going to address this directly to you since you didn't respond to my last post!
the first thing i want to say, which should really not be necessary but i will say it anyway, is that i am an athiest. so i resent your argument that arguments against religion are taboo. i think this is distracting from the real, logical flaws in your thinking on this issue.
good philosophy is grounded on logic. i am absolutely willing to entertain arguments that are logic-based without the existence of concrete experimental evidence. however, in this thread you seem to be muddying the waters by hopping back and forth between the logic-based and evidence-based arguments when it is convenient for the sake of the points you want to make.
one statement you made, you very clearly said "...religion is false. People should not believe something with no evidence..."

logically, this is 100% groundless. let's call the truth of religion y (with the shorthand "religion" standing in for whatever it is you mean, existence of God or some other thing). let's say evidence for religion is x. your argument rests on the knowledge that x->y, which we will assume to be correct, that evidence FOR religion implies religion is true. and then you use that information to justify saying ~x->~y. that is the crazy part. the most basic logic classes start with the idea that this is a fallacy (commonly referred to as "false implies true").
keep in mind, this is totally setting aside the question of whether people's beliefs "should" be based on logic. that is a totally separate question. (as well as many many other issues, such as the fact that "religion" is NOT in fact one thing. but i think these take away from the clarity of the incoherence of your argument!)
but at the most basic level, YOUR logic is way off base. and i think changing the subject away from the only post that clearly and succinctly stated a point is a reflection of this. people cannot argue with a moving target.
sincerely,
clinhopeful

p1. It is illogical to believe something with no evidence.
p2. Religious claims have no evidence.
c. It is illogical to believe in religion.

 

[zhenka11230]

There is a great line in the movie "Contact" in which a religious person is talking to a scientist who is also a staunch atheist. She says that she couldn't believe in something for which there is no proof. His response: "Did you love your father?" She: "Yes, very much." He: "PROVE IT."

There are many things for which there exists no proof. Just because we don't like some of the things we see coming out of religion does not mean that religion itself is inherently bad. There are reams of data to show the positive results that people experience because of their religious affiliation.

Love is an emotion which is self justified by being aware of it. There is no other belief that needs to justify once expirience.

 

[zhenka11230]

1. Don't mistake religion for religions. The term religion is too vague (remember, you people can't even settle on a decision as to what actually distinguishes a Ph.D. from a Psy.D ). Zhenka's lumping all individual religions into one term "religion" for the topic of this thread has created an entire thread of essentially meaningless generalities with no applications based in reality. Individual religions are can be and are radically different from each other. I am not even sure if the term Religion necessitates a belief in a divine being.

2. If any of you do want to be involved in a linguistically and pragamatically meaningless discussion on the term "religion" I suggest the following:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080220/lf_nm_life/religion_god_dc_1

This is a new British study on why people are religious which has funding of almost 2 million pounds (about $4,000,000). Zhenka's thread offers $0. I say Zhenka should put up an equivalent amount or we are all out of here. In fact, based on the fact that I just found $4 million for all of you to do what you are currently doing here for no compensation, I would say that you have all just experienced the closest thing to a miracle that any of you have or will ever see! (remember the burning bush?) Has anyone ever presented $4 million, ex nihili, to a bunch of SDN Psychology posters before in the entire history of the Universe? No! And you are all witness to it! And since I was the one who brought you all this revelation, I think you should all start praying to me. Your new spiritual belief (a much better phrasing that "religion" will be call GiantStepism (SDNer's from any religion or lack of religion are welcome - Zhenka too). I still have to formulate your rules but since I am omniscient and omnipotent (remember the miracle), this should not be at all difficult. Have faith!

3. In order to enhance the spiritual experience with GiantStepism for all of you, I would like to try to incorporate this newly released study by a Psychologist (I wonder where he went to school) on Moses from the Bible. Wait until all of you read what Moses was allegedly doing at Mt. Sinai. After all, Moses was able to help bring about Judaism which has been around for over 4,000 years and I would like GiantStepism to be around for at least that long.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080304/od_nm/moses_dc;_ylt=Aqdsa25rx0AUxoq6BUnbKI6s0NUE

For my purposes it is perfectly fine to lump ALL religion under one. They have something in common - irrationality. YES ALL. Point to a rational one.

 

[zhenka11230]

Should I go tell my son that there is no Santa?

Yes sir. Please do for his sake.

 

[zhenka11230]

Zhenka, the point isn't necessarily about whether God exists, but about allowing others to believe so. I am an atheist and do not believe that any sort of deity exists (not speaking for others on the board, but I am guessing there are a fair number of agnostics/atheists in academia). But to refuse to allow others to believe, to assert that religion is frequently twisted into hateful actions (re: your reference to the WTC), to insist that lack of evidence for religion proves its absence, is unlikely to win you any agreement. That reasoning is illogical, irrational, immature, and unsupported by research.

Besides, we all have things we believe in. Even as an atheist, I believe that people are generally good and that things will turn out all right. I also believe that carrot cake counts as a vegetable. I am not interested in having someone "correct" these "falsehoods".

Not only there is LACK of evidence there is are piles of evidence, both empirical and philosophical that point in the opposite direction.

 

[cara susanna]

This is a classic fallacy. Communists didn't do it for atheism, they did it out of political convictions, they just happened to be atheists. It is no more the cause of their actions as his mustache.

And a lot of persecution by religious authorities has also been political, such as the Spanish Inquisition.

The problem isn't religions, but humans. If there were no religion, I have no doubt that they would just find something else to kill each other over.