Jagella

The following is based on Albert Ellis’s “Is Religiosity Pathological?�? which appeared in Free Inquiry Spring 1988 on pages 27-32.

The following traits can be said to be present in an emotionally healthy person and often absent in a religious individual:

Self-interest
Religious people are taught to “make sacrifices�? often to the detriment of their own wellbeing.
Self-direction
Religious individuals are led by other people they see as authorities who tell them what to think and what to do.
Social interest
Pious persons often withdraw from “the world�? believing that by sacrificing their relations with people they somehow enhance their “relationship with God.�?
Tolerance
Religionists are often intolerant of others and may label them as “perverts,�? “sinners,�? or “pagans.�?
Acceptance of ambiguity and uncertainty
Many religious people hate the idea of chance and opt for beliefs they insist are certainly true.
Flexibility
Religious persons are usually rigid in their thinking and stick to their beliefs despite evidence that these beliefs may well be untrue.
Scientific thinking
History bears out that religious beliefs are often superceded by the march of scientific discovery, yet many religious people will reject science because it clashes with their dogmas.
Risk taking
The religionist may see the world as full of dangers, and as a result he or she may refuse to strike out on potentially beneficial adventures.
Self acceptance
Many religions lay guilt trips on people, and consequently the believer may begin to loathe himself and his actions.

In contrast to the theist or religious believer, atheists and humanists very often exhibit these characteristics. When a person seeks to accept the world the way it is while striving to make it a better place through learning and applying this knowledge, the result is a more stable and healthy state of mind.

Jagella

Integra96

To answer the question, no.

There may some interesting points there, but I think this amounts to pleading. I'm an atheist, but I could see a theist constructing a similar list designed to highlight the religionist and show the atheist as exhibiting pathological characteristics.

seebs

Complete absense of self-sacrifice is also a pathology, you know...

Jagella

Then we have a disagreement. I thought Ellis did a very good job of laying out the many potential pitfalls that a person may experience in religious belief and practice that can lead to emotional instability. I’m no psychologist, but the similarities between mental illness and religiosity are way too obvious to ignore.

It’s been done. Paul C. Vitz discussed the psychology of atheism in his book, Faith of the Fatherless. According to his hypothesis, atheism results from a poor relation with one’s father. Vitz’ evidence for his idea is the fact that some notable atheists have been known to have poor relations with their fathers. I will reject Vitz’ argument because the evidence he provides is merely anecdotal. I would like to see the results of scientific studies. Moreover, I am an atheist, yet I have a very good relationship with my Dad.

So as I hope you can see, I don’t see all arguments for the emotional stability of atheists versus theists and religionists as having the same credibility. One must examine the argument and any evidence provided. So far it appears to me that Ellis’ argument may very well be credible.

Jagella

Jagella

I don't know. Please explain what you mean.

Jagella

Bill B

While Ellis's points are well taken, and a strong case can be made that religious folks need desperately to be presented an alternate view (reading Ellis's article would be a good start), the use of the term "pathological" to describe the the theistic worldview bothers me.

What's "pathological", as opposed to what's "normal" and healthy, at least when it is applied to one's worldview, is always a value-judgement defined, ultimately, by the consensus of those in charge.

Like it or not, the folks at the top of the power chain determine the definition of "terrorist" vs. "freedom fighter" or "enlightened" vs. "deluded", or "rational" vs. "irrational".

And, unfortunately, at present, internet infidels aren't being invited to write the dictionary, 'cause the asylum is being run by the other guys.

advancedatheist

Religionists themselves acknowledge that religious behavior is pathological when they witness manifestations of it in others that strike them as absurd or creepy. For example, the christian fundamentalists and conservative catholics who got boners over Mel Gibson's movie The Thrashing of the Christ probably would find a Shia Muslim Ashura procession really disturbing. Why is it wonderful that Roman soldiers beat up on Jesus, but horrific that Shia Muslims voluntarily whip and cut themselves to participate symbolically in some Muslim martyr's ordeal? If anything, the latter's willingness to experience a "passion" hands-on indicates a level of devotion that puts christians to shame.

run2white

Now you know who not to read.

Jagella

True, but we nevertheless need to make such judgments. Although our methods to judge others are far from perfect, I hope that we do not allow the fear of a “slippery slope�? to keep us from studying psychopathology.

Again, you are correct in stating that “the folks at the top�? determine such definitions as far as what the government deems them to be. However, we still need to see some people as “terrorists,�? for example, because terrorist acts are inflicted on innocent people, of course. As I hope you will agree, the fear of terrorist acts or of crime should take a higher priority over that of fearing that we might mislabel a person as a terrorist, or as a criminal, or as mentally ill. Obviously, we need to have good reasons to deem some people as potentially dangerous, and I submit that reason and justice should always guide our decisions in controlling antisocial behavior.

Jagella

Jagella

Violence is a good example of what many religionists might see as “creepy,�? yet they seem oblivious to the fact that much of their “holy�? scriptures are full of the most horrific violence. The Bible comes to mind. I know a born-again Christian woman who frowns on some of the violent computer games I play, but such distaste with violence does not dissuade her from seeing the Bible as “the good book.�? Perhaps she sees the violence in the Bible as justified in some way, or maybe she never bothers to read it.

Jagella