In a now-closed thread, RfM poster "robertb" responds by suggesting examination of a paper that deals with religion and mental health. It is offered as recommended reading in order to counter the premises put forth by. Watters, As "robertb" notes about the touted review: "In a 2009 study titled 'Research on Religion, Spirituality, and Mental Health: A Review,' Dr. Harold G. Koenig writes: 'Religious and spiritual factors are increasingly being examined in psychiatric research. Religious beliefs and practices have long been linked to hysteria, neurosis, and psychotic delusions. However, recent studies have identified another side of religion that may serve as a psychological and social resource for coping with stress. After defining the terms religion and spirituality, this paper reviews research on the relation between religion and (or) spirituality, and mental health, focusing on depression, suicide, anxiety, psychosis, and substance abuse. The results of an earlier systematic review are discussed, and more recent studies in the United States, Canada, Europe, and other countries are described. While religious beliefs and practices can represent powerful sources of comfort, hope, and meaning, they are often intricately entangled with neurotic and psychotic disorders, sometimes making it difficult to determine whether they are a resource or a liability' (“Can J Psychiatry,” 2009;54(5):283-291). . . . [for the entire text of Koenig's article, see:
http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/32/6/201.full; see also,"Research since Watters' book was written nearly 30 years ago shows a different picture," by "robertb," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 28 November 2011, at:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,352600,352703#msg-352703)
I have, in fact, read Koenig's entire article. While interesting in proposing that people utilize religion as a mechanism to “cope with stressful health problems and life circumstances” (p. 11), what is not mentioned in "robertb's" introduction to the paper is Koenig's own admission about the possible consequences of his review. He confesses, for instance, that “clinical implications” of his paper include the following potential negative: “Religious beliefs may contribute to mental pathology in some cases.”
Koenig also admits: “My review of recent studies is selective, not systematic" (p. 1). Furthermore, although Koenig states that “religious involvement is an important factor that enables [certain] people [such as ‘medical patients, older adults with serious and disabling medical conditions and their caregivers’] to cope with stressful health problems and life circumstances,” he nonetheless concedes that “this may not be true in all populations . . . ." (p. 11)
To his credit, Koenig acknowledges evidence of bias in studies regularly produced by pro-religion researchers. He notes that, methodologically speaking, analysis of human spirituality has in recent years frequently been tainted by that bias, with the examined areas “often [being] assessed either in terms of religion or by positive psychological, social, or character states. . . . For example, standard measures of spirituality today contain questions asking about meaning and purpose in life, connections with others, peacefulness, existential well-being and comfort and joy. This is problematic, as it assures that spirituality in such studies will be correlated with good mental health. In other words, spirituality--defined as good mental health and positive psychological or social traits--is found to correlate with good mental health. Such research is meaningless and tautological" (p. 2).
*According to Some of His Peers, Koenig Is a Religious Quack Whose Own Commentaries Are Highly Suspect
While some here may enthusiastically embrace Koenig and his penchant for the religiously ridiculous, that faithful fervor is not shared by colleagues in fields of rigorous discipline who value sound science over the silly supernatural. Koenig certainly has detractors in the halls of empirical investigation, as evidenced in the article, “Faith Healing: Can Prayer Do Anything More Than Make You Feel Better?”
Hard-science professionals have concluded that Koenig's prayers didn't, well, have a prayer: “Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of Duke University’s Center for the Study of Religion/Spirituality and Health, has spent his entire professional life looking at how spirituality affects a person’s physical well-being. . . . Koenig is the author of ‘The Healing Power of Faith,’ . . . , a compilation of scientific studies that examine the impact of religious belief on physical and mental health. ‘These studies are inexplicable within the realm of science,’ he says. ‘There’s no traditional scientific mechanism in action, and scientists have a problem with that.’
“Dr. Stephen Barrett has a big, big problem with that. ‘This study is a well-designed waste of time,’ says Barrett, board chairman of the health fraud watchdog organization ‘Quackwatch.’ (http://www.quackwatch.com/ ) ‘You can’t generate magical forces with magical thinking. It’s absurd.’"
The matter at the heart of the contention:
“A massive study published in the October 25 [1999] issue of the ‘Archives of Internal Medicine’ (a journal of the American Medical Association) showed that heart patients who had someone praying for them suffered fewer complications than other patients. Researchers at the Mid-America Heart Institute of St. Luke’s Hospital in Kansas City studied 990 patients admitted to the institute’s coronary care unit in a one-year period. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. One group was prayed for daily by community volunteers--intercessors--and the other patients had nobody assigned to pray for them. The intercessors were given the patients’ first names and were asked to pray daily for 'a speedy recovery with no complications.' It was a blind trial: None of the patients knew they were involved in a study. The researchers, led by Dr. William Harris, created an itemized score-sheet to measure what happened to both groups of patients and after four weeks there was a striking result: The prayed-for patients had suffered 10 percent fewer complications, ranging from chest pain to full-blown cardiac arrest. The study concludes, ‘This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care.’
“ . . . Barrett dismisses the entire study as a roll of the dice. Though the 10% difference may seem like divine intervention, he says the study has no clinical significance. ‘What it reflects is a lucky hit,’ he says. ‘A chance phenomenon.’ The researchers acknowledge an element of chance in their study--as well as an element of distortion, since patients in the control group most likely had friends and family praying for them, too. Harris writes, ‘It is probable that many if not most patients in both groups were already receiving intercessory and/or direct prayer from friends, family and clergy.'
“There’s no telling, in other words, how much ‘supplementary prayer’ went unaccounted for. Which raises another devilish question from Barrett: What if someone out there was praying for one of the sick patients to get worse? Wouldn’t that skew the results? ’What if you pray against somebody?,’ Barrett says. ‘Can that do harm? Is health determined by who prays harder?’ . . .
“More fuel for Barrett’s fire: ‘I would be appalled if the government or any research foundation funded this. I wouldn’t want my tax dollars going to support it,’ he says. ‘You’re much better off spending research time and money on activities that might yield practical results.’” (Jon Bowen, “Faith Healing: Can Prayer Do Anything More Than Make You Feel Better?,” under “Health,” in “Salon” magazine, 3 November 1999, at:
http://www.salon.com/1999/11/03/prayer/singleton/)
When confronted with scientific evidence that undermined his belief in the magical, Koenig predictably falls back on an old religionist defense. Science, he claims, "is not designed to study the supernatural." That’s assuming, of course, that the subject being studied is actually supernatural. (So much for expunging that pro-religious bias Koenig supposedly opposes).
Specifically, a prayer study (for which Koenig played booster role but in which he didn't actually perform research) was eventually scientifically analyzed. The result didn't turn out good for God. From the article, “Power of Prayer Flunks an Unusual Test”: “In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.
“Researchers emphasized that their work can't address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said. They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them. Critics said the question of God's reaction to prayers simply can't be explored by scientific study. The work, which followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centers, was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into science and religion. It will appear in the ‘American Heart Journal.’
“Dr. Herbert Benson [no relation] of Harvard Medical School and other scientists tested the effect of having three Christian groups pray for particular patients, starting the night before surgery and continuing for two weeks. The volunteers prayed for 'a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications' for specific patients, for whom they were given the first name and first initial of the last name. The patients, meanwhile, were split into three groups of about 600 apiece: those who knew they were being prayed for, those who were prayed for but only knew it was a possibility and those who weren't prayed for but were told it was a possibility. The researchers didn't ask patients or their families and friends to alter any plans they had for prayer, saying such a step would have been unethical and impractical. The study looked for any complications within 30 days of the surgery. Results showed no effect of prayer on complication-free recovery. But 59% of the patients who knew they were being prayed for developed a complication, versus 52% of those who were told it was just a possibility.”
Enter Koenig to try to explain it away: “Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the Duke University Medical Center, who didn't take part in the study, said the results didn't surprise him.’There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no real theological grounds to expect a result either,’ he said. 'There is no god in either the Christian, Jewish or Moslem scriptures that can be constrained to the point that they can be predicted. Within the Christian tradition, God would be expected to be concerned with a person's eternal salvation, he said, and ‘why would God change his plans for a particular person just because they're in a research study?’"
Why would he, indeed? Koenig throws in the towel, while throwing his support behind that religious bias he supposedly bemoans: “Science, he says, ‘is not designed to study the supernatural.’” (“Power of Prayer Flunks Unusual Test: Large Study Had Christians Pray for Heart Patients,” by “Associated Press,” 30 March 2006, at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/ns/health-heart_health/t/power-prayer-flunks-unusual-test/#.TtR6f0axjqI)
Koenig is the same fellow who wants to be taken seriously when touting the supposedly overwhelming mental health benefits of religion but who can't explain why God demonstrably doesn't answer scientifically-scrutinized prayers of the faithful--unless you buy his supernaturalistic explanation that that God regards as inconsequential prayers offered heavenward in some research study. Moreover, Koenig doesn't seem capable of explaining why God can't, or won't, heal amputees:
“Is God real, or is he imaginary? It is one of the most important questions you can ask yourself.
“If God is real and if God inspired the Bible, then we should worship God as the Bible demands? We should certainly post the Ten Commandments in our courthouses and shopping centers, put "In God We Trust" on the money and pray in our schools. We should focus our society on God and his infallible Word because our everlasting souls hang in the balance.
“On the other hand, if God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are pointless. Belief in God is nothing but a silly superstition, and this superstition leads a significant portion of the population to be delusional.
"But how can we decide, conclusively, whether God is real or imaginary? Since we are intelligent human beings living in the 21st century, we should take the time to look at some data. That is what we are doing when we ask, 'Why won't God heal amputees?' . . . " (“Why Won't God Heal Amputees?,” under “Is God Real, or Is He Imaginary?, ” at:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/)
So much for God paying attention to every sparrow (arm or leg) that falls.
And so much for Koenig's alleged "scientific" approach to mental illness and religion. Indeed, fellow mental health professionals have taken him o the woodshed over his suspect methodology. Below are examples of published peer-review blowback Koenig has encountered from his professional critics (and even, although in more muted tones, from his supporters). Please note that these criticism of Koenig's writings on religion and mental health has been expressed as recently as 2008 in peer-reviewed venues, in response to the Koenig study of the same year that is cited by “robertb”):
*“Reservations”
“[Koenig] highlights many aspects of understanding patients' religious beliefs with which I totally agree. However, it seems he has underestimated the influence of experience in psychiatric management. The statistical findings presented were the result of surveys which can never replace high quality evidence-based research or well designed qualitative studies. Psychiatrists in the UK have been under enormous strain to maintain a fine balance between legal and clinical responsibilities. The results of the author's suggestions are not measurable and could raise a variety of medico-legal issues. For example; how to decide which patients should be involved with their psychiatrists for joint prayer? I believe, this could be dangerous ground upon which to tread. Religion is a personal activity and psychiatrists could explore the interface between religious beliefs and psychopathology. But, they should definitely not cross sensitive boundaries. ... less
“Dr. Nazar Mansour
SPR Old Age Psychiatry, NHS”
(published in “The Psychiatrist,” 16 June 2008)
*“Religion, Psychiatry and Professional Boundaries"
“We were alarmed to read the editorial on religion and mental health (Koenig, 2008). Some of the assertions are highly contentious, and we believe some of the recommendations for clinical practice are inappropriate. The invited commentary by the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (Hollins, 2008) is cautious, but nonetheless seems to endorse Koenig’s point of view. In doing so, she lends a certain credibility to Koenig’s recommendations. Closer integration of religion and psychiatric practice is a key aspiration of an element within the Spirituality and Psychiatry Special Interest Group of the College. We believe that there is an urgent need for a serious debate on the implications of such attempts to shift the boundaries of psychiatry and the other mental health professions.
“Koenig uses some statistics that are questionable. For example, the World Christian Database may say that 1.4% of the British population are atheist, but the British Humanist Association website cites recent figures from the National Census, a Home Office survey and a MORI poll ranging from 15.5% to 36%. However, it is his fundamental argument that is seriously flawed.
“Koenig uses the rhetorical ploy of suggesting that religion is denigrated and under attack by psychiatrists. He states that psychiatry has traditionally regarded religion and spirituality as intrinsically pathological. We have been involved in mental health care in the UK since 1978, and none of us has ever known this to be suggested by a mental health professional. He states that there is wide spread psychiatric prejudice against religious faith and that psychiatrists commonly do not understand the role of religion in patients’ lives. However, the research that he cites can be interpreted as suggesting that psychiatrists, by and large, believe that religion can be both helpful and problematic to patients and that they enquire about religious matters when these are relevant. As the salience of religious issues will vary between patients, this seems to us to be the appropriate approach.
“Our major concern about Koenig’s paper is his suggestions for practice. No one could seriously challenge some of his assertions, for example that we should always respect people’s religious or spiritual beliefs and that we should some times make referrals to or consult with appropriate priests or religious elders. However, these are well established parts of routine practice. They are within the limits of existing codes of professional behaviour.
"Some of his other suggestions constitute serious breaches of professional boundaries, for example:
"1. Psychiatrists should routinely take a detailed ‘spiritual history,’ even from non-believers. He recommends that when patients resist this, the clinician should return to the task later. This seems to us to be intrusive and excessive. The insistence that even non-believers have a spiritual life shows a lack of respect for those who find meaning within beliefs that reject the transcendent and the supernatural.
"2. Some spiritual or religious beliefs should be supported and others challenged. This involves the application of the clinician’s values, which is incompatible with the maintenance of an appropriate degree of therapeutic neutrality. It is unnecessary and inappropriate for clinicians to take a position on highly sensitive matters of personal conviction, such as the existence and nature of evil, the meaning of unanswered prayer and doctrinal intolerance of homosexuality.
"3. It is sometimes appropriate to pray with patients. Even when patient and psychiatrist share a faith, the introduction of a completely non- clinical activity carries a grave danger of blurring of therapeutic boundaries and creates ambiguity over the nature of the relationship.
“We have personal experience of dealing with the adverse consequences of religious breaches of therapeutic boundaries. For the most part, these have been well intentioned but ill advised; for example, patients who want to pray with psychiatrists at one point in their treatment can become persistently distressed over having done so when their mental state changes. We have encountered more worrying breaches of boundaries where clinicians have proselytised in the consulting room. Occasionally we have encountered frankly narcissistic practice, where clinicians have been emboldened by the certainties of a charismatic faith and take the position that their personal beliefs and practices cannot be challenged because they are supported by a higher authority than secular professional ethics.
“The problem with blurring the boundaries, by inviting an apparently benign spirituality into the consulting room, is that it makes it more difficult to prevent these abuses. Having moved the old boundary it is then very difficult to set a new one.
“Psychiatrists will always have to understand patients who are different to them in gender, class, ethnicity, politics and religious faith. Understanding patient’s lives, the contexts they exist in and the resources that give them strength is a key skill in psychiatric practice (Poole and Higgo, 2006). Religion can be an important source of comfort and healing, though it can also be a source of distress. Of course, it can be intertwined with psychotic symptoms. Spiritual matters, however, exist in a different domain from psychiatric practice. There are others in our communities who have a proper role in helping patients spiritually and who can be an important source of advice to us. Quite apart from the obvious dangers inherent in confusing these roles, it is completely unnecessary to do so.
“Psychiatry has done much to improve the lot of people with mental illness, though it has also been guilty of some major historical errors. Our professional roles and professionalism are under sustained attack from a variety of sources (Poole and Bhugra, 2008). In order to resist these attacks, we need to be clear about our important and distinctive roles in helping people with mental illness. Psychiatrists are essentially applied bio-psychosocial scientists, who work within a clear set of humanitarian values and ethical principles, in order to get alongside patients and facilitate their recovery from mental illness. Psychiatry does not hold all the answers, and other professions, agencies and individuals have different distinctive roles. Within psychiatry, we have to struggle with the internal threat of crude biological reductionism. Equally, if we break the boundaries of our legitimate expertise and become generic healers, we will have lost all usefulness and legitimacy.
“Declaration of interest: The authors have a range of personal convictions, including atheist, Buddhist, Methodist, Roman Catholic and non-denominational faith.
“Rob Poole
Consultant Psychiatrist
“Robert Higgo
Gill Strong
Gordon Kennedy
Sue Ruben
Richard Barnes
Peter Lepping,
Paul Mitchell
North East Wales NHS Trust”
(published in ibid., 26 June 2008)
*“Psychiatrists and Role of Religion in Mental Health"
“Koenig’s message ('Psychiatric Bulletin,' June 2008, 32, 201-203) is very clear for psychiatrists that they should respect patients' religious beliefs and a sensible way to address this is through time investment in taking a spiritual history, respecting and supporting patients' beliefs. Challenging beliefs and referrals to clergy should be welcomed but praying with patients is highly controversial and should be treated with caution.
“There is a fine line between religiosity and religious conviction becoming a part of a complex delusional system. In clinical experience some patients are not religious prior to the onset of their mental illness. For such patients, becoming religious may be indicative of a relapse of their mental illness.
“Religion and psychiatry are usually considered as two totally different ways of healing. A number of UK, USA and Canadian studies confirm that psychiatrists are less likely to be religious in general, and are more likely to consider themselves spiritual but not religious. Religious physicians are less willing than non religious physicians to refer patients to psychiatrists (Curlin et al, 2007a). The Australian experience is not different either (D’Souza et al, 2006).
“Declaration of Interest: None declared.
“Imran Mushtaq
MRCPCH, MRCPsych, Associate Specialist-Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, Sp-CAHMS, Eaglestone Centre, Standing Way, Milton Keynes MK 6 5AZ
“Mohammad Adnan Hafeez
MRCPsych, Forensic Psychiatrist Edenfield Centre, Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Trust Bury New Road Prestwich M25 3BL“
(published in ibid., 26 June 2008)
*“The Neglect of the Non-Believer”
“I was amazed and alarmed to read Koenig’s article on religion and mental health and the president’s lukewarm support of the article as it presents no scientific evidence that any of the suggested working practices improve patient care. The few figures it uses are not supported by other studies. Koenig claims that only 1.4% of the British population are atheists. His source is the World Christian Database, hardly an unbiased source of information. This low level has no face validity to anyone working in this country. A recent study (Huber & Klein, 2008) funded by the conservative Bertelsmann Institute looked at religious beliefs in 18 countries (8 of them European) across the developed and the developing world. It used a very broad definition of religion and spirituality focusing on Pollack’s work on the belief in the transcendence as the core of substantial spirituality (Pollack, 2000). In other words, it looks for the belief in something spiritual that may or may not be related to formal religion. They professionally polled tens of thousands of people in the 18 countries making it by far the largest and most comprehensive study into the subject so far.
“Their findings confirms Britain to be amongst the least spiritual countries amongst the 18 examined across a wide range of factors including prayer, church attendance, personal religious experience, religious reflection, pantheistic influence etc. It finds that across European Christians more than 10% of those who formally belong to a church do not believe in anything spiritual at all. This makes census data potentially quite unreliable when it comes to assessing people’s real religious believes. In Britain 19% of those polled were classed to be highly religious, 43% as religious, 38% as non-religious using a broad definition of spirituality. 55% of Britons consider prayer to be non-significant for their lives and only 33% have personal religious experiences.
“Far from religion being pervasive throughout the majority of society, in Britain at least the opposite seems to be the case. Moreover, there is already a well organised provision of support for people who follow organised religion in all hospitals with easy access to religious elders and prayer rooms. However, no provision exists for non-believers who look at questions of meaning of life and morality in a non-spiritual way. It is that group that is disadvantaged rather than those who follow organised religion. It follows that rather than insisting on getting a “spiritual history” of each patient we should show respect to those who can discuss meaning of life without spirituality and find solution to identify and facilitate their needs in an increasingly secular society.
“Yours sincerely,
“Dr. P. Lepping
MRCPsych, Msc, Consultant Psychiatrist/Associate Medical Director/Honorary Senior Lecturer, North East Wales NHS Trust/University of Wales”
(published in ibid., 26 June 2008)
*”Religion and Mental Health”
“A recent editorial in the 'Psychiatric Bulletin' by Harold Koenig, (Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, North Carolina, USA) advocates the taking of a spiritual history from psychiatric patients, praying with patients, as well as consulting with and referring to religious leaders.
"He states in the editorial: 'Religious beliefs and practices have long been thought to have a pathological basis and psychiatrists for over a century have understood them in this light. Recent research, however, has uncovered findings which suggest that to some patients religion may also be a resource that helps them to cope with the stress of their illness or with dismal life circumstances.'
“While I think there is some evidence for both these suppositions not all psychiatrists view religion negatively and intense religious beliefs are in my experience just as likely to have a negative impact on an individual’s mental health as a positive one.
“Psychiatry has at various times in its history been misused in detaining political dissidents and justifying eugenics programs of the 20th century. The founding father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud spoke of Religion as an illusion maintaining that it was a fantasy structure from which man must be set free if he is to grow in maturity. Freud viewed 'God' as being a version of the father figure and religious beliefs as essentially infantile and neurotic. Freud’s protégé Carl Jung, however, took an altogether more sympathetic view of religion and was particularly interested in the positive appreciation of religious symbolism. Jung felt that the question of God’s existence was unanswerable by the psychoanalyst and adopted a strictly agnostic stance on religion generally.
“Dr. Koenig states his interest in the subject, he is funded by the centre for Spirituality Theology and Health at Duke University but he is also at pains to point out that maladaptive religious beliefs should be challenged and where they are contributing to or intertwined with a psychopathology then a respectful but neutral stance is best adopted initially.
“Quoting from the World Christian database, Koenig states that only 12% of the British population is non religious and that atheists comprise just 1.4 % of the population. Against this background Koenig advocates the taking of a 'spiritual History' as well as a psychiatric and medical one. The spiritual history should, he says, 'gather information about the patients religious background and their experiences during childhood, adolescence and adulthood and determine what role religion has been played in the past and plays now in coping with present life problems.'
“Negative as well as positive experiences with faith and clergy are of importance as are theological questions such as disappointment with unanswered payers and the belief in a personal God. Dr. Koenig makes the valid point that certain religious beliefs can conflict with certain treatment options and doom those therapies to failure. Dr Koenig advocates gently probing the patient’s spiritual beliefs even if the patient is not religious or returning at a later date if resistance is met with once a firm therapeutic alliance has been established.
“Most controversial perhaps is Dr. Koenig’s suggestion that in certain cases praying with a patient can have a powerful positive therapeutic effect. Dr. Koenig is at pains to point out that this can be a potentially dangerous intervention and should never occur until the psychiatrist has a complete understanding of the patients spiritual beliefs and it should only be done at the patients request and if the psychiatrists feels comfortable doing it.
“This last point in particular raised some hackles in the comments section, A group of psychiatrists from the North Wales NHS Trust wrote: 'Even when psychiatrists share a faith, the introduction of a completely non-clinical activity carries a grave danger of blurring of therapeutic boundaries and creates ambiguity over the nature of the relationship' “They describe psychiatry as '[a]pplied bio-psychosocial science' and say that psychiatrists work within a clear set of humanitarian and ethical principles. Praying with patients, they suggest, would break those principles leaving psychiatrists outside the boundaries of their legitimate expertise (and outside their comfort zone?), leading them to become “generic healers” with the loss of usefulness and legitimacy that this would imply.
“There are a number of assertions here that need to be challenged, the assertion that a religious approach would necessarily blur any therapeutic boundaries and the potentially false distinction made between clinical and religious activity. Psychiatric nurses talk about therapeutic relationships and alliances, Psychiatrists talk of boundaries and of the dangers when those boundaries are not maintained. It is also interesting I think that the psychiatrists see themselves as “scientists” who’s humanitarian and ethical principles might be at risk from allowing religion in the door and the term “generic healer” only serves to emphasize their separateness from the rest of us.
“However, their concerns expressed over challenging maladaptive religious beliefs I share. However, this is not because I am uncomfortable applying my own values to situations involving patients, I feel my values are compatible with maintaining an appropriate degree of therapeutic neutrality because I happen to think my values are on the whole good ones. I suspect my diffidence in enquiring into an individuals religious beliefs stems from the same source as my reluctances to enquire into their sexual orientation one of pure embarrassment. It’s odd, I feel quite comfortable asking all sorts of intrusive questions into someone’s personal relationships, why they have decided to end their life for instance but I feel unable to enquire if they believe in a God or what their sexual orientation is.
“(The British Humanist Association quotes figures from a MORI poll and the National; census which puts the numbers of those who describe themselves as atheist at between 15.5 and 36%)
“[The Author would describe himself as an atheist].
"Edwin N Harnell
Psychiatric Nurse”
(published in “ibid., 18 August 2008)
(see “Responses to This Article” [Harold D. Koenig, “Religion and Mental Health: What Should Psychiatrists Do?”], in “The Psychiatrist,” at:
http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/32/6/201.full/reply#pbrcpsych_el_5034; also, Koenig the Seminarian: A Barnstorming Believer Who Wants to Be Taken Scientifically Seriously in His Pitch for the Mental Health Benefits of Supernaturalism ,” by steve benson, on “Recovery from Mormonism,” 29 November 2011, at:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php 2,353070,353070#msg-353070; and “Thank you for validating my point,” posted by “jacob,” on “Recovery from Mormonism,” 29 November 2011, at:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php 2,353070,353279#msg-353279)
_____
--Jesus: A Magnificent Savior or a Mental Sickness?
Putting the belief-in-Jesus story to the mental test, Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, asks some pertinent (and, no doubt, uncomfortable) questions of believers on just how sane it is to buy into the notion of Jesus: “ . . . [M]any have asserted that the New Testament Christ character was the highest example of moral living. Many believe that his teachings, if truly understood and followed, would make this a better world. Is this true? Does Jesus merit the widespread adoration he has received? Let's look at what he said and did.
“Was Jesus Peaceable and Compassionate?
“The birth of Jesus was heralded with "Peace on Earth," yet Jesus said, 'Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.' (Luke 22:36) 'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.' (Luke 19:27. In a parable, but spoken of favorably.)
“The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus: 'If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.' (John 15:6)
“Jesus looked at his critics 'with anger' (Mark 3:5), and attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15). He showed his respect for life by drowning innocent animals (Matthew 8:32). He refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother (Matthew 15:22-28).
“The most revealing aspect of his character was his promotion of eternal torment. 'The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.' (Matthew 13:41-42) 'And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.' (Mark 9:43)
“Is this nice? Is it exemplary to make your point with threats of violence? Is hell a kind, peaceful idea?
“Did Jesus Promote 'Family Values'?
"'If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.'(Luke 14:26)
"'I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.' (Matthew 10:35-36) When one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus rebuked him: 'Let the dead bury their dead.'(Matthew 8:22)
Jesus never used the word 'family.' He never married or fathered children. To his own mother, he said, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' (John 2:4)
“What Were His Views On Equality and Social Justice?
“Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: 'And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.'(Luke 12:47) He never denounced servitude, incorporating the master-slave relationship into many of his parables.
“He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, 'Ye have the poor with you always.' (Mark 14:3-7)
“No women were chosen as disciples or invited to the Last Supper.
“What Moral Advice Did Jesus Give?"'There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.' (Matthew 19:12) Some believers, including church father Origen, took this verse literally and castrated themselves. Even metaphorically, this advice is in poor taste.
"If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).
"--Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
--Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)
--Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)
--Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)
--Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)
--Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)
--Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)
--Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)
--Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)
--Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)
--If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)
--If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)
--If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)
--If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)
--If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42)
“Is this wise? Is this what you would teach your children?
“Was Jesus Reliable?
Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming: 'There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom' (Matthew 16:28). 'Behold, I come quickly.' (Revelation 3:11) It's been 2,000 years, and believers are still waiting for his 'quick' return.
“He mistakenly claimed that the mustard seed is 'the least of all seeds' (Matt. 13:32), and that salt could 'lose its savor' (Matthew 5:13). Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a 'fool' shall be in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22), yet he called people 'fools' himself (Matthew 23:17). Regarding his own truthfulness, Jesus gave two conflicting opinions: 'If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true' (John 5:31), and 'Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true' (John 8:14).
“Was Jesus a Good Example?
“He irrationally cursed a fig tree for being fruitless out of season (Matthew 21:18-19, and Mark 11:13-14). He broke the law by stealing corn on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23), and he encouraged his disciples to take a horse without asking permission
(Matthew 21).
“The 'humble' Jesus said that he was 'greater than the temple' (Matt 12:6), 'greater than Jonah' (Matthew 12:41), and 'greater than Solomon' (Matthew 12:42). He appeared to suffer from a dictator's 'paranoia' when he said, 'He that is not with me is against me.' (Matthew 12:30).
“Why Jesus?
“Although other verses can be cited that portray Jesus in a different light, they do not erase the disturbing side of his character. The conflicting passages, however, prove that the New Testament is contradictory.
“The 'Golden Rule' had been said many times by earlier religious leaders. (Confucius: 'Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you.') 'Turn the other cheek' encourages victims to invite further violence. 'Love thy neighbor' applied only to fellow believers. (Neither the Jews nor Jesus showed much love to foreign religions). A few of the Beatitudes ('Blessed are the peacemakers') are acceptable, but they are all conditions of future reward, not based on respect for human life or values.
“On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He introduced nothing new to ethics (except hell). He instituted no social programs. Being "omniscient," he could have shared some useful science or medicine, but he appeared ignorant of such things (as if his character were merely the invention of writers stuck in the first century). . . .
“Why is Jesus so special? It would be more reasonable and productive to emulate real, flesh-and-blood human beings who have contributed to humanity--mothers who have given birth, scientists who have alleviated suffering, social reformers who have fought injustice--than to worship a character of such dubious qualities as Jesus. . . . “ (“Why Jesus?,” published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., Madison Wisconsin, at:
http://ffrf.org/publications/nontracts/Why-Jesus/)
Answer: Jesus is “so special” to those with “so-specially-revealed” crazy religious beliefs
Edited 13 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2012 02:37PM by steve benson.