Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We go for an hour, learn/think about something compelling, and typically leave feeling better. Personally, I find church more effective because I don't need to think as much or talk
But isn't a churchgoer who has a mental health stigma similar to an atheist in counseling who has a stigma about religion? So don't we need to look at people as individuals and drop the stigmas around religious beliefs and mental health?
Not really - religion is like a salve, and is full of repeated platitudes and trite & empty sayings which comfort merely through their repetition and commonality. The preference is for you not to think.
Therapy requires mental effort and pulling no punches, and directly challenging simplistic ways of thinking and familiarities - those entrap you. Religion is more like an officiated anti-anxiety medication.
Not really - religion is like a salve, and is full of repeated platitudes and trite & empty sayings which comfort merely through their repetition and commonality. The preference is for you not to think.
Therapy requires mental effort and pulling no punches, and directly challenging simplistic ways of thinking and familiarities - those entrap you. Religion is more like an officiated anti-anxiety medication.
Well put. "An officiated anti-anxiety medication" sums it up quite nicely.
I would not agree that 100% of what goes on in all churches is always un-challenging. I was for example exhorted to repress and even loathe my sexuality; this is not easy or fun. I would not characterize "turning the other cheek" as a feelgood remedy.
I think the difference is more along the lines of WHAT you are challenging -- if you are being directed away from needlessly rigid thought patterns or away from your inherent human nature. The problem with the disciplines that DO exist within fundamentalist teaching is that they often expend energy on what is alleged to be changeable (either innately or through the power of god) but actually isn't; whereas, competent psychological therapy is directed at what actually IS changeable. The church tends to direct its efforts against things that are contrary to dogma but not necessarily empirically harmful; therapy tends to direct its efforts against things that are actual harms and causes of suffering. So religious dogma tends to produce self-loathing and thus increases net suffering in many cases; good therapy tends to produce a sense of accomplishment, a healthy sense of self-acceptance, and reduction of suffering.
Not really - religion is like a salve, and is full of repeated platitudes and trite & empty sayings which comfort merely through their repetition and commonality. The preference is for you not to think.
Therapy requires mental effort and pulling no punches, and directly challenging simplistic ways of thinking and familiarities - those entrap you. Religion is more like an officiated anti-anxiety medication.
Well, there are studies about church goers being healthier - at least that's what my minister said
But maybe not thinking and even faith is what some people need to relax and drive their conscious. I think it depends on a case by case basis and if religion impacts people to have more "mature" or "immature" beliefs. Gordan Allport coined the terms mature and immature religion if people are not sure what I mean by those.
Well, there are studies about church goers being healthier - at least that's what my minister said
The first question I'd ask your minister or anyone making this claim is what sort of church goers are we talking about (churchgoers generally vs fundamentalist churchgoers would be two rather different samples for instance). My second question is what exactly were the questions asked and how was the survey conducted. My third question would be, are they concluding an association or going so far as to suggest (or conflate) that it actually causes better outcomes?
And, of course -- what is meant by "healthier"? How is that measured and with how much objectivity?
Finally how does this study's findings fit in with other similar ones, including those that arrived at different conclusions ... and why?
Without a clear understanding of these things, the claim is meaningless. It is common to cite the conclusions of some isolated study with convenient "findings" for a point someone is trying to make.
Of course ... it's not always or even often practical to go down some rabbit trail in a sermon to provide an airtight case, so I'm not necessarily faulting your pastor. It is just helpful when people cite studies if they provide references to them so that someone who wishes to bother can drill down to these sorts of questions.
The first question I'd ask your minister or anyone making this claim is what sort of church goers are we talking about (churchgoers generally vs fundamentalist churchgoers would be two rather different samples for instance). My second question is what exactly were the questions asked and how was the survey conducted. My third question would be, are they concluding an association or going so far as to suggest (or conflate) that it actually causes better outcomes?
And, of course -- what is meant by "healthier"? How is that measured and with how much objectivity?
Finally how does this study's findings fit in with other similar ones, including those that arrived at different conclusions ... and why?
Without a clear understanding of these things, the claim is meaningless. It is common to cite the conclusions of some isolated study with convenient "findings" for a point someone is trying to make.
Of course ... it's not always or even often practical to go down some rabbit trail in a sermon to provide an airtight case, so I'm not necessarily faulting your pastor. It is just helpful when people cite studies if they provide references to them so that someone who wishes to bother can drill down to these sorts of questions.
I was playing devil's advocate and although my minister actually said that (he quoted sources, but said it jokingly too). I don't really care one way or the other. We're not all told to believe one thing, but to think for ourselves and find our own journey. The majority of the congregation consider themselves humanists and there are a quite a few atheists and agnostics (myself included). Fundamentalists and many others wouldn't consider it a church and I wouldn't either if people's perception of church is a place where you get force fed dogma.
I think it depends on the church and the person attending. Is the church emphasizing love and selflessness or fear and exclusivity in heaven.
I was playing devil's advocate and although my minister actually said that (he quoted sources, but said it jokingly too). I don't really care one way or the other. We're not all told to believe one thing, but to think for ourselves and find our own journey. The majority of the congregation consider themselves humanists and there are a quite a few atheists and agnostics (myself included). Fundamentalists and many others wouldn't consider it a church and I wouldn't either if people's perception of church is a place where you get force fed dogma.
I think it depends on the church and the person attending. Is the church emphasizing love and selflessness or fear and exclusivity in heaven.
Agreed. I've visited my local UU church and understand the intended zeitgeist. And I think it's fair to describe it as a "post Christian" group, it's just that I don't consider that a Bad Thing.
Oddly (and of course -- every congregation is different, so this shouldn't be taken as a generalization about either group I'm about to mention) but the local UU church here where I live is quite cliquish and has a lot of internal strife; the Episcopalians actually subjectively feel more welcoming and laid back to me. While the Episcopalians are not officially creedless, I have so far not found any obstacle to my wife and I feeling welcome there, although we'd likely stop short of any effort to officially become members, and will most certainly be very discreet about our ... lack of belief in the dogma. It's just that there's a lack of overt shibboleths such that I don't think the topic will really come up. Whatever we don't agree with can just pass in one ear and out the other.
Agreed. I've visited my local UU church and understand the intended zeitgeist. And I think it's fair to describe it as a "post Christian" group, it's just that I don't consider that a Bad Thing.
Oddly (and of course -- every congregation is different, so this shouldn't be taken as a generalization about either group I'm about to mention) but the local UU church here where I live is quite cliquish and has a lot of internal strife; the Episcopalians actually subjectively feel more welcoming and laid back to me. While the Episcopalians are not officially creedless, I have so far not found any obstacle to my wife and I feeling welcome there, although we'd likely stop short of any effort to officially become members, and will most certainly be very discreet about our ... lack of belief in the dogma. It's just that there's a lack of overt shibboleths such that I don't think the topic will really come up. Whatever we don't agree with can just pass in one ear and out the other.
^yes, you can. While, as you point out, there is a creed, many of us dutifully recite it as part of the ritual, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who buys into everything it says.
Each parish has its own personality, too. The first Episcopal church I tried when I moved to my present location was not terribly friendly. Oddly, I've since become friends with their priest. We share a birthday and she and I have gone out for a glass of wine to celebrate. She has a more proper, wealthier congregation, while the church I attend has a motley assortment of less affluent characters.
Agreed. I've visited my local UU church and understand the intended zeitgeist. And I think it's fair to describe it as a "post Christian" group, it's just that I don't consider that a Bad Thing.
Oddly (and of course -- every congregation is different, so this shouldn't be taken as a generalization about either group I'm about to mention) but the local UU church here where I live is quite cliquish and has a lot of internal strife; the Episcopalians actually subjectively feel more welcoming and laid back to me. While the Episcopalians are not officially creedless, I have so far not found any obstacle to my wife and I feeling welcome there, although we'd likely stop short of any effort to officially become members, and will most certainly be very discreet about our ... lack of belief in the dogma. It's just that there's a lack of overt shibboleths such that I don't think the topic will really come up. Whatever we don't agree with can just pass in one ear and out the other.
Interestingly I had quite a different experience. Maybe just different congregations, or our perceptions or what we're looking for. Anyway, I'm not here to promote my religion, but hoping people will become a bit more open-minded. It would be ridiculous to think my religion is right for everyone, but likewise, I think atheists shouldn't feel religion isn't right for anyone. I think following more of a Sam Harris approach is better.
same here. I had regular parents that knew how to do their job. never blame a religion for things that a man does.
but, as anyone that works with victims, or those that play the role of victim, will tell you. If they can't strike the perp, sometimes they strike at anything. I feel bad for 'em. but at some point we have to be honest too. I mean at least a little bit.
We go for an hour, learn/think about something compelling, and typically leave feeling better. Personally, I find church more effective because I don't need to think as much or talk
But isn't a churchgoer who has a mental health stigma similar to an atheist in counseling who has a stigma about religion? So don't we need to look at people as individuals and drop the stigmas around religious beliefs and mental health?
Religion is not a substitute for therapy. The majority of religions are based on patriarchy. Therapy is client centered. Therapy is hard work, and in order to understand your issues you need to think.
Not every person seeking therapy is mentally ill. The stigma around mental illness is based on ignorance. Many religious beliefs are based on ignorance, too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
