Religion as a Safety Behaviour

[Star of the Sea]

I have not recommended "pulling the rug" from under people. There is no reason that mental health therapies have to incorporate the person's religion as part of that therapy. Respect their religion, yes, but not incorporate it. If some religious behaviours are safety behaviours, as I argue they are, then it is hypocrisy for the Mental Health professional to encourage or reinforce that behaviour while seeking to eliminate safety behaviours unassociated with religious practice.

If someone with an anxiety issue wished to have religious counselling, then the Mental Health professional should refer them to a religious counsellor such as a priest.

Of course, being non-religious myself it would seem to me to be a healthier mental attitude to not require the religiously-based safety behaviours. But I do not decide for everyone else - only for myself - and elimination of religion is not the argument I had intended of this thread.

Hi Leo,

But that's what the Mental Health Professionals do! They refer them to the Clergy or Pastoral Counsellor's. The Mental Health teams support patients in their choice to be Religious. It's in the link from the Royal College of Psychiatrists I sent you!

[ChloeB]

My apologies if you feel I am "getting on your case", Chloe. If you look back at my post #45, you'll find I made the distinction between a 'higher power' and a 'controlling higher power', to establish the (or a) difference (that I see) between a spiritual belief and a religious belief. Since then I have been arguing with respect the 'controlling higher power', as I see that as being relevant to the thread.

If we have been at cross-purposes in that argument, then that has been because of a misunderstanding as to what is being argued, on my part because I assumed you understood what I was arguing with regards to. I am not in any way directing any annoyance or irritation at you.

No worries, Leo. Its been a long week and I'm tired and touchy I guess. There's something I was thinking about, like when people come in the ER's having delusions and hallucinations, I wonder why so often they have religious themes, so often angels or demons or Jesus or God talking to them. I've wondered without religion, what would those people be seeing or would they be seeing anything? Aliens or monsters of some sort probably right? So going with that, did religion create those things, demons, angels, heaven, hell, that cause anxiety or is it something that is going to be expressed in one way of the other by the human psyche and religion has been created out of that to deal with it, not just delusional people, but people in general think about monsters and helpful spirits and big eye in the sky watching. So I'm not sure we'd say religion is to blame for it, they've accommodated it maybe would be more accurate. I really don't know for sure, which was my reason for joining the thread, I had my own questions about some of this, so thank you for your patience. I know I pulled us off topic some.

Edited May 12, 2012 by ChloeB

[ChloeB]

Chloe

Not different at all if, or when, God or whatever higher power is getting credit for the results of the attitude change required to seek him or it.

I remember Dr Herbert Benson. On the one hand, he showed that the alleged benefits of Transcendental Meditation ® mantras were the same as arbitrary phrases used the same way. But, in his own stress management practice, if a patient's choice of "arbitrary" mantra was a Christian prayer phrase, then "doesn't matter" meant "make no objection."

The Orthodox are especially fond of Lord Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner, which many of them use pretty frankly as a mantra. If an Orthodox patient wants to use that, then why should Benson object? That would be as nonsensical as if Benson insisted that a non-Orthodox patient use that prayer instead of something that patient liked better.

Haha, you're not going to believe this!! When I talked to the therapist this week, I was telling her that one part of the workbook she recommended, one of the methods I wanted to really focus on was meditation so she said great and all that, and talked about how beneficial it was and she told me to get another book. Guess what it was? Relaxation Response. I have even hardly had a chance to look at it. I found it at Half Priced Books just yesterday. I did skim through and saw Benson talk about saying "one" over and over for the mantra word or whatever they call it, where with TM, they give you one word and it's thousands of dollars. I've still got to read it though, the actual method, which was what I was interested in most, you could fit that on one page, lol. I can't see anything they could teach you that would be worth thousands of dollars, meditation is pretty simple, kind of the whole point of what meditation is, I would say.

Edited May 12, 2012 by ChloeB

[Habitat]

When the question of the afterlife is completely unknowable to us, is not this form of solace us being intellectually dishonest with ourselves? Is it not us intentionally duping ourselves into believing something that may be, without ever knowing if it can be? Is it not the grasping at an imagined certainty?

So which is less healthy, being absolutely committed to the idea of an afterlife, but without any confirmatory evidence, or being adamant there is no afterlife, but again with nothing to prove it so ? I'd say both are less than satisfactory, having firm views on a subject we have no experience in is seldom to be recommended. Between the two extremes of impatience with uncertainty is the acceptance we are not able or willing to reach a verdict on the evidence available to us, but open to have that change with more information. The early resort to judgement is certainly less reasonable than that. Faith that does not first pass through doubt truly is blind, but to my mind to transition through doubt to rigid atheism is equally perplexing. Proving any negative is onerous, let alone that of the Great Unknown. But that is what atheism takes upon itself, and it is no less a leap of faith than that of the blind adherents they feel so superior to. They are both dogmatists. I can see how believers become faithful, after first being doubters, but have great difficulty in understanding how a doubter can become an atheist. After all, it is plausible that the Divinty could favour you with a 'demonstration' that leads to faith, but from where is the demonstration coming that confirms the "truth" of atheism ? I forgive on the grounds that grief is a form of madness, that people who have experienced tragic loss of children, e.g., say that their faith evaporated. The madness is in thinking no child should ever die before it's parent, or the existence of God is thereby doubted. That kind of faith that can be shaken by tragedy, is definitely blind.

[Toadie]

If some people put as much energy and thinking they do about afterlife into their present life they could achieve extraordinary things

[ChloeB]

This is problematic for many religious 'safety behaviours' as the anxiety that triggers them cannot be dissaociated - because they [the anxieties] are about things that are immaterial or unknowable in life.

Attempting to do that may be the driving force behind a lot of the zealot atheism we see, get people to doubt what causes you anxiety is sort of a validation that it's not so threatening to you if you can poke holes in it and convince someone else to agree or shake up someone's faith that believes in what causes you fear. You could probably even question how some atheists still seem to function very religiously in their behaviors despite their desire to distance themselves from it exhibiting still the same safety behaviors, though they think they've risen above or got out of it, maybe not so much.

Edited May 12, 2012 by ChloeB

[Habitat]

Attempting to do that may be the driving force behind a lot of the zealot atheism we see, get people to doubt what causes you anxiety is sort of a validation that it's not so threatening to you if you can poke holes in it and convince someone else to agree or shake up someone's faith that believes in what causes you fear. You could probably even question how some atheists still seem to function very religiously in their behaviors despite their desire to distance themselves from it exhibiting still the same safety behaviors, though they think they've risen above or got out of it, maybe not so much.

I gotta say I had to laugh recently when I heard that Richard Dawkins was in Australia to speak at an atheist's convention. I mean, what is there to talk about ? They must be joking, there is no God, so let's go home and mow the lawn or something, why discuss what you have already decided does not exist. The only plausible explanation for anyone turning up would be to have their belief re-inforced, and the only explantion for that is nagging doubt. Times sure have changed since Billy Graham visited these shores, but I guess the principle is the same, doubt needing to be quelled.

[Vatic]

Leonardo: I suffer from an anxiety disorder. To accommodate that I exhibit safety behaviours - routines; avoidance; obsession with detail; and others. Self-analysis of these behaviours is quite eye-opening, informative as to how much of our behaviour really is based on anxiety.

Which leads me to religion.

Vatic: This is the point at which we project ourselves onto other's life modalities.

Leonardo: Most of us, at some point in our lives, will feel anxious about something. Like questions that have no answer. What happens when I die? Am I a good person? What is the universe? etc. Some of these dilemmas are unanswerable in fact (like what happens after death), while some are unanswerable because they are totally subjective.

Vatic: And some of us are comfortable with not knowing some things. How do you know the quesiton of what happens after you die is unanswerable? Maybe some people or person knows. I do not accept the premis or assume this is a fact.

Leonardo: There are people who do not fret too much about these questions, or don't fret about some of them. But there are people to whom these questions (or some of them) pose a 'real'* problem. This causes anxiety and what do we do to relieve anxiety?

We undertake safety behaviours.

Like religion.

Vatic: I suppose seom people might turn to religion for that purpose. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact it may be a good thing. But you are bringing a projected motivation into the basis of people having religion. People may have reasons for their religion that are as varied as humanity. They may have reasons you couldn't even imagine, reasons you might not understand even if explained, or other reasons you can relate to, but didn't take into account in your post. That you projected your experiences with anxiety onto religion comes very close to you demonstrating "conditioned perception".

Leonardo: I was tempted to post this in the 'Philosophy and Psychology' forum, but I feel it might get much more attention in this forum, so I would appreciate your views.

* I placed real in quotes because the problems are only perceived to be real, not experienced to be real.

Vatic: There are also differences between "Real" and percieved motivations for people's religious undertakings.

[Toadie]

Vatic - you should really buy this book "The brain that changes itself" very informative.

I really admire the people that are disadvantage or have a problem that seems helpless. They go out and extend their knowlegde by reading various texts from other suffers / doctors, give it their all to try and overcome their issue .

[Vatic]

Vatic - you should really buy this book "The brain that changes itself" very informative.

I really admire the people that are disadvantage or have a problem that seems helpless. They go out and extend their knowlegde by reading various texts from other suffers / doctors, give it their all to try and overcome their issue .

Vatic: Yeah? Read my book then and I'll be a virtual hero to you then. Click my signature below.

[Leonardo]

Hi Leo,

But that's what the Mental Health Professionals do! They refer them to the Clergy or Pastoral Counsellor's. The Mental Health teams support patients in their choice to be Religious. It's in the link from the Royal College of Psychiatrists I sent you!

I appreciate that. As I have stated many times, it is not Spirituality that I am discussing as being a safety behaviour, but aspects of religious behaviour. Various objections to the points I was making early in this thread appeared to equate religious behaviour with spiritual behaviour and so I suppose a confusion was made between the two. While the religious belief in a 'higher power' may be spiritual, the rules, regulations and ritual surrounding that belief are not. The belief in the 'higher power' as a controlling entity [in whatever capacity of control] is not spiritual, but religious.

It is our application of order onto that belief in a 'higher power' that grants it the aspect of a safety behaviour - a reaching for certainty where uncertainty exists. Because of my experience of the current attitude towards safety behaviours with respect to mental health - that those behaviours are considered detrimental to that health being optimal - I am proposing that the various religious behaviours which, functionally, are safety behaviours should also be considered detrimental to optimal mental health.

This is the subject of this thread. My apologies if we have been arguing a non-issue [the encouragement or promotion of religious behaviour by Mental Health professionals as beneficial to relieving anxiety], but previous posts had led to my perception it was an issue.

[Leonardo]

No worries, Leo. Its been a long week and I'm tired and touchy I guess. There's something I was thinking about, like when people come in the ER's having delusions and hallucinations, I wonder why so often they have religious themes, so often angels or demons or Jesus or God talking to them. I've wondered without religion, what would those people be seeing or would they be seeing anything? Aliens or monsters of some sort probably right? So going with that, did religion create those things, demons, angels, heaven, hell, that cause anxiety or is it something that is going to be expressed in one way of the other by the human psyche and religion has been created out of that to deal with it, not just delusional people, but people in general think about monsters and helpful spirits and big eye in the sky watching. So I'm not sure we'd say religion is to blame for it, they've accommodated it maybe would be more accurate. I really don't know for sure, which was my reason for joining the thread, I had my own questions about some of this, so thank you for your patience. I know I pulled us off topic some.

I guess it is possible that anxieties about certain things can conjure our imaginations to manifest those anxieties in some way. The mind is very powerful in this respect. It's a good point to make that supports how safety behaviours can actually reinforce those anxieties, rather than relieve them.

So which is less healthy, being absolutely committed to the idea of an afterlife, but without any confirmatory evidence, or being adamant there is no afterlife, but again with nothing to prove it so ? I'd say both are less than satisfactory, having firm views on a subject we have no experience in is seldom to be recommended. Between the two extremes of impatience with uncertainty is the acceptance we are not able or willing to reach a verdict on the evidence available to us, but open to have that change with more information. The early resort to judgement is certainly less reasonable than that. Faith that does not first pass through doubt truly is blind, but to my mind to transition through doubt to rigid atheism is equally perplexing. Proving any negative is onerous, let alone that of the Great Unknown. But that is what atheism takes upon itself, and it is no less a leap of faith than that of the blind adherents they feel so superior to. They are both dogmatists. I can see how believers become faithful, after first being doubters, but have great difficulty in understanding how a doubter can become an atheist. After all, it is plausible that the Divinty could favour you with a 'demonstration' that leads to faith, but from where is the demonstration coming that confirms the "truth" of atheism ? I forgive on the grounds that grief is a form of madness, that people who have experienced tragic loss of children, e.g., say that their faith evaporated. The madness is in thinking no child should ever die before it's parent, or the existence of God is thereby doubted. That kind of faith that can be shaken by tragedy, is definitely blind.

I agree that absolute conviction in either direction is probably an expression of the safety behaviour I have been making a point of. My belief is that no faith in something so uncertain can ever pass beyond reasonable doubt, but I also acknowledge my own bias in this thinking as I am agnostic. Both beliefs, theism and atheism, can be seen as a reaching for certainty in the face of uncertainty.

[eight bits]

Leo

All I have argued is that religion, in many of it's rituals, is functionally identical to the safety behaviours exhibited by those suffering with anxiety disorders and that religion is itself the source of (or reinforces) some of those anxieties.

Yes, talking about some subjects will elicit or reinforce anxiety in some listeners. But, since you would allow the religious to be religious, that would presumably entail some tolerance for them to practice their religion openly, to speak on its behalf, and so forth.

Until the underlying factual questions are resolved, whether religions are the source of anxiety about their concerns, or whether they corrrectly point out something about which the listener ought to be concerned, then the resemblance is all there confidently is. "Functional identity" far exceeds the resemblance that has been uncontroversially established.

That resemblance is inevitable. All products of the ground of consciousness which point to non-causal relationships among real things resemble each other. There is only one well. The priest, the college alumni association fundraiser, the mayor, the boy scout leader, ..., and the person improvising a safety behavior ritual for themself all draw from that same single source. Any ritual bears the stamp of its origin, as does every other ritual bear the same stamp, because of a common origin.

Chloe

...Benson...

Ah, synchronicity, ain't it grand? I think you'll enjoy the book. Benson is very open about his methods, and rotuinely puts whole rooms of novices "under" (one reason why I believe there is no distinct phenomenon of "hypnosis")

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/03.04/11-stress.html

As to the TM ® business model, as I understand it, they market enlightenment. This is a long-term goal, and proceeds in steps, with a toll booth at each step, and even in between steps. So, first you learn mantra meditation, correctly perceiving that "something is happening." You get better at reaching this state, skill improves with practice, but then you plateau out. So, you buy something else to experience improvements again, to get back on the supposed road to enlightenment.

Does this road actually lead to "enlightenment?" Beats me. But if you spend enough time in a labile state between wakefulness and sleep, then it's a good bet that sooner or later you'll experience something that is neither a typical dream nor a typical waking experience. In which case, you might pay some money in hopes of getting there again.

And so on forever. Or, at least, that's what I gather from what I've read. While Benson explores all aspects of the relaxation response (his name for the objectively real physiological state), he does not market "enlightenment."

Enjoy.

[Mr Walker]

I have not recommended "pulling the rug" from under people. There is no reason that mental health therapies have to incorporate the person's religion as part of that therapy. Respect their religion, yes, but not incorporate it. If some religious behaviours are safety behaviours, as I argue they are, then it is hypocrisy for the Mental Health professional to encourage or reinforce that behaviour while seeking to eliminate safety behaviours unassociated with religious practice.

If someone with an anxiety issue wished to have religious counselling, then the Mental Health professsional should refer them to a religious counsellor such as a priest.

Of course, being non-religious myself it would seem to me to be a healthier mental attitude to not require the religiously-based safety behaviours. But I do not decide for everyone else - only for myself - and elimination of religion is not the argument I had intended of this thread.

I read the linked pamphlet i thought it was brilliant and a very modern approach to an old issue.

I am biased.

Leonardo, with respect, I think you are biased as well.

These ARE the leading experts in mental health in Britain. I wouldn't second guess my cardiac specialist, and I wouldnt try and second guess a mental health professional, whatever my personall views might be on either experts advice. You recognise this bias and its source but you perpetuate it in the bolded pieces. While the explanations in the pamphlet were brief, they were concise Of course mental heaath regimes/therapies must include a patients religious beliefs and practices WHERE THE PATIENT IS RELIGIOUS.

Religiousity is such an integral part of a human's personality that one might as well try and treat a person without regard to their gender sexuality, or other elements of their being, as try to treat them without integrating their religious nature into the treatment.

And one point of the pamphlet is to point out that aspects of a person's personality, such as religion, are just as much a concern of their mental health professionals as of their "priests', perhaps more so, because the professionals are actually accredited and expert in providing help.

A good/ competent priest pastor etc who was concerned with religious elements of their parishioner's mental health would hopefully refer them to a professional in the mental health field. Why would such an expert refer them back to the priest, when they are the ones most competent to help. If i was concerned about my mental health in relationship to my religion or beliefs( Eg the connection between an anxiety issue and certain religious forms or practices I had evolved in response to such issues) my first port of call would be to a health professional, not my pastor.

BUT i would exect to be able to find (as i have in other areas of modern medicine) sympathetic health professionals whose professional expertise included both an understanding of religiousity in humans its links to human mental health, and some empathy with it, along with their other professional competencies.

I would preferrably not deal with even a cardiac specialist who did not have a generally holistic approach to my health and well being. And so far I have never had to deal with any top medical professional who was dismissive of the spiritual importance of my life, to my general health and well being.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Star of the Sea]

I appreciate that. As I have stated many times, it is not Spirituality that I am discussing as being a safety behaviour, but aspects of religious behaviour. Various objections to the points I was making early in this thread appeared to equate religious behaviour with spiritual behaviour and so I suppose a confusion was made between the two. While the religious belief in a 'higher power' may be spiritual, the rules, regulations and ritual surrounding that belief are not. The belief in the 'higher power' as a controlling entity [in whatever capacity of control] is not spiritual, but religious.

It is our application of order onto that belief in a 'higher power' that grants it the aspect of a safety behaviour - a reaching for certainty where uncertainty exists. Because of my experience of the current attitude towards safety behaviours with respect to mental health - that those behaviours are considered detrimental to that health being optimal - I am proposing that the various religious behaviours which, functionally, are safety behaviours should also be considered detrimental to optimal mental health.

This is the subject of this thread. My apologies if we have been arguing a non-issue [the encouragement or promotion of religious behaviour by Mental Health professionals as beneficial to relieving anxiety], but previous posts had led to my perception it was an issue.

Hi Leo,

Let's take Mental Health out of the equation Leo and just deal with the Clergy. Priests are fully aware that there are times when parishioners can get an unhealthy view on Religion. Priests are trained to recognise this. A Catholic Priest will come across this problem in his ministry, then try to help the person to explore a more healthy view regarding their faith. It is called 'Religious scrupulosity' and is recognised by the Catholic Church. Here is snippet on the subject but I also recommend that it is best to read the whole article for a better understanding:

Religious Scrupulosity:

From a religious viewpoint, the factor that seems most prevalent in the development of scrupulosity is a negative image of God. There is an exaggerated fear of all that is sacred manifested in any encounter with God or the Church. The sacraments — especially the Eucharist and confession — provide the most opportunity for anxiety. Prayer, both private and communal, often causes the anxiety and frustration identified with scrupulosity.

Regardless of how the scrupulous person got that way, the formation of his conscience, even with the best education and training, is a secondary concern — and may even be counterproductive — until the scrupulosity is identified and addressed. The moral freedom necessary to make sound decisions is absent. Since there is not present "ignorance of Christ and his gospel, enslavement to one's passion, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy" (CCC 1791), perhaps the pastoral concern should not be to form a conscience but rather to help the person be freed from his scrupulosity — or if not freed, at least to experience some relief.

http://www.catholicc...cfm?recnum=3739

Edited May 12, 2012 by Star of the Sea

[Vatic]

Leonardo: Because of my experience of the current attitude towards safety behaviours with respect to mental health - that those behaviours are considered detrimental to that health being optimal - I am proposing that the various religious behaviours which, functionally, are safety behaviours should also be considered detrimental to optimal mental health.

Vatic: I personally am sympathetic to the idea of religion having an effect on mental states and health. In fact I know it to be true. However you seem to be seeing things only in a negative light. I see it going both ways, negative and positive.

I noticed you attempted to describe "religion" as the ritualism involved as opposed to "spirituality" as a kind of vague generic universal mode of functional consciousness. Look, I know you're trying to find the words so I'm not going to give you grief about your eccentric redefinings of terms. Sometimes you just have to develop your own jargon. But I suspect you are referring to religious based rituals that are carried out as sort of an obsessive compulsion, like making the sign of the cross all the time or something like that. But I'm not sure so I'm going to ask you for a specific example of a riligous based ritual that you would consider "detrimental" to optimal mental health. I might be able to come up with some examples myself, but I want to understand if we are on the same page.

Also, can you find religion based rituals which might prove beneficial to mental health? I could also come up with examples here, but I'm giving you the chair.

Also I noticed you tendency to ascribe a value attachment to things you're thinking about, such as religious ritual. The vlue you tend to ascribe to this is "negative". But isn't it really not a matter of a generalized "nagative" value attachment in all reality? Maybe what is bad for one person might be great for another. So is it warranted to be so generalized? I will give you an example:

Donna and Betty both showed up the same day at an Evangelical Church neither of them had ever been to before, The Congregation during services, shouted responses to the preaching, clapped a lot, sang loudly, practically dancing the worship was very demonstrative. This kind of service was very bad for Donna, but very good for Betty. Why?

[Vatic]

So which is less healthy, being absolutely committed to the idea of an afterlife, but without any confirmatory evidence, or being adamant there is no afterlife, but again with nothing to prove it so ? I'd say both are less than satisfactory, having firm views on a subject we have no experience in is seldom to be recommended. Between the two extremes of impatience with uncertainty is the acceptance we are not able or willing to reach a verdict on the evidence available to us, but open to have that change with more information. The early resort to judgement is certainly less reasonable than that. Faith that does not first pass through doubt truly is blind, but to my mind to transition through doubt to rigid atheism is equally perplexing. Proving any negative is onerous, let alone that of the Great Unknown. But that is what atheism takes upon itself, and it is no less a leap of faith than that of the blind adherents they feel so superior to. They are both dogmatists. I can see how believers become faithful, after first being doubters, but have great difficulty in understanding how a doubter can become an atheist. After all, it is plausible that the Divinty could favour you with a 'demonstration' that leads to faith, but from where is the demonstration coming that confirms the "truth" of atheism ? I forgive on the grounds that grief is a form of madness, that people who have experienced tragic loss of children, e.g., say that their faith evaporated. The madness is in thinking no child should ever die before it's parent, or the existence of God is thereby doubted. That kind of faith that can be shaken by tragedy, is definitely blind.

Vatic: I very rarely find a post that I consider sound reason. But that was a nice job.

[Vatic]

Leonardo: Both beliefs, theism and atheism, can be seen as a reaching for certainty in the face of uncertainty.

Vatic: But don't you see that "uncertainty" is an assumption? Hypothetically there might be a person who is uncertain and gravitate in one direction or the other, seeking certainty. And this is good as well as it employs the reasoning skill of "surmising" and the tactical mode of "serendipity". It is the exploration that leads to discoveries, and possibly even "certainty". We just can't assume that certainty is out of reach or that a quest is futile. That would be regressive itself.

[rimbaudelaire]

I suffer from an anxiety disorder. To accommodate that I exhibit safety behaviours - routines; avoidance; obsession with detail; and others. Self-analysis of these behaviours is quite eye-opening, informative as to how much of our behaviour really is based on anxiety.

Which leads me to religion.

Most of us, at some point in our lives, will feel anxious about something. Like questions that have no answer. What happens when I die? Am I a good person? What is the universe? etc. Some of these dilemmas are unanswerable in fact (like what happens after death), while some are unanswerable because they are totally subjective.

There are people who do not fret too much about these questions, or don't fret about some of them. But there are people to whom these questions (or some of them) pose a 'real'* problem. This causes anxiety and what do we do to relieve anxiety?

We undertake safety behaviours.

Like religion.

I was tempted to post this in the 'Philosophy and Psychology' forum, but I feel it might get much more attention in this forum, so I would appreciate your views.

* I placed real in quotes because the problems are only perceived to be real, not experienced to be real.

Leonardo, great topic. I'm a new member but a long time reader of this forum/site.

You call them "safety behaviors": Freud called them "palliative measures"; Theodor Fontane called them "auxiliary constructions"; and, like you, they also use religion as a primary example. Here is the passage from Civilization and Its Discontents from which I quoted:

Let us return to the common man and to his religion — the only religion which ought to bear that name. The first thing that we think of is the well-known saying of one of our great poets and thinkers concerning the relation of religion to art and science:

Wer Wissenschaft und Kunst besitzt, hat auch Religion; Wer jene beide nicht besitzt, der habe Religion!

[He who possesses science and art also has religion; but he who possesses neither of those two, let him have religion! — Goethe, Zahme Xenien IX]

This saying on the one hand draws an antithesis between religion and the two highest achievements of man, and on the other, asserts that, as regards their value in life, those achievements and religion can represent or replace each other. If we also set out to deprive the common man, [who has neither science nor art] of his religion, we shall clearly not have the poet's authority on our side. We will choose a particular path to bring us nearer an appreciation of his words. Life, as we find it, is too hard for us; it brings us too many pains, disappointments and impossible tasks. In order to bear it we cannot dispense with palliative measures. 'We cannot do without auxiliary constructions' as Theodor Fontane tells us. There are perhaps three such measures: powerful deflections, which cause us to make light of our misery; substitutive satisfactions, which diminish it; and intoxicating substances, which make us insensitive to it. Something of the kind is indispensable. Voltaire has deflections in mind when he ends Candide with the advice to cultivate one's garden; and scientific activity is a deflection of this kind, too. The substitutive satisfactions, as offered by art, are illusions in contrast with reality, but they are none the less psychically effective, thanks to the role which phantasy has assumed in mental life. The intoxicating substances influence our body and alter its chemistry. It is no simple matter to see where religion has its place in this series. We must look further afield.

The question of the purpose of human life has been raised countless times; it has never yet received a satisfactory answer and perhaps does not admit of one. Some of those who have asked it have added that if it should turn out that life has no purpose, it would lose all value for them. But this threat alters nothing. It looks, on the contrary, as though one had a right to dismiss the question, for it seems to derive from the human presumptuousness, many other manifestations of which are already familiar to us. Nobody talks about the purpose of the life of animals, unless, perhaps, it may be supposed to lie in being of service to man. But this view is not tenable either, for there are many animals of which man can make nothing, except to describe, classify and study them; and innumerable species of animals have escaped even this use, since they existed and became extinct before man set eyes on them. Once again, only religion can answer the question of the purpose of life. One can hardly be wrong in concluding that the idea of life having a purpose stands and falls with the religious system.

May I ask what your thought are regarding the above? My opinion: of course, we now know that each individual experiences anxiety in sometimes similar but rather unique ways. Remedies run the same uber-diverse gamut as do the causes/triggers. Religion, specifically the practicing actions of spirituality and religion can work for some but certainly not all. However, interestingly enough, Fontane touched upon something worth further thought, which is the idea of religion as the only answer to the meaning of life. In known history, there has never been a culture without G-d or gods or belief in Something Greater/Higher Power/Cause of All Things. I do think that logic would suggest that there is a correlation between religious/spiritual practice and "safety behaviors." Yet, what is at the core here are questions and discussions--not answers, right?

[seishin]

hey leo ..

you know it's not just safety behaviour

it's in human nature the need to be follower of a lord or something bigger ..

to be part of something bigger than humans and to worship a god of some sort

since the dawn of times all cultures and all nations have had their different god to follow and worship

so i guess it's in our nature it's a need to us

as far as it is for safety

well i think it holds some sense in it .. it's not what i think but i think it might make sense to people

you see personally when i feel anxiety or unanswered questions i do the opposite i don't embrace religion

i actually stray further away and am guessing there's more people like me out there

so religion can also be the cause of anixity and stress and not the cure for them also

It's animal instinct; herd instinct that compels us to such ends. While social Darwinism may not be perfect, likewise it's metaphysical counterpart (i.e. religion), it does tend to rear it's ugly head in all things. The need for a higher power is a survival mechanism.

[Mikko-kun]

Belief in things after death isnt an anxiety for me. I've always been interested in how things work and I find reality and existance to be fascinating topics

Anxiety disorders are self-created. A shock or a distressful event can reprogram your mind leaving you with an anxiety disorder. A psychologist can deprogram them out of your mind. If an event caused post traumatic stress it takes time for the psychologist to get you there. Maybe even years.

I agree with this. I think that the core of every fear and anxiety is that you jump one step over in your thinking and accepting process. I've been doing it with my fears always. Sometimes, or probably always for most people, there may be more than one step they jump over per fear, and then it becomes more complex to open that knot. Fear is an instinct of survival, so is pain, and I think anxiety may be one too. Anxiety isn't really an external but an internal problem, if you ask me at least... you can search for clues from your environment and surrounding life, but you cannot rid the problem by altering environment or reality around you alone. I was pretty anxious in my 20's during the army and after and before, I dont know if everyone get the same thing. At that time I didn't look up anything spiritual.

I think it's more the explorer and spiritual dung-digger in me that has always pulled me towards spiritual things, but not the nice nor necessarily evil ones... just questions of life and death and such.

I think that no matter what you believe or dont believe in, you can still experience anxiety and be driven to numb or distract yourself with whatever you come up with. Anxiety will overwhelm you anyways if you dont deal with the root cause(s). I know many people keep numbing themselves by projecting their own problems to the outside world by taking it out on people close to them for example, that's also a form of getting rid of your anxiety. It rarely helps you to get rid of the root causes though, and proof of that is that you have to keep either projecting your problems to outside world or keep distracting or numbing yourself. Life is a battle of survival until you die, it's a battle even if you're not the one who has to be out there to kill a living being for food. That's one reason we need to take out our anxieties in the first place.

[+ouija ouija]

For me, anxiety exists because I have 'learnt my lesson' regarding a bad experience ....... I'm going to make sure it doesn't happen again. This behaviour could be very difficult, maybe impossible, to change because it comes from such a primitive survival instinct. Thousands of years ago, creatures had to learn instantly and remember well ......... no time to question and analyse!

[Leonardo]

May I ask what your thought are regarding the above? My opinion: of course, we now know that each individual experiences anxiety in sometimes similar but rather unique ways. Remedies run the same uber-diverse gamut as do the causes/triggers. Religion, specifically the practicing actions of spirituality and religion can work for some but certainly not all. However, interestingly enough, Fontane touched upon something worth further thought, which is the idea of religion as the only answer to the meaning of life. In known history, there has never been a culture without G-d or gods or belief in Something Greater/Higher Power/Cause of All Things. I do think that logic would suggest that there is a correlation between religious/spiritual practice and "safety behaviors." Yet, what is at the core here are questions and discussions--not answers, right?

Hello, Rimbaudelaire, thanks for the thoughtful post. My apologies for being a bit slow in replying, I wanted to step back from the direction my thoughts had taken me in this thread. As for your question, I'll quote what I believe to be the relevant section of what you quoted below...

The question of the purpose of human life has been raised countless times; it has never yet received a satisfactory answer and perhaps does not admit of one. Some of those who have asked it have added that if it should turn out that life has no purpose, it would lose all value for them. But this threat alters nothing. It looks, on the contrary, as though one had a right to dismiss the question, for it seems to derive from the human presumptuousness, many other manifestations of which are already familiar to us. Nobody talks about the purpose of the life of animals, unless, perhaps, it may be supposed to lie in being of service to man. But this view is not tenable either, for there are many animals of which man can make nothing, except to describe, classify and study them; and innumerable species of animals have escaped even this use, since they existed and became extinct before man set eyes on them. Once again, only religion can answer the question of the purpose of life. One can hardly be wrong in concluding that the idea of life having a purpose stands and falls with the religious system.

Fontane here builds his opinion around the assumption that the purpose to a person's life must have an external source - hence the conclusion that only religion, and the presumption of the existence of divinity to provide that purpose, can "answer the question of purpose".

I do not agree with Fontane's assumption. Purpose can be self-defined, and so does not have to be emergent only from a religious belief. It is fair, however, to link the subject of 'purpose' to the thread topic of anxiety. The search for 'purpose' no doubt leads to some anxiety as to the meaningfulness of a person's life and religion can provide succour to that anxiety. However, so can a self-defined purpose, such as seeing the meaningfulness of one's life in the effect one has on others.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Leonardo

[rimbaudelaire]

Hello, Rimbaudelaire, thanks for the thoughtful post. My apologies for being a bit slow in replying, I wanted to step back from the direction my thoughts had taken me in this thread. As for your question, I'll quote what I believe to be the relevant section of what you quoted below...

Fontane here builds his opinion around the assumption that the purpose to a person's life must have an external source - hence the conclusion that only religion, and the presumption of the existence of divinity to provide that purpose, can "answer the question of purpose".

I do not agree with Fontane's assumption. Purpose can be self-defined, and so does not have to be emergent only from a religious belief. It is fair, however, to link the subject of 'purpose' to the thread topic of anxiety. The search for 'purpose' no doubt leads to some anxiety as to the meaningfulness of a person's life and religion can provide succour to that anxiety. However, so can a self-defined purpose, such as seeing the meaningfulness of one's life in the effect one has on others.

My apologies, Leonardo, for forgetting about this. I'm new around here!

What I found of interest was what they (Freud and Fontane) thought about anxiety at that time (late 19th C). I didn't post the passage from Freud for any other reason than to get your opinion. So, thanks!

[Leonardo]

My apologies, Leonardo, for forgetting about this. I'm new around here!

Don't worry, I don't hold to the expectation of if, or when, a person might reply to a post. But I did forget to welcome you to UM, so welcome!

What I found of interest was what they (Freud and Fontane) thought about anxiety at that time (late 19th C). I didn't post the passage from Freud for any other reason than to get your opinion. So, thanks!

Without doubt anxiety and it's causes has been a subject of discussion for a very, very long time. While I acknowledge that anxiety has several causes and vectors for alleviation, in this thread I am particularly interested in how religion has been both.

In known history, there has never been a culture without G-d or gods or belief in Something Greater/Higher Power/Cause of All Things. I do think that logic would suggest that there is a correlation between religious/spiritual practice and "safety behaviors." Yet, what is at the core here are questions and discussions--not answers, right

Indeed. I am not proposing any answers, but I do wish to encourage thinking about the influence religion has on anxiety - and the possible consequences of that. I am also not suggesting we could, or should, rid ourselves of anxiety. It [anxiety] is probably inherent to our human condition and plays a positive, as well as negative, role in the progress of that condition towards our life's end.