Good/bad psychology aspects of Christianity

[Darth Wong]

Are there any good articles or sources about the good and bad ramifications of Christianity, preferably written in a scholarly manner rather than a religious apologetics manner?

Just off the top of my head, I can think of a few attitudes promoted by Christianity that cause a lot of problems:

The Doctrine of Original Sin

According to this doctrine, all of us are literally born guilty of such terrible crimes that we deserve eternal torture and scorn for them. We worthless, inferior, disgusting, etc. Christian dogma reinforces this message by promoting the notion of Jesus being totally unlike the rest of us: he supposedly exemplifies "perfect love", which we are unable to even comprehend (luckily for the priests, this means they don't have to answer tough questions about it). Jesus makes impossible demands of us: we are told not to think of ourselves at all, and cast away all worldly things and worldly desires. We are then asked to compare ourselves to this shining example, and of course, we are told to find ourselves woefully inadequate. When distilled to its essence, the core message of Christianity starts with "you're a worthless piece of shit".

I may not be a psychologist, but I have trouble seeing this as anything but a harmful mindset. It might not have much effect on an arrogant person, but we know that so many people are inclined to suffer from self-esteem problems. How could this do anything but exacerbate those problems?

The Doctrine of Salvation Through Grace

After informing us that we are all worthless, Christianity throws us a bone: it tells us that we can be "saved" from the consequences of our inherited crimes by joining the Jesus Team. First, this doctrine reinforces the psychologically harmful doctrine of original sin, but it goes further: it tells us that the way to redemption is not through good deeds, but by declaring allegiance to a certain belief system. This is an area where Christianity differs sharply from many other religions, which embrace a more Karma-like attitude.

Again, I may not be a psychologist, but it seems to me that this doctrine is a nice "Get Out of Jail Free" card for Christians, who can convince themselves that they are favoured by God even if they do plenty of bad things, as long as they have satisfied themselves that they are on God's team. People are already all too inclined to moral tribalism; why encourage that with this doctrine of salvation through grace?

The Doctrine of War between Good and Evil

The idea that Good and Evil are two sides in an eternal war is endemic to Christianity, where Good and Evil even have deities attached to them: God and Satan. Of course, in real life it's far more complicated than that, and this is where it seems that Christianity committed one of its worst psychological sins: it convinced people that:

A) Evil deeds are inspired by Satan.

B) People need to "pick a side", and one should be suspicious of anyone who seems sympathetic to the other side.

Again, it seems to me that both of these ideas are absolutely terrible and have caused widespread problems. If you think that everything you consider "evil" (let's ignore competing definitions of "evil" for now) is caused by allegiance in a hypothetical war of Good vs Evil, then you will logically conclude that you must identify friendlies and enemies, and you will win this "war" by fighting against those that you perceive to be enemies. It seems to me that the more childish foreign policy mistakes of the United States all fall into this mould, whereas its successes (such as General Petraeus deciding to give money to the same Sunni insurgents who were using IEDs to blow up American soldiers) came from a more realistic mindset.

The Doctrine of God's Divine Plan

Also known as "Everything Happens For A Reason". This doctrine tell us that everything we don't understand is actually part of God's special plan. Every injustice, every atrocity, every tragedy ... we are told that no matter how horrible something may be, it is actually God's Will. Worse yet, we are told that we should not be angry or bitter about these things, because it somehow all works out for the best.

It seems to me that this doctrine is tailor-made to get people to stop asking questions or agitating for justice.

[CaptJodan]

I did a brief and non-to-thorough search through what I could find. I found one "positive" toward Christianity and 2 "negatives", while most of the real research listed that I found was being done by Psychology and Christianity publications or other horribly, horribly biased groups (quite clear when they actually insert scripture into their research...and I did a search which only included peer review. wtf?)

Anyway, below are the abstracts of such research. DW, if you want the articles themselves, let me know.

[quote="Fox, Adam and Trang Thomas. "Impact of religious affiliation and religiosity on forgiveness" Australian Psychologist, Sept 2008; 43(3): 175-185"]
The aim of the present study was to investigate the link between religiosity and forgiveness among Christian, Muslim,
Jewish and secular affiliations. Measures of forgiveness included attitudes towards forgiveness (attitudinal) and
tendencies to forgive transgressions in the past (behavioural) and future (projective). Religious faith, interpretation,
prayer and religious service attendance were used to measure religiosity. Four hundred and seventy-five Christian,
Muslim, Jewish and secular individuals participated and completed an internet-based questionnaire. This study found
religiosity positively correlated with forgiveness. Religious groups reported significantly higher attitudinal and projective
forgiveness than the secular group. Among religious groups, religiosity was a stronger determinant of forgiveness than
the specific religion an individual was affiliated with. These findings suggested that faith is the strongest religiosity
predictor of forgiveness.[/quote]

[quote="Hartog, Kristine and Kathryn Gow "Religious attributions to pertaining to the causes and cures of mental illness" Mental Health, Religion and Culture, December 2005, 8(4): 263-276"]
In this Australian study, 126 Protestant Christian participants, 52 females and 74 males, were
assessed for their beliefs about the importance of 26 causal variables and 25 treatment variables
for two mental disorders: Major Depression and Schizophrenia. Factor analysis revealed four
causal factors, common to both conditions, labelled as religious factors, physical factors, coping
style and social/environmental stressors. Furthermore, four treatment factors emerged: religious
means, professional help, help from others (non-professional) and self-initiated means.
Explanatory variables for these beliefs were assessed using: a Religious Beliefs Inventory (RBI) to
measure religious beliefs; a Values Survey (VS) including a measure of Christian religious values;
and a Religion and Mental Health Inventory (RMHI) to measure cognitive dissonance (cf.
Festinger, 1957) between religious faith and perceptions of mental-health principles. The results
revealed that religious beliefs, religious values and cognitive dissonance function as predictors of
the attribution of the causes and treatments, for Major Depression and Schizophrenia, to religious
factors. An additional finding of this study was that 38.2% of the participants endorsed a demonic
aetiology of Major Depression, and 37.4% of the participants endorsed a demonic aetiology of
Schizophrenia.[/quote]

And finally....

[quote="Stanford, Mathew S. "Demon or disorder: A survey of attitudes toward mental illness in the Christian church" Mental Health, Religion & Culture September 2007; 10(5): 445–449"]
The present study assessed the attitudes and beliefs that mentally ill Christians
encountered when they seek counsel from the church. Participants (n¼293) completed
an anonymous online survey in relation to their interactions with the church. Analysis of
the results found that while a majority of the mentally ill participants were accepted by
the church, approximately 30% reported a negative interaction. Negative interactions
included abandonment by the church, equating mental illness with the work of demons,
and suggesting that the mental disorder was the result of personal sin. Analysis of the data
by gender found that women were significantly more likely than men to have their mental
illness dismissed by the church and/or be told not to take psychiatric medication. Given
that a religious support system can play a vital role in recovery from serious mental
disorders, these results suggest that continued education is needed to bring the Christian
and mental health communities together.[/quote]

Forgive me if they're not exactly in APA format, I'm a bit sick and just don't have the patience for that. The relevant info should be there, though.

[Broomstick]

The Doctrine of Salvation Through Grace

After informing us that we are all worthless, Christianity throws us a bone: it tells us that we can be "saved" from the consequences of our inherited crimes by joining the Jesus Team. First, this doctrine reinforces the psychologically harmful doctrine of original sin, but it goes further: it tells us that the way to redemption is not through good deeds, but by declaring allegiance to a certain belief system. This is an area where Christianity differs sharply from many other religions, which embrace a more Karma-like attitude.

Mike - this is actually a feature of some Protestant sects, not Christianity as a whole. There are Christian groups (including some large ones, such as the Catholic Church) where good works count as much or more towards salvation than just mere belief with no actions backing it up. Even among Protestants, some emphasize good works over salvation through grace.

(In fact, the Catholics used to let you buy your way out of hell with good old fashioned money)

[Rye]

Right. Hence my use of the past tense used to. You did read that, correct?

Yes. Like I said, nitpick.

That's not a nitpick, that's being fucking vapid.

Anyway, to the thread: there's a psychological literature review here about the mental health issues of Jehovah's Witnesses. The samples are a bit small for the studies cited, but the trends exist and the author thinks if anything, they're under-reporting the problem.

[Surlethe]

Also known as "Everything Happens For A Reason". This doctrine tell us that everything we don't understand is actually part of God's special plan. Every injustice, every atrocity, every tragedy ... we are told that no matter how horrible something may be, it is actually God's Will. Worse yet, we are told that we should not be angry or bitter about these things, because it somehow all works out for the best.

In my experience, at least, this particular doctrine works chiefly as a coping mechanism. If your mother dies, you don't have to be bitter and angry at the world; you know that God permitted it (to test you/to help you grow stronger in faith/to show how awesome God is/for some unspecified, nebulous reason) and therefore everything is going to work out for the best. If you have a shitty boss, you don't have to mull over how he's a dick; you know that God permits it (to test you/to help you grow stronger in faith/to show how awesome God is/for some unspecified, nebulous reason), and so everything is going to work out for the best. Some of the most faithful Christians I know are Christian, it seems to me, because they have to hold onto this belief that everything is going to be better for them in the end, and God is directing things toward that end.

So this functions as much as a psychological coping mechanism for individual believers as it does to stamp out dissent on the population level.

Edit: Split Formless' nitpick to the HoS.

[Kanastrous]

I suspect that it's also part of a larger need for there to be "A Purpose." For some reason it seems that a lot of people can't be happy without believing that there is some sort of overarching, pre-ordained 'purpose' for every last little thing that transpires in their lives.

[NecronLord]

The Doctrine of Original Sin

Perhaps the most important logical consequence of this: unbaptised babies (oh, and aborted fetuses) are, logically, condemned to go to hell (though good luck finding a church that'll say as much) and be tortured for all time. The Catholic Church's theologians quietly and unofficially made up 'limbo' in this respect, as an explanation for where such children go (and the Catholic Church, unlike some of the more hardcore protestants, currently considers anyone capable of performing baptism, I'm reliably informed that my from-rural-Ireland grandmother baptized me in the first day or so) which is 'not as good as heaven, but not so bad' and they're now tending more toward saying 'special act of Grace' (or 'martyred' in the case of abortion) and similar funky explanations to get babies into heaven.

But of course, there's plenty of anguish just from that, for bereaved parents.

[Surlethe]

As far as I know, the Catholic Church is pretty flexible with respect to original sin; they made up limbo because, while original sin means that you can't go to heaven, children below the "age of responsibility" are not considered responsible for their actions, and thus cannot be guilty of sin. So they can't go to hell, either. Hence, limbo.

You might say that the history of the Catholic Church is a series of attempts to rationalize the dogma it picked up between 100 and 300 AD.

[NecronLord]

As far as I know, the Catholic Church is pretty flexible with respect to original sin; they made up limbo because, while original sin means that you can't go to heaven, children below the "age of responsibility" are not considered responsible for their actions, and thus cannot be guilty of sin. So they can't go to hell, either. Hence, limbo.

Pretty much, though actually, as long as they're baptised, they can go to heaven. It's just unbaptised children that go to limbo, which has never really been official anyway, but more a piece of folklore/theology, than an official teaching.

[Junghalli]

and the Catholic Church, unlike some of the more hardcore protestants, currently considers anyone capable of performing baptism, I'm reliably informed that my from-rural-Ireland grandmother baptized me in the first day or so

I should tell my mom that as she baptised me as an infant but is guilt-ridden over never having done it formally in church. Not that I actually believe in that stuff myself anymore, but it'll probably make her feel better.

Well, she's Lutheran not Catholic, but I don't think she's really into the whole denominational thing.

[B5B7]

The Pope abolished Limbo in April 2007. The Catholic church has had a great tendency to create and destroy things, but fictional universes quite often undergo lots of canonical changes eg Marvel Universe.
On a more serious note, the inventions of the church and its power and influence in imposing those ideas into real world societies has had great negative influences as mentioned in the OP.

[Darth Wong]

Also known as "Everything Happens For A Reason". This doctrine tell us that everything we don't understand is actually part of God's special plan. Every injustice, every atrocity, every tragedy ... we are told that no matter how horrible something may be, it is actually God's Will. Worse yet, we are told that we should not be angry or bitter about these things, because it somehow all works out for the best.

In my experience, at least, this particular doctrine works chiefly as a coping mechanism. If your mother dies, you don't have to be bitter and angry at the world; you know that God permitted it (to test you/to help you grow stronger in faith/to show how awesome God is/for some unspecified, nebulous reason) and therefore everything is going to work out for the best. If you have a shitty boss, you don't have to mull over how he's a dick; you know that God permits it (to test you/to help you grow stronger in faith/to show how awesome God is/for some unspecified, nebulous reason), and so everything is going to work out for the best. Some of the most faithful Christians I know are Christian, it seems to me, because they have to hold onto this belief that everything is going to be better for them in the end, and God is directing things toward that end.

So this functions as much as a psychological coping mechanism for individual believers as it does to stamp out dissent on the population level.

Edit: Split Formless' nitpick to the HoS.

I agree about this mechanism. The problem is that it leads people into a certain mindless "everything will work out somehow" attitude which they will cling to tenaciously, as we've seen with environmental issues in particular. They won't admit it between their great gouts of pseudoscientific bullshit, but the root cause of their dismissive attitude toward environmental concerns is their gut-level conviction that everything will work out somehow: a conviction that is nurtured by a lifetime of being told that God has a plan.

[charlemagne]

Mike - this is actually a feature of some Protestant sects, not Christianity as a whole. There are Christian groups (including some large ones, such as the Catholic Church) where good works count as much or more towards salvation than just mere belief with no actions backing it up. Even among Protestants, some emphasize good works over salvation through grace.

(In fact, the Catholics used to let you buy your way out of hell with good old fashioned money)

Yes, but not only do good deeds count, what's important, too, is regretting doing bad deeds. True remorse over bad stuff you did can wash the bad away (that's what confession is for, and also priests can cleanse you of all sin on your death bed if you tell them you regret).

I'm Catholic, my mother brought me to church most of my childhood, and I've even eben an altar boy. The one thing I remember as mattering the most is not confessing your faith all the time, and only saying "I believe in Jesus" isn't really enough to get you to heaven. Also no one will tell you "it's ok to be an asshole as long as you believe in Jesus". The most important things are: remorse, and being the proverbial good neighbour. The main message is: if you regret/try to be a good person, then god will save you and forgive your sins.

At least that's how Catholicism presents itself in church around here and is also lived by religious people. A much bigger deal is made of grace of charity than of just "embracing your lord and saviour".

[NecronLord]

and the Catholic Church, unlike some of the more hardcore protestants, currently considers anyone capable of performing baptism, I'm reliably informed that my from-rural-Ireland grandmother baptized me in the first day or so

I should tell my mom that as she baptised me as an infant but is guilt-ridden over never having done it formally in church. Not that I actually believe in that stuff myself anymore, but it'll probably make her feel better.

Well, she's Lutheran not Catholic, but I don't think she's really into the whole denominational thing.

Ah, well, the catholics also think the official church induction ritual (from which they get records and probably money) should occur as soon as possible, for the sake of official-ness. Home baptisms are only valid in the case of 'necessity' what's more, one doesn't even need to be a catholic to do it.

In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew.

The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament.

[...]Pope Urban II (c. Super quibus, xxx, 4) writes, "It is true baptism if a woman in case of necessity baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity." The Florentine decree for the Armenians says explicitly: "In case of necessity, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay even a pagan or heretic may confer baptism."

So, technically, if you're stuck in the desert with a muslim, and want (for some reason) to be baptised, you can badger him to do it, and the catholic church would consider it legitimate. Pretty much so long as the baptisee wants to be (and to their mind all babies do, natch) baptised.

[Mr Bean]

So, technically, if you're stuck in the desert with a muslim, and want (for some reason) to be baptised, you can badger him to do it, and the catholic church would consider it legitimate. Pretty much so long as the baptisee wants to be (and to their mind all babies do, natch) baptised.

Excuse my ignorance but in that hypothetical what exactly do you tell your Muslim companion to do?

Do you tell him to poor the water skin of you while saying "I baptize you" or is there more ceremony to it?


To the thread in general
The Doctrine of Oppressed Minority
In American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money by Kevin Phillips, the point is made that a vast number of Christians throughout history have seen themselves as an oppressed minority even when in power. Examples given include white southerns(For the most part poor and non-slave owning) in the south in the years after the American Civil War. The Spanish Empire post fall and The Mormons exodus to Utah and more.

The basic premise was that Christian sects always see themselves as an oppressed minority no matter their relative political or economic power. To put it in a very non-PC fashion, it's a tendency for Christian sects to put on the Jew colored glasses and see themselves as an oppressed minority surrounded by enemies even when they have a firm hand on the reigns of power.

[Broomstick]

Ah, well, the catholics also think the official church induction ritual (from which they get records and probably money) should occur as soon as possible, for the sake of official-ness. Home baptisms are only valid in the case of 'necessity' what's more, one doesn't even need to be a catholic to do it.

In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew.

The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament.

[...]Pope Urban II (c. Super quibus, xxx, 4) writes, "It is true baptism if a woman in case of necessity baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity." The Florentine decree for the Armenians says explicitly: "In case of necessity, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay even a pagan or heretic may confer baptism."

So, technically, if you're stuck in the desert with a muslim, and want (for some reason) to be baptised, you can badger him to do it, and the catholic church would consider it legitimate. Pretty much so long as the baptisee wants to be (and to their mind all babies do, natch) baptised.

Quite true - when I've had lessons in emergency and advanced first aid, including "how to catch a baby" (which I've had a couple times) they cover "emergency" baptism, too. I may not believe in it, but if it gives comfort to someone in dire straits I'll happily perform the ritual. An emergency is not the time to try to convince someone of the error of their superstitious ways.

If I recall, deathbed confessions can be heard by anyone as well. The important thing being to confess aloud, not so much who you do it to.

[Broomstick]

Do you tell him to poor the water skin of you while saying "I baptize you" or is there more ceremony to it?

Necronlord did post it, but let me make it stand out:

The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament.

[Lonestar]

As far as I know, the Catholic Church is pretty flexible with respect to original sin; they made up limbo because, while original sin means that you can't go to heaven, children below the "age of responsibility" are not considered responsible for their actions, and thus cannot be guilty of sin. So they can't go to hell, either. Hence, limbo.

You might say that the history of the Catholic Church is a series of attempts to rationalize the dogma it picked up between 100 and 300 AD.

Tim LaHaye used that rationalization in Left Behind. He picked 13 as the magic age at which you can choose to burn in Hell or not based upon that's how old Jesus was when he gave a briefing at the Temple or something.