Healthy Religion

 

psychiatric restraints

A friend recently expressed his support for “healthy religion.”

This seems to me a backhanded criticism of religion, damning with faint praise. The implication is that religion is often unhealthy.

Pharisaism, I would agree, is unhealthy. But that is not religion, is it? It is feigning religion--by definition.

I Grokked the term “healthy religion,” and find it is a concept in psychology:

“Key Differences Between Healthy and Unhealthy Religion

The distinction between healthy and unhealthy religion often boils down to how faith impacts individual well-being, relationships, critical thinking, and society. Psychological research and expert analyses (e.g., from psychologists like Kenneth Pargament and studies in journals like Psychology of Religion and Spirituality) define healthy religion as one that promotes positive mental health outcomes—such as reduced anxiety, greater life satisfaction, empathy, and personal growth—while being flexible and intrinsically motivated. In contrast, unhealthy religion (sometimes called toxic, fundamentalist, or cult-like) leads to negative outcomes like fear, isolation, intolerance, and psychological harm through rigidity, control, and coercion.”

So the concept of “healthy religion” is a psychological one. It is judging religion from the viewpoint of psychology. In other words, it assumes modern psychology is the standard by which religion is to be judged.

That is backwards. Religion deals with absolute truth and absolute value: “worth-ship.” Accordingly, religion is the standard by which psychology must be judged, not vice versa. You have to determine what you want to do before you decide what tool will do it.

I agree that religion promotes positive mental health outcomes, reduced anxiety, greater life satisfaction, empathy, and personal growth. I think this is true of all religion, at some level. But that is not the purpose of religion. You do not worship God for your health.

Are there indeed forms of religion that produce fear, isolation, intolerance, rigidity, control, and coercion? I do not think so. Religion is perhaps unique among human concerns in that it does not and cannot control or coerce: one’s religion is always voluntary. One can always walk away. One can be forced by a government or one’s family to pretend to belong to a given religion; but not to actually believe it. And such coercion is from the government or the family, not the religion. 

This is not true, for example, of psychology, which can at times be coercive: involuntary confinement, electroshock therapy, lobotomy, shackles, straightjackets, and so forth.

Does religion produce intolerance? Belonging to a religion can cause one to be intolerant of people not members of that religion; but this is true of all groups. To form an in-group of any kind is automatically to form an “out-group.” And surely one does not want to discourage all community on these grounds. Conversely, it is from religion that we get the concept of human equality and human rights—that all men are brothers and you are to do unto others. So if intolerance is your concern, religion is your solution, not your problem.

Does religion produce isolation? Yes, if one seeks to withdraw from the world, perhaps as a monk, anchorite, or sannyasin. One grave problem with psychology is that it discourages and tries to prevent this often healthy and life-giving option. True, others may also shun you because you are religious—but to blame religion for that is like blaming Jews for the Holocaust.

In conclusion—for now—I’d like to endorse healthy psychology.