The psychology, psychopathology and sociology of religion

Psychology: the study of the mind.

Psychopathology: the study of the mentally ill.

No, we are not saying that all religious people are mentally ill (though we do think that religion can be cured) - please read on!

Please also see our article: "why do some people need god and religion while others don't?"

What this page is about

Religion spans everything from a quiet rural Sunday C of E service to the extremism that murders in the name of its god.

At its extreme end, fanaticism, religion becomes a form of mental illness.

Even at its most "moderate", religion provides emotional and social support that many people think they need to get through life.

Problems occur when those with religious beliefs start to take them too seriously - to the point when their religion becomes more important than the people around them.

This page is not concerned with the specific beliefs of religious people - after all, there are over 800 gods and 100 religions/sects to choose from and the one thing they all agree on is that they cannot agree with one another.

This page is an attempt to understand why some people "need" a religion and others don't. For our purposes "religion" is defined as "belief in a supernatural entity and/or life after death."

The normal curve

The social sciences, and Psychology in particular, make great use of the normal curve to show the distribution of many Psychological attributes.

The curve for intelligence (whatever that is) shows a few with limited intelligence at one end, a few with extreme intelligence at the other and most of us in between.

The normal curve can show physical attributes. For example, height: a few very short people at one end, a few very tall people at the other and most of us in between.

Warning about value judgements

The normal curve does not make a value judgement, it does not say which is "best" and which is "worst" - it simply shows a distribution.

The normal curve for religious attributes

"Need" v "truth"

Religion must meet a need felt by some people - or they wouldn't bother with it!

The problem comes when religious people claim that what they believe is a "truth".

If it was indeed a truth, we would all believe it! Religious belief is, by definition, non-rational and not open to proof - it is therefore not a truth - it is a belief or faith.

We will therefore consider this "blind" form of religion, based on an assertion of truth, as well as the more open, "moderate" sort.

Self-delusion

It is very easy for the strong-minded, highly-rational, god-free to dismiss religion as self-delusion or mass-hysteria. It may well be both but that is not really the issue.

Religion may be irrational but that does not mean that it is not useful to individuals - many of whom are not strong-minded or secure in their lives. (We know that sounds patronising - but that does not make it incorrect.) However, religion meets a perceived need - and that is what this page is about.

Personal belief v organised religion

This page is primarily concerned with a personal belief in a god and the following of a religion that may result from that belief.

The issue of organised religion, and the problems it has caused in the past and causes in the present, is not the subject of this page.

The view of the impartial observer

This is always an excellent place to start when looking at any form of social phenomenon - such as religion.

We will take the view of a highly intelligent alien visiting earth and we will comment on what he sees.

He sees:

• People of every possible shape and colour divided into two sexes
• People divided into different nation states - often with different languages.
• People attempting to understand the universe, just as he does, through impartial observation, theory and experimentation. The observer notes that these people do not tend to be violent toward one another - though their debates are often heated.
• People who try to explain what they do not understand by proposing the existing of a supernatural entity they call "god". The observer does not understand what this is.
• That the people who believe in this god are divided into many religions, each of which is divided into many sects, each of which is divided into people who believe certain things but reject others.
• That differences between these groups of people seem to be minor but they have generated thousands of years of continuous wars, violence and intolerance.
• That no tangible advantages seemed to be gained by the belief in a "god".
• That people who believe, and those who do not, are divided into those who do good, those who are indifferent and those who do bad (a minority).

Our observer cannot see into the minds of people - he merely observes their actions and he is puzzled by the amount of intolerance, violence and killing that derives from a belief in a "god".

He concludes that since religious belief seems to result in wars, violence and killing, then perhaps it is some form of natural control mechanism to ensure that the number of people on Earth does not become too large for the resources available. The fact that religious violence seems to be increasing as the population increases seems to bear out his theory. Perhaps the violence is building up to a peak where a major nuclear war will reduce the population to a more sustainable number.

He is puzzled as to why such a seemingly intelligent species has adopted such a negative attitude towards its own well-being and happiness. He leaves, confused.

External need v internal need

External need for religion

There is no doubt that organised religion has been used in the past, and to some extent is still used today, as a method of social control. In other words, it meets the external needs of the social hierarchy - the church and the controlling class.

Most religions seem to promise a reward for those who do good and a punishment for those who do bad - a heaven and a hell.

Organised religion has used this as a weapon. Those who conform, do as they are told, don't rock the boat, don't ask too many questions, will be rewarded. Question the church or the major temporal powers and you are destined for hell.

Religious institutions always side with the strong against the weak. They support the status quo, they oppose dissent and popular revolution, they support free-market capitalism over socialism, they oppose any attempt to disassociate religion from the state. The Catholic Church has a long history of supporting the strong over the weak - after all, why rebel, why struggle against poverty and oppression, when you are promised a better life after death? "Be poor, be happy - that's how god made you."

We must not underestimate how the fear of hell causes people to toe the part line. Any lapsed Catholic, particularly those taught by Jesuits, will tell you how that fear never really goes away

However, fear can only go so far as a controlling weapon. There has to be a positive side to religion to explain why people feel that it meets their inner needs.

Internal need for religion

Let us examine the needs that religion may meet for an individual.

• The quest for "meaning"

  Why are we here? What's the point?

  Some people simply cannot accept that the point of life is to be happy, to lead a decent life, to give and receive love, to enjoy friendship, and to do some good along the way. Bad things happen to people and they are not happy. It all seems "unfair" so there must be something that makes it worth putting up with.

  In this case religion becomes a plea for some form of universal justice in an unfair world.

  Unfortunately there is no universal justice and life is sometimes not fair. Life can be tough - the best way to tackle it is with the company and help of others.

  Those with a belief in a universal justice who say "praise god" when a child is saved from a sinking ship are the same people who fail to condemn god for the hundreds of others who perished.

• Fear of your own death and the death of those you love

  What happens when you die?

  Many people do not like the answer "you lose consciousness, you die, that's the end. Your atoms are recycled in the Universe."

  The good news is that at least your atoms never "die" - they are recycled an infinite number of times. Unfortunately they have no consciousness of their own existence.

  If death is the end, many ask "what's the point of life then?" (see above) - as if the two things were related in some way.

  The death of a loved one can be a shattering experience and everyone suffers from grief - the religious and the non-religious. Some people find solace in believing that the loved one has "not really died" but "gone to a better place." They may even hope to rejoin the loved one when they die.

• Desire for a parental figure

  Throughout childhood a parental figure is usually there to guide and to intervene when things go wrong. Asking adults to "stand on their own two feet" may sound great, (and it is great if you have the confidence to do it) but many people either don't feel they can, or they are unwilling to shoulder the responsibilities it carries.

  The change from childhood to adulthood can be very stressful for many people - especially when they no longer have parental figures to turn to in times of crisis.

  If adults retain this sense of wanting an external parent it is not surprising that they adopt a religion and pass that religion on to their own children.

• Desire for an external source of authority

  What are the rules of life? Who lays them down? What is right and what is wrong? What is good and what is bad?

  Most people start life with a very black and white view of things: for example, killing is wrong. Later they begin to see that there may be times when even something as horrific as killing could be considered not wrong - it never becomes "right" but sometimes, under specific circumstances, it becomes not absolutely wrong.

  It is frustrating when things change from black and white to infinite shades of grey - but that is what maturity, understanding and wisdom are all about.

  Some people like external "rules" - preferable dictated by a strong man (or woman) at the top. They feel comfortable when someone else is laying down the guidelines and rewarding and punishing as necessary. Most people do not blindly obey the rules - "simply because they are there" (though some do - "blind faith" requires the following of rules without question) so the rules must have some "face validity" - they must at least "appear" to be sensible and fair.

  Other people want the rules to be justified, to know where they come from, why they are necessary and who benefits from people sticking to them. They question continuously and they demand that the minimum number of rules is the right number of rules.

  Very young children have no sense of empathy, they cannot see the world through someone else's eyes, so they are selfish. This stage does not last long and as soon as they can empathise they can see what impact their own actions have on others. Children quickly create their own set of rules: don't hit other people, don't take things that belong to other people, don't do things just to upset other people. These "childish" rules are far from childish - without external intervention, children can generate a set of rules that is as comprehensive and as valid as any created by adults.

  Lack of confidence in rules created by themselves, and by others they don't totally trust, causes many people to look for an external source of rules - a god. God-given rules have the advantage that one can forget about the shades of grey and return to the simple black and white world of childhood: "this is right, that is wrong."

  Religious dependence on what is seen as an external set of rules provides a return to child-like simplicity and another way to avoid the responsibilities that go with self-generated rules and adulthood.

  Unfortunately, the "god-given" rules are just as "man given" as any other set of rules. Holy books, and holy rules are all created by man.

• Loneliness

  Life is at its worst when you lie awake worrying in the dark. At such times, even the strongest and most confident of us can be overwhelmed by feelings of loneliness - even if someone we love is lying by our side.

  Being alone, with no-one to turn to for advice, comfort or love, is a terrifying prospect. Human beings are social animals - we need other people to make us happy, to enjoy our lives with and to keep us sane.

  If, for whatever reason, that feeling of loneliness does become overwhelming, then religion can provide an easy answer. No matter how alone you may feel, there is one figure who loves you - god.

  The similarities between this and the desire for a parental figure are obvious but one can get over the loss of a parent - it is much more difficult to get over the fear of being alone in the universe.

  There is also the obvious advantage that religion usually means "church" (or temple, or mosque or whatever) and that means people and people mean a social life - a chance not to be alone. Far better tea and buns at a church meetings than living alone. The god part of religion does not really matter here - a social need has been met.

  There are, of course, many ways to overcome loneliness without turning to religion. Any form of enjoyable social interaction will make life worth living again.

Studies by religious academics

It is interesting that most of the books and papers on the psychology and psychopathology of religion have been written by the religious - enquiring into why they believe as they do. They simply cannot leave it alone - "I believe because I believe" - they have to find some reason for why they believe (other than impartial logical proof which, as we have seen elsewhere, is denied to them.)

Many of the works relating to our topic are simply boring. They go on and on about abstract notions; they are often written in impenetrable or archaic language and they are all subjects of their times so must be seen in their historical context.

We have pulled out some interesting points.

"Ordinary believers"

Academics study religion - "ordinary" people just believe it.

In less educated, often peasant, societies, most people cannot give a precise answer to the question "what do you believe". However, when asked "how do you go about your religion" they can provide a long list of everything in their lives which is related to religion: church services, saints' days, ceremonies, processions, acts of prayer at home etc.

In this case, the ritual and practice of religion is far more important than the theory of religion. Religion is a key part of the social environment - so it does not matter too much if one is a little vague on the theoretical niceties.

It is self-evident that churches can wield great social and political power in such circumstances - and it explains why the Catholic church remains so powerful in third world countries.

Why do they never question?

Non-believers are often staggered by how little most religious people know about their religion.

A rational non-believer would never embark on a discussion or a debate without reading up on the background and understanding the topic under discussion. It therefore comes as a tremendous surprise when the religious say "I don't want to talk about it", "I don't know what you are talking about" or "I have never read the Bible/Torah/Qur'an that closely."

One gets the feeling that the attitude is "how dare you challenge my beliefs by asking me to explain them!"

This lack of continuous questioning and assessment of religious ideas in light of world events is the most frightening thing about religion - but it is easily explained.

Religion provides a comfort zone for many people, a set of ideas and rituals they share with others, and the last thing they want is to risk losing that comfortable feeling. They have become institutionalised like the prisoner who returns to society only to commit a crime to return to the security and relative comfort of prison.

Non-believers must understand the great risk they run when taking away the comfort blanket of religion.

Studies by non-religious academics

Freud

Freud's work is very much in its historical context at the beginnings of Psychology as an academic subject.

He was very keen to find out why people became religious and what it did to/for them. These are some of the areas he examined:

• Religion is a 'universal obsessional ritual' designed to avert imaginary misfortunes and control the unconscious impulses which lead us to feel we are causing them. The rituals attempt to control the outside world and our egoistic and aggressive wishes as well.
• Religion is an attempt to master the Oedipus complex. According to this theory, everyone has to deal with the problems caused by the fact that we have complex childhood relationships to a mother and father. Love and hate, rivalry and dependence mark our relationships and can cause intense emotional turmoil. Religion is a way of working though these problems in a socially acceptable manner so they become easier for each individual to bear. Religion protects people from individual neurosis by being a kind of social neurosis, and so sharing the problem. For instance, in the unconscious we might want our mothers to be virgins and our fathers to be all-powerful. These ideas might be 'mad' if expressed by an individual, but are allowed expression in religion.
• Religion is the return of the repressed. This is similar to the theory above but in this case religion is repeating or working through traumatic events from the distant evolutionary past. Repressed traumas return like the symptoms or character traits of individuals as described in Moses and Monotheism. The important events for Freud are associated with his theory of the primal horde.
• Religion is a reaction to infantile helplessness. In this theory we try to recreate in religion a feeling of being protected by unbounded 'love' which we yearned for in our state of infantile helplessness. Religious belief protects us from 'the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune' (ultimately from the acknowledgment of death) and therefore protects our narcissism. Religion keeps us in the illusion of being at the centre of the universe once more.
• Religion echoes infantile states of 'bliss'. This theory is similar to the one above. Instead of a reaction to infantile helplessness, religion tunes into the sense of 'oneness' which the baby is thought to experience with the mother. The early loss of ego boundaries is reproduced in a feeling of the 'transcendent' in adult life. This theory implies a state of blissful fusion with an all-loving, and all-forgiving parent. Freud also looked at this 'oceanic' or 'spiritual' feeling in Civilisation and its Discontents.
• Religion is a mass delusion or paranoid wish-fulfillment. Freud had already analysed the 'private religions' of Daniel Schreber (Psychoanalytic Notes on an Autobiographical Account of a Case of Paranoia, 1911) and Christopher Haizman ('A Seventeenth Century Demonological Neurosis', 1923) and such delusions are typical of schizophrenia in general. In turning away from reality and putting a wishful reality in its place the person makes use of magical thinking as described in The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. In some ways this brings religion closer to science. Freud had often said that paranoid delusions are like philosophical systems or scientific theories - they are all trying to make sense of the world, and our place in it.
• Religion is a way to hold groups together. This is implied in the first view above, dealing with egoistic or 'anti-social' impulses. In his Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego Freud tries to describe the actual structure of groups as he sees it from the point of view of the emotional ties that bind them together. He returns to the theme in Civilisation and its Discontents.

A summary

Some people need a religion because:

• they inherit it from their parents or community and don't want to be the odd one out;
• they want to feel that life has a "meaning" other than simply living happily and tolerantly in the company of others;
• they want to feel that there is some form of "life after death" - they cannot bear the idea of death simply being an end;
• they want an easy and all-embracing explanation for everything, they cannot bear the unknown;
• they want some external structure to organises their lives - these are the ones who support churches as well as religion;
• they want an externally dictated moral code;
• they have a psychological need for a father figure - the old man with the grey beard sitting in heaven;
• they feel lost and alone without their religion - and the company of other religious people;
• they want a social life. In small-town USA it is almost impossible for a non-believer to have a social life - everyone is at Church events!