The psychological benefits of faith and religion

Spirituality and religious faith have been challenged almost continually since cultures of differing religions have come into contact with one another, a point on the proverbial human timeline that is actually impossible to locate. In other words the debate regarding the specifics of faith is eternal.

The relationship between religion and health care has cycled between cooperation and antagonism throughout history. Some of the most advanced civilizations of ancient times (Assyrian, Chinese, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Persian) equated physical illnesses with evil spirits and demonic possessions, and treatment was aimed at banishing these spirits. Since then, physicians and other health-care providers have been viewed by religious groups as everything from evil sorcerers to conduits of God's healing powers. Similarly, physicians', scientists', and health-care providers' views of religion have ranged from interest to disinterest to disdain. (Lee & Newburg, June 2005, p. 443)

The debate of the existence of God on the other hand reaches back into antiquity with a rhetorical slant, while secularism in the modern era has begun to challenge existence belief structures not from a rhetorical slant but from a sincere questioning slant. Webster in fact claims that it is only within the last century or so that human nature has begun to be defined with secular theories.

Our culturally orthodox lack of familiarity with our own culture has not only brought about the virtual destruction of our historical consciousness, but it has also profoundly affected every area of contemporary intellectual life. Above all it has determined our reaction to modern theories of human nature. In considering such theories what must always be borne in mind is that it is only in the last century or so that secular theories of human nature have become at all common. (Webster, 1995, p. 6)

Webster's reasoning for such historical lack of interest in secular theories of human nature is that almost without exception intellectuals shared (among a variety of faiths) an almost universal acceptance of creationist thought.

Before that time intellectuals generally felt little need of such theories. They felt no need of them for the simple reason that they subscribed, almost without exception, to the creationist theory of human nature which is contained in Judaism, in Christianity and in Islam. It was only in the early part of the nineteenth century, as the 'truths' of revealed religion were increasingly discredited, that an acute need for secular theories of human nature began to emerge. (Webster, 1995, p. 6)

It is also clear, from voluminous anecdotal evidence and valid scientific research that genuine faith, or the belief in a creator and a schematic system of divine human nature nearly always has benefits to the individual and therefore the community.

Statement of Problem

According to a recent comprehensive review of the benefits of faith, conducted by a prominent U.S. physician who had noticed a strong correlation between recovery and genuine faith with his own patients; "Whatever life challenges we face, research shows that we will face them better if we have authentic religious belief and practice as cornerstones of our lives." (Matthews & Clark, 1999, p. 34) According to this work there is a clear sense, from scientific and self report research that religious faith can reduce anxiety, help patients heal from physical and metal illness and even help the individual combat or prevent addictive behavior. As is noted by a commentator in the Washington Times regarding the benefits of faith; "reduces anxiety, decreases postoperative recovery time, helps patients cope with cancer and mitigates against frequent illness" ("The Power of Faith," 2003, p. A18) This commentator also stresses that the existence of faith and religious practice in the lives of young people is significantly effective in preventing risk-taking behaviors such as the use and abuse of alcohol or drugs as well as other behaviors that have far reaching though often ignored consequences for young people. Matthews & Clark mirror this result, stressing that many studies indicate that adolescents who are involved in belief networks are, "markedly less likely to use tobacco, alcohol and illegal drugs..." (1999, p. 27) as well as stressing that adults who are religious are much more likely to engage in healthy habits, "...observant people are more likely than the nonobservant to embrace and maintain positive health habits." Matthew & Clark reference a 1991 study conducted at Northern Illinois University among 1,077 people,* support the idea that students who claimed to be highly religious, "had better overall health, less sickness, fewer doctor visits, and fewer injuries than their less religious or nonreligious cohorts. These students also had significantly lower rates of alcohol, tobacco, and drug use, and they exercised and used automobile seatbelts more regularly." (p. 21) (*Oleckno, W.A., & Blacconiere, M.J. (1991). The authors then go on to reiterate with many additional studies regarding lower incidence of disease and risk behaviors in other religious populations. (p. 21) According to Matthew & Clark, "...studies have illuminated this important reality: religious belief and practice, particularly when accompanied by a profound personal spirituality, ease the life-shattering effects of grief and help bereaved people face and adjust to their losses." (p. 26) This overwhelming evidence that religious faith is a mostly positive human condition is then compared to the secular emphasis of psychology and other disciplines, who have for decades been trying to eliminate faith and religion from the public and private spheres of medical care, biology, health and any number of other disciplines. Religious faith, to some degree has become the pink elephant in the room, as care providers are expected to respect the individuals faith, while not asking or fundamentally knowing anything about it, or relying on it as an aspect of guidance and efficacy.

The simultaneous development of the secular movement with the overabundance of evidence that supports the idea that faith is in general one of the most positive aspects of the human condition is a modern phenomena that elicits as many questions as the research answers. This work will act as a review of literature with regard to what research has been done, and has yet to be done regarding the benefits of religion. In addition the work will address issues that are specific to the Christian faith as it would seem that the development of secularism and the questioning of creationism has become an aspect that has been limited in scope to the particular brand of Christian creationism. For this reason Christianity has become the most researched religion in the world. Research regarding Christianity has been both affirmative and negative, in the sense that there are many people and research intentions that go forward attempting to discredit Christianity while there is a whole other somewhat smaller group that does the opposite. For this reason the work will focus on the main aspect of the questions; What developmental purpose has faith served/can serve? Regarding grief for the dead, does faith help and how? What relevant studies have been done to show Christianity in a good light (an example would be Justin Barrett). What major works have been done against religion / Christianity (an example here could be Freud). Mostly aiming for the benefits of faith, this will be a thesis on the material that's already been done, but (obviously) what has yet to be done. Examples of reasons for faith: grief, identity, purpose, community, magical thinking perhaps

Christianity vs. Secularism

It is safe to say that the conflict between faith, but more specifically Christianity and Science is a relatively new one that in many ways stems from the developmental history of psychology. Though many aspects of Freud's research have been discredited, as unscientific and opinion based, many of his assumptions have lived on through the evolution of psychology and one of those assumptions is his professional beliefs about faith being a lazy man's way of confronting conflict and avoiding personal responsibility.

Whatever judgement may be passed on particular theories, it is at least generally assumed that modern thinkers have succeeded in freeing themselves from the superstitious and theological modes of thought which dominated those intellectuals who belonged to an era of faith. It is, however, just this assumption which needs to be questioned. For although such secular theories as psychoanalysis and structural anthropology have evidently shed the theism of Christianity, it is not at all clear that they have repudiated the view of human nature which was once associated with creationist theology, and with JudaeoChristian doctrines of sin and redemption. Modern theorists of human nature, indeed, trapped as they are within a culture which has systematically mystified its own strongest traditions, are rather in the position of the mariner who sets out to sea without a chart. When he lands at a different point on the same continent from which he originally set sail, there is always the danger that he may fail to recognise this, and announce instead that he has discovered a new world. (Webster, 1995, p. 7)

The ambivalence then of psychology to practice without the acknowledgement of faith as a major aspect of the human psyche is captured in the above statement. Freud makes it clear in one of his letters that he is atheist, though he denies attacking Christianity directly, but as a default to attacking Judaism, which was his faith of birth.

It can be called an attack on religion only in so far as any scientific investigation of religious belief presupposes disbelief. Neither in my private life nor in my writings have I ever made a secret of my being an out-and-out unbeliever. Anyone considering the book from this point-of-view will have to admit that it is only Jewry and not Christianity which has reason to feel offended by its conclusions. For only a few incidental remarks, which say nothing that hasn't been said before, allude to Christianity. At most one can quote the old adage: "Caught together, hanged together!" (Freud, 1960, p. 453)

Freud, as well as many of the psychologists who followed him, propagated the idea that psychology is a science, separate and distinct from other sciences and certainly from faith, as connectivity with faith was considered unscientific in the early days. The reasons for this placement of secular above faith are in many ways a simple demonstration of the fact that the argument of science is that with enough investigation, all truth can be discovered. The contrary nature of faith is that faith presupposes that there are and must remain truths that are unknown and unknowable and that these truths under gird the whole of the faith experience. The early psychologists and in Freud's case psychoanalysts were trying to claim was that even the inner most workings of an individual's mind was a discoverable set of truths. This was a fight that had been hard pressed as for many years prior to Freud the accepted idea of the impetus of mental illness and negative psychological drives was that they were direct responses to lapses in faith. Freud's generation of scientists, psychological and sociological were in a fight to remove faith from the picture, of human development. Just as medical doctors of the pat and present were seeking to prove to the faithful that disease was a biological process that was not directly linked to sin or evil. In an increadibly telling passage Freud equates the developemtn of releigion with a logical path of development that follows that of first mother connectivity, then father connectivity and then God as the ultimate father to connect with.

A what I now put forward, between the deeper and the manifest motivation, between the father complex and man's helplessness and need for protection.These connections are not difficult to find. They consist in the relation of the child's helplessness to the adult's continuation of it, so that, as was to be expected, the psycho-analytic motivation of the forming of religion turns out to be the infantile contribution to its manifest motivation. Let us imagine to ourselves the mental life of the small child. You remember the object-choice after the anaclitic type, which psycho-analysis talks about? The libido follows the paths of narcissistic needs, and attaches itself to the objects that ensure their satisfaction. So the mother, who satisfies hunger, becomes the first love-object, and certainly also the first protection against all the undefined and threatening dangers of the outer world; becomes, if we may so express it, the first protection against anxiety. In this function the mother is soon replaced by the stronger father, and this situation persists from now on over the whole of childhood. But the relation to the father is affected by a peculiar ambivalence. (Freud, 1928, p. 41)

Once the individual has moved on from the father attachment the next logical placement for such attachment, based on the psyche, according to Freud is the ultimate father, God. The logical progression is then an infantile desire for security that is logical to most humans, though obviously pointedly weak, as Freud writes it. The legacy of this drive, away from faith as a reasonable explanation for human developmental factor was a tendency of the research community to discredit, or at the very least ignore faith, until very recently as a value or phenomena worth studying.

Scientific truth is largely determined by authority and this has always been so. Today, any new idea must be supported by the weight of existing authorities and expressed in their language. The more radical the idea the more necessary it is to blunt its impact by emphasising its similarities with shared traditions. (Hanman, 2007, NP)

The fight that was waged in favor of science naturally followed a path that led it away from faith, as during the secular era there was a sense that faith had no authority, and in many ways the separation was complete as religion often claimed the same with regard to science. It is for these reasons that many psychologists find it easy to attack Christianity, and attempt to discredit it with scientific research, and yet the very brief review above shows that they have not always been successful.

The attention to this topic by the generation of psychologists who came after those early pioneers declined from approximately the mid 1920s until the mid 1960s. Several intradisciplinary reasons for this have been suggested (Paloutzian 1996). These include but are not limited to the establishment of scientific psychology after the model of physics, the separation of psychology departments from their former home in philosophy departments, and the tendency by psychologists to stay away from "taboo" topics that might be considered too philosophical or too theological. However, during this period there were writings by what might be called the "grand theorists" of religion (Freud 1927, Jung 1938; see Wulff 1997 for a complete presentation of these), but these writings did little to advance the psychology of religion in the stricter, data-based sense. That is, these were over-arching theories of human nature that were attempts to explain everything, including religiousness. Although they are rich ideas about what processes may underlie religiousness, they did little to feed the quantitative research that is mushrooming today. (Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003, p. 377)

The reason that a war has been waged, specifically against Christianity is simple, Christianity is the predominant faith in areas where secularism and the so called "scientific revolution" have dominated scientific thinking. Additionally, scientists, of which there are actually relatively few, who bear witness to secularism as the only viable reality have likely come from a Christian background, in the Western tradition and therefore, just as Freud did, fight against that which they are the most familiar with, their own traditional faith. Lastly, Christianity has a tendency to be a dominant religion in democratic and "free" societies. In such societies there is a clear sense that there will be limited sanction if certain aspects of religion and/or faith are questioned and challenged, hence secularism, when it took hold had free reign to challenge and even overtly dismiss religion and faith as antiquated, with or without research to demonstrate this as "scientific" truth or just a sad but hopeful trend on the part of some to diminish the power of faith.

Developmental Purpose of Faith:

Faith in many ways has won a hard fight, as its everlasting existence and strong social and psychological pull have made is t a phenomena that today's researchers are coming back to. Researchers have been forced to look backward, see that faith, despite its many and often vocal detractors still has as much validity today as it had, hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Researchers then must seek an answer to this question. Faith and religion, specifically serve a developmental purpose for those who practice them.

Beyond the social aspect of faith religiosity is a psychological guide for personal and social development that acts as a template for moral development and therefore the ability of the individual to see beyond his or herself to act morally and ethically within a community. Further, religion, spirituality and faith serve as a psychological framework to assist the individual in overcoming challenges and obstacles that life is sure to present. (Matthews & Clark, 1999, p. 34) Faith allows us to find comfort in the idea that ourselves and our loved ones will live on, past the struggles of this body and life, and this truth creates within most people a sense of security, which is unmatched by almost any other human sense. As one researcher puts it; the experience of death is personal and the expression of grief private, and it is well to ask how rituals can help this process. The traditional rituals are psychologically sensitive. They show an intuitive wisdom, which facilitates and contains the painful but essential grieving process. They do, in fact, reflect the need rather than determine it. Chronic or unresolved grief is a result of more than not fulfilling mourning rituals. It may be influenced by many different factors; the psychological fragility of the bereaved; previous bereavement history; the circumstances of the death; the relationship with the deceased. However, to reject elements which are so useful as being 'superstitious' or 'inappropriate', is to deny their validity. (Wahlhaus, 2005, p. 95)

Religion can help guide, who we choose as a long-term romantic partner, what type of profession we seek outside the home, how many and how we raise our children, and weather we spend out time in pursuit of healthy pastimes or unhealthy ones. Emmons & Paloutzian have written a comprehensive review on the nature of the recent literature and research associated with religion and the range of topics is immense and telling, as the study of faith, religion and how its influences decisions and actions among individuals is alive and well and in many ways positively linked to the relative good that religion seems to do in the world today. The review article compiled for the Annual Review of Psychology in 2003 boasts almost 200 cited research documents, of which the authors of the piece claim to be those which they found to be more obscure, or less likely to have been cited and recited in the other review literature of the preceding years. (Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003, p. 377)

Emmons & Paloutzian also point out that one of the most significant aspects of faith, as a developmental aspect of the human existence is the ability of religion to allow individuals' permission, right and even duty to assign sacred association to everyday experiences.

The sacred core is what is central to both religious and spiritual experience. Building upon this definition, Pargament (1999) has argued that conceiving of spirituality in terms of an ability to imbue everyday experience, goals, roles, and responsibilities with sacredness opens new avenues for empirical exploration. For example, Mahoney et al. (1999) found that when marital partners viewed their relationship as imbued with divine qualities, they reported greater levels of marital satisfaction, more constructive problem solving behaviors, decreased marital conflict, and greater commitment to the relationship, than couples who did not see their marriage in a sacred light. Similarly, Tarakeshwar et al. (2002) found that a strong belief that nature is sacred was associated with greater pro-environmental beliefs and a greater willingness to protect the environment. (Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003)

The purpose of assigning sacred to everyday life events and situations is obvious. It gives such events and relationships a core meaning that is greater than the sum of its parts, and therefore should be valued and cherished to an extent that makes it more meaningful and possibly enjoyable. The ability of the faithful to place sacred meaning on something as simple as watching and listening to a child laugh, is an ability that most people envy, for its ability to make the world a perceptually more positive place to live in. On the contrary this emphasis on the everyday as sacred could also unduly assign greater value to negative issues than they deserve, in which case religion and especially Christianity frequently intervenes with the idea of forgives, and God's eternal love.