Does religious belief play a decisive role in mental health therapy?

cosmictinker21 said:Look, when you're standing over someone who just collapsed on the highway because they had a massive heart attack, you aren't exactly going to start lecturing them on Jungian archetypes. If your stomach is cramping from hunger, or if a kid wipes out on his bike and you're watching blood soak through his jeans... you don't just sit there in some meditative trance. Sorry, not happening.

The deep philosophical pondering—stuff like "did I act correctly?" or "why does this happen?"—that comes later. Much later.

But anyway, getting back to the point of the thread... if my memory hasn't completely failed me, the core question is whether religious belief is a deciding factor in treating mental illness. It isn't strictly necessary, but it can certainly be one of those variables that either helps someone recover or makes things worse...

But honestly, you're kind of dodging the question again. You just say "no," but you aren't really explaining the reasoning behind your specific take or where you're coming from with that opinion. [I mean, we're just having a chat, not running for President or anything.] 😉

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:But honestly, you're kind of dodging the question again. You just say "no," but you aren't really explaining the reasoning behind your specific take or where you're coming from with that opinion. [I mean, we're just having a chat, not running for President or anything.] 😉

I'm not really offering a "personal" opinion so much as pointing toward existing research that's already been done—and is still being conducted. You can find that data explicitly online, or in places like a medical library, the Library of Congress, or even a local university library (assuming they have enough literature on hand)... Beyond that, I can contribute based on my own observations and by passing along what I've seen from people I know. For someone who truly believed in divine intervention, the path to healing and reducing both mental and physical suffering was significantly easier. On the flip side, for those who took a defeatist view—thinking illness was a punishment from God and that they had to suffer as atonement for their sins—some were actually able to endure the pain more easily. However, those who literally accepted the sickness as a sign of their own sinfulness tended to just give up on themselves, doing nothing active to improve their condition. My question is this: how many people have actually sought your psychological help, how many have you truly tried to assist, and what practical experiences and conclusions have you drawn from your actual work? Or is this all just happening at a purely theoretical level? Try reading with a bit of comprehension (forgive the author if that sounds blunt)...

cosmictinker21 said:I'm not really offering a "personal" opinion so much as pointing toward existing research that's already been done—and is still being conducted. You can find that data explicitly online, or in places like a medical library, the Library of Congress, or even a local university library (assuming they have enough literature on hand)... Beyond that, I can contribute based on my own observations and by passing along what I've seen from people I know. For someone who truly believed in divine intervention, the path to healing and reducing both mental and physical suffering was significantly easier. On the flip side, for those who took a defeatist view—thinking illness was a punishment from God and that they had to suffer as atonement for their sins—some were actually able to endure the pain more easily. However, those who literally accepted the sickness as a sign of their own sinfulness tended to just give up on themselves, doing nothing active to improve their condition. My question is this: how many people have actually sought your psychological help, how many have you truly tried to assist, and what practical experiences and conclusions have you drawn from your actual work? Or is this all just happening at a purely theoretical level? Try reading with a bit of comprehension (forgive the author if that sounds blunt)...

Honey, the second you agree with an idea, it becomes your own stance, if that makes sense. Maybe try to wrap your head around that. And honestly, needing the "whole world" to back you up just to hold onto a viewpoint... well, that might be something else you need to work on.

For someone who truly believed in God's help, the paths toward healing and easing both mental and physical suffering were significantly smoother. On the flip side, some people who took a defeatist view—thinking illness was a divine punishment and that they had to suffer to redeem their sins—actually found it easier to endure. However, those who literally accepted being sick as a sign of their own sinfulness tended to just give up and didn't do anything active to improve their condition. So, my question is: how many people have actually sought psychological help from you? How many have you genuinely tried to help? What are your practical experiences and conclusions from your work, or is this all just theoretical speculation? Please read this with understanding (forgive the author's phrasing).

Voila,

I also attribute my own psychological stability to "talking with God"—and I shouldn't forget to mention, I send Him a PM too, haha. I mean a real, honest conversation, not just reciting formal prayers. 👍

Regarding providing actual help, I think the question is better phrased this way: how "alive" are we, in terms of having mutually constructive relationships with others? If I tell you my life story, I’m talking about everything I've participated in, all my views and thoughts gained through direct experience and reading books. Given the various jobs I've held and the background I come from, comparing myself to the average person, I’d say I have pretty rich experience in both theory and practice. That said, psychology isn't my professional career (though I wouldn't mind if it were).

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:Honey, the second you agree with an idea, it becomes your own stance, if that makes sense. Maybe try to wrap your head around that. And honestly, needing the "whole world" to back you up just to hold onto a viewpoint... well, that might be something else you need to work on.

For someone who truly believed in God's help, the paths toward healing and easing both mental and physical suffering were significantly smoother. On the flip side, some people who took a defeatist view—thinking illness was a divine punishment and that they had to suffer to redeem their sins—actually found it easier to endure. However, those who literally accepted being sick as a sign of their own sinfulness tended to just give up and didn't do anything active to improve their condition. So, my question is: how many people have actually sought psychological help from you? How many have you genuinely tried to help? What are your practical experiences and conclusions from your work, or is this all just theoretical speculation? Please read this with understanding (forgive the author's phrasing).

Voila,

I also attribute my own psychological stability to "talking with God"—and I shouldn't forget to mention, I send Him a PM too, haha. I mean a real, honest conversation, not just reciting formal prayers. 👍

Regarding providing actual help, I think the question is better phrased this way: how "alive" are we, in terms of having mutually constructive relationships with others? If I tell you my life story, I’m talking about everything I've participated in, all my views and thoughts gained through direct experience and reading books. Given the various jobs I've held and the background I come from, comparing myself to the average person, I’d say I have pretty rich experience in both theory and practice. That said, psychology isn't my professional career (though I wouldn't mind if it were).

This doesn't really have much to do with the topic at hand. I wasn't exactly asking for your life story—I don't particularly feel the need to know your personal biography... I was just asking about your professional experience, and I appreciate you getting back to me on that.🙂

I’m pretty sure what Jung was getting at here is the idea of believing in God—or just some kind of higher power, whatever. It’s not about the organized religion stuff, which, let's be honest, can be totally toxic for your mental health if you aren't careful.
So, you really have to draw a line between actual faith and religious institutions—it's night and day, like the sky and the Earth.

For someone who’s never actually experienced even a shred of love, I honestly think religion can be pretty damaging
it's kind of like being absolutely starving and having no idea what food—or love, in this case—even is, and then someone just shoves a bunch of fish bones in your face and tells you to enjoy the meal
and then you might try to say how great it is, or that you're totally full, even though you haven't actually tasted a single bite
it's just... kind of crazy, I guess

Hannah White2 said:I’m pretty sure what Jung was getting at here is the idea of believing in God—or just some kind of higher power, whatever. It’s not about the organized religion stuff, which, let's be honest, can be totally toxic for your mental health if you aren't careful.
So, you really have to draw a line between actual faith and religious institutions—it's night and day, like the sky and the Earth.

I'm kind of with you on both counts, actually. That specific thought came from the preface writer, not even from Jung himself. To me, it’s all about the belief—the actual quality and substance of it. Since psychology and psychiatry, generally speaking, still don't quite grasp the "philosophical" inner workings of a person well enough to just "fix" them with basic personality tests or meds after the fact, I'd say the best way to look at this is through a philosophical lens... Human beings have so many questions, and I find the big ones much more interesting; things like how we face death, our relationship with sexuality, or just the quality of having an honest connection with another person... You know, being able to trust people and finding some peace with your own fate...

You’re leaning pretty hard on those claims. By that logic, I could just as easily argue that biochemistry, pharmacology, or any other science will never reach the level of insight that philosophy has already achieved.

Just a quick correction here. If we define "knowledge" as the pursuit of truth, that’s actually much more characteristic of the hard sciences—their whole job is to hunt for truth through objective parameters. Philosophy, on the other hand, deals with subjective variables (which is an answer in itself). It plays around with hypotheses rather than establishing truth per se. That definitely has its place, but you can't compare their scope of knowledge. Philosophy interprets truth; it doesn't grasp it directly. In fact, it remains fundamentally dependent on the findings of those scientific disciplines, which is a crucial point to consider.

Then you have the people whose spirituality and search for wisdom actually play a constructive role in their lives. They tend to be calm, tolerant, and genuinely capable of respecting someone else's path, even if that person is looking for the same truth in a completely different way.
Everyone else is just a spiritual vampire, trying to fix themselves using all the wrong methods. It’s a classic neurotic trait: the desperate urge to self-medicate, which almost always fails and usually just ends up deepening the underlying disorder. It really comes down to using maladaptive defense mechanisms. In my experience, you can spot them easily by their intense dogmatism—which, predictably, just loops them right back to square one and fuels more intolerance.

Keith Jones76 said:Then you have the people whose spirituality and search for wisdom actually play a constructive role in their lives. They tend to be calm, tolerant, and genuinely capable of respecting someone else's path, even if that person is looking for the same truth in a completely different way.
Everyone else is just a spiritual vampire, trying to fix themselves using all the wrong methods. It’s a classic neurotic trait: the desperate urge to self-medicate, which almost always fails and usually just ends up deepening the underlying disorder. It really comes down to using maladaptive defense mechanisms. In my experience, you can spot them easily by their intense dogmatism—which, predictably, just loops them right back to square one and fuels more intolerance.

It is honestly wild how arrogant and full of themselves proponents of the hard sciences can be... I know quite a few former neurotic women who struggled with depression, suicidal thoughts, eating disorders, etc., who basically had a total rebirth after practicing certain spiritual disciplines. And, it's important to note, they weren't just mindless sheep following some cultish dogma; they were incredibly well-read and informed. They pulled themselves out without psychotherapy or being drugged up on meds, and their level of tolerance and mental openness is honestly enviable.
Then again, I also know a few poor souls whose lives were absolutely wrecked by official objective science, psychotherapy, and medication—stuff that destroyed their memory, their brains, their livers, their individuality, their attitude, their common sense, and their creativity.

There is wheat and there are weeds on both sides of the "front line"
.
It is absolutely inhumane—and frankly, it feels racist or even touches on eugenics (targeting Black people, Jews, Romani, and "the crazies")—to discredit and discriminate against neurotics as if they are, by default, incapable of rational thought or unable to find their own way to healing through willpower and a diamond-hard spirit. I'm not saying everyone succeeds in that mission, but the number of people who have grabbed "fate" by the balls is fascinating and deserves huge respect.

"Healing the wrong way"? When it comes to the number of orphans psychiatry has sent to their deaths—whether literal death or just a mental, spiritual, and emotional vegetative state—even Hitler could probably take the title.
Any healing is valid and acceptable as long as it works and makes the person happy, functional, and productive, whether that healer is a PhD in Medicine (and only if they're a genius at altruism!) or Baba Yaga. ☕

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:Alright, here we go. This thread is basically about the intersection of mental illness and religion—so half psychology, half theology. I guess I wonder if any actual scientists have ever dared to dig into whether specific types of mental disorders correlate with specific religions. Like, has anyone actually published data showing that a certain percentage of people with a particular condition belong to a certain faith?

It seems pretty clear that religion can be a really effective tool when helping people recover from addiction. You see it in those communities where they combine intense physical labor with prayer and deep religious conviction...

I’m honestly fascinated by this whole topic. I’d be super grateful for any thoughts you guys have, or even just some links or book recommendations if you know of anything good out there.

So, looking at Carl Gustav Jung, born in 1875, who went to boarding school in San Francisco, studied medicine, worked at a psychiatric hospital, taught at a university, and ran his own private practice. He had that whole complicated relationship with Sigmund Freud 🙂, developed his theories on personality, traveled around studying the traditions, history, and rituals of various tribes across Africa, the Americas, and India. He wrote about twenty books, including "Answer to job" [referring to the biblical figure, not a career job], and passed away in 1961. Interestingly, once he hit his 80s, he started working with a biographer who mentioned in her preface that he truly believed religious conviction plays a vital role in treating mental illness.

That leads me to my big question: if faith is so crucial for healing, could it also be a deciding factor in how these conditions develop in the first place?

Three, two, one... let's hear it!

PS

Since Jeremy Alvarez5 managed to kick off that discussion on suicide over in the philosophy section, which naturally flowed into spirituality and psychology, I was thinking it would be cool if this thread eventually made its way over there too. Ideally, I'd love to see this become a sort of grand tour through philosophy, religion, and spirituality—maybe even ending up in the history section down the road. Personally, I jump between all those subforums, but since some of the most interesting people I talk to here only tend to post where they feel most comfortable 🙂, maybe the mods could encourage them more? Maybe give them more space to speak up, share photos, or even memes and debates 😢. That way, I won't have to feel like a nuisance by reposting the same topic across every single board under different titles and trying to twist things to suit my own agenda, which—if I'm being honest—is something I tend to do. 🙂 Cheers to the hardworking moderators. 🙏 😍

Yes, because all religions are false—except for one 🤷 which creates nothing but good.

Is this the right thread? O.o
In short, I don't believe religion itself is a necessary trigger for mental health issues. In my view, any kind of intense introspection, pushing your psyche to the limit, or getting lost in deep thought can lead to instability. You could be reading Stephen King horror novels and spiral, or you could be an atheist obsessing over molecular biology and the cosmos, and still end up unwell. Some people are just predisposed to it. Even though I’m agnostic and feel that religions can be restrictive, it seems to me that if someone simply accepts things without overanalyzing faith, they might avoid those bouts of psychosis and anxiety.
Some people prefer to stay within certain boundaries, and perhaps faith exists to provide structure for that segment of the population... at least, that's my take. On the other hand, highly sensitive individuals tend to fracture mentally regardless of the cause. For some, getting clipped by a bicycle on a street in Chicago is enough to cause lasting trauma, while others can endure the horrors of both World Wars and remain relatively functional. It’s all relative, isn't it?