Comment of the Week: Religion vs. Self-Esteem
I'm currently doing some discussions about children's literature and skeptical messages. One that struck me strongly was Dumbo (and his magic feather). The idea is an old one. If a person lacks confidence, you give him the "magic feather" and tell him that he can't fail as long as he has his lucky charm.
Religion does this. First it undercuts people's confidence in themselves, by taking children and teaching them that they're bad and wicked--inherently. They're told that only through god can they be moral, happy, and acceptable (and, most importantly, eligible for salvation).
These children need salvation because they're wicked, flawed, nasty little children. And also, they are directly responsible for forcing god to send Jesus down to be a gruesome human sacrifice. They were so wicked and awful that to good, baby Jesus had to die a horrid death to make up for their rotten, filthy crimes in this life/world.
After a decade and a half of that message, the kids are lucky to have a whisp of self-esteem left. But more likely, if they've really internalized it (and since it's mom, dad, and every authority figure they've ever seen for the most part shoving this down their brains...?), they can only be worthy via their relationship with god. God deems them worthy despite the fact they are undeserving of his mercy. And this is all that redeems them from utter worthlessness.
So, first, the self-esteem is beaten out of them. Then it's handed back to them as "god"--the magic feather.
[original post]
To be fair, not every single religion does this, but it is common and happens in a variety of ways. What Tracie describes here is most characteristic of Christianity and perhaps Islam, but other religions do have their own ways of getting people to believe that they are inferior and thus need the religion and/or gods in order to get anywhere.
Sometimes, that seems to be the main selling point of the religion. If you take away from Christianity the idea that humans are depraved sinners who need Jesus in order to achieve heaven and avoid hell, there really isn't much reason to be a Christian rather than so
It's no mystery why many of these people are emotional cripples once they're released into the world if they don't lean on the Xianity of their mentors/parents. How can I make good decisions when I've been taught to follow blindly and not to think critically? So, I go off into the world, unsure of whether or not I believe, but I make a mess of my life, and find that it all works much better if I follow a predefined divine course.
In other words, I'm not equipped to think for myself, due to my upbringing, and I just do a whole lot better in a system that does the thinking for me now.
Then I credit religion for making my life much better than it was when I was trying to run it on my own (clumsily, since nobody ever encouraged me to question what I was told--since that is bad).
Fundamentalist religion can do this on both a physical and a psychological level — look at how some religious groups isolate themselves from the rest of the world and deny their children enough education that would allow them to make their way in the world if they chose to leave the group.
How this ties into your column is that when an atheist "questions"--that's arrogant. I've been called arrogant and told I was wrong to think that I can live a life without god. I've been told I'll go to hell for that attitude.
Imagine what such messages do to the mind of a 3-year-old.
Atheists are frequently accused of being arrogant. I wonder how many of such accusations are ultimately based on just what Tracie describes here: the assumption that it's "arrogant" to live without gods, religions, and supernatural or magical beliefs.
Recently I had a brief exchange with a Lutheran who said that we should give religion credit where credit is due--that it really helps a lot of people who can't get their lives together.
I replied that I can't credit a man who robs me for generosity just because he gives me back some portion of my money. He understood and agreed that there is a potential in the message of salvation (salvation from WHAT? From ourselves and our flawed evil nature) to wreck self-esteem, but that any system has its good and bad points.
I said I agree that systems often have good and bad points, but that in the court of public opinion, it is nearly always considered to be a bad thing to do things to a child that impact his self-esteem in a negative way. While I agreed with him that there are a number of other ways to destroy or damage a child's self-esteem, I pointed out that it's rare that something that does this receives praise in the court of public opinion. And that religion is rare in that it promotes as "good," a system that, at its very core, teaches a doctrine of "salvation" that requires that a person accept he's inherently worthless and corrupt, and that only this system can provide him any real worth. (And further, that by rejecting the idea of his utter worthlessness, he's WAY out of line--pompous, arrogant, and rebellious.)
That's what I can't fathom.
By not merely living without gods, but in fact living good lives without gods, atheists' very existence demonstrate the falsehood of this basic assumption of Christianity and some other religions. Our existence and presence undermines the position of so many religious theists without our ever having to say a word — aside from being public and unapologetic about being atheists in the first place.
Of course we have to be accused of being pompous, arrogant, and other things. Our persons and characters have to be attacked lest anyone start to recognize that we are right and that atheism is a legitimate option. This is why attacks on Richard Dawkins are often either personal, or lacking details and substance. If his credibility can be undermined before anyone looks at what he really says, then his words won't tempt people to see through the scam that lies behind so much of religion.
Comments
What a wonderful article.
We have always heard that religion was originally created as a way to describe the unknown. I don’t think that is the case at all. It was created to control. Describing the unknown was a nice way to validate the control system.
Any system where people are told not to question is very dangerous.
I am mother of a 14 year old. Unlike a lot of parents I am not worried. I have taught him to question and think for himself. So many parents raise their kids by “don’t question, just do what I say” and by extension “do what the church says.” Then the normal shift from a parent-centered to a peer-centered life occurs. The children, who have always followed without thinking, look for a new leader, often with bad consequences.
The really sad thing is that so many parents raise their children in a knee-jerk reaction, without thinking for themselves if they are doing the right things by their children. The right things in the REAL WORLD.
To me the real danger of religion is NOT THINKING.
Side note: I think this is where we get the religious right leaders who claim they were atheist, drugged out, and on the path to jail or the cemetery. They were raised not to think. They tried to break away, they never really thought about anything. But because they were not going to church at the time they considered themselves atheist, when in really they were simply anti-church at that time in their lives. Then they got into trouble and were BORN AGAIN.
ee:
Wow. Thanks for a great reinforcing post.
I have to add, since it is related, an e-mail I sent earlier this morning:
>What I find most interesting in this discussion is this line:
>>”Faith is a profound trust of humility toward God and his Teachers, that really one never knew anything, only God knows.”
>This is the most dangerous thing about “faith.” What he’s saying is that if a person comes to you and claims to have a message from god, and tells you to do a thing, you can’t/shouldn’t question it–because _you_ don’t know anything–only god knows, and you have to “trust” god and his “teachers.”
>This is the same faith lauded in Hebrews with regard to Abraham and Jephthah, who were both willing to kill their own children at god’s request (Abraham at god’s direct request, Jephthah at god’s implied request).
>When someone like the guy you’re corresponding with says, for example, “God did not tell Andrea Yates to drown her kids…” My question is “How do you know? Maybe it’s one of those parts of god’s plan you just don’t understand due to your puny human brain. Maybe this is one of those times you need to just _trust_ god has some greater purpose that will come from Andrea killing her kids…”
>How can someone who says, “We just need to trust god’s messages/messengers, because they know better than we do,” then turn around and claim that “god wouldn’t do this/that”? If we know what’s right/wrong, and we can claim to second guess a message from god by judging it against our own ideas of good/bad–then we cannot say we need to just “trust god.” Questioning a command because it doesn’t seem right or doesn’t seem in line with what _we_ mere humans think god is or should be–isn’t _trust_.
>I find that if an atheist calls out an atrocity, such as god telling the Hebrews to commit genocide against the Amalekites, we’re immediately told we can’t know all of god’s purpose, and it’s just even if we don’t realize it. We just have to have faith.
>But the minute some wack job from our own time does some crazy shit in the name of god, we’re told “that wasn’t from god, god wouldn’t tell anyone to do that.” When _they_ count it as an atrocity, it can’t be anything god would be responsible for. When _we_ count it as an atrocity, we just lack proper faith.
>But blind faith in following any idea or person (god’s teachers) is how holocausts and crusades occur. It’s harmful stupidity.
***
I do have to say that I will give the preachers you mention in your last paragraph the benefit of the doubt that they were atheists, since doubt about the existence of god defines lack of belief in a god or gods. However, they were, by no means, skeptics. That’s where I tend to run into problems with their claims.
When I left the church, I was so afraid that I would make the “wrong” decision about whether or not a god exists. I was fearful of Pascal’s wager, and only Xianity had ever been promoted to me as a legitimate religion (of course, none of the scrutiny I was taught to apply to all other religions was EVER presented to me aimed at Xianity). So, I felt that it was of utmost importance to choose carefully regarding god and doctrine.
In the end, I wasn’t going to give up “seeking” until I found, and there was no internet available to me or atheist groups to seek assistance from. So, I was desperate to find something to convince me to believe; and like most things, if you’re looking for evidence for what you want to believe, you’re bound to find it.
Looking back, the “evidence” I accepted was laughable, but that’s what happens when a child is desperate. They’ll accept anything.
When I finally began to think _skeptically_, is when I was able to let go of my irrational fears and see that I could not justify belief in god, and now I am an atheist without fear.
The preachers you describe were probably atheists (non-theists), but they probably were not mentally capable skeptics.
In fact, I did another presentation where I went online to see what people said in regard to their own conversions and deconversions. Every person who claimed to have been skeptical nearly always ended up justifying their belief in one of two ways:
1. With evidence, that if they would have actually investigated, they’d have found it was fraudulent or based on fallacy.
2. Emotional reasons.
Neither evidences the skeptical mindset they claim to have held prior to becoming a Xian. I can’t deny they were really atheists, but I can say they don’t support their claims that they put any hardcore skeptical thought into the issue prior to–or during their conversions to Xianity. At least nobody I could find posting.
In my opinion, I think the religious idea that you are a born “sinner”, absolutely worthless,except for God’s grace and you are no better than dumpster filler, is the main reason for most of the ills of the world.
How much self-worth or self-esteem can anyone have under these circumstances? How many criminals in jails were brought up as “God-fearing”, by their religious parents, parroting the “you are worthless” etc.,etc. mantra over and over to their progeny, almost from birth?
What kind of world-view could someone have under these circumstances?
Food for thought, in my opinion.
I’d say the real problem is how most religions, be it Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. puts certain things out of reach of questioning by attempting to explain them via the supernatural. Don’t question why you’re unemployed, it’s karma; you screwed up in a previous life. Don’t question why your daughter was killed by a drunk driver, it was God’s will; at least she’s in a better place. Don’t question why you were born into poverty, the gods dictated that you would be a serf long before you were ever born.
That is religion’s most damaging legacy left to the world.
I remember being somewhat low on the self- esteem scale when I initially began my rejection of religion. For years after in my search for “Truth” the ideas that attracted me most, be they religious or of some New Age-esque flavor, seemed to be only those that either would build me up to be far more than I was or reinforced those earlier feelings of worthlessness. I bounced back and forth between the two extremes for years.
Oddly enough, what stopped it all was simply looking up at the sky one winter night a few years ago. Realizing how insignificent I was in this vasty universe lead me to the conclusion that the sense of worthlessness that had been instilled in me and the anxieties it brought on was rather silly and pointless. I don’t think I’ve ever laughed as hard as I did that night. Ever since then my self- esteem has been on the incline.
Can’t have parents indoctrinating kids!
The state should indoctrinate kids.
Remember, the state really CARES about you and your kids.
Of course, if you are non productive you can go hang for all the state cares.
They would really prefer that the extra kids and old foggies bleeding social security and the medical system would just DIE anyway,
As if a state run by atheists would be different!
Who ya kiddin, sport?
Whatever im not surprised .Your thoughts seem to be no more than that of an indignant religious child .Not wishing to even considder another view and using bullsh** to try to sidetrack the matter that is being discussed.Which is the tactics of many christians that find themselves lost for decent answers when faced with common sense .
No body said parents shouldnt teach their children dear ! .
But them teaching them should not include abusing them by using religious manipulation and psychological abuse .
I wish people would give up on all the positive or negative self-image stuff. Images of any sort are usually a trap for the unwary. They just make people rigid and constipated.
Whatever - point 6 and 7, I don’t understand where your suggestion that ‘the state should indoctrinate kids’ comes from. If you are attempting to suggest that an atheist might advocate that view, you have got the point of the original post completely the wrong way round.
I think a broader point we might take from the original post is that ‘indoctrinating’ kids generally - by anyone, in any way, is wrong. Teaching children *TO* think, teaching them logic and reasoning, and how to question things is what we should be doing.
It is sadly ironic, and fundamentally contradictory, that on one hand we teach children at an early age the basics of logic - in maths, science subjects, even history or rudimentary philosophy, and at the same time insist that they put such reasoning to one side when it comes to religion. Not only must they not apply the same method of thinking and analysis when it comes to religion, but it is actually wrong - morally, somehow - to do so. It is actually virtuous to accept, in the face of what logical thought tells us, what religious creed and teachers assert without a scrap of evidence.
Not only is that wrong in itself, it fundamentally undermines the principles of thought we in all other fields hope to instill in children.
Recently I’ve come to see ideas such as optimism and pessimism from a new persective. Both concepts spring from one source of thought: That the universe is aware of man and our desires. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that the universe is aware of man–much less the idea that the universe is siding with or against us.
This is certainly nothing original to my mind. I merely discovered what others had already discovered for themselves.
Along those same lines, I no longer have a “problem” with the Problem of Evil. I do not expect the gods (if the gods exist) to take my side against any other species of life, human or otherwise or to subvert natural law to save my life.
I no longer take issue with the world as it is, feeling that I am somehow special by virtue of being human. If the same processes that shaped the fly has also shaped me, I must realize that I do not belong to some separate order of being.
I think this is consistent with the exisiting reality. And it actually brings me comfort.