Faith vs. Science: Pastors Dismiss Reality of Mental Illness
"The results are troubling because it suggests individuals in the local church are either denying or dismissing a somewhat high percentage of mental health diagnosis," said study leader Matthew Stanford, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor University in Texas. "Those whose mental illness is dismissed by clergy are not only being told they don't have a mental illness, they are also being told they need to stop taking their medication. That can be a very dangerous thing."
Source: Live Science
It's difficult to not see this as just another example of how faith and science conflict in American culture: when faced with a biological problem that can be diagnosed and treated through scientifically tested procedures, large numbers of people whose authority is based nothing more than faith simply dismiss all that in favor of locating the problem within their own area of "expertise." The fact that such dismissals were shown to occur more often in conservative churches would be consistent with the fact that other scientific fields are also dismissed more often in conservative churches.
There are number of other additional facts which make this even worse than it already appears. First, women are more likely than men to be told that their mental disorders are not biological but spiritual. Why would that be, if not because women's complaints, concerns, and problems simply aren't being taken as seriously by authority figures in their lives? Well, one additional issue may be an implicit assumption that women are spiritually damaged — perhaps a natural conclusion from the Christian dogmas that women are to blame for sin in the world.
Second, the people who participated in the studies reported on above were not suffering from mild, temporary depression which might easily dissipate on its own. Every one of them had already been diagnosed by licensed mental health experts with serious mental disorders like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder before they approached local clergy. The behavior of clergy described above might be almost excusable if they were dealing with people who had very minor mental health problems, but the fact is they were actually putting people in serious danger, almost as if they had denied that others were suffering from real cancer and only needed a spiritual intervention.
To be fair, there are probably few members of the clergy who are qualified to diagnose mental illness or even be able to tell for sure if a person is suffering from a mental illness. However, when people are ignorant and inexperienced on such matters, the proper course of action is to recommend that one go see a profession who can make a proper diagnosis. Had they done that, but also sought to provide some spiritual counseling alongside any medical intervention they might receive, that probably wouldn't have been a problem.
Instead of admitting ignorance, though, far too many clergy presumed to tell people to stop taking their medication and rely on spiritual counseling instead of medicine. That's unacceptable and inexcusable — and I don't think that these results can be separated from common anti-science and anti-intellectual attitudes that have become prevalent among conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christians in America. In how many other ways might American clergy be negatively impacting the physical and mental health of Americans through these attitudes and their own deliberate ignorance?
Comments
Jesus himself appears to have believed* that many mental illnesses and other related issues were the result of demon possession, etc.
So, what can you really expect from his ardent followers?
* I say “appears” because the sources found in the New Testament simply will not allow me any steadier assurance of what Christ may or may not have said, let alone thought.
This is a little one sided: just because one source says this, doesn’t mean it’s true. It sounds a little suspicious (the whole thing about patients going to a psychologist and then going to a pastor), not to mention you’ve never experienced it first hand, so how would you know?
Because some science article says so?
You are rather impressionable if this is the case. Don’t believe everything you read.
A pastor would never get involved with medical situations,most especially not with decisions on what medication to take or not to take.
And as someone who has a psychological disorder, let me just say that being pumped full of drugs and turned into a drone by psychiatrists was the worst experience of my life. Far worse than the disorder itself.
I have been observing your blog and I hate the way you write.
Of course, but do you have any reason to think that these scientists are lying?
I don’t find it the least bit suspicious. If I were setting up such a test, it sounds like the best method.
The whole point is that the pastors were denying that these were medical situations.
Of course, but do you have any reason to think that these scientists are lying?
Yes, because a great goal of science is to disprove religion in any way they feel possible.
I don’t find it the least bit suspicious. If I were setting up such a test, it sounds like the best method.
If they were told by a psychiatrist that they had a mental disorder, even if minor, the stress from this as well as the drugs they are administered would make the anxiety of the mental disorder increase and you tend to convince yourself that it is far worse than it actually is.
Also, a psychiatrists job is to find something wrong with a person so they can put them on drugs.
This makes it suspicious.
The whole point is that the pastors were denying that these were medical situations.
Once again, don’t believe everything you read. No church I have been a part of have ever denied the presence of mental disorders and none ever called “demons”, and I have done my share of sect-jumping.
This isn’t Scientology.
Really? Prove it.
Feel free to demonstrate that occurred in these cases.
Prove it.
If you have evidence that the scientists were lying, provide it. If you can’t, you may be committing libel.
No one has claimed that the churches in question denied that any mental disorders existed at all.
But that was a non sequitur.
“Because some science article says so?
You are rather impressionable if this is the case. Don’t believe everything you read.”
Ummmm I tell religious folks the same thing about their hateful bronze-age bible.
RELIGION IS 50 PERCENT FEAR OF SEX, 50 PERCENT FEAR OF DEATH, AND 100 PERCENT FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN, AND 1000 PERCENT HOT AIR!
Austin –Wanted to let you know that I’ve quoted you on this topic, specifically your comments in support of Christian women, or just women in general, and linked to your post. If you’d like to take a look, it’s here:
http://www.ethicsoup.com/2008/10/demon-or-disorder-clergy-dismiss-mental-illness.html
Sharon McEachern
Prove it?
Read almost anything that was written during the Age of Enlightenment.
And if you claim that this science vs. pastors nonsense occurs so often, you prove it with more than just a single article from a science webpage.
Having seen my share of psychiatrists and having experienced a great deal of different sects of Christianity (but now settling with Agnosticism), I have seen this claim on pastors to be false and psychiatrists to be nothing but bad news.
That is my proof; My own experience.
You should try experiencing some things yourself, instead of just believing everything you read.
You keep asking me to give proof to whether or not this scientific source is lying: well, why don’t you give proof that it’s not! Just because it’s posted on the internet, doesn’t always mean that it’s credible or not bias!
DaveTheWave: You need to hit up some more math classes.
I’m far more likely to believe a text that survives thousands of years (not that I do, I am just making a point) than an article that will most likely be disregarded or altered in a month or so.
Oh, the strength of science!
I fail to see how anything written during the Enlightenment is dispositive regarding the nature of science and scientific research today. I’m afraid you’ll have to do much better than that — like, for example, directly quoting relevant people speaking about their goals and agenda.
So often? How often, exactly, do I claim it happens?
The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”
Telling people to not believe everything they read seems to be a favorite response of yours, despite the fact that no one here has said that they believe everything they read. It would be better to directly address what people actually do say and do, rather than straw men of your own creation.
Demanding that people prove you are wrong, rather than providing any sort of support for your own claims, is an indication that you know you can’t support your claims but simply won’t admit it. It not only logically invalid to insist that others prove you’re wrong, it’s actually unethical. When you make a claim, especially one like yours, you assume a strong intellectual and ethical obligation to be able to support it.
As for the reliability of the researchers in question, I will accept that the peer review process is sufficiently strong until it is demonstrated otherwise. That’s why the peer review process is there: to weed out inaccurate, unsupported, and poorly performed research. The peer review process is, in fact, what differentiates sound, reliable scientific research projects from unchecked, unverifiable, and unreliable claims about personal experience which might be made by any anonymous poster on the internet.
So, you find Homer’s Odyssey to be particularly credible?
Yes, what has it done for us lately?
>Yes, because a great goal of science is to disprove religion in any way they feel possible.
Yesterday, my chuckle for the day was PZ Myers photo of all the Christians “praying” in front of Wall Street with their hands up, and heads down–in front of the statue of Wall Street’s golden bull (for the bull market)–juxtaposed against an old classic painting of the Hebrew worship of the golden calf. It was like The Onion brought to life.
But this quote above was my chuckle for today. I had no idea that science’s “great goal” has anything at all to do with religion (or how scientists “feel”). Maybe this guy needs to get back _on_ his meds?
The real hoot, though, is how fast Christians are to glom onto the pale minority of scientists who are believers–or any science they think at all shows anything in their scriptures is remotely possible. Any shred of science they can use is fair game–but any science that gives them problems does so out of pure malice toward them!
What a worldview that requires I latch onto science when it suits my purposes–in rare instances–but then must reject the entire method and the bulk of its findings (no matter how well they work in practical reality) whenever data is shown that doesn’t support me.
Shouldn’t my beliefs be supported and based upon what the most reliable data suggests? Why on Earth would I hold to any worldview that has to reject most verified, reliable data as untrustworthy? And if I do so–what is left upon which to base my worldview–unverified, unreliable data? Oh, that’s quite a foundation, yeah.
I should clarify this statement:
>pale minority of scientists who are believers
I meant believers in a literalist Biblical interpretation–any religious notion/s that would defy scientifically validated data. Sorry if that was unclear.
“DaveTheWave: You need to hit up some more math classes.”
What, ya can’t have 1200 percent of bullcrap (like religion)?
Sean, what is your level of education?
“I’m far more likely to believe a text that survives thousands of years”
Wow, you are gullible! I suppose that if millions of people believe something, that makes it correct?
If I need math courses, you need some courses in basic critical thinking.
Psychosis is the experiential base for many “religious” experiences.
I’ll try to be brief… my wife has endured many exorcism, laying on of hands, etc, etc… over a period of 10+ years, for hearing god, angels, demons (including being impregnated by god, & having demons drill & cut into her)…
… & then came the christian psychologists… oh yeah, it was basically all my fault (never got a good answer as to why that was)…
… eventually, after she just walked out of the house one day & boarded a bus to wherever it would take her (ended up somewhere in Oklahoma), she sgreed to allow her mother to take her to a christian psychiatrist…
… she was diagnosed as bi-polar schizophrenic & given meds…
… today (5 years later), if she takes her meds, she is pretty much symptom free & able to function normally…