Codependency is the condition where one person is "addicted" or dependent upon another in an unhealthy manner — usually with this second person themselves being dependent upon some addictive substance, like drugs or alcohol. To what extent might it be helpful to conceive of religion as analogous to codependency or even a form of codependency?
At least with some religions we have arbitrary and/or egotistical gods demanding attention and worship then we have believers who are just making excuses for why their gods behave in this manner, insisting that their gods are "really" good at heart, enabling their gods' alleged behavior and attitudes by blaming others for what they are suffering, etc.
Doesn't it make more sense to have faith and belief in your own mind (to be independent) then to have faith and belief in something outside of yourself like Religion (codependency)? I think the founding fathers saw that independence is more important than codependency. Believe in yourself and stop the waisted energy of trying to warrant apologetics for religion or against religion.
Take 3 months and use faith in your mind instead of God and watch the practical results. Faith in God only propagates more faith in God. Faith in yourself propagates confidence, accomplishment and happiness which religion cannot reward you with.
It is interesting to wonder how much of religion is based upon people's feeling the need to be dependent rather than taking the step of becoming more independent. Some religions, like Islam, almost seem to fetishize submission and being submissive, though in some ways Islam merely states openly and honestly what other religions also encourage, but without being quite so clear about it. Is there anything that could be done to encourage independence? Read More...
This reminds me of a blog I did at AE:
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2009/05/co-dependent-worldview.html
“But as if this weren’t disturbing enough, isn’t this pretty well Western religion in a nutshell? Conservative fundamentalists preach “responsibility,” then co-dependently slough off responsibility for everything in their lives to a mental model that does not represent themselves. Again—oh, the irony. They absolutely rail against people who they perceive to not be taking responsibility for themselves, and they preach out of that same mouth, the doctrine of fully crippling, co-dependent salvation (because I just can’t rely on myself to run my own life).”
I was watching a Youtube series at the channel Shwanerd, where a youth minister talks about exactly this–saying that you have to turn your entire life over to Jesus. He says “Jesus is not your homeboy” and expressly indicates that you have to only do what Jesus wants in your life–that Jesus has to be in the driver’s seat, or your not donig what you should as a Christian.
Also, in this same vein, I watched a clip of Atheist Experience with Jeff Dee, where he argues with a caller about whether he “deserves” to go to hell. The caller wants to know why Jeff and the others do the show. Jeff says it’s because of bigots who think people should be punished for disagreeing.
At first the woman claims that she doesn’t think he deserves to be punished. So, Jeff talks about how the Bible says he is going to hell for not believing. The woman admits this is the brand of Xianity she adopts. Jeff says, to paraphrase, “Then you think I deserve to be punished because I don’t believe what you do.”
She insists that’s not what she thinks–that’s what the Bible says.
So Jeff presses her: You believe the Bible, don’t you? You don’t think it’s wrong, do you?
She tries to say that if he accepts Jesus, he doesn’t have to go to hell. He tells her he gets that, but it’s beside the point–which is that anyone who doesn’t believe what the Bible says goes to hell, and that’s what they deserve. Does she agree?
I mean, really, if you adopt a philosophy and say that you agree with it and that you endorse it and live by it–and it says that people who don’t believe it will go to hell and that this result is justified–why is it so hard for a Christian to say, “Yes, anyone who doesn’t believe what I believe–the Bible–deserves to be punished (for eternity)”?
She was just utterly unable to say she believed he deserved to be punished, but she was also utterly not allowed to say the Bible was wrong–when it says Jeff _does_ deserve to be punished for his unbelief. I mean, it’s one or the other, though, right? Jeff either deserves to be punished for not believing something, and the Bible conflicts with most people’s moral code (who would really advocate literally punishing people for what they believe–regardless of their actions?), or he doesn’t and the Bible is incorrect.
If she says he deserves it, she’s a horrible judge of morality. If she says he doesn’t, she’s calling god a liar. Oh dear, dear, dear…what to do?
Too often people in this press end up simply slavishly falling on the side of “god said it, so it has to be right–even if I feel like it’s not.” They grind their own judgment and capacity to reason and evaluate right into the dirt–and follow without question (since questioning got really uncomfortable for them).
If they did that for a political system, we’d call them brainwashed. If they did it for another person, we’d call them co-dependent and controlled (maybe even abused or taken advantage of). But they do it for a god, and they’re icons of right behavior.
What gives?