NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24300

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-25 | 21.5 KB

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24300 talk.religion.misc:24597
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!lynx!nmsu.edu!arcturus!sdoe
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Doe)
Subject: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: Part 5--Social Implications of the Mini-Reformation
Keywords: Bible--psychlogy--fundamentalism
Sender: [e-mail] (Stephen Doe)
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 06:14:48 GMT
Lines: 386




    Having experienced it before, in my Jungian phase, I call
    giving up on reality and withdrawal into fantasy and fiction
    by a different name:  decadence.  For me, Christianity is
    simply a cleaner form of decadence than recreational drugs,
    perverse sex, or rock and roll.  Christianity has shown me
    that I, too, could be decadent.  But, serious person that
    I am, I chose the way wherein one can be decadent--and still
    not have much fun at it.--Cohen, Mind of the Bible Believer,
    p. 405.



    We have painted a very drastic picture of the harmful
psychological effects biblical Christianity can have.  By such an
analysis, one might be led to conclude that the biblical authors
cynically pushed Christianity upon an unsuspecting populace.  Such a
conclusion ignores two pertinent facts:  1) We have shown, via
appropriate quotes from Luther and Wesley, that the biblicist can
essentially "brainwash" himself.  It is perfectly consistent with our
view that the Bible authors "brainwashed" themselves with their own
doctrine, even as they invented it.  2) The unique historical
situation, i. e. the Roman conquest of Israel, and the influence of
Hellenistic culture, did much to create the situation in which such a
strange doctrine as Christianity could come into being.
    But even though we acknowledge that present-day Evangelicals
are sincere, we must evaluate biblical Christianity upon its effects,
not upon the intentions of its practitioners.  This final post in the
series examines some of the social implications of the
mini-Reformation.


            Mental-Health Implications


    We have seen that, as Freud led us to expect, there is a
relation between the biblical, devotional program and neuroses.  The
program basically helps the individual to become more neurotic,
widening the gap between the conscious attitude and the rest of the
personality.  The believers share the symptoms in this case, and
spurious intellectual interpretations of these symptoms are provided.
While the biblical program may help those with addictions, by
diverting energy to a God-complex; while Christianity may not have
that much of an effect upon those "other-directed" enough not to put
the implications of the belief together in a coherent manner; the
inescapable conclusion is that biblical Christianity is a poor
substitute for optimum psychological integration.
    The main problems to be observed in conservative Christians
are those of fear and depression.  Because most mental-health
professionals do not recognize what they are dealing with in
conservative Christianity, those with Christian fear are usually
misdiagnosed as phobic.  But when properly questioned, the fearful
Christian can discuss what he is afraid of, unlike those who come by
irrational fears in other ways.  What they are afraid of, of course,
is hell, and they weary themselves with the anticipation of it.
Fearful Christians tend to stay away from anything that remotely
threatens to send them there by accidental death, and avoid situations
requiring action, lest more demerits be entered into God's record
book.  (Dr. Cohen remarks that this "reflects faulty epistemology, not
illogic.")  Fearful Christians will testify that Christianity has
delivered them from even greater mental distress; they don't identify
the program as the source of the problem as well as the source of the
palliative for it.  It resembles nothing so much as addictive
behavior, which may explain Christianity's success in helping some
cope with other addictions.  (An example can be seen in Old Order
Amish.  Though they eschew most forms of technology, they do avail
themselves fully of modern medical care:  they seem even more
preoccupied than others with delaying the end as long as possible!
This may be accounted for by over-riding fear of the hereafter.)
    The other main problem is depression.  The Bible-believer
needs constant exhortation and encouragement from others and, with
that and self-discipline, attains a certain momentum that prevents
what would otherwise be complete inactivity.  One can see this
depressed demeanor in the few conservative denominations with a long
tradition.  In the new, successful conservative church, one encounters
a well-planned and well-acted show of cheerfulness, which partly
compensates for the cheerlessness implicit in the doctrine, and also
acts as more Device 1 "sales pitch."  Basically, the purposeful
misrouting of mental energy is draining, so the conservative must
convince themselves that it is otherwise by "testifying" to how
empowered they feel.  (Again, using Old Order Amish as a an extreme
example of a conservative sect, we can see some confirmation of our
expectations.  In the general population, the major cause of admission
to mental-health facilities is schizophrenia; among Old Order Amish,
the major cause of admission is depression[1].)
    How should these problems be dealt with?  Unfortunately, we
cannot say that the secular mental-health professionals necessarily do
good.  Every secular competitor to religion turns out to have too many
orthodox defenders of some doctrine.  Such doctrines always seem to
have an overly simple but appealing concept of human nature at its
core, subtly misleading and harmful in the long run.  (One thinks of
Freudianism, with its negative view of human nature, of Jungians whose
religious quest has degenerated into escapism, of Rogerians with their
"radical nonjudgmentalness," in which they basically repeat back to
the client what he has said using different words.)  Both the
Christian and secular programs that promise a "better" life, life on
an even keel, ought rightly to be viewed with suspicion.
Self-reliance is the way to go.  But a therapist can help, just by
using his intuition and basic human qualities; just being
reality-oriented is helpful to someone put through the wringer by
conservative churches.


              Three Unproductive Questions


    Journalists and liberal commentators often fail to ask
conservative Christian leaders the right questions.  Instead, we often
hear questions like "Don't you see truth isn't black and white, that
there are many shades of gray?"  "Do Jews who reject Jesus go to
Heaven or don't they?"  "How can you say your interpretation of the
Bible is correct, when there are so many floating around?"  These
questions don't give outsiders any insight into conservative
Christianity, and the conservative Christian in turn can reassure
himself that the know-it-all interviewer really has no inkling as to
what Christianity is all about.
    1)  "Don't you see truth isn't black and white?"  There is a
caricature of the Evangelical as one with simple, pat answers to
everything, as one who can't tolerate ambiguity.  Actually, the
Evangelical is just the opposite--he tolerates too much ambiguity,
lets artificial confusion operate where there should be clarity.
The caricature of Evangelicals stems from the authoritarian
personality theory, which says that conservative political attitudes
result from personality inadequacy.  The symptoms are supposed to be
defensive over-compensation against anti-social impulses, rigid,
overly conventional attitudes, and intolerance of ambiguity.  This
theory came out of the McCarthy era and implies that anyone not
politically ultraliberal and not "radically non-judgmental" is
mentally ill.  It's an appealing theory, but is not confirmed by the
empirical data gathered to prove it.
    The skillful Evangelical apologist can make it seem as if
logic, rationality and self-discipline are exclusively Christian
virtues, which "secular humanists" are necessarily against.
    2)  The second question can be described as a clumsy ploy to
get Evangelicals to say that they are anti-Semitic.  Actually
Evangelical leaders deserve a lot of credit for instilling pro-Jewish
and pro-Israel attitudes in their flocks.  The Evangelical can
honestly reply that unconverted Jews just don't go to Heaven, any more
than unconverted Gentiles do, and that the Evangelical is just trying
to save anyone he can.
    One can sharpen this question by changing it into what Dr.
Cohen calls the "Anne Frank question."  We can fairly describe Anne
Frank as a "secular humanist,"  and it is quite possible she remained
one right to the bitter end.  The inescapable conclusion, from the
biblical viewpoint, is that after the earthly Nazi death camp, she
will be eternally remanded to God's death camp, where her torment goes
on forever.  Quite a picture of God's "lovingkindness!"
    3)  "How can you say your interpretattion is any better than
anyone else's?"  The assumption here is that the Bible is so ambiguous
and incomprehensible, that it can be used to support any conceivable
position.  We have seen that, though the Bible does make use of
ambiguity and contradiction for mind-control purposes, it *does* set
forth a specific doctrine.  Only the liberal Protestant tradition of
encasing the Bible in an ever-thickening layer of obscuration gives
the impression that the Bible can be made to stand for any doctrine.


            Religion in Politics


    We are by now nauseatingly familiar with politicized
Evangelicals such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.  These preachers
basically got a free ride from Evangelical churches, because despite
efforts to politicize him, the Evangelical develops a fatalistic
attitude towards worldly affairs.  Ceasing to become concerned with
worldly things is, after all, a prominent part of the teachings of
Jesus.  Extreme concern with worldly things can be construed as
symptomatic of unbelief!  The religious right are reacting to a real
failure on the part of the old-left intellectuals to make liberalism
live up to its promises; this is what gives the religious right the
opportunity to make conservative Christianity seem like an uplifting
lifestyle.
    Aside from this disinclination to become involved in worldly
activities, we see two Big Lies being propagated by the Evangelicals:
that our nation has a Christian foundation, and that the Bible has
something to contribute to our democratic tradition.
    The Founding Fathers were mainly Anglicans, with a minority of
Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
Their generation wasn't noted for religious fervor.  Prominent
Founding Fathers include Franklin, Jefferson and Paine, individuals
with religious views so unorthodox that I doubt they would be
tolerated in public life today.  Many of the Founding Fathers were
also Freemasons, which meant they spent much of their free time
participating in a religious tradition at variance with their nominal
Protestantism or Judaism.  Fervent religious groups sat out the
Revolutionary War, mostly because they were pacifists.  One has only
to read documents left behind by men such as Franklin and Jefferson to
realize that these men were scarcely fervent Christians.
    As we have seen, the Wesleyans learned not to look too closely
at the Bible, so that they could espouse a humane salvation plan.  The
abolitionists had reason to pass over the Bible even more lightly,
given its unequivocal support of slavery.  This is a part of history
that Evangelicals conveniently overlook, when they claim that our
nation has a Christian heritage.  The archaic, authoritarian social
views, which the Evangelicals uncover when they strip away the layers
of tradition obscuring what the Bible really says, are ultimately
foreign to our democratic tradition.  (Peter's admonition in Acts,
that "we ought to obey God, not men" applies exclusively to spreading
the Gospel.  Nowhere does the New Testament instruct the believer to
oppose the State for other forms of injustice.  Instead, we are
instructed to be good slaves of both God and of earthly authorities,
despite being told elsewhere that no one can serve two masters.  In
any event, given the negative biblical view of man's nature, we can
hardly envision a Bible-authentic believer picturing "noble savages"
coming together and basing a decent society on a social contract, a la
Rousseau!)


                           Charity


    We have seen that one motivation for nineteenth and early
twentieth-century mental health professionals to treat Christianity
gently was that Wesleyan-style Christianity provided much charity that
was not then being provided by the secular sector.  In Evangelical
circles we don't see that much emphasis on charity, not because they
are a bunch of skinflints but because they correctly interpret the
biblical figures of providing food and clothing to the needy as
figures for spreading the Gospel.  (After all, when do we see Jesus
and his disciples providing food and shelter for the unfortunate?
More often than not, they were the recipients of such charity, not its
providers.)  In any event, we can expect the Evangelical to say that
bringing eternal life to unbelievers takes precedence over making
things better in this life, because the suffering in hell will be so
much more awful than anything that could occur in this earthly life.


                 Creationism


    [Dr. Cohen has little to say on this topic, but because it
seems an important one, I have interpolated some of my own comments
here.]
    Along with the surge in Evangelicalism, there has been a surge
in so-called Scientific Creationism.  In the 1980's Arkansas and
Louisiana passed laws mandating equal time in schools for evolutionary
theory and Creationism.  I think with Creationists we see another kind
of "double orientation" that we saw earlier in the hysterically blind
soldier patient.  Not too put too fine a point on it, Creationists
regularly use tactics that most ordinary scientists wouldn't have
anything to do with--not due to superior morality, but because
engaging in such tactics undermines the scientific method itself.
Creationists routinely misrepresent evolution, and then "demolish" it
with straw-man arguments; quote prominent scientists out of context;
use old arguments against the occurence of evolution, such as the one
based on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, that were long ago shown to be
false.  They regularly distort evidence for evolution, as can be seen
in their arguments about "transitional forms."  They chide scientists
for making extrapolations into the past (such as assuming that
radioactive decay rates are constant) but extrapolate wildly when it
suits their purposes.
    The failure of "scientific" creationists to construct a
rigorous scientific theory of creation, and their assertion that in
any conflict between what the data seem to be telling us and what the
Bible tells us, the Bible takes precedence, ought to alert us that
something other than science is going on here.  The "double
orientation" we have spoken of can help us understand why they seem
convinced by arguments that strike those who understand evolution as
so faulty.  On some level they know they are falsifying science to
suit their beliefs; and since doing so is an integrity-assaulting
piece of business, they have to repress that knowledge more deeply,
and often accuse scientists of the very tactics they indulge in!  In
Creationists we can see that the need to interpret Genesis literally
prevents one from attaining the insight that it is really an allegory.
And if Genesis can be interpreted as allegory, what is to prevent
other parts of the Bible--such as Jesus' watery walk that we
highlighted in Device 5--from being interpreted allegorically?  The
need to interpret Genesis literally is symptomatic of the need to
suppress the conscious awareness that one is subconsciously
interpreting the whole Bible as an allegory, symbolizing the
believer's inner state.  Thus we can expect Creationism to be a
continuing preoccupation of Evangelicals.


                         Scapegoating


    Evangelicals tell us that the Bible is a great guide for
modern life, but never seem to make the conscious connection that part
of the indoctrination leads to alienation and unconcern for others
unlike themselves.  While they have very commendably distanced
themselves from racism and anti-Semitism, they have filled their need
for scapegoats by adopting homophobia.  The norm for conservative
Christians seems to be hatred towards homosexuals.  When AIDS first
became prominent news, the immediate reaction of every conservative
Christian spokeperson seemed to amount to gloating over God's wrathful
judgment on the homosexuals.  The thought that Christian spokepersons
ought to evince some compassion never seemed to occur until after the
demagogic benefit had been reaped from the "fag-bashing."  (For anyone
who thinks that the Bible advocates tolerance for homosexuals, check
out Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:9; 11:14; Phil. 3:2; Jude 7; Rev.
22:15 and of course, Deut. 22:5.)
    Scapegoating is integral to the biblically authentic program.
Not only is one to expel negative thoughts and emotions from
consciousness, but also the sort of natural affection and empathy that
our "relatedness" psychology requires.  One is to be a good Christian
soldier, like those Roman soldiers who were among the first Gentile
converts.  One can see this mental approach in the present-day
Afrikaaner, working the machinery of apartheid, and who typically has
had a very severe, Scripture-saturated Christian-school upbringing.
If some Evangelicals had their way, a pogrom against homosexuals would
probably commence immediately.  And to satisfy their appetite, they
would then need more outgroups to bash. . .


            The End of the World


    Another peculiarity of our time concerns end-time events.  The
resemblance of some biblical images to a nuclear holocaust, and the
immanent approach of the year 2000, has fueled intense interest in
end-time scenaria.  Here is the key New Testament passage concerning
the end of the world:

    The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men
    count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not
    willing that any should perish, but that all should come
    to repentance.  But the day of the Lord will come as a
    thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with
    a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent
    heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall
    be burned up.  Seeing then that all these things shall be
    dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye be in all holy
    conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto
    the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on
    fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with
    fervent heat?  Nevertheless we, according to his promise,
    look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth
    righteousness.  Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look
    for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him
    in peace, without spot, and blameless.  And account that
    the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our
    beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given
    unto him hath written unto you. . .[2 Pet. 3:9-15]

The biblically-authentic believer is to regard the destruction of the
natural world as immanent, and thus encouraged to cultivate unconcern
for the natural world, and emotional disinvestment in it.
    There are three consequences that concern us here.  Obviously
the biblical images have a similarity to images of a nuclear war.
That correspondance may be the single biggest factor behind the
mini-Reformation.  This situation prompts people to shift everything
important to them to another plane, away from the impending calamity.
The second consequence is a lack of interest in conservation, in
preserving natural resources for future generations at the expense of
short-range goals.  James Watt, former Secretary of the Interior, is
an outstanding example of this tendency.  The third consequence
concerns the Jewish people.  Many of the end-time scenaria include a
gory end for contemporary Israel.  Perhaps the Evangelicals will
eventually become less benign in their feelings towards Israel than at
present.


                         Conclusion


    I have outlined a theory concerning Christianity that is at
variance with both the standard theories of religion and the standard
theology that believers occupy their conscious thoughts with.  We
cannot directly observe the unconscious of the Evangelicals, but we
can look for symptoms such as fear and depression, scapegoating, the
need to twist scientific evidence to make creationism look tenable,
and lack of charitable outreach on the part of Evangelicals as
trends that tend to confirm Dr. Cohen's theory.  Also his
interpretations do more to make the Bible into a united, coherent
whole than any Christian position I have encountered, liberal or
conservative.  Conservative Christianity comes down to a withdrawal
into a shared fantasy, possibly as a result of the fact people are
becoming tired of rapid social and technological change, and the fact
that the end of the existence of all living via a nuclear holocaust
has been a real possibility since the 1950's, and yet a possibility
that in some ways seemed beyond our control during the Cold War.  This
sense of futility, more than anything else, may be the root cause of
the mini-Reformation.  As indicated in the quote at the beginning of
the article, this comes down to a form of decadence, albeit of a
cleaner variety than other activities we associate with the word.


SD


[1]  Janice A. Egeland and Abram M. Hostetter, "Amish Study, I:
Affective Disorders Among the Amish, 1976-1980," American Journal of
Psychiatry, 140, no. 1 (January 1983), pp. 56-61.