David Owens

Psychology 380

Dr. D. Massey

 

To see questions asked and answers given, click here

 

 

Religious Analysis—Psychology of Religion

 

 

 

 

I.                               Demographics:

 

The subjects interviewed were all female, due to a lack of male willingness to participate, and range from 20 to 62 years of age, with four of those being 25 or below. I wanted to interview only those who were at least old enough to have developed abstract thinking, though of course,  just because one is old enough to think abstractly is no guarantee that one will.

            Also, subjects were raised in Protestant churches; three being Baptist, one United Methodist, and one Presbyterian. Also, all were raised in homes with parents with at least a high school education, and four of the five are currently employed; one in retail, two in childcare, and one college professor. All but the professor are full-time college students.

II.                            Religiousness

To determine overall religiousness, I first consulted Verbits’ components of religion, and compared the subjects accordingly. Secondly, I judged them according to their responses which indicated levels of religious doubt.

            When comparing the answers to Verbits’ components of religion, in the component “ritual,” two subjects had no regularly observed rituals, one due to fear of going to church; panic attack association. Three subjects go to church regularly and read the bible, but two admit a decrease in frequency of study while the other reads “voraciously” for extrinsic purposes, like the inclusion of scripture in a public speaking engagement.

            Comparing the component “doctrine,” the same three who keep ritual express feelings of “I am a child” and “God is involved in my life” and “part of,” while the other two who observe no ritual express feelings of “confusion, separation,” “fear” and an increased level of cognitive dissonance in regards to their place in relation to God.

            From this point on, I will refer to the same three subjects, the ones who observe ritual according to Verbits, subjects “B,” “C,” and “D” as the “ritual group” (as opposed to the non-ritual “fringe group[1],” subjects “A” and “E.”)

            When comparing Verbits’ component “emotion,” the ritual group expressed feelings of a “peak” or “plateau” nature, according to Maslow. They use the language “peace, hope, assurance and freedom.” Conversely, the fringe group use the language “anger, fear, and confusion” to describe their emotion.

            In Verbits’ component “knowledge,” all of the ritual group as well as one of the fringe group show familiarity with Christian doctrine, but while the ritual group seemingly applies their belief, the straying “fringer” does not apply the doctrine, and has a great deal of confusion as to her place in relation to God. The other member of the fringe group has no clear knowledge of the doctrine of the religion of her youth, yet shows a desire for “new vision” according to Batson’s Creative Process in Religious Experience. She seemingly lacks the knowledge of her childhood faith, or any other religious tradition with which to critically examine and determine her own path.

            The continued disparity between ritual and fringe can be seen in their expression of the Verbits’ component “ethics.” The fringe group express the emotions “guilt” and “fear and doubt” as their motivation for personal ethical behavior, while the ritual group express thoughts of “internalized justice” and critically determined ideals; situational, abstract. They have a sense of “God in control.”

            In the final component “community,” the groups remain on the “same separated sides of the track.” The ritual group attend church and/or work in a churched community, whereas the fringe duo either have no religious community interaction, or have rare interaction with accompanying negative reactions; religious doubt, panic association.

            In a further view of the subject’s religiousness, the aforementioned two groups maintain their association in the area of “religious doubt.” The types of doubt “or lack of doubt” represented by the ritual group includes temporary, reactive doubt (in the event of the death of a friend); healthy, critically determined doubt, as well as two cases of referential doubt which led to the belief that “hell” is allegorical rather than a literal, burning place. However, the doubts of the fringe group are quite different. They pointed out the shortcomings of organized religion (through noting hypocrisy), reflecting actual hatred for “Christians” onto “God” (God in man’s image) by projecting man’s failings onto God. Though, one of the fringe group seems stuck in her hatred and doubt, while the other just seems to lack the knowledge of how to move forward and resolve her doubt in a mature way. She may be priming herself for an “Aha!” new vision experience (Batson). She may be in an intermediate growth stage, perhaps between Fowler’s “Intuitive-Projective faith” stage and “Synthetic-Conventional” faith, still developing, not stagnant.

III.                         Religious Orientation

What is the orientation of these subjects in reference to Intrinsic, Extrinsic, or Quest? Well, the ritual group remain similar in that they identify as quest oriented, no “pat answers” and holding critically determined ideals; God is seen as integral; involved. However, the fringe group splinters in their responses. Subject “A” seems to hold no active faith (except internalized “God as guilt”), and holds to no intrinsic doctrine. Subject “E” on the other hand, seems confused in her orientation, but is at least attempting to seek. She is seemingly on an “adrift” quest.

            On religious maturity, the groups remain divided in a similar way as in their orientation. Subject “A” is non-dynamic (stagnant) and inconsistent; immature by Allport’s standards, and somewhere between the “Intuitive-Projective” (illogical) to “Mythical-Literal” (still thinking one has to jump through hoops for God), according to Fowler. While subject “E” seems to be at least making an attempt at quest, she is still apparently early on in her “mission to mature religious sentiment.”

            The maturity of the ritual group is an admirable range of achievement. Comparing their replies to Fowler’s stages of faith, they move from subject “B” fitting into “Synthetic-Conventional” faith (developing identity) to subjects “C” and “D” who fit into the “Individuative-Reflective” stage of faith (forming own faith ideas, values, and beliefs). Also, according to Allport’s criteria for mature religious sentiment, the ritual group meet, individually, either several or all of them.

 

IV. Religious Experience

The nature of religious experience between groups continues to be divided. The ritual group describes religious experience in terms of “daily confirming experiences” (Frankl), to seeing God communicate through people. All three of the ritual group seem to experience their religiousness internally, and it leads to changes in their ethics and actions. Unfortunately, the fringe group identified as either having no religious experience (subject “A”), or a rigid, dogmatic experience; external and guilt-ridden (subject “E”).

Facilitators to religious experience vary among the group. The triad of the ritual group have internalized, “creative process” types of facilitators. From watching their children grow in quest, to adhering to “Sunden’s Role Theory.” Subject “D’s” previous experience provides the model, or “lens” through which she interprets and experiences religion in a positive light. Unfortunately, subject “E” uses Sunden’s Role Theory as well, but her lens is colored by previous negative religious experiences, and “A” doesn’t even think she has had a religious experience at all.

Only two subjects gave a description of a conversion experience. Subject “E” explained a conversion at 8 years old that was imitative and uncritical (all of the other kids were doing it). Subject “D” gave an example of an experience that was not very positive. It reflects Kohlberg’s “Punishment and Obedience” stage, fear motivated, but fortunately she didn’t stay there. She has since critically determined her faith.

 

 

IV.                          Mental Health and Coping

By examining this group and asking the question “does religion help them to cope in areas of mental health,” the members of the ritual group describe religion as “providing equilibrium” (Frankl), as well as providing feelings of comfort and assurance. Crises are also seen as opportunities to reaffirm and revise religious belief. However, both members of the fringe group seem to be suffering from religion. “A’s” religiousness seems to cause problems rather than help them. Her level of animosity towards things and persons religious is almost tangible, yet she feels overwhelming guilt (“my God is guilt”) if she even contemplates acting against her morals, which she states are based on Biblical principle. “E’s” religion, like “A’s” religion, causes more harm than it helps. Religion is a source of confusion for her, though she doesn’t have the same level of animosity that “A” exhibits. Nonetheless, her religion is not a source of help or strength to her; it is still a source of fear and confusion at this point.

When asking the question “how can religion help” the members of the fringe group, with “A,” a positive outlook of God to mesh with her religious restraint may alleviate the massive guilt she experiences. If she could get a positive, transcendent view of God apart from religious people, it may heal some of the cognitive dissonance she experiences. As for “E,” if she could find a peace within herself and religion, she may find a sense of “being.” As it is, she’s stuck in deficiency, confusion, guilt, and fear. The members of the ritual group seemingly have a healthy, functional religious outlook in regards to their mental health.

Answering the question “does religion hinder mental health?” subjects “C” and “D” seem to have no hindrances to mental health. They seemingly have a well-adjusted, very mature religious sentiment; comforting and dynamic. Subject “B” doesn’t think therapy is ok unless you “know who you are.” With the fringe group, I would honestly have to answer yes; religion is an obvious obstacle to mental health. For example, subject “A’s” religious views seem to hinder her from interaction with others: she has a hatred for church and Christians, yet she is too guilt-ridden to have friends in “the world.” So, her religious views, in essence, make her a loner. She doesn’t have a lot in common with anyone. As for “E,” at this point in her development, her religion is a weight or strain on her mentally. She is trying to develop further, but is very confused. She is at least questioning at this point. It should be noted, though, that at this point in time her religion is providing no comfort, and is merely a source of anxiety to her.

V.                             Conclusions:

 

At face value, it could be inferred that taking part in religious ritual leads to mature religious development because of the high correlation between ritual adherence and religious maturity within this group. However, correlation does not infer causation. It is more likely that it is the well-developed, mature religious sentiment of the ritual group which leads them to be more involved in religious activity, because there is no stigma, no reported anger towards God or religion, and considerably less confusion than the fringe group. Rather than thinking that religious ritual leads to mature outcome, it’s more likely that immature religious sentiment leads one away from religious ritual; due to fear and concrete rationale. The maturity differences of the five interviewed widely differentiate them. The fringe group tends to be non-dynamic, immature, and very fundamentally literal; concrete.

The differences in the nature of their experience is plain. How can one be expected to grow in religious maturity when one’s religious experience is explained in language of fear and guilt and rigid, dogmatic experience, as it is in the fringe group?

 There also may be other, less obvious reasons as to why the two in the fringe group seem to be experiencing a religious crisis. Both of them are similar in age, their mid-twenties, perhaps that’s a developmental stage in a person’s life where animosity and rejecting of ideas is typical.

It is also probable that the lack of freedom to question God is squelching their religious growth. In the area of doubt, the fringe group tend to report stronger negative emotion; hypocrisy, hatred, projecting of failings onto God…whereas the ritual group look at their doubt critically, and have a healthy sense of doubt.

Too, in reference to their religious orientation the ritual group tend to be quest oriented, whereas the fringe group either have no active faith or an orientation of confusion, being adrift; no direction.

The mental health of the fringe group seems to be in a crisis, at this point in their development. The one, subject “E” at least, seems to be “clawing her way to the top,” but the other, subject “A” seems stagnant and dormant, mired in hatred and fear. In comparison, the ritual group seems well adjusted, critically determined, and mature.

 

Click here to Return to Essay Page

 

 


[1] “fringe group” is not to be defined as “outside the norm,” they are labeled “fringe” simply because they were the first and last subjects interviewed. Similarly, the “ritual group” should not be construed as “dogmatic in ritual.” Ritual here merely refers to the subjects’ participation in some manner of religious ritual; these titles should not be taken as any kind of value judgment.