MISCONCEPTION: RELIGION FOSTERS NEUROSIS

Harold G. Koenig, MD

Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center

In Future of an Illusion (1927), Freud described religion as a “universal obsessional neurosis.” Freud based this observation on his personal experiences with religion (which were negative) and his clinical experiences with patients (who were neurotic). In recent times, systematic research has revealed quite the opposite. Of 724 quantitative studies looking at the relationship between religion and mental health from Freud’s time to 2001, two-thirds (478) reported that religious persons had significantly better mental health than non-religious persons, and only a few percent (often with methodological flaws) reported worse mental health. Studies have now documented that religious people tend to exhibit lower levels of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, and greater levels of well-being, hope, and optimism. Physical health also seems to be affected: religious people tend to enjoy lower blood pressure, better immune function, fewer heart attacks, better surgical recovery, and greater longevity.

Since the year 2000, there has been a veritable explosion of research on the intersection between health and religion. During the 5-year period between 1971 and 1975 there were 776 articles and research studies published on religion, spirituality and health. In the 5-year period between 2001 and 2005, the number of articles and studies published was 5,187. Where there is a lot of smoke, there is usually fire. And there’s a lot of smoke in the religion and health field now that more sophisticated research methods have been applied since Freud’s time. Religion is not usually correlated with either neurosis or worse mental health – Freud was simply wrong.

MISCONCEPTION: IN ALL SOCIETIES, RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ARE THE KEY TO PROMOTING HEALTH

Nalini Tarakeshwar, PhD

Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Yale University

In the recent past, Christian and Muslim leaders in the United States, in the African continent, and in South America have immersed themselves in issues related to HIV/AIDS. They now advocate a caring and compassionate attitude towards the infected and their families rather than a punitive one. The voice of religious leaders is certainly powerful one. This can lead to the misconception, however, that similar approaches can be used in addressing religion and public health in all countries. Let us take the case of India, which is a predominantly Hindu nation. Even though most people in India would consider themselves to belong to the Hindu faith, the use of religious resources varies considerably. First, Hinduism as a faith is amorphous and defies any specific description. In attempting to define it, Mahatma Gandhi said, “Search after truth through nonviolent means. A man may not believe in God but still call himself a Hindu.” Second, Hindus rarely go to temples or to religious leaders to seek counsel in solving family problems or health issues. It is also atypical of leaders of Hindu sects to get involved in matters other than enhancing knowledge of religious scriptures among the masses. Third, although the Indian tendency is to subordinate the individual to the welfare of the group, religious thought and spiritual seeking have always emphasized the individual. Thus, many infected individuals resist mixing religion with their illness.

So how does one use the power of faith in the Indian setting? According to India’s first Prime Minister, Nehru, “a country with a long cultural background and a common outlook on life develops a spirit peculiar to it and that is impressed on all of its children.” In my view, with respect to India, we have to look to the community itself rather than its religious institutions to understand and evoke this spirit and see how it can be harnessed to meet public health needs.