This article is junk posing as science. There are many examples, here are a few: "over time some religious beliefs can create habitual thought patterns that actually alter brain function, making it difficult for people to heal or grow." That is a powerful charge. Any studies or evidence to back that up? No, nothing scientific offered though it is worded to sound authoritative and therefore true. That's not science, it's an argument, and not a very sound one. One of the essential bait and switch strategies of this article is to describe the conditions of a cult and then apply it to their rather shoddy but all inclusive definitions of Christians. First the authors define Christians. They fall into two categories, those who base their beliefs "on a literal This is actually an old practice. It's called stereotyping. It's the sort of pseudo science that was used to make minorities appear to be genetically inferior. interpretation of the Bible" which includes "Evangelical and fundamentalist churches, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and other conservative sects." The second group are "liberal, progressive Christian churches with a humanistic viewpoint, a focus on the present, and social justice." That definition is hopelessly overbroad and flawed, particularly for an article claiming scientific authority. The authors then equate all the beliefs and practices of the "bad" Christians with a cult. There are millions of Mormons in the US and millions more evangelicals. Are they all part of a cult? The way the article is written, one would be led to believe they were. Then there's this: "In Bible-believing Christianity, psychological mind-control mechanisms are coupled with beliefs from the Iron Age," Think about that line for a moment. Who are the Christians who do not believe in the Bible? Even "liberal progressive" Christians believe in the Bible. This excerpt highlights significant problems with this article. The authors do not really know much about Christians. They also make oversimplified and loaded descriptions to further their animus rather than present a neutral scientific description. My real objection to this article is that in the long run, this sort of article undermines the credibility of science. Instead of using science to better understand the natural world, human behavior and other worthwhile endeavors, it is little more than a thinly veiled attack on whole groups of people.
I don't think so. Many of the propositions were clearly broad supposition not the recitation of fact. I tried to demonstrate that using the quote about "Bible believing Christians" which if taken the way it was written would include all Christians which is demonstrably untrue. Further, the definitions the authors use are not scientific, they are broad and undefined. For example, what does "evangelical" mean? There are millions of evangelicals in the US alone. Can they be so easily and narrowly defined as Iron Age Cretans who force their children into a cult-like existence of abuse? The definitions are conveniently drawn to fit the authors' conclusions. They are working backwards. In other words instead of making observations to form a theory, they form a theory and then create definitions to prove a pre-determined point. That's not the Scientific Method.
My experience, combined with the aggregate voting behavior of people who self identify as 'evangelical' leads me to believe that the title is predictive of the kinds of abuse described in the article posted. I also think that religion is by it's nature slippery and difficult to analyze scientifically. Just within the subgroup of 'evangelicals' you will find groups that would declare other evangelical groups heretics because of a minor theological quibble, even though they all claim to worship the same deity. You cited the apparent 'bait and switch' that follows from the statement My personal example comes with my habitual denial of my own needs, instead prioritizing the needs of others, because it was ingrained into me from a very young age 'First God, then Others, then myself' with the capitalization being intentional. It is not the fault of myself or other apostates that the behaviors of formalized and long established churches meet cult criteria. I'm happy to have a conversation about how we delineate 'normal religion' from 'cult' and I know that's murky, murky water. I believe a strong argument could be made in support of that position, yes. The word 'cult' is unhelpful in this instance. I wish we had a better word for 'anti-social/anti-public-health/psychologically damaging religious institutions' but I haven't found one. The Roman Catholic Church perpetuates theology that blatantly contributes to the continued poverty of millions of people, because of their scare tactics on contraceptives and abortion, as another example of religious dogma directly impacting people in a negative way. I think an important takeaway is that 'Going to church' is not an inherently moral or good behavior because the large amounts of theological variation make it a roll of the dice if you find a pro- or anti-social church. I think it's important to realize that in many cases religion influences preexisting mental health disorders, sometimes positively, often times negatively. In my own case, it's possible (Quite likely actually) that I am chemically predisposed to depression and anxiety. I can also say with 100% certainty that whatever degree I would have suffered otherwise, religion has ALWAYS made my experiences more difficult.Can they be so easily and narrowly defined as Iron Age Cretans who force their children into a cult-like existence of abuse?
"over time some religious beliefs can create habitual thought patterns that actually alter brain function, making it difficult for people to heal or grow."
There are millions of Mormons in the US and millions more evangelicals. Are they all part of a cult?
First off, without getting into any sort of debate, I am sorry to hear your experiences with religion have been negative. I do not know you or your experience so it would be pointless to deny your personal observations, not to mention insulting to you so I won't try. My overall objection to this article is that science should explain the world, not be used as a weapon to attack others. The conclusions of these authors may fit your experiences. That does not make them objective and does not support their claims in a meaningful scientific way. I cannot agree with you that mainstream religions are cults or cult-like. Many people who are Mormons, evangelicals, etc. are happy with their religious experience and it seems to play a positive role in their lives. I think it is unfair and unscientific to write all of that off in negative terms. I am not evangelical, Mormon, etc. by the way. You make the point that going to church is a "roll of the dice" in finding a "pro or anti-social church" which seems to acknowledge that some churches are "good" and others not. You also say that religion can affect "pre-existing mental health disorders . . . positively [or] negatively." (I agree with you on that second assertion regarding pre-existing mental conditions). The fact that you see variation in individual churches leads to the conclusion that they are not all the same which tends to undermine the notion they are monolithic cult-like organizations.