Defense of Religion: Is it ultimately just a form of Stockholm Syndrome?

[iNow]

I just listened to this pretty interesting song called Stockholm Syndrome. Check it out:

 

http://www.reverbnation.com/artist/artist_videos/540523?sel_song_id=4256997&autoplay=1

 

 

 

For context, Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological concept whereby hostages express positive feelings for their captors. It's a very interesting phenomenon, and I notice some rather marked parallels with defense of religion and religious belief.

 

 

Experts have concluded that the intensity, not the length of the incident, combined with a lack of physical abuse more likely will create favorable conditions for the development of Stockholm syndrome.

 

The following are viewed as the conditions necessary for Stockholm syndrome to occur.

• Hostages who develop Stockholm syndrome often view the perpetrator as giving life by simply not taking it. In this sense, the captor becomes the person in control of the captive’s basic needs for survival and the victim’s life itself.
  
  
  .
  
  
• The hostage endures isolation from other people and has only the captor’s perspective available. Perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world’s response to their actions from captives to keep them totally dependent.
  
  
  .
  
  
• The hostage taker threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception of having the capability to do so. The captive judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor than to resist and face murder.
  
  
  .
  
  
• The captive sees the perpetrator as showing some degree of kindness. Kindness serves as the cornerstone of Stockholm syndrome; the condition will not develop unless the captor exhibits it in some form toward the hostage. However, captives often misinterpret a lack of abuse as kindness and may develop feelings of appreciation for this perceived benevolence. If the captor is purely evil and abusive, the hostage will respond with hatred. But, if perpetrators show some kindness, victims will submerge the anger they feel in response to the terror and concentrate on the captors’ “good side” to protect themselves.

 

In cases where Stockholm syndrome has occurred, the captive is in a situation where the captor has stripped nearly all forms of independence and gained control of the victim’s life, as well as basic needs for survival.

 

 

 

The video got me thinking...

When people defend their religious beliefs, are they actually expressing a form of Stockholm Syndrome?

Are they ultimately prisoners defending their jailers, and isolating themselves solely into their captor's ... or, in this case... isolating themselves solely into their god's perspective?

[ydoaPs]

I don't really see how Stockholm Syndrome applies to religious beliefs except those that involve that horrible diety described in the Jewish scriptures and call said deity 'loving' and 'omnibenevolant.'

[John Cuthber]

Isn't that most of the major monotheistic religions?

[A Tripolation]

I don't really see how Stockholm Syndrome applies to religious beliefs except those that involve that horrible diety described in the Jewish scriptures and call said deity 'loving' and 'omnibenevolant.'

 

How does that apply to the many moderate theists who recognize the OT as the primitive books they are?

[ydoaPs]

How does that apply to the many moderate theists who recognize the OT as the primitive books they are?

 

Maybe you'd know if you read the post you quoted.

[iNow]

I found a comment which seems similar to mine.

 

 

 

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html#stockholm

The name comes from a bank robbery in Sweden in 1973. Four people were held hostage for six days, and became attached to their captors. The same thing is a factor for prisoners of war, and abused wives.

 

In order for the Stockholm Syndrome to take effect the following conditions are necessary: One person threatens to kill another and is perceived to be capable of doing so. The victim cannot escape, and her life depends on her captor. The victim is isolated from support, or in the case of hostages, the knowledge that other people are trying to help them. The captor shows kindness as well as violence increasing with the victim's sense of being totally dependent on the captor.

 

In my opinion, Christianity is the world's largest case of Stockholm Syndrome. All the pieces are there.

• Christians tell people that God will kill them, or rather, send them to hell, which is even worse. If the person believes in God, then he is certainly perceived as capable of doing this. After all, he's God.
  
  
  .
  
  
• They are also told that they cannot escape God's judgement, and that everything in life depends on God. The success of this tactic is illustrated by the number of Christians who claim that without God, life has no meaning and is not worth living.
  
  
  .
  
  
• There is no one to support them except for God. The only other being who might have the power to do so, the Devil, is presented as being powerless, and even worse than God.
  
  
  .
  
  
• At the same time, Christians are quick to point out how good God really is. He only threatens us because we deserve it.

 

The parallels become especially sick and twisted when we consider the analogy of the Church as God's bride. If that's the case, God has all the earmarks of an abusive husband, and it's no wonder that the cries of his followers sound so much like the cries of a battered wife.

[Moontanman]

All I can say is awesome correlation!

[ydoaPs]

It still seems like a stretch to me.

[iNow]

It still seems like a stretch to me.

 

Why, though? Will you elaborate? I'm not seeing the vast chasm between the two ideas you seem to be, and I seek to better understand your perception of the issue (and that of others, frankly).

[ydoaPs]

It's just a feeling, really. Good thing I don't have the burden of proof here!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I dunno. I'd say that if it does apply, it could only apply to the particularly devout and radical types who believe that God is watching every single move that they make -- and act like they believe that. (I'd think that most people believe that but don't act like it. The people I refer to are the ones who follow the rules all the time for fear of being smited.) If they're constantly in fear of God's wrath, and constantly thankful that they're spared, Stockholm Syndrome might apply.

 

On the other hand, doesn't Stockholm Syndrome require a tangible captor? Or does the victim just have to believe in the captor's power?

[Mr Skeptic]

When people defend their religious beliefs, are they actually expressing a form of Stockholm Syndrome?

 

Doubtful -- religion is more of a worldview. You're not going to get Stockholm Syndrome without having an immediate fear of death, not some mostly vague notion of what might happen years from now. Might be an explanation for certain cults though.

[jimmydasaint]

iNow, once again, original and thought-provoking. Well done.

 

 

The following are viewed as the conditions necessary for Stockholm syndrome to occur.

 

• [*] Hostages who develop Stockholm syndrome often view the perpetrator as giving life by simply not taking it. In this sense, the captor becomes the person in control of the captive’s basic needs for survival and the victim’s life itself.

 

I don't know if I quite agree with this proposal. It seems to me that true faith uplifts an individual and can change him or her, sometimes from an abject state to one where they are very useful to society. So giving life, by not taking it does not apply. Religious believers are more ready to face death after cancer etc... because they have faith in an afterlife where the ego/personality carries on after death. The fear is removed, not held like a Damoclean sword over the 'captive'.

.

The hostage endures isolation from other people and has only the captor’s perspective available. Perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world’s response to their actions from captives to keep them totally dependent.

 

True faith communities are helpful and charitable to each other. There should be no isolation because of church, synagogue, mosque etc... interactions between people.

.

The hostage taker threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception of having the capability to do so. The captive judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor than to resist and face murder.

 

The threat is terrible suffering after death. I remember a 'Sopranos' episode where one of the made men experienced death in hospital and was sentenced to going into a bar every night. The hellish bit was that it was Irish Night, every night!

 

To be a bit more serious though, I have never seen people more motivated except by a carrot or stick. IMHO it is universal in human nature. What better way to regulate behavioural excesses than the threat of Hell?

[Mr Skeptic]

Religious believers are more ready to face death after cancer etc... because they have faith in an afterlife where the ego/personality carries on after death. The fear is removed, not held like a Damoclean sword over the 'captive'.

 

Source?

[jimmydasaint]

pers comm Mr Skeptic. I based it on my own personal experience and opinion so n=1 in this case. I will rephrase it to: 'In my opinion, religious believers are more ready to face death after cancer etc...'

 

I will trawl to see if my opinion holds water though...

 

Hang on... here's one that is a bit bizarre and qualitative but may help:

 

The Hebrew/Christian tradition, to which the B interviewed belong, does not provide instructions on how to face this very passage, nor does it describe the process, as it is done in other religions like, for example, Tibetan Buddhism or the ancient Egyptian religion [38]. What happens between the moment of death and the one of re-birth is obscure and, thus, generates anguish. The NB attitude seems, instead, to appeal to the epicurean sentence: "If I am, death is not; if death is, I am no longer: why, then, fear death?". NB reveal also a different aesthetics concerning death and dying. Things, objects, the environment become almost gifts that the dying person leaves to the living, gifts precious because intrinsically beautiful, thus assuming an autonomous importance. B, on the other hand, underline "decorum" as appropriate style of both the dying person and the bystanders. The NB interviewees, even if perfectly aware and proud of their own ethos, acutely felt the lack of a socially recognized and accepted secular way of dying. Secular rituals are lacking, and realizing scenes of death which contain and respect their conception of life is difficult when not totally impossible.

 

Link

Edited June 22, 2010 by jimmydasaint

[iNow]

iNow, once again, original and thought-provoking. Well done.

Thanks, Jimmy. I appreciate your kind words. I wouldn't call it original, though. The thread was inspired by the song in the OP, and it appears others have noted similar parallels before me. I do, however, think it could easily lead to an interesting discussion with a lot of energy.

 

 

I don't know if I quite agree with this proposal. It seems to me that true faith uplifts an individual and can change him or her, sometimes from an abject state to one where they are very useful to society. So giving life, by not taking it does not apply.

Fair enough, but in a way most believers see God as the ultimate source of both life AND death, so my take is that it's quite similar, actually. In point of fact, it may be even more significant since the captor doesn't give life at all, but in the mind of the theist god does.

 

 

Religious believers are more ready to face death after cancer etc... because they have faith in an afterlife where the ego/personality carries on after death. The fear is removed, not held like a Damoclean sword over the 'captive'.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. It seems to work anecdotally, but from the studies I've seen believers actually tend to fear death MORE than nonbelievers. I'll see if I can locate some studies to share and report back.

 

EDIT: Here's one example: http://www.wellesley.edu/Psychology/Wink/Fear%20of%20death.pdf

 

 

True faith communities are helpful and charitable to each other. There should be no isolation because of church, synagogue, mosque etc... interactions between people.

See, now here, I'm thinking of isolation of ideas... Thoughts and concepts from nonbelievers. Just think of your average forum creationist, for example. They are totally isolated from evolution and knowledge that the earth is older than 6,000 years... and countless other things.

 

Their belief and their god isolates them from people who do NOT fully accept their religious "truths." The isolation is in how they exist, and in what they think... not so much a physical isolation like being locked in a cell or stuck in an island... it's the psychological isolation where I see the connection.

 

 

What better way to regulate behavioural excesses than the threat of Hell?

I tend to agree, but that just supports my comparison!

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Doubtful -- religion is more of a worldview. You're not going to get Stockholm Syndrome without having an immediate fear of death, not some mostly vague notion of what might happen years from now.

Don't most theists fear that god will punish them if they act wrongly? Do they not fear eternal torment? Would not the existence of this fear at the same time as their defense and professed love of god be a form of Stockholm Syndrome?

Edited June 22, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Moontanman]

iNow, once again, original and thought-provoking. Well done.

 

 

 

Agreed

 

I don't know if I quite agree with this proposal. It seems to me that true faith uplifts an individual and can change him or her, sometimes from an abject state to one where they are very useful to society. So giving life, by not taking it does not apply.

 

 

I disagree, depending on how tolerant your beliefs are the fear of being rejected due to some imperfection in your self is quite real, religion only gives life if you follow it "religiously" even a small discrepancy means hell fire. Religion only gives life to those who follow it and keeps all the faithful fearful of failing in some small way.

 

Religious believers are more ready to face death after cancer etc... because they have faith in an afterlife where the ego/personality carries on after death. The fear is removed, not held like a Damoclean sword over the 'captive'.

.

 

I don't see it, no matter if i have cancer or am falling from a plane death will take me kicking and screaming like a cat being forced into a toilet, the lid will have to be kept down hard

 

True faith communities are helpful and charitable to each other. There should be no isolation because of church, synagogue, mosque etc... interactions between people.

.

 

 

No they are there to make sure no one steps out of bounds, much like the sword of Damocles, step out of line and the faithful are there to slap you back into place.

 

 

The threat is terrible suffering after death. I remember a 'Sopranos' episode where one of the made men experienced death in hospital and was sentenced to going into a bar every night. The hellish bit was that it was Irish Night, every night!

 

Still religion creates that fear and allows you to avoid it only by following certain rules just like a captor rules his hostage.

 

 

 

To be a bit more serious though, I have never seen people more motivated except by a carrot or stick. IMHO it is universal in human nature. What better way to regulate behavioural excesses than the threat of Hell?

 

You can't be serious, you only behave because of fear of punishment? Simply behaving like you would like others to behave if you were them isn't enough?

[iNow]

On the other hand, doesn't Stockholm Syndrome require a tangible captor? Or does the victim just have to believe in the captor's power?

I lean toward the second. What really is the difference between a tangible captor and a theistic one, since both are only perceived within the persons mind? In essence, is there really a difference between a perception based on reality and a perception based on belief when it's the perception itself which leads to the fear?

[Mr Skeptic]

Don't most theists fear that god will punish them if they act wrongly? Do they not fear eternal torment? Would not the existence of this fear at the same time as their defense and professed love of god be a form of Stockholm Syndrome?

 

Some do, some don't. Some think that once you are saved (by grace not by works, a gift from God so no man can boast) then you cannot be un-saved. In any case, hell does not apply until you die, and not very many people go about thinking that they might die that day, so the fear of hell loses its immediacy. In any case, most of them appreciate believing that God is enforcing these laws, especially on others. Kind of like we like the government enforcing laws, even though we know the government will punish us if we break their laws. Maybe the government is like Stockholm Syndrome?

[rigney]

I simply love "Mysticism" because it belongs to no one other than you. Does GOD exist? In my mind, I can't believe there is anything else. And while science and the humanatarism of our medical professions are extensions of GOD's power, I only wish that I might be more humble to a deity that is so profound, yet so disconcerting as to make most of us skeptics. So, blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth?

Edited June 23, 2010 by rigney

[iNow]

Don't most theists fear that god will punish them if they act wrongly? Do they not fear eternal torment? Would not the existence of this fear at the same time as their defense and professed love of god be a form of Stockholm Syndrome?

Some do, some don't. Some think that once you are saved (by grace not by works, a gift from God so no man can boast) then you cannot be un-saved.

<...>

In any case,

<...>

In any case,

<...>

Kind of like we like the government enforcing laws, even though we know the government will punish us if we break their laws. Maybe the government is like Stockholm Syndrome?

I'm not so sure you really rebutted my point, so much as you extended it. I find your comparison to government being a form of Stockholm Syndrome to be rather interesting and provocative... I really do... It's a cool point... and one I'd love to explore with others. However, as for this thread which I opened, I'm not so sure it's on point.

 

I want readers to focus on defense of religion.

I want readers to focus on the words "form of" when considering this topic and how it relates to Stockholm Syndrome.

I want readers to become writers and post their own thoughts so we can all attain deeper and broader understanding together.

[jimmydasaint]

By iNow

Fair enough, but in a way most believers see God as the ultimate source of both life AND death, so my take is that it's quite similar, actually. In point of fact, it may be even more significant since the captor doesn't give life at all, but in the mind of the theist god does.

 

I think what we are both discussing here is absence of death as a threat. The giving of life is quite a positive and emotional act. I have seen my children being born and can vouch for that. As a believer, it was an intense event.

 

The other factor I can think of is that believers have a perception of free will arising from the fact that we have to have faith in an unseen God. Many believers may feel that they are actually in control of their lives, rather than an interfering God. However, people who are highly religious may think that they have no control and attribute everything to God instead. That is a form of scary extremism and may be closer to your modified Stockholm Syndrome model.

 

By iNowI'm not sure I can agree with this. It seems to work anecdotally, but from the studies I've seen believers actually tend to fear death MORE than nonbelievers. I'll see if I can locate some studies to share and report back.

 

EDIT: Here's one example: http://www.wellesley.edu/Psychology/Wink/Fear%20of%20death.pdf

 

 

Fig. 1 and 2 seem to show a definite trend of less fear of death as your faith increases ( based on a relatively controlled amount of faith). The scale on Fig 1 is uncertain and can lead to a poor interpretation but Fig. 2 shows a definite lack of fear of death in late adulthood. I think it was one of your American philosophers who said something similar to: 'When it gets dark, men look to the stars...' However, I am puzzled about what a moderate level of belief actually constitutes?

 

By iNow. See, now here, I'm thinking of isolation of ideas... Thoughts and concepts from nonbelievers. Just think of your average forum creationist, for example. They are totally isolated from evolution and knowledge that the earth is older than 6,000 years... and countless other things.

 

This is the weakest part of your modified model in my opinion. I will concede that a believer and YEC is tragically isolated from Science and therefore may be more suitable for your model. However, isolation of ideas is decreased because of the number of individuals with shared beliefs who inhabit the Internet airways. People of a certain belief may always find others in large numbers at a few strokes of a keyboard.

 

by iNow

Don't most theists fear that god will punish them if they act wrongly? Do they not fear eternal torment? Would not the existence of this fear at the same time as their defense and professed love of god be a form of Stockholm Syndrome?

 

You comply out of fear. But there are two types of fear. One is a fear of being killed or treated badly, the other is a fear of the displeasure of a good and caring father. The second type of fear should be more likely (in my opinion) in a believer. However, both would suffice to mould a certain type of character. Remember, that I have seen, and used, the carrot and stick methods extensively and find them very effective in controlling behavioural excesses.

 

Finally, you have interpreted the absence of cruelty and the presence of kindness as important factors in 'whipping' people into line. I would maintain personally that this seems to assume a picture of a vengeful God rather than a just God. IMHO justice is much more important than pure kindness. I would wish the Hitlers and Stalins of this world to suffer for the torture and murder of innocents.

[iNow]

As a believer, it was an intense event.

Have you considered the possibility that you are exhibiting a form of Stockholm Syndrome yourself?

 

 

Many believers may feel that they are actually in control of their lives, rather than an interfering God. However, people who are highly religious may think that they have no control and attribute everything to God instead. That is a form of scary extremism and may be closer to your modified Stockholm Syndrome model.

It's an interesting point, but I think you may potentially be suggesting a distinction or inflection point which simply isn't there. I agree there are varying levels, and that there is a spectrum to this effect, but the spectrum itself is what is relevant... That god is in control. Strip away all of the various interpretations and understandings, and that's what it boils down to with believers... God controls EVERYTHING.

 

I find the point I've just made both valid and reasonable. Do you?

 

 

However, I am puzzled about what a moderate level of belief actually constitutes?

From the measures section of the link I shared:

 

Religiousness

- Two raters independently coded religiousness on a 5-point scale by using responses structured open-ended questions on religious beliefs and practices from transcripts of interviews conducted with the participants at each time point. A score of 5 indicated that religious beliefs )e.g. belief in god and the afterlife) and practices (e.g. church attendance and prayer) played a

central

role in the respondent's life. A score of 3 indicated that religious beliefs and practices had

some

importance in the individual's life; a score of 1 indicated that religion played

no part

in the life of the individual.

 

 

isolation of ideas is decreased because of the number of individuals with shared beliefs who inhabit the Internet airways. People of a certain belief may always find others in large numbers at a few strokes of a keyboard.

Yes, but that was merely an example, not a central supporting leg of my argument. I'm not sure your rebuttal of YECs on the internet really rebuts my suggestion that ideas can be isolated and separate within those who espouse belief. I welcome further feedback, but don't think the above negates the suggestion being made.

 

 

 

Finally, you have interpreted the absence of cruelty and the presence of kindness as important factors in 'whipping' people into line.

I'm not sure which comment I've made which has led you to this conclusion. Can you maybe elaborate?

[jimmydasaint]

Have you considered the possibility that you are exhibiting a form of Stockholm Syndrome yourself?

 

Of course I have, but just for a second. I think I am trying to apply some reasoning to my beliefs and then coming to a faith, rather than relying purely on faith. The basic reason I don't consider the possibility that I have a modified form of Stockholm Syndrome is that I believe that I have found scientific proof of the existence of the metaphysical. I can elaborate on that if you wish. Therefore, I believe that I have found a truth. And that I am not trying to please an unknown controller but a very well-known Creative entity that I choose to please as a free man.

 

It's an interesting point, but I think you may potentially be suggesting a distinction or inflection point which simply isn't there. I agree there are varying levels, and that there is a spectrum to this effect, but the spectrum itself is what is relevant... That god is in control. Strip away all of the various interpretations and understandings, and that's what it boils down to with believers... God controls EVERYTHING.

 

I find the point I've just made both valid and reasonable. Do you?

 

I find your point valid as an absolute statement but, and it is an important point, if God controls everything then where is the guilt of the thief or murderer? There is no question of guilt. You might as well throw away the keys to the jail and sack all the lawyers and judges. The simple plea would be: 'God made me like this.' However, in my belief, and it is held by some others, God gives us both predetermination and an appearance of free will. The appearance of free will is indistinguishable from actual free will, and therefore it serves to give us a measure of choice over our lives, regulated by scripture to moderate the excesses of behaviour - not a bad thing. The determined end can be approached by any route in an infinite manner, each with its own outcome. For example, I chose to be a teacher and it has taken my life down one route of many that I could have freely chosen.

 

In short, the control element is unseen, because God is unseen. These are all my private thoughts though.

 

Yes, but that was merely an example, not a central supporting leg of my argument. I'm not sure your rebuttal of YECs on the internet really rebuts my suggestion that ideas can be isolated and separate within those who espouse belief. I welcome further feedback, but don't think the above negates the suggestion being made.

 

I believe that you were drawing a parallel between the isolation of a captive and the philosophical isolation of Theists. I think suggesting that ideas made you remote from others does not hold water when we all freely mix on a daily basis with people of many, or no beliefs. Most of the time, I feel that we can get along as people, regardless of belief, due to our gregarious nature.

[iNow]

The basic reason I don't consider the possibility that I have a modified form of Stockholm Syndrome is that I believe that I have found scientific proof of the existence of the metaphysical. I can elaborate on that if you wish.

Absolutely. I would love to hear your thoughts on this... but maybe in another thread specifically on that topic?

 

 

Therefore, I believe that I have found a truth. And that I am not trying to please an unknown controller but a very well-known Creative entity that I choose to please as a free man.

While you seem to have come to your belief by your own choice, let me ask you... Do you consider this creative entity to be all powerful... the giver and taker of life? Yes/No? I think that's really where the meat of my point resides, so am curious how you personally think of this creative entity.

 

 

I find your point valid as an absolute statement but, and it is an important point, if God controls everything then where is the guilt of the thief or murderer? There is no question of guilt. You might as well throw away the keys to the jail and sack all the lawyers and judges.

Okay, but I'm not sure how this ties in with the concept in this thread. Guilt is sort of nonsequitur to the idea of defense of a captor/deity, isn't it?

 

 

The simple plea would be: 'God made me like this.' However, in my belief, and it is held by some others, God gives us both predetermination and an appearance of free will. The appearance of free will is indistinguishable from actual free will, and therefore it serves to give us a measure of choice over our lives, regulated by scripture to moderate the excesses of behaviour - not a bad thing.

Yeah, I have to concede that I've always struggled with that logic... It's a "have your cake and eat it, too" approach, from my perspective. I see it as logically inconsistent... However, I also am not sure how it relates to the idea of defense of a deity being a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

 

In short, the control element is unseen, because God is unseen.

Whether or not it is seen, in my estimatation it is the perception of control itself which is relevant to the suggestion. See it? Don't see it? It matters little since you perceive it and seem to agree that the control exists.

 

 

I believe that you were drawing a parallel between the isolation of a captive and the philosophical isolation of Theists. I think suggesting that ideas made you remote from others does not hold water when we all freely mix on a daily basis with people of many, or no beliefs. Most of the time, I feel that we can get along as people, regardless of belief, due to our gregarious nature.

I find your criticism of this particular point to have a lot of merit, and tend to agree with you. I will need to think on this some more and look for a way to solidify that portion of the idea. Thank you.

 

 

Also... thanks for tossing around ideas with me on this. I appreciate the interaction quite a lot.