Depression and religion

 Degrees of Depression

An inquiry among church members that we had used for the purpose of comparison also revealed that, with the Christians questioned, a correlation existed between their basic psychological condition at the present time and the contents that were imparted to them by religious education, that is, the more positive the notion imparted to them of the “qualities” of their god and of the traits in the human character was, the better they feel today; the more sinful man and the more malicious their god appeared to them from what they had been told, the worse they feel today on the average. As mentioned above, we had, for reasons of comparability of the various studies, only evaluated the data obtained from those atheists who, just like the church members already mentioned, had been brought up in religious faith, then turned away from the religion that had been inculcated in them and finally left the church.

In the case of the church opponents who were questioned, our study revealed that, in contrast to church members, their psychological condition at the present time does not depend on the specific contents of religious socialization. For this purpose, we compared—among other data—the statements relating to the image of God that was imparted to our test persons in their childhood to their emotional condition at the present time. The test persons were subdivided into three groups, i.e. groups that had either a positive, negative, or a neutral notion of God during their childhood. The F-value of a variance analysis was not significant at the 5% level. In contrast to the aforementioned study we used for the purpose of comparison, we could not find any statistically proven correlation between the variables mentioned. We conclude that the participants in our study had been able to free their minds and emotions to a great extent from the restraints imposed by religion.

From the first comparison of the results of the studies examining church members on the one hand and atheists on the other hand, we can therefore draw the following conclusions:

1. The psychological condition of persons who have kept religious beliefs in some form or other depends on the form of their religious education and on their adherence to religious rules, independently of how closely they feel themselves connected with church and religion subjectively—in this regard, the statements of the psychologists of religion cited above are correct, insofar as they speak exclusively of religious persons.

2. They were wrong, however, if they put forth speculative statements—and that in a quite tendentious manner—with regard to the psychic condition of atheists. For, as our study proves, a person who underwent religious socialization and then had the courage and clear mind to break with religion and church later on has the best chance to live a happier life than any Christian under statistically comparable conditions. Apart from an atheist attitude that is based on reason, this requires a clear analysis and understanding of one’s own past in regard to religion.

In the following, we shall present our findings regarding the way the church opponents questioned were able to free themselves from their religious beliefs of the past and describe the correlation between the determination the test persons had shown in this conflict and their psychic condition and thinking today.

The Courage to Become

As is to be expected, science plays a central role on the way from religion by upbringing to atheism. Knowledge gained by means of observation and logical conclusion is best suited to question the fundamentals of any religion, that is, the existence of any supernatural being. Ninety-two percent of our test persons therefore answered the question of whether a gain in scientific knowledge had played a part in the process of detachment from religion positively, natural sciences taking first place with 76% of those questioned. In comparison, only 59% stated that unpleasant experiences with church institutions had been a decisive factor for them.

Consequently, gaining knowledge seems to be of greater importance in the process of detachment from religion than unpleasant occurrences and experiences, which, in turn, can only be evaluated adequately when, after being judged as to their consequences for the individual, they are also assessed within overall categories. The first doubts raised by the persons we questioned were, in 74% of the cases, raised by so-called religious doctrines (such as the existence of God) and not, as could also be supposed, on the behavior of religious parents or teachers. We may conclude from this that it is the breach of the taboo on thinking (that is, of the prohibition of examining the degree of probability of religious statements) in connection with the gain in knowledge that is most detrimental to faith and is the most effective form of protection against mysticism and irrationalism. This is impressively confirmed by the answers to the question of whether belief in God had come up again at any time, perhaps in desperate situations, after those questioned had left the church: 79% of the atheists answered “no,”—that means after their abandonment they never again showed any inclination to fall back upon the consolation promised by their former religious faith. Ninety-seven percent of the atheists we questioned were of the opinion that scientific thinking is incompatible with religious thinking; moreover, they reject speculation and irrationalism in not openly religious manifestations as well: 81% reject astrology, in which God’s influence is replaced by that of the stars; 79% agree with the statement that “soul and spirit” only exist on the basis of physiological, e.g. material processes. Consequently, 83% were of the conviction that there is no life after death whatsoever. Eighty-four percent reject with reference to the evolution theory any worldly versions of the creation myth, suggesting a fixed pre-existing plan behind the origin of the vegetable and animal kingdoms.

Incidentally, one of our results may shed light on how far the atheists questioned had, during their detachment from religion, moved away from the “intellectual atmosphere” prevailing in their families. The families of all of our test persons were, as far as the observation of rituals is concerned, religious on an average level, but were, compared to the total population in terms of social statistics, of a more than average academic type; as was to be expected, in these families, famous personalities, such as Goethe and King Frederick the Great of Prussia, who, in the eyes of the German educated bourgeoisie, stand for tolerance in religious matters and a moderately critical distance towards organized Christianity, enjoyed a mainly positive reputation (for instance Goethe in 73% of cases, Frederick in 53%). On the other hand, the “intellectual” attitude in the families towards famous representatives of the Enlightenment and of sciences probably, in its tendency, corresponded more to that of the average population. Before they reached the age of ten, 59% of our test  persons did not know Galileo, 72% did not know anything about Voltaire, and 59% knew nothing about Darwin, and a  determined atheist such as Marx was judged negatively by 46%. As was also to be expected, all of these personalities were known to the test persons at the time of the study and were also judged mainly positively: Galileo by 95%, Voltaire by 86%, Darwin by 93%, Marx by 91%.

Apart from science, sexuality has a central importance in the detachment from religion. Sixty-six percent of those questioned noted, as the main point of criticism of religion,  “the suppression of sexual and general self-determination  and of a happy life.” Sixty-six percent also reported that during their childhood and youth they were imparted the notion that sexuality was sinful, dirty, and bad, and as a consequence more than 50% of the test persons suffered from heavy feelings of guilt because of sexual fantasies and activities. While overcoming religious convictions, 46% succeeded completely, 32% partly in overcoming those religion-based feelings of guilt (both according to their own statements). This certainly contributes decisively to the fact that 90% of the atheists were able to note an increase in their opportunities to enjoy life and experience happiness compared to the times when they were still religious. The increase in sexual self-determination is reflected in the increase in general independence (noted by 87%) and self-confidence (also noted by 87%).

In this context some data from social statistics are also relevant. The level of education is unusually high among atheists: 39% are university graduates and another 37% are high school graduates. Their striving for individual independence is also shown by the fact, for instance, that 60% of the test persons are not married (compared to only 40% of the total population of the Federal Republic of Germany) and a further 13% are divorced.

Moreover, the study also revealed differences regarding the degree of self-determination and the proneness to depression among the atheist population. In the course of the evaluation of the data we were able to determine some reasons for statistically interpretable deviations between the test persons. For example, we should, on the one hand, point out that the statistical comparison between the depression values of men and women did not render any differences. This result is especially noteworthy because in the average population women suffer far more frequently from depression than men. The evaluation of our questionnaires led to the result that women, compared to men, had suffered additional disadvantages in the course of their religious education. Thirty-one percent of the men and none of the women noted advantages; 67% of the women noted disadvantages due to their sex in religious education. This sex-linked difference in religious education is statistically highly significant (x2 = 31.94; a = .000). We are able to prove that most of our test persons who—compared to others—have been victims of greater impairment were able to make up for it by greater efforts during the detachment from religion and that this is why they did not show any higher depression values than men at the time of the study. There was no significant F-value with respect to sex using variance analysis. A small group of women, however, reported that they did not fight against the sex-linked specific role they were expected to adopt, as was imparted to them during their religious education. These women showed significantly higher depression values, which confirms our basic hypothesis that the extent of the individual analysis and assessment of one’s religious past will decide to a considerable degree the extent of the present capability of enjoying happiness.

The overwhelming majority of the test persons referred to themselves as militant atheists (74%); only a few of them were rather hesitant and undetermined in their opposition to the church. We examined the possibility of a statistical correlation between this rather placid attitude towards the church and the tendency of these test persons to fall back upon so-called religious coping strategies, e.g. consolation promised by the church. While 74% of the militant atheists do not remember situations when they would have wished to pray again, this is only the case with 61% of the nonmilitant atheists. This is a statistically significant result (x2 = 10.66; a = .03). Thus we found—apart from the extent of the assessment of one’s own religious past—a second criterion for the statistical prediction of the psychic condition of atheists: resoluteness in their opposition to religion and church.

Perception vs. Reality

In public, the image of an unhappy and dismal atheist who is haunted by inner doubts and fears and is already paying dearly for his opposition to religion in this life is often conveyed. This image is not necessarily—and not always—wrong, but it is certainly wrong when, as we were able to prove in our study, atheists who have gone through a religious upbringing later on succeed in reconquering all spheres of life we described above, which had previously been occupied by the church.

In order to conclude this short summary of the evaluation of the questionnaires (the original study comprises more than 500 pages—further details can be furnished on request) we should like, once again, to point out the most important results: contrary to the tendentious assertions put up by numerous studies on the psychology of religion, simply taking advantage of the statistically small number of atheists compared to the relatively great number of strictly religious persons, atheists are less prone to depression than religious persons. Their psychic condition differs most impressively from those who, though quite obviously with a guilty conscience, do not keep the church’s rules, but never seriously analyzed their own religious education and their obviously persistent secret, religion-based convictions. There is a less distinct difference between atheists and strictly religious persons who unbrokenly stick to religious prescriptions and therefore are less depressed by feelings of guilt than “lukewarm” Christians. But atheists also have an advantage over the hard core of believers with respect to their depression values—although the difference is not so great.

The study we have presented here in short summary is, to our knowledge, the only one worldwide to examine, with due scientific scrutiny, a population of resolute atheists, allowing a comparison of this group with believers by means of a standardized measure. Doubtlessly there is considerable need for further investigation in this field, especially regarding the process of detachment from religion, but such a project—at least in Germany—will not meet with much support from public institutions, quite contrary to inquiries conducted among believers. Further in-depth analysis and verification of our results in international and transcultural comparisons would also be very desirable. We do hope to have given an impulse in this direction with our study.