Religious Addiction (2005)


Recommended Posts

Religious Addiction

by Roger E. Bissell

July 7, 2005

Philosophy and religion can be used as a tool, to guide one in the living of one's life. Or they can be misused, as a manifestation of "fight or flight"—that is, as a weapon with which to exercise power over others or as a privileged sanctuary within which to hide from the demands of life in the real world.

One form of the misuse of philosophy and religion is what some have called "religious addiction." It is a very real problem in America and, to some extent, in the Objectivist movement. It is a sickness comparable to drug and alcohol abuse.

By this, I do mean not that a particular philosophy or religion is making certain people ill. I am saying that those people are misusing their religion or philosophy in a way that disguises and perpetuates, rather than heals, the emotional illness they had before turning to that religion or philosophy.

I have my own list of telltale signs that newly super-devout worshippers or adherents of a philosophy are engaging in religious addiction. Here are just a few of them:

1. Although they have been "healed" by God or Objectivism or whatever of their abuse of alcohol or drugs or sex or whatever, they are still locked in the grip of other addictions, such as nicotine or compulsive spending.

2. Under the guise of religious or moral righteousness and missionary zeal, they still engage in the same hateful and abusive actions toward friends and loved ones that they did before "finding God" (or Rand).

3. They speak of being "forgiven" of their sins by God, or having "rationally risen above" their previous immoral behavior, yet make no effort to acknowledge the exact nature of those wrongs to the people they have hurt and make no effort to make amends for those wrongdoings.

For these people, religion or philosophy is a "refuge." It is a hideaway, not unlike the bottle, where they can continue to deny responsibility for their mistakes and avoid facing up to their problems in dealing with life and with other people.

To paraphrase Rand, "don't tell me that these people don't exist, because I've met them." They exist in mainstream religion, in Objectivism, and elsewhere, and I have met quite a number of them, both in person and online.

For these people, it is a very small step from "How Dry I Am" to "How Great Thou Art"—or to the embarrassing attempts of some to pose as would-be Roarks and Dagnys, instead of their own, authentic selves.

As a prescription for breaking out of this self-destructive pattern of behavior, for religious addicts of whatever persuasion, I recommend the reading of Nathaniel Branden's The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem and/or a good 12-step meeting.

Additional comments: One person asked me for examples of how someone who has acted wrongly in the past can use Objectivism to make amends to those he has harmed. He wondered if there isn't often a likelihood that attempts to make amends will cause more harm than good, especially if the initial wrongdoing created an irreparable breach.

Here is one example, which relates to how I have screwed up in romance over the years and still come out very happy in the end. :-)

Years ago (shortly after the Big Split), I was engaged to my first wife (of three), and she was a very jealous woman (not without some reason, and not just because of my own wandering eye). At some point, she began stormily insisting that I not have this female friend or that female friend, because she was sure that I was having (or would, if given the opportunity, have) sex with one (or more) of them. Most of the friendships were hardly more than acquaintances or cordial relationships, so not a great deal was lost by "breaking off" with them. But one young lady in particular meant a considerable bit more to me. We were both music majors, both Randians, and very much enjoyed intellectual discussion with one another. We had indeed considered a romantic relationship, but decided that it was not a good idea, so decided to remain just friends. Yet, even this was intolerable to my fiancee-and-then-wife. Being of relatively low confidence at that time, and susceptible to intimidation and fear of loss of the romantic relationship I did have with her, I kow-towed to her demands. So, with great reluctance and anguish, I told my friend we couldn't speak to each other any more, a silence that lasted for nearly 15 years.

For those who do not grasp the subtlety of the immorality of the above described action of mine, read Rand's "Altruism and Appeasement." :-(

I should, however, share here my recent interchange on this matter with Michael Kelly. He wrote:

I am not so sure about your judgment of yourself as 'immoral' in succumbing to an overly-jealous woman. They can be pure hell to deal with. To me, you merely made a value judgment and chose poorly (like I have done in the past) - you did not identify the pathological nature of jealousy - that nothing cures it outside of the the head of the jealous person. You imagined that your friendship was incompatible with your love, which it was when jealousy entered, and chose accordingly. The error was in thinking that the jealousy would go away with the sacrifice of the friendship. It doesn't. It gets worse - at least in my experience.

I told Michael that I thought I could make a pretty good case that I was immoral -- or at least, woefully immature (and imprudent or lacking in practical reason) to be contemplating marriage in the first place, whether with a pathologically jealous woman or a (more) normal one. But you are certainly correct that jealousy does not go away when you make sacrifices. (That's another issue: does one ever really sacrifice in the Randian sense of a higher value for a lower value. I think the more conventional sense of "sacrifice" would be more apropos.

Anyway, years later, I was going through therapy and realized exactly what I had done wrong, that it was contrary to my improved self-esteem and my improved grasp on Objectivist ethics to have treated my friend so unjustly, and I set about contacting her in order to try to make amends. The short version of this story is that it had a happy ending. My bridges were not "irreparably burn[ed]." She accepted my expression of deep sorrow and regret. She saw that I had changed greatly for the better. And most importantly, she welcomed me back as a friend -- and some time later, we began a very deep, wonderful romance that culminated in our marrying 15 years ago.

Barbara Branden has commented:

Another "tell tale sign" that something is very wrong in one's allegiance is apparent when a religionist or Objectivist uses his philosophy as a club which with to beat others over the head...Objectivists should never forget that their philosophy is a shield, not a weapon.

I couldn't agree more. About 10 years ago, when I first ventured forth onto the Internet, I ran into quite a few people of the "basher" persuasion, one of whom was the late Ron Merrill. In October of 1996, we had the following exchange:

Ron wrote:

I am in the tradition of the radical Rand--not the fashionable "radicalism" of Chris[sciabarra]'s title, but real radicalism--the kick-'em-in-the-nuts Rand who not only offended the bastards but enjoyed it.  I speak for those who understand that you're not going to make friends, you're not going to make converts, you're not going to get your ideas accepted, no matter what you do, because the academic establishment is savagely and unalterably opposed to your basic premises.  So it's neither moral nor practical to compromise.  Tell the truth openly, and you'll be heard--by that "one who understands"--and that's all you need.  In the end, it's Gideon's Band that will triumph.

I replied:

If Rand enjoyed the "kick em in the nuts" approach as much as Ron claims, why was she more depressed after the publication of Atlas Shrugged than at any other time in her life? It was because whatever joy she got from "offending the bastards"--and when did she ever offend "the enemy" more than by Atlas?--it paled compared to her feeling of deep frustration and isolation from her magnum opus not having attracted someone she could consider an intellectual equal. Rand may well have slipped into a more negative, malevolent framework at times, drawing emotional fuel from intellectually bashing her opponents, as Ron claims, but if so, it would not have been out of a healthy motivation. She rightly regarded polemics as a secondary focus in philosophy, and did right in passing along this perspective to Peikoff and the rest of us. It is up to those of us who want to spend most of our energies pursuing positives to make sure that we are not drawn down into such negative, isolationist cul-de-sacs as Ron is promoting.

I share this exchange not in order to portray myself as somehow superior to or more (or less) of an Objectivist than Ron. Indeed, I, too, for many years spent far too much time in "basher" mode and considered it the best way to go in combatting evil in the world. (That, in itself, is a negative focus. It should be on spreading good in the world.) It has taken many years, too many years of vacillating, to break free of this bad habit. Perhaps it's just mellowing with age :D . Perhaps it's fear over getting cancer or something from carrying around all that anger. (Sadly, Ron himself was taken away at far too young an age by cancer. I only hope that it was due to something other than his antagonistic stance toward the world.) Perhaps it's being sadder but wiser over seeing so many brilliant people behaving so horribly toward those who should be their intellectual allies and companions. Perhaps it's the love of a good woman who herself long ago outgrew such behavior, and saw my better possibilities and patiently encouraged me to do the same. (Yeah!) Perhaps I'm just too tired and shell-shocked from such experiences to want wallow in them again. Whatever. If I'm "grounded," as Teresa Summerlee Isanhart says (and thanks, as always, Teresa, for your good-hearted supportiveness), it's not because I started out that way. I had to spend a lot of time figuring out where the ground was!

James Kilbourne commented that he wanted to hear Michael Kelly's thoughts on 12 step, saying:

...the more I witnessed its power with addicted people, the more respectful of it I became...I would love to see Solo members tackle the 12 step phenomenon. Something important is happening in this movement, and I sure don't have my finger on it yet.

I jumped in and told him that the 12-Step movement has been applied not just to people with addictions to alcohol, drugs, food, compulsive spending, sex, etc., but also to people with "relationship addiction," sometimes known as codependency. I was such a person, especially while married to my second wife, who had a serious problem with several addictive behaviors, including prescription tranquilizers, compulsive spending, and shoplifting. Thus, while she attended Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, I attended Al-Anon, which is for friends, colleagues, and loved ones of people with substance abuse (and similar) problems. These meetings, which I attended weekly for about three years in the late 1980s, did me a world of good in dealing with my (now ex-)wife's problems and my (now)wife's ex-husband's (now, there was a religious addict!) pernicious effects on the emotional well-being of their daughters (who lived with us).

One of the key concepts is encapsulated in the "Serenity Prayer" by Reinhold Niebuhr:

God, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.

The primary application of this idea in Al-Anon is to realize that you cannot change "your alcoholic," but that you can (and should) change yourself. The courage aspect puts the focus of your thoughts and efforts where it belongs, on your well-being. The serenity aspect, the non-judgmental acceptance of the alcoholic/addict, places the responsibility where it belongs, squarely on him, for deciding how (if at all) he is going to change as a result of your self-focused changes (rather than as a result of pressures on him). Ayn Rand quoted this prayer approvingly in her essay "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made" as being spot-on philosophically, and I certainly agree.

Now, this non-judgmental acceptance does not absolve you of the necessity and responsibility for engaging in evaluation (and acting accordingly) of people in your life. However, it means that, rather than engaging in loud, blistering denunciations and condemnations of them, you quietly discern what it is that bothers you about what they are doing. If you find that you cannot stand their company, you leave. If you find that you cannot trust them, you do not enter into relationships of trust with them (or you leave). Etc. You discern and act. You do not give them an excuse to blame you for their bad behavior by engaging in harsh judgmental behavior yourself. ("No wonder I drink or use drugs or screw around or weigh 300 pounds. Look what a horrible person I have to live with!" -- standard excuse-making enabled by harsh judgmentalism.)

This application of the Serenity Prayer, more than any other aspect of the 12-Steps, is why I think so many codependents are able to climb back on the self-esteem wagon after spending years mired in a dysfunctional relationship. If you can set aside the "God" and "Higher Power" talk and focus on the essence of the ideas involved, I think you will see that there is a very potent aspect of Objectivism embodied in the 12-Step movement. Not the unreformed Objectivism of the over-the-top judgmentalists, but the evolved, enlightened (neo)Objectivism of Nathaniel Branden (see especially The Disowned Self).

One final comment, which is very apropos of this topic and of Objectivism in general. Barbara Branden said that Objectivists should never forget that their philosophy is a shield, not a weapon, an another person objected that philosophy is both a shield and a weapon.

Actually, I agree, but with this qualification: philosophy can legitimately be used as a weapon of defense against those who are trying to abuse others. It cannot legitimately be used as a weapon with which to abuse others. I think this more precisely captures the distinction Barbara was trying to make, while recognizing the point that philosophy can be used--illegitimately--as an offensive weapon. So, my signature should always be read with that qualification in mind.

[This essay and these remarks were originally posted on SOLOHQ during July of 2005.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now