Case Against Religion: A Psychotherapists View and the Case Against Religiosity

by Albert Ellis

Article exploring the traits necessary to a minimally anxious and hostile individual, and how religion and a belief in a supernatural being eradicate each of these personality traits. Also gives insight into the irrational beliefs of more seriously disturbed individuals and how religion supports these detrimental beliefs.

Genres: Religion, Psychology

Paperback

First published April 1, 1980

About the author

Albert Ellis was an American psychologist who in 1955 developed Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). He held M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in clinical psychology from Columbia University and American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP). He also founded and was the President of the New York City-based Albert Ellis Institute for decades.
He is generally considered to be one of the originators of the cognitive revolutionary paradigm shift in psychotherapy and the founder of cognitive-behavioral therapies. Based on a 1982 professional survey of USA and Canadian psychologists, he was considered as the second most influential psychotherapist in history (Carl Rogers ranked first in the survey; Sigmund Freud was ranked third).

Reviews

[David Layton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book contains the transcript for a presentation in the 1970s and a revised version of the presentation from the 1980s. Albert Ellis is one of the most influential psychotherapists of the 20th century. He founded the therapeutic process now known as Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). The theory is based on the idea that emotional disturbances derive from wrong ideas about oneself, and that most of these ideas derive from a person's cultural and personal relations. The job of the therapist, according to this theory, is to get the patient to recognize and reject the bad idea that is producing emotional disturbance. Ellis's argument in this book is that religiosity is a major source of bad ideas that produce emotional disturbances. As Ellis sees it, religions are entirely antithetical to the goals of psychotherapy. He carefully distinguishes between the casually religious person and the fervently believing person, arguing that fervent belief is a mental disturbance that therapists should work hard to eradicate. In the revised lecture, Ellis includes what he calls "secular religions" such as Communism, Fascism, Freudianism, and so on, which function for followers just as sacred religions do. This is the reason he changes the title from "religion" to "religiosity."

These lectures are meant to state the main proposition that absolutist religiosity is a mental disturbance and to state the fundamental reasons for holding that proposition. The lectures are not meant to go through supporting research or to challenge any specific claims of any specific religion. Ellis argues succinctly and generally for a broad audience who are unaware of the science supporting REBT. Those seeking a detailed, point-by-point argument about religion are looking in the wrong place if they are looking for it here. It is not Ellis's purpose. The purpose is to provide the general background, the outline of the argument. Thus, the lectures give a reader a good starting point for understanding the problems of fervent religiosity.

[Agoes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Buku yang tipis ini berisi artikel singkat dari Albert Ellis mengenai pandangannya terhadap agama. Atau lebih spesifiknya, terhadap perilaku religius yang terlalu fanatik (awalnya dia mengarahkan argumennya pada agama, tapi beberapa tahun kemudian dia melakukan revisi dan mengubah judulnya menjadi "Case against religiosity", karena orang bisa juga tetap "waras" meskipun beragama).

Penjelasan yang diberikan Ellis semuanya mengacu pada konsep-konsep psikoterapi (terutama konsep Rational-Emotive Therapy) dan juga pengalaman praktiknya, sehingga ini bukan merupakan "serangan" terhadap agama yang dilandasi oleh kebencian. Meskipun demikian, mungkin tidak semua pembaca (termasuk psikolog sekalipun) yang akan mampu membaca buku ini tanpa merasa tersinggung, terutama bagi mereka yang sangat-percaya-banget-dan-udah-jadi-pegangan-hidup-nggak-bisa-nggak terhadap agamanya.

Apa sih religiusitas itu? Gampangnya: childish dependency, suatu bentuk neurotisisme ngawur yang membuat kita rentan terhadap pemikiran-pemikiran irasional. Nah, dengan penjelasan seperti itu, rasanya tidak mengherankan kalau banyak yang tersinggung.

Saya sendiri merekomendasikan buku ini untuk memperluas wawasan mengenai bagaimana "dogmatic belief" berkontribusi terhadap gangguan mental. Tentunya perlu dibaca dengan pikiran yang terbuka juga dan tidak langsung resisten terhadap apa yang disampaikan oleh Albert Ellis.

[Eduard Barbu · Rating 3 out of 5]

The two essays in the book make a good case against fundamentalism, but not against religiosity. It has been proven subsequently that the religious people score better in several measures correlated with personal well-being, chief of them being the likelihood of depression. It is surprising that Albert Ellis, a psychologist, can be so obtuse regarding human nature. A small proportion of individuals are seeking the truth and are employing reasoning in their lives. Most of the people are seeking consolation and are happy with what the religion they are born into is teaching.

[Buciu Petre · Rating 1 out of 5]

No serious argument here. Only the centuries old lamentations and over-simplifications. You might expect some evidence from sociological research from such a famous psychotherapist, or even something that resembles a sound argument. You would be wrong to expect that, however. He makes lots of unfounded analogies (comparisons with Hitler are, of course, not missing) and exaggerations. This book is as shallow as his famed ”analysis” of capitalism and libertarianism, where he „diagnosed” Rand and her followers with various mental diseases... He is incredibly shallow, as it is typical of those self-professed „rationalists”. You can argue respectably and with sense against religion, but this is just self-righteous ranting.

[Tucker · Rating 2 out of 5]

A short tract I picked up at the Reason Rally 2012 in Washington, DC. The author was born in 1913 and the essay was first published in 1976; for whatever reason, American Atheist Press reissued it in 2010. Ellis describes religion as essentially "masochism," "needless inhibition," "neurosis," and so forth. This is not backed up with evidence, it's just stated (over and over again). As he believes that religion encourages feelings of guilt and inadequacy, he finds it to be at odds with the goal of mental health, and he advocates that psychotherapists employ something called Rational-Emotive Therapy (RET). Nothing much else happens here.