Psychologists apologize for criticizing the Church

Posted on by

I had not heard about this story until today. Last year, the American Psychological Association sponsored a documentary film with a statement that categorized LDS missionary techniques as “brainwashing” and “mind control.” In response to the APA’s position, two Utah psychologists set up a web site protesting. Look at this description of the strongly anti-Mormon movie. Apparently, Biasfire.com has had success and the APA has issued an apology. Yet another victory for the web and for the forces of Truth!

This entry was posted in Any by Geoff B.. Bookmark the permalink.

About Geoff B.

Geoff B graduated from Stanford University (class of 1985) and worked in journalism for several years until about 1992, when he took up his second career in telecommunications sales. He has held many callings in the Church, but his favorite calling is father and husband. Geoff is active in martial arts and loves hiking and skiing. Geoff has five children and lives in Colorado.

3 thoughts on “Psychologists apologize for criticizing the Church”

  1. I think their point in the Deseret News is apt though. A lot of psychologists and especially psycho-analysis has a strong bias against religion in general.

  2. It really is strange, though, how often psychoses center around religious symbols and motifs—my husband was quite struck with this when he did psych rotations. I guess I can sort of see why psychiatrists might be suspicious of religions, although of course I don’t think they should be.

  3. Psychologist Wendy Ulrich gave a paper earlier this month at the FAIR Conference on the nature of belief. She addressed psychological criticisms of religious belief thus:

    Cognitive dissonance theory supports, at some level, the view long-held by many sociologists and psychologists that religion is an irrational, fear-based choice and that people who are religious are too afraid to change their beliefs when confronted with obvious contradictions. Religion is seen as an inherently irrational choice that must be explained away as the result of some kind of brainwashing. The premise is that no rational person would believe in the delusional vision of an obvious sex offender like Joseph Smith, for example, so if people are committed to such a belief system it is because they are duped, irrational, or in denial. Their beliefs are not modified by enlightening evidence that would normally cause them to see things differently because they are acting in very committed ways such as paying tithing, attending meetings, sitting through weird temple rites, going to girl’s camp, and publicly espousing their beliefs. These actions cause them to believe that the Church must be true because they believe they are rational people and would not be doing all these weird things the Church expects unless it were true.
    More recently, sociologists Stark and Finke have amassed considerable research evidence to support a different theory based on the assumption that religious people truly are rational within the choices available to them, and that we make religious choices to increase the benefits we obtain for the investment we make, much the way we make economic decisions. People in demanding religions are more committed to them, not because it is the only way to make sense of their own irrational sacrifices, but because they accrue many benefits like social support, free food, decision-making rules, opportunities to develop talents, meaningful activities, answers to life’s deeper questions, and closeness to God that are possible because they and others are making these sacrifices, making them cost-effective.

    In her spoken presentation she also said that the reason sociologists and psychologists tend to dismiss religious belief is partly because non-religious people enter into the fields of sociology and psychology at higher rates than believers.

Comments are closed.