Comments on: Link Miscellany: Unconvinced Edition

By: Messenger of the Lord

Messenger of the Lord — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:42:05 +0000

In reply to Stephanie Zvan. Jesus is lord. Repent now or forever hold your peace.

By: Ethan Farber

Ethan Farber — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:45:48 +0000

Religious Trauma Syndrome isn’t real because it’s not scientific, and it’s not scientific because it’s not falsifiable. For the condition to be real, there would have to be empirically verifiable conditions under which it was unreal, and there would have to be empirically verifiable conditions under which any one person could be proven not to be afflicted by it.

All the supporting arguments are non-falsifiable, so the condition isn’t real. Simple as that.

All faiths create a dogma based around concepts of their own invention. Religious Trauma Syndrome is a bigoted parody of Salvation. This sort of psychobabble is a jealous effort by frustrated secularists to turn their bigotry into faith in the same ways that frustrated religious radicals do.

By: Jim Etchison

Jim Etchison — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:40:20 +0000

Religious Trauma Syndrome is not specific to Christianity, but because Marlene Winell coined the term, and she was a Christian, and because it’s originating in the West, most RTS victims came out of some form of Christianity. But RTS is applicable to Islam, Judaism, etc. Tarico’s article also focuses on Christianity for the same reasons. I agree that the term “religious” isn’t ideal, but “fundamentalism” isn’t either, because RTS could happen to anyone who has immersed themselves in a belief system that caused damage once they extricated themselves from the same. A cult might not be called fundamentalist, for example. Likewise, a person could still suffer form RTS after leaving a particularly non-fundamentalist branch of a religion. It’s not the religion that precipitates it, per se, but how deep the victim dove into it.

I agree with some of your other concerns. All the symptoms of RTS might be found elsewhere in the DSM, but … they also might not. There are elements of RTS that might be entirely unique to religious belief. Also, I do think it might be useful to have such a term, because it offers a familiar gateway for people who are troubled to get help. Why would a person coming out of a religion feel like they were suffering from something commonly believed to be experienced by wartime vets? Most would not make the connection. So having RTS out there on the interwebs is a good thing–it’ll help people understand that they are suffering from something that is understood and treatable.

By: Kate Donovan

Kate Donovan — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:53:42 +0000

In reply to (e)m.

So…this is a touchy one.

Because really, the evidence has been saying for years that DID is not a diagnosis, that multiple personalities aren’t a phenomenon of actually possessing multiple personalities. Which isn’t to say that people *don’t* suffer, or that people are in some way “faking”. That’s not the case. But DID (when it was called Multiple Personality Disorder) was largely based off of faulty evidence, and the majority of the psych community would like the diagnosis removed, as it appears to be a cultural diagnosis combined with specific responses to severe trauma, rather than a mental phenomenon by itself.

I’m hardly on the forefront of the research, but Eddy Cara over at The Heresy Club has been writing several great pieces on it.

By: (e)m

(e)m — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:04:46 +0000

Religious trauma syndrome seems like a pure politicization of a subset of other problems. And I say this as someone who was traumatized by my religious upbringing.

You asked for physchology questions. Could you do a post on Dissociative identity disorder? I know several multiples and would like to understand them better.

By: Kate Donovan

Kate Donovan — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:43:17 +0000

In reply to Stephanie Zvan.

Hmm. I hadn’t considered the comparison to Rape Trauma Syndrome, which does make me more open to the idea. However, my objections to calling it “religion” still stand–I find the name inaccurate. (and of course, two things that can be called RTS would be awful confusing.)

By: Stephanie Zvan

Stephanie Zvan — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:02:28 +0000

Hmm. I’m not sure that recognizing religious trauma syndrome as a thing precludes treating it as a subset of PTSD. We’ve been discussing rape trauma syndrome for decades with the explicit understanding that it’s a form of PTSD with unique features and implications for treatment/management. I don’t see a problem with doing the same for this, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.