Journal: Third force therapy for atheists

Today I stumbled upon this journal article[1], in which the author treats three atheist clients who are experiencing mental illnesses (manic-depression and panic attacks), encourages them to “renew their connection to God” using “third force therapy”, and reports that his clients were “fully recovered within a period of 6 months”.

This article is actually one of a scant few research articles specifically looking at self-identified atheists as the intervention group, so naturally I was interested in reading it. I find it quite telling that the only peer-reviewed journal articles I can find that study atheists as a group from a psychological, sociological, or health perspective are ones like this one.

“Third force therapy” in psychology is typically referred to in the context of humanist psychology, in which the “forces” are behaviorism, psychoanalysis and humanism, with humanism being the third force.

Humanism in psychology focuses more on subjective experiences and interpretations of life events and in many ways is not considered science as its interpretations are nonfalsifiable. Categories of psychology that fall under the scope of humanism in psychology include sensitivity training, family therapies, self-help, co-counseling, etc.

This journal article seeks to define the “third force” not as humanism but as a god. In other words, there are three forces in the room: the client, the counselor, and a god.

The author introduces his work by stating that psychotherapy in the west is based on the objective and exclusive presence of a client and a therapist and in doing so loses the close bonding of clients to their god. He says that this bonding is reaches via various belief systems that are part of the natural connection between man and his god.

Obviously, the assumption made here is that there is a god, it is the god the author expects him to be, the connection with said god is good, and westerners, being the objective god-denying idiots they are, are doing their clients a disservice by ignoring the obvious (nonobjective…) reality of said god.

Moving on, the author states that many people are almost embarrassed to admit that they believe in a god, in this age of science and reason. Because we face “rampant materialism” a “disintegrating family system” and “international discord” and claims that developing a closer relationship with his god in order to rely on his god’s will “would seem more than necessary”.

It’s clear from the author’s choice of words that materialism is not good, disintegration of family systems and international discord are not good, and society would be better off turning to his god to cope with these things. I am not sure what the author means by “materialism” in this context – the tendency for people to love material goods? Or scientific materialism, which holds that the events in the universe have purely material causes?

He moves on to say that because humans are always searching for some god, we’re not wrong to assume that they are searching for something which exists and which they have a connection with. I would argue that the search for a god does not mean that there is a god; rather the search for a god is a way for humans to cope with the inability to control or explain certain aspects of the world around them. So yes, it is wrong to assume that because humans search for a god that they must have a connection with the thing they are searching for.

The author posits that intellectualization and the “scientific” desire for clear answers may block the natural connection we have with his god, and that this blocked connection may manifest itself in psychological symptoms, alienation, or an interference in the ability to experience joy. Moreover, the struggle between believing that one must turn to oneself for control and support may cause individuals to turn against oneself, if they find they are insufficient at controlling their lives in a productive manner. As such, submitting to the author’s god is a reflection of inner strength

I have to disagree. Science does not search for clear cut answers – clear cut answers are the answers religion claims to have.  Intellectualization cannot block connections with something that does not exist. I have no reason to assume that the author’s god exists, and the only evidence he gives for the existence of his god is that humans have a history of searching for it. I might also add that the author is making all of these substantial claims without any reference to other articles or evidence to back them up – his claims are purely speculative and clearly coming from an individual whose worldview is rooted in his religion.

The author mentions an experiment in which two monkeys were placed in a cage and given shocks to their feet every 20 seconds. One monkey was given a switch and taught to prevent shocks by flicking a switch. The second monkey was at the mercy of the first monkey’s switch tapping ability. The first monkey (the one in control) died after 28 days, while the 2nd monkey relying on the will and ability of the first) was fine. This is taken as evidence that trusting the will of a god will have beneficial health effects.

I think this experiment is less about the health benefits of someone who gives up control of someone else and more about the fact that the first monkey was under constant stress to flick a switch every 20 seconds, while the 2nd monkey could, for example, sleep or eat fairly peacefully. This also says nothing about any god.

I have read plenty of studies suggesting that religious belief can aid individuals in coping with mental illness and I would not deny that this is helpful for people, but I do deny that the help one gets from believing they are close to a god is due to the influence of an actual, existing god.

Regarding methods, therapy took place by unobtrusively encouraging the atheists to make or renew their connection with a god by removing blockages. He goes so far as to say that “Without belief in God there is no hope, without the rituals of religion there is no direction to hope; together they result in a strength that cannot be defeated by life.” The therapist (the author) is trained to restore these missing connections. The author reported that he applied this therapy to 3 atheists (both aged 25), two of which belonged to a “leftist/atheist group”. The last was an 18 year old addicted to marijuana and was abused and abusive. The author reports that he found religion to be a conflict in the lives of all 3 men, so he used third force therapy. He reports success after 6 months, with each individual’s symptoms degreasing in direct proportion to their new relationship with their god. All three clients became asymptomatic Muslims.

Of course, the author offers no objective measure of the severity of the symptoms to begin with, no pre- or post-tests, and nothing to measure. The reader is forced to rely entirely on his subjective opinion of the curative nature of his therapy. The reader is also encouraged by the author to conclude that third force therapy is designed to clear the path to a god so that said god in his mercy will cure psychological symptoms as well as have a protective effect against future symptoms.

I can only conclude from my examination thus far of the research literature on self-identified atheists that there is a lack of scholarship, rigor and objectivity that is present in robust research. There is no objective measure affirming the hypothesis that psychological symptoms are due to some kind of undefined “blockage” to a god.

[1]  Jahangir, S. Third Force Therapy and Its Impact on Treatment Outcome. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion (1995) 5(2) 125-129.
Online abstract