Mental Health and Faith: The Psychological Effects of Not Believing in God

In this episode of The Perspicacious Perspective, I explore the complex link between belief in God and mental health. I reflect on the psychological and existential effects of not believing in a higher power, and how faith can provide emotional stability, community, and resilience during life’s toughest challenges.

At the same time, I discuss the potential downsides of religious upbringing—especially for those whose values or identities clash with traditional doctrine. I also examine the freedoms of a secular life, while questioning whether the absence of faith can sometimes foster narcissism or hinder emotional and spiritual growth.

Join me as I navigate this nuanced and sometimes controversial discussion about religion, mental well-being, and the human search for meaning.

Transcript

Welcome to the Perspicacious Perspective.

In this episode I aim to compare the potential side effects to believing in God versus not believing in God and whether it can have any impact on our mental health as human beings. And there are side effects… you can’t just have your cake and eat it.

How much you believe in God does matter as what you manifest will have both positive and negative consequences.

Personally, my mind likes to think I’m an agnostic but my actions would tell you that I’m an atheist. You might think, what do you mean by that?

Well growing up as a cultural Christian, you could say I’ve been indoctrinated to think that a God is indeed watching over me. I remember my teachers in primary school telling me that I have a conscience, and that I should use this to decide what the right thing is to do.

It wasn’t until I was in my teens that I began to think critically about how making decisions based on my conscience was naïve and ineffective.

So while I do feel like I have a conscience telling me what’s right and wrong on a spiritual level, I’ve been using critical thinking and logic to make important decisions for let’s say over half of my lifetime.

That means now that my actions wouldn’t tell you that I have a religious bone in my body. And that is important!

So my mind likes the comfort of potentially believing in a religion such as Christianity that will give me all the answers to life’s difficult questions. It would make it easier for me to connect with most of my family if I were Christian, I would be able to unabashedly enjoy listening to religious hymns and religious music, I would appreciate the architecture of religious buildings a lot more, I would enjoy the prospect of marriage much more, I would feel more connected to a community, and I would be able to join the lifelong apprenticeship of anyone studying the same religious scripture as me; which in this case would be the Bible, and I would feel a sense of community from that in itself. This is what makes me question atheism.

It's almost as if the burden of proof is on the atheistic side of my understanding of the world, just because of how convenient it would be to believe and to be a Christian.

I say this to say that I think a lot of people in the contemporary Western world believe in a similar way to the way that my mind approaches religion.

What someone does doesn’t always reflect what someone believes. That might be due to the family structure we’ve been raised in- if you were born in a very religious family, you’re likely to have been to religious establishments like the Church, Synagogue or Mosque a lot more frequently than other believers; it might be due to impulsivity- if you’re a Muslim born in the West, you’re more likely to have been exposed to things your religion might consider as ‘haram’ or ‘not permissible’, meaning you’re more likely to have broken the rules of your religion more often than someone born in a Muslim country; and it might be due to your life circumstances; so if like me you were born gay yet born in a relatively religious family, you might have felt you had to break religious norms more often in order for you to live a normal life.

So that’s why I think it’s not always fair to attribute what someone does to what someone believes.

I’ll give you a clearer example. If you’re a man and were born in the West after the 1950’s, and you identify as a Christian, the chances you’ve ever killed someone is very slim. One of the 10 commandments forbids you to kill so in theory, your actions line up with what you believe. Let’s say you were born in the West in the early 1900s and you identify as a Christian. You’re more likely to have been conscripted to war and you’re more likely to have had to kill people during World War II. Is it fair to say the former man is more religious than the latter just because he was born in a more peaceful time in the world?

This is the point I’m trying to make. Judging how religious someone is due to their actions isn’t always fair.

You could make the argument that everyone is on their own religious journey. But unfortunately, that’s not how the predominant Abrahamic religions approach religion. They come from a more dogmatic angle that the rules ought to be followed notwithstanding your circumstances.

So what does it even mean to believe?

If you follow Jordan Peterson, you’ll be familiar with his responses to the questions; ‘are you a Christian?’ and ‘do you believe in God?’.

He tends to equivocate and asks what the interviewer means by the word ‘believe’.

And I think he’s right to question it.

If you were to ask my parents if they’re a Christian. They would say ‘yes’.

I’ve never seen my parents reading or studying the Bible. My parents never went to church unless it was a family event like a baptism or something, they never watched any religious television, they never taught me or my siblings anything from the Bible, and after spending my whole childhood with them until I moved out when I was 18, they never truly manifested any of Jesus’s teachings in terms of how you should treat your family or other people.

So would you say they’re Christian just because they say so?

You could say the same for the word ‘believe’. Like what does it actually mean to believe in God? And obviously in the modern world there’s a more diluted meaning to the idea of believing in God.

Archaically, if you said you believed in God, you would be automatically ascribed to a religion, then judged based on whether you followed the tenets of the religion you’ve been attributed to. So what does it mean to say you believe in God?

Jordan Peterson argues that what you prioritise dictates what believe. And I agree with him to a certain extent.

Since Islam has had less time in the West, there is a less diluted version of Islam in the West when you compare it to Christianity.

If you say you’re a Muslim but eat pork and don’t frequent the mosque, many Muslims would have a problem with you identifying as Muslim. But if you eat shrimp and don’t frequent the church, no one’s gonna bat an eyelid if you say you identify as a Christian.

So the relationship between what you do and believe is important when it comes to believing in God and subscribing to a religion. And I think this is what Jordan Peterson is trying to get at.

I remember a Russian girl in Spain telling me that she’s quarter Jewish. I remember challenging her because I genuinely didn’t know what she meant by that. Can you be quarter Christian or quarter Muslim?

In theory you can’t, but in reality I can obviously tell now that she meant that she identified as quarter Jewish culturally. If you claimed to be quarter Christian in the West, people would interpret it as maybe observing Christian festivals like Easter, Christmas and maybe the odd baptism; and in Islam, claiming that you’re quarter Muslim would be interpreted as apostacy- the capital crime of abandoning the religion. 

So it begs the question, what does it actually mean when you say you identify as being a member of a religion and should we be able to dilute the religion to the point it fits around the way we want to live our lives?

I can tell you what my parents mean when they say they’re Christians. They’re saying, we’re people with values and morals in a society that lacks it and just in case God does exist, I can claim that I relentlessly identified as a Christian, so therefore I can be granted access to Heaven.

I’m pretty sure many Christians would argue that my parents don’t believe and are therefore not Christian. So where is the line? What’s the threshold for being a believer? Has the threshold changed since 100 years ago? And who gets to decide who’s Christian and who isn’t?

The sensible answer would be to claim that religious journeys are individual. And it’s only on Judgement Day that they will find out whether they’re granted entry to Heaven. But I repeat, that is not how any of these Abrahamic religions go about religion.

It’s clear if you identify as being religious, the religious establishments and institutions want you to manifest your subscription to the religion and belief in God with acts of submission, sacrifice, and a philosophy that underpins the political agenda that the establishments or institutions are promoting at the time. And that your membership of the religion is based solely on this, not whatever religious journey you’re on or whether you’ve manifested the teachings of the religion.

So arguably, my parents are more Christian than Christians who manifest the religious teachings of Jesus who don’t conform with the political agenda the Christian establishment and religious institutions are promulgating.

I thought I would point that out.

I mentioned in another episode that I went to a secondary school that was predominated by Muslims. I recall getting into a debate with a Muslim when I was about 15. I said ‘how can you know Islam is the true religion when your parents were born in an area of the world that is renowned for being predominantly Muslim? And how would it be fair that I were to go to hell just because I was born on the wrong side of the world?’ His response was that ‘he was blessed to have parents who were born in Pakistan’. That’s obviously when the debate ended since nobody can respond to such a logically fallacious argument.

So let’s be real, and let’s go through what is a blessing and what isn’t, when it comes to being religious.

Let’s start with Islam.

Now due to the laws of apostacy in Islam- which is the law that forbids you to leave the religion; and a law that if broken, is punishable by death, can you truly say it’s a blessing to be born into a religion that doesn’t allow you to leave it?

Wouldn’t it be a blessing to be born in an area of the world that lets you choose as an adult what faith to follow since you know what the consequences are if you decided to leave it?

That’s what my critical thinking skills lead me to believe anyway.

If you happen to born gay, or even become gay, wouldn’t it be considered a blessing to be born to parents who are non-religious? And after having thought about this since I’m gay myself, I’m pretty sure that you’re blessed if you were born not only to parents who are non-religious, but if you were born to white parents in the West who subscribe to either a liberal or libertarian philosophy- so that’s basically non-religious white people in the West. And it’s perceptible. Most white gay people I’ve met in my life who don’t have relatively religious families still have good relationships with their parents. Most gay people I’ve met in the West who come from an ethnic minority don’t have good relationships with their parents. So my theory isn’t baseless here.

The only way I can perceive that being forced to subscribe to the tenets of a religion is a blessing, is when you’re born straight in a particularly religious part of the world, let’s say Utah in the States, or Saudi Arabia, and the community you’re born in has little exposure to the rest of the world. That’s the only scenario I can think of where it might be considered a blessing to be born into a religion.

Now I’m not naïve enough to believe that there’s no benefits to subscribing to a religion. That’s why I don’t fundamentally reject religion. I believe there’s a lot of wisdom that can be found in religion and the rules are supposed to prevent you from falling into a lifestyle that’s redolent of how our cultures across the world perceive hell. That’s what interests me about religion.

So this is what I believe to be the benefits of being born into a religion…

If you’re born into a religion, and I’m thinking of the Abrahamic religions here just for simplicity, you’re likely born into a community. So that means you have more than just your parents raising you, and everyone around you lives by the same principles.

That means you’re probably better financially supported, provided you follow the norms and principles the community lives by. The fewer norms and customs your community lives by, the better, and the more norms and customs your community lives by, the worse. That being said, the bigger your community is, the better, and the smaller your community is, the worse.

You’re also brought up to believe that there is something more important than you. It’s both the concept and fear of God, and simultaneously, the ethereal presence of whatever brought the community you depend on together. And there’s nothing easy about consolidating a doctrine for several generations to live by- so this is definitely a benefit. 

Understanding that there is something more important than you circumvents narcissism. You’re taught to forego your impulsive desires and sacrifice in order to bring about something more meaningful or valuable at a later date that your immature mind is incapable of articulating. This is wisdom.

And the idea that you prioritise things that keep the community alive- which tends to be observing religious practices- staves off narcissism, impulsivity, and promotes the understanding that serving the community is both more meaningful and valuable, than chasing individual impetuous desires.

So that means you’re likely to have more of your community present during life milestones like graduation, marriage, important birthdays- I was gonna say funerals but you wouldn’t be around to see who shows up- but I think you get what I mean. I mean, even if you’re dead, it would be nice to know you would get a good turn out if you ever did kick the bucket.

So these are what I deem to be the benefits of being part of a religion. And the benefits are often only observable over a lifetime or over a generation or two.

Now I’ve already mentioned some of the drawbacks of being born into a religion which I believe to be obvious to most people anyway. Being born gay and being born into religion isn’t obviously a benefit, wanting to be able to choose what religion you follow, or if you follow a religion at all obviously isn’t a benefit if you’re born into a religious family, oftentimes being born a woman and being born into a religious family isn’t a benefit as women tend to be oppressed in religious communities, and obviously if you view freedom of thought and expression to be paramount to individual liberty, being born into a religious family is a huge drawback.

Now not being born into religion, or being born into a community that isn’t predicated on religious traditions, has the obvious benefit of the freedom that comes with the lifestyle you’re afforded. And I don’t think there’s anything interesting about going through the benefits of this circumstance.

What I think is more interesting is going through the shortcomings that not being born into religion can bring about.

So I mentioned before ‘narcissism’. When you’re born without the belief that there’s a higher being, you’re vulnerable to a narcissistic perspective of the world. It places you at the centre and assumes everyone else’s existence is to serve your impulsive desires. And it is a philosophy that people subscribe to, either wilfully or accidentally, and I do think that people who are not born into religion are vulnerable to this.

Now I’ve seen this trait in both religious and non-religious people. So it’s definitely not limited to atheists. But what I know for sure, is that all three Abrahamic religions share the commonality that God is supposed to be placed higher than you on an existential and spiritual level. If I were to use the behaviour of everyone I’ve met who identifies as a religious person as representative of the fundamental teachings of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, I wouldn’t even think religions existed anymore.

Thank God- pun intended- that religious scripture exists so we can work out what the principal tenets of each faith is ourselves.

I find non-religious people to be a lot more vulnerable to a narcissistic perception of the world than religious people simply due to religions teachings. If someone claims to be religious and is objectively narcissistic, they’re doing a terrible job of following the teachings of their religion and I don’t think it’s fair to use them as a reason to shun religion completely. 

To help you distinguish between the two types of religious people I mean, picture a religious person who voluntarily prays, even when they’re not obliged to, to the religious person who only prays when they think they have to. The former is impervious to a narcissistic perception of the world, and the latter is still vulnerable to narcissism.

This narcissistic perception of the world tends to only show up when things get tough, and I think it explains the mental health epidemic we have here in the West. When things don’t go well for you individually, it’s easy to lose faith. When there is a purpose that transcends your desires and expectations from life, it’s easy to retain faith, as you’ll probably perceive your misfortune as a diversion from the path you’re on, not the end.

It's also impossible to build a community around a narcissistic perception of the world. The only way you can do this is through tyranny. Picture Kim Jong Un. North Koreans exist only to serve the whims of this fat Asian cunt. So the community ceases to operate as a community the moment he dies- and I hope that’s sooner rather than later.

But back to my point, it’s almost impossible to have faith with a narcissistic perception of the world. And as humans, we need faith due to our average life span, and the fact that our brains aren’t big enough- or intelligent enough to articulate the far future. So we need faith as human beings. In other words, we need the ability to believe in something greater than us- which could be defined as God, or defined as something else, to be able to believe in the future- since we’re incapable of articulating it. So therefore, what we believe, is what we think we’re serving to be the embodiment of a future we’re incapable of articulating. That’s why we define religion as faith. Faith is not what we can articulate, it’s what we’re incapable of articulating. 

Now is it possible to have faith without religion? Yes, I think so. But I would argue that it’s harder to have faith without religion. Why? Because remember, a narcissist truly believes they have the answers to all the problems that life brings about. So when they’re inevitably faced with an intractable problem, they capitulate.

If someone believes that there is something greater on the other side of their mental, spiritual or philosophical struggle they’re unable to yet articulate, they’re more likely to rally on, persevere and surmount the struggle they’ve been subjected to. Plus, they’re used to serving things other than themselves without understanding why. It will only be in hindsight that they’re able to articulate the meaning of their struggle- and it probably would be for something meaningful, rather than related to an impulse on behalf of the individual. And perhaps it may be years or perhaps decades until they’re able to articulate it.

I hope you’re following me on this one because I feel like I’m getting somewhere with this…

To clarify, my claim is that we need to ascertain how dogmatically we follow religions before we start losing the wisdom that comes alongside truly believing in a higher being. What that higher being is, is not knowable- so religious people attribute it to God- or faith.

We need faith to help us take stock of our lives holistically and to accept that no individual human being- not matter how successful they are- is capable of articulating the future, or articulating what is truly meaningful.

Not having faith leaves you vulnerable to narcissism. A belief system that makes you think that you’re the centre of the world, and that you exclusively have the solutions to all the existential problems that life throws at you.

The mental health epidemic is an existential problem. The decision to take your own life due to a warped perspective- because that’s what it is- warped- notwithstanding how relatively fortunate you are to be born in this generation, is a decision made due to the failure of being able to articulate the future.

Think about it, how many people have committed suicide who you know wouldn’t have done it if they decided to wait a bit longer? It’s an existential crisis.

If they had faith that things would get better, they would still be alive.

So I say all this to say that there is value in religion. Whether you now believe religion to be separate from faith is for you to decide.

But what I’m sure of, is that the ‘faith’ element is not to be dispensed with.

Our advancement in science is obviously unprecedented, and it makes many of us critical thinkers keen to attempt to articulate everything around us. But there’s a reason religion has been around for potentially a hundred thousand years. We need faith to be human.

So you think that we’re the 0.1% who have just figured out the optimal way to exist as a human beings with the erosion of religion in the last 50 years or so? Don’t be so narcissistic.

Thanks for listening.

Peace out.