{"id":151178,"date":"2012-11-05T22:13:51","date_gmt":"2012-11-05T20:13:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/espirited.com\/the-different-levels-of-mental-health-and-religion\/"},"modified":"2026-02-05T10:19:02","modified_gmt":"2026-02-05T08:19:02","slug":"the-different-levels-of-mental-health-and-religion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/espirited.com\/en\/the-different-levels-of-mental-health-and-religion\/","title":{"rendered":"Different Levels of Mental Health and Religion"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cReligious ideas are undoubtedly subject to the same interpretation through the different levels of mental health as other values or \u2018myths\u2019\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

In fact, all the great world religions seem to be constructed in a brilliant way, as if they were designed to serve people at every level of mental health, in accordance with their capacity to understand them.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2013Robin Skynner, Life and How to Survive It,<\/a> p. 278<\/em><\/p>\n

I feel more at ease entering the deep waters of the soul and the care of the soul when I stand on the solid ground of psychotherapy and its criteria for mental health<\/a> \u2014 such as inner wholeness and integrity, withdrawal of projections and critical thinking, healthy ego boundaries and a sense of responsibility, authenticity, and care for the Whole<\/strong>. Such criteria offer clear reference points for recognizing spiritual theories that reflect low levels of mental health.<\/p>\n

Without doubt, Jung\u2019s analytical psychology has helped me most to orient myself within the complexity of the deeper layers of the human psyche \u2014 the collective unconscious, which is the source of myth-making, including religious myths. The most practical guidance for me in this regard, however, has come from systemic psychotherapy, and more specifically from the book by systemic therapist Robin Skynner, Life and How to Survive It<\/em>, written in collaboration with the well-known English comedian John Cleese. The purpose of this article is to share the main ideas of this book, in the hope that they will be just as helpful to others who, like me, need clear reference points in order to navigate the great diversity of spiritual theories.<\/p>\n

God as an External Authority and Black-and-White Thinking<\/h2>\n

\u201cThere is a passenger for every train,\u201d and this also applies to religious views: people at different levels of mental health are drawn to different religious doctrines. If we continue with the scale of mental health and religion presented in the same book:<\/p>\n

People at the lowest level \u201cunderstand religion as a set of rules, rewards and punishments, threats and promises, all controlled by a powerful and frightening God\u201d (p. 279).<\/p>\n

Similar to black-and-white thinking in children, the thinking of these people is frozen at this low level. While this is normal in small children, in adults it is a sign of low mental health.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cFor them, God is a frightening and authoritarian dictator with a bad temper, who wants everyone constantly to admire him and tell him how wonderful he is\u2026 (or, if he is perceived positively) he is still something like the headmaster of a cosmic school dispensing rewards, handing out halos and entry passes to heaven to those who have learned their lessons and haven\u2019t been caught smoking behind the bicycle shed\u201d (p. 280).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

With their characteristic humorous style, the authors of the book also describe the middle level of religious consciousness:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cAt this level, we no longer fall into extremes; our views are much more balanced, and we see God as far more benevolent and compassionate. Nevertheless, we still perceive religion as a set of rules. For people in the middle range of the scale, religion is more like a container that allows us to get through our days with a minimum of confusion and anxiety\u201d (p. 281).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For this group, faith in dogma is central, and God is the commonly accepted authority who establishes the rules and judges how well people follow them. He resembles a strict and reserved, yet loving parent. In the upper part of the middle range, God becomes even more loving and responsive to the human being, yet his basic characteristic remains the same \u2014 an anthropomorphic figure symbolizing the spiritual essence of everything we value, with whom we can communicate intimately, like with a friend and guide who is available whenever we seek contact.<\/p>\n

At the highest level of the scale,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cthose who are truly mentally healthy understand religious myths not as rules and laws, but rather as information \u2014 as a kind of guidance that helps them understand spirituality and growth. In this sense, religious teachings make people perceptive about what they need to do in order to develop, their primary purpose being to help them feel more deeply connected to everything around them\u201d (p. 282).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here it is about connectedness with the Universe, and since myths are understood as information rather than commands, people feel free to experiment and explore, in order to gain knowledge through experience in applying these ideas.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe emphasis is placed on discovery and receptivity rather than unquestioning obedience\u2026 At this level, God is perceived not exactly as a person, but rather as a feeling \u2014 as a direct awareness that the universe has order and meaning\u201d (p. 283).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The authors of this remarkable book are the systemic therapist Robin Skynner and his former client, the well-known English actor John Cleese, creator of the film Life of Brian<\/em>. In this outstanding film, with its wonderful sense of humour, the creators poke fun at blind belief in religious dogma. If you have seen the film, you probably remember the memorable scene in which Brian tells the pursuing crowd to stop worshipping him because \u201cWe are all individuals.\u201d To this call, the crowd responds by chanting: \u201cWe are all individuals!\u201d<\/p>\n

The film provoked a great deal of furious criticism from various religious groups, which John Cleese commented on as follows: \u201cBut our critics seemed quite unable to distinguish between the idea of the unique value of Christ\u2019s teaching and the idea that some people misinterpret that teaching.\u201d Robin Skynner adds that \u201cfor people at lower levels of mental health it is not possible to accept that there may be other valid interpretations.\u201d John Cleese then summarizes the core message of the film:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cI can now explain our position by saying this: we can be followers of Christ in different ways, corresponding to different levels of mental health\u201d (p. 284).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is a statement by someone with a high level of mental health, who views religious myths not as commandments, threats, and orders, but as information, guidance, and indications for how to walk one\u2019s own path toward God within oneself. It is therefore no coincidence that his film Life of Brian<\/em> embodies one of the healthiest psychological defense mechanisms: a sense of humour<\/strong>. Robin Skynner\u2019s comment on the film echoes what he has said about relationships between people at different levels of mental health \u2014 individuals with lower levels of mental health would feel deeply threatened and therefore react with fierce rejection to such a statement.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c\u2026but for your critics to agree with your point of view would mean acknowledging their own low level of mental health. And, as I have already pointed out, the unhealthy way of dealing with such painful truths is to become defensive and to react aggressively\u201d (p. 285).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In summary, people at different levels of mental health relate differently to religious \u201ctheory\u201d \u2014 (1) from the lowest level of \u201cchildlike faith,\u201d (2) through the middle level of \u201creligious dogma,\u201d to (3) the highest level, which understands religion as myth \u2014 offering information and guidance for spiritual development and for attaining a personal, direct experience of the transcendent.<\/p>\n

At the lowest levels of religious self-awareness, no personal interpretation is allowed, because sacred texts are perceived as the direct Word of God. In the middle range, a more personal relationship with God becomes possible; He becomes less frightening and more human-like, allowing for more immediate communication. At the highest levels of mental health, the believer no longer relates to God as a person, but as the inner essence of all living things, including oneself. God is both the feeling of connectedness with everything else and the personal experience of this connectedness, in which the human being is part of a higher order and meaning.<\/p>\n

Religious Practices \u2013 Between the Magical and the Esoteric<\/h2>\n

With regard to religious practices, there are also many differences. At the lowest level of religious self-awareness, religion is perceived as something magical and \u201cas a means of fulfilling desires without acknowledging scientific laws and causal relationships\u201d (p. 286).<\/p>\n

Here again we are dealing with characteristics of childlike thinking, but this time not with the black-and-white thinking of the small child, but with magical thinking<\/strong>, which is characterized by the belief that if you desire something strongly enough, it will happen.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWhen a person reasons in this way, it seems that the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the wish depends solely on how strongly he believes in the procedure\u201d (p. 286).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What is interesting in this case is that desires are highly intimate, and usually little consideration is given to what effect they might have on other people if God were to fulfill them. John Cleese recounts how his father used to tell that during the Second World War a National Day of Prayer was declared, but by coincidence England suffered a major defeat on that very day, and no second day of prayer ever followed. A person with a low level of mental health would interpret this as a result of the English not having prayed strongly enough, since at this magical level of religious practice it is characteristic to believe that one must believe very strongly in order to trigger a miracle and make God respond to prayer.<\/p>\n

Another characteristic of people at this level is the practice of the remission of sins<\/strong>, that is, prayer which in the same magical way is believed to lead to forgiveness without the need for atonement: \u201ca prayer for all the bad things we have done during the day to be forgiven, so that we can start afresh\u2026\u201d (p. 286).<\/p>\n

People who are in the middle range of the mental health scale continue to retain elements of this magical way of thinking, but now add to it the understanding that their wishes are in fact fulfilled mainly through their own efforts. These people believe in hard work and planning, and their relationship with God appears primarily in moments of crisis and severe trials, when they turn to Him in prayer to help them free themselves from these difficulties.<\/p>\n

At the highest levels of mental health, people no longer ask God to help them get rid of pain and trials; instead, they try to understand what these experiences mean for them from the perspective of their spiritual development and their service to the Whole. This is because the central practice of people at this level of mental health is understanding<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cUltimately, people at the very top of the scale, where there is a truly scientific approach, always strive to understand \u2014 in the sense that they see themselves as part of something much larger, infinitely more significant than the individual person\u201d (p. 286).<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is precisely understanding that helps these people shift their efforts from asking God to help them achieve their wishes toward trying to understand what God\u2019s wishes are, so that they may serve Him. And the key to understanding is this: these people study religious teachings and perceive them not as commandments, but as psychological information\u201d (p. 288).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In addition to the striving for understanding, another important aspect at the upper end of the scale is the attitude that knowing God is not achieved only intellectually, through interpretation and understanding of religious myths, but also directly \u2014 as a personal experience of knowledge, in which doubt falls away. Such an experience from the transpersonal layers of the human psyche is, as a rule, an experience of interconnection and interaction with the entire cosmic system \u2014 the feeling that the Universe is a gigantic system of support. Robin Skynner, who has had and continues to have such experiences, clarifies that:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThis is a powerful sense of the way in which all things are interconnected, which cannot be put into words, because one does not actually see anything new, but simply realizes that there is a deeper meaning in what one has always been seeing\u201d (p. 301).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In this sense, at the highest level of mental health, spiritual practices are the practices of esotericism<\/strong> and of the mystical branches of the great religious traditions, which create the conditions for a direct knowing of the divine reality that is unknowable at the level of the rational mind.<\/p>\n

Literal vs. Symbolic Thinking<\/h2>\n

One of the criteria for a low level of mental health in the sphere of religious beliefs is the literal interpretation of the words in sacred texts<\/strong>. Alongside black-and-white perception and magical thinking, characteristic of childlike cognition, this is another feature of this type of mindset \u2013 such people take words literally. If the Bible says that the serpent had legs and that it is possible for a human being to become covered with hair and turn into an animal within a few years, then even today, in some existing Christian sects, devout believers still believe exactly this. At the lowest levels of mental health, no dissent, personal interpretation, or disagreement with Authority is permitted \u2013 and this applies both to families with low levels of mental health and to religious communities.<\/p>\n

It is precisely the prohibition of free interpretation and critique of sacred texts<\/strong>, as well as the coercion to strictly observe prescriptions, that lies at the core of religious fundamentalism. Knowing how many tragedies this militant conservative movement has brought upon people, I used to relate to it with undisguised criticism and condemnation. I knew that fundamentalism thrives most in places of extreme poverty or despair, places where it is frightening even to imagine the living conditions. Yet it was only what I read in Robin Skynner\u2019s book that made me realize the inadequacy of my own insufficiently understanding attitude, namely that \u201cin situations of extreme moral disintegration or deprivation\u2026 only an extremely harsh corrective can to some extent restore order\u201d (p. 296).<\/p>\n

For those who are already familiar with Morgan Scott Peck\u2019s ideas about the \u201cFour Stages of Consciousness,<\/a>\u201d<\/strong> it is easy to recognize the same idea here, although expressed in different terms. According to Peck, religious consciousness as the second stage of consciousness (i.e., based on rigid rules, rituals, and prescriptions) represents an evolutionary advance compared to the first stage, which is characterized by antisocial behavior, chaos, and the absence of any order or rules. For this type of people, the most appropriate moral prescriptions are the Ten Commandments, such as \u201cDo not steal,\u201d \u201cDo not kill,\u201d and \u201cDo not commit adultery.\u201d For a person at the third stage of consciousness, these lose their significance because they have already been internalized (become part of their inner nature and ethical code), while for a person at the fourth stage they appear childishly na\u00efve and too narrow to encompass the complexity of interaction with the Whole.<\/p>\n

If a person has not yet learned in a natural, inner way to respect other people and not harm them, the most suitable form of religion for them is one with clear prescriptions, rigid rules, and fear of punishment by a higher power. For such a person, viewing religious myths as psychological information for a deeper understanding of their own inner mechanisms would not only be inappropriate, but could cause more harm than benefit.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe point is that every person interprets the dominant myth or the dominant religion in a way that suits them; they manifest the best understanding of which they are capable\u201d (p. 297).<\/p>\n

If we add to the above the understanding that people with low levels of mental health come from families in which great insecurity prevails due to the lack of clear boundaries, it becomes clear that precisely unquestionable religious structures and beliefs<\/strong> can give them the much-needed support to cope with the complexity and uncertainty of the external world. Similar to small children who are highly dependent on their parents and internally insecure because they cannot rely on themselves, these people do not yet have the resources to cope with the freedom that comes with religious beliefs that allow doubt and reliance on an inner, rather than an outer, authority.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt levels of higher mental health, people are mature enough to tolerate uncertainty, to think for themselves, and to take greater responsibility for their lives, and therefore they also approach religious ideas in this way. But those who cannot calmly bear great uncertainty interpret information as commandments requiring obedience from them, because they function better and feel happier when someone tells them what to do. Like children who need clear instructions and firm boundaries because they feel that within those boundaries their emotions are safe. Such people are predisposed to understand myths as something that helps them not give free rein to their emotions. Of course, if they later change toward a higher level of mental health, their interpretations will change accordingly\u201d (p. 298).<\/em><\/p>\n

For me, what is shared above is not merely an interesting theory, but real experience from encounters with real people whom my practice as a psychotherapist has brought me into contact with, and whose human destinies have touched me deeply. Only viewing mental health as a continuum<\/strong> and as a variable that changes over time has given me the perspective through which to understand the essence of the processes my clients were going through. I feel gratitude for what meeting them has given me, and deep respect for their destinies, because the moral conflicts they went through, when refusing unconditional obedience to external spiritual authorities, are profoundly moving.<\/p>\n

At their core, these conflicts were nothing other than their inner battles over how to understand what is good, so that they might stand on its side. They were told that any dissent and any reading of books that are not Christian is temptation from the devil. Therefore, allowing themselves to doubt and to hold opinions different from those of the priests was equivalent, for them, to giving themselves over to the devil, whom they had already been warned operates precisely in this way. I can imagine their inner heroism when, despite all their fears that the doubts arising in them might indeed come from the devil, they nevertheless allowed themselves \u201cto give in to him,\u201d by permitting themselves to have their own opinion, different from what they had been taught.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Good, Evil, and Psychological Projections<\/h2>\n

Differences in the understanding of religion are also expressed in the different ways in which the concept of good is interpreted by people with different levels of mental health. And \u201cthe good\u201d is different for different people<\/strong>, depending on how they view \u201cthe bad.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the lowest levels of mental health, people have no moral restraints in persecuting and seeking to punish those whom they have designated as bearers of \u201cevil.\u201d This can even give them pleasure. In the middle range of the scale, people no longer persecute those labeled as evil with such ferocity; instead, their reactions range from hatred, suspicion, and resentment to moral disapproval and a desire to \u201csave\u201d those who are different from themselves.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cFurther along, at the upper end of the middle range, people are entirely kind and compassionate, try to become aware of their own mistakes and struggle with them, and therefore are able to sincerely forgive the mistakes of others\u201d (p. 289).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It becomes clear that people situated at different parts of the mental-health scale apply different interpretations to the concept of good, depending on the degree to which they have mastered their projections. At the lowest levels, evil is entirely outside the person and is pursued with the conviction that it has nothing to do with the persecutor. In the middle levels, evil is deeply repressed and hidden \u201cbehind a screen\u201d of negative feelings, so that not only other people, but even the person themself cannot discover it \u2013 in other words, \u201cone struggles to experience the feeling of being \u2018good\u2019\u201d (p. 289). At the highest levels, a person does not struggle to be good \u2013 they simply are. In this case, this means that the person has become capable of experiencing their own inner ambivalence without projecting it onto others. As the authors of the book note, the psychological concept of projection is actually quite old. It can be found in Christ\u2019s well-known words: \u201cWhy do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother\u2019s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?\u201d<\/p>\n

Therefore, the main criterion for the highest level of mental health in this context is integrity<\/strong>. As Robin Skynner says, \u201cin my view, the main aim of all the great spiritual traditions is to help us become more whole \u2013 both inwardly and in the society in which we live.\u201d He adds:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cDo not forget that one of the names of the devil is \u2018diabolos,\u2019 which means \u2018the divider,\u2019 \u2018the one who tears apart.\u2019 Integration brings enlightenment and understanding. Disintegration \u2013 darkness and meaninglessness\u2026 put differently, once you see the evil in yourself as evil, it becomes difficult to sustain it. Acknowledging it is the first step toward its healing, because then it becomes connected with other feelings that oppose it and want to change it\u201d (pp. 317\u2013318).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In summary, different levels of mental health determine different reactions to the idea of good and evil \u2013 one of the central themes of religion. At the lowest levels of mental health, evil is something entirely external to the person, and they strive with all their might not only to protect themselves from it, but also to fiercely persecute those they perceive as its bearers. At the middle levels, evil is still something one tries to guard against and remain pure from, but there is already greater understanding and compassion toward sinners. Only at the highest levels of mental health is a person able to move beyond the eternal conflict between good and evil and to see them as two sides of the same wholeness. They have not only withdrawn their projections of evil from the external world, but have finally become capable of finding a resolution to the eternal battle between the forces of Light and Darkness within themselves.<\/p>\n

The knowledge that we live in a world inhabited by people with different levels of mental health makes more understandable the need for different religious beliefs for different people. Such understanding leads to greater tolerance toward those who think differently, but to no lesser degree it also reveals the urgent need for us, as human beings as a whole, to move toward higher levels of spiritual intelligence and mental health.<\/p>\n

Kameliya Hadzhiyska<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Note: The quotations are translated from Bulgarian and are not presented as verbatim citations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cReligious ideas are undoubtedly subject to the same interpretation through the different levels of mental health as other values or \u2018myths\u2019\u2026 In fact, all the great world religions seem to be constructed in a brilliant way, as if they were designed to serve people at every level of mental health, in accordance with their capacity […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":149568,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[646],"tags":[661,721,720],"class_list":["post-151178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-spiritual-intelligence","tag-mental-health","tag-mental-health-scale","tag-selected-articles"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t