Christian is a Philosopher that comes from Belgium. What identifies him the most and above all is simplicity, for everything is better with “vanilla flavour.” Perhaps, for this reason, his intellectual passion is criticism and irony, in the sense of trying to reveal what “hides behind the mask,” and give birth to the true. For him, ignorance and knowledge never “cross paths.” What he likes the most in his leisure time, is to go for a walk with his wife.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the responsibility of intellectuals?

Christian Sorensen: “None.” That question presupposess that “intellectuals” should have a “greater responsibility degree” or a “particular type” of it in relation to “non-intellectuals,” which in turn implies to believe that “intelligence’s degree” would determine “act’s moral assessment” and therefore the fact of accepting “intellectual’s superiority,” since if “moral non-imputability” and therefore its “responsibility absence or decrease” are determined by “diminished intelligence,” then the aforementioned, is equivalent to express that this “determination,” is given by “reason’s absence,” and in consequence this last would imply to “be almost a beast” or straightly said “to be a beast.”

Jacobsen: How do public intellectuals fail and succeed at this?

Sorensen: “Public intellectuals,” fail insofar as they “self-argue” with “dead superiority,” utilizing for “discriminatory purposes,” contributions that somehow generally are “self-centered,” and by losing any kind of sight regarding “equality sense,” in relation to what should be an “expected awareness” of “fundamental rights.” As a counterpart if “intelligentsia,” provides them with a “differential factor,” which in itself is neither “better nor worse,” but that nevertheless, if it is assumed as a “social duty role” that should visualize a “synergistic achievement” towards what for me is an “enthalpic social integration,” and then if the last becomes a tangible outcome, it can “be inferred,” that “public intellectuals” as such, have been successful in “their task.”

Jacobsen: What public intellectuals and intellectuals impress you?

Sorensen: Stephen Hawking, Albert Camus, and Luc Montagnier.

Jacobsen: Why do they impress you?

Sorensen: “S. Hawking” for not having contributed with anything, “A. Camus” because he learned all morality playing soccer, and “L. Montagnier” for considering that the COVID-19 virus has genetic traces of HIV virus.

Jacobsen: How does a better life decrease god belief?

Sorensen: Because when there “is a need,” god “is resorted,” since “it feels” that it “is not possible” to be satisfied naturally, and due to the fact that “for asking,” god first has “to be believed,” due to the reason that it “is not possible” to ask something of someone, who “does not exist,” and because god “is not going” to grant something to anyone who “does not believes,” nor “venerates” and “does not makes” any merit, so when “a better life” arrives, needs “are fewer” and therefore as it is necessary “to ask for less,” and to “not deserve,” then “god’s belief” doesn’t make much sense anymore.

Jacobsen: Will Africa extricate itself from its bondage of superstition and colonial history? If so, how? If not, why not?

Sorensen: It depends because “Africa” has always found itself in a “systemic vicious circle” that I will denominate as “helplessness-misery’s positive feedback” between “misery and colonialism” on the one hand, and “superstition” on the other, where the first two  have “historically determined” the latter, at the same time that while the formers “further intensify,” then the last one on its part, gets “even stronger.” Therefore it would be possible “to get out” of “this circularity,” as long as this Continent manages to go from “being a closed” to “being an open system,” necessarily through the intervention of what for me an “external non-iatrogenic” agent, that allows to modify “independent variables” and in consequence its “deterministic chains,” in order to finally “make permeable” the access to “dependent variables,” by in this case “replacing it,” with what I will name as a “non-entropic ecosystemic” outcome within “Africa.”

Jacobsen: What makes a virtuous person? What makes a non-virtuous person?

Sorensen: A “virtuous person,” is one who is able to maintain the “right homeostatic balance between two extremes,” while a “non-virtuous” one is the one who actually “does not have good and evil notions” sufficiently well “introjected,” and besides is unable to recognize any “dynamic dimension and balance” between “two polarities.”

Jacobsen: What are the trends active in less developed parts of the world, e.g., Africa, that public intellectuals should focus more on?

Sorensen: If I could summarize it in one sentence, I would say that it is the fact of recognizing, that places such as “Africa,” are “the backyard” and “the garbage dump” of the rest of the world.

Jacobsen: Will Africa decrease in its overwhelming religiosity over time if so?

Sorensen: I am sure of this, since that “overwhelming religiosity” is somehow closely linked to a “need and meaning,” that I will denominate as “over-compensatory sense,” which in turn fulfills “a function” as “defence mechanism” because if this is simply “removed,” they will remain “completely defenceless,” in other words analogously speaking, is what occurs with “phobic dynamic,” since if “phobic object” is abruptly withdrawn, that is to say if this is done with what produces an “irrational fear,” then a huge “anguish and anxiety” wave will be triggered until “surpassing” completely them.

Jacobsen: What are the virtues in behaviour and thought required for African societies? How will good governance assist in guiding and inculcating such virtues?

Sorensen: If I could summarize in one word what are “the virtues” in behaviours and thoughts that “African societies” require, I would say…”Resilience.” Before “governments” assist societies, by guiding and inculcating “these virtues” on them, it is first of all necessary, to “reach good” ones, and due to this purpose,  “democracy” values must ​​be put in advance, which in turn leads to require within these societies “quality and accessible education” as “pre-position” for everyone, that in consequence lastly “will promote” this sort of “virtues,” since if both “citizens and the political class” are pushed to, in my opinion towards what should be an “intersection central point,” then an “encounter” between them might be reached, and therefore by the fact “of sharing” a “meaningful universe,” development is going to be driven “in behalf” of “desirables virtues.”

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Christian, as usual.

Sorensen: Thanks to you.

Image Credit: Christian Sorensen.

Sam Vaknin is Visiting Professor of Psychology, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia and Professor of Finance and Psychology in SIAS-CIAPS (Centre for International Advanced and Professional Studies), as well as a writer and the author of Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited. Christian Sorensen is an independent philosopher from Belgium. Both have scored profoundly high on the most reliable general intelligence tests, i.e., mainstream tests. In both cases, they have devoted themselves to wide-ranging and deep foci of study throughout life. Vaknin on narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Sorensen on philosophy, metaphysics, and ethics. Here they talk about the central focus for Vaknin, narcissism.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Within the DSM-V, of those criteria for formal diagnosis of an individual with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), what ones seem the most reliable, valid, and powerful as predictors of NPD to each of you?

Sam Vaknin: The DSM V is a vast improvement over the DSM IV-TR in that it includes an alternate model with criteria which are dimensional, not categorical; dynamic, not static; and descriptive rather than taxonomic (concerned with lists of symptoms).

The DSM V re-defines personality disorders thus:

“The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits.”

According to the Alternative DSM V Model for Personality Disorders (p.767), the following criteria must be met to diagnose Narcissistic Personality Disorder (in parentheses my comments):

Moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning in either identity, or self-direction (should be: in both.)

Identity

The narcissist keeps referring to others excessively in order to regulate his self-esteem (really, sense of self-worth) and for “self-definition” (to define his identity.) His self-appraisal is exaggerated, whether it is inflated, deflated, or fluctuating between these two poles and his emotional regulation reflects these vacillations.

(Finally, the DSM V accepted what I have been saying for decades: that narcissists can have an “inferiority complex” and feel worthless and bad; that they go through cycles of ups and downs in their self-evaluation; and that this cycling influences their mood and affect).

Self-direction

The narcissist sets goals in order to gain approval from others (narcissistic supply; the DSM V ignores the fact that the narcissist finds disapproval equally rewarding as long as it places him firmly in the limelight.) The narcissist lacks self-awareness as far as his motivation goes (and as far as everything else besides.)

The narcissist’s personal standards and benchmarks are either too high (which supports his grandiosity), or too low (buttresses his sense of entitlement, which is incommensurate with his real-life performance.)

Impairments in interpersonal functioning in either empathy or intimacy (should be: in both.)

Empathy

The narcissist finds it difficult to identify with the emotions and needs of others, but is very attuned to their reactions when they are relevant to himself (cold empathy.) Consequently, he overestimates the effect he has on others or underestimates it (the classic narcissist never underestimates the effect he has on others – but the inverted narcissist does.)

Intimacy

The narcissist’s relationships are self-serving and, therefore shallow and superficial. They are centred around and geared at the regulation of his self-esteem (obtaining narcissistic supply for the regulation of his labile sense of self-worth.)

The narcissist is not “genuinely” interested in his intimate partner’s experiences (implying that he does fake such interest convincingly.) The narcissist emphasizes his need for personal gain (by using the word “need”, the DSM V acknowledges the compulsive and addictive nature of narcissistic supply). These twin fixtures of the narcissist’s relationships render them one-sided: no mutuality or reciprocity (no intimacy).

Pathological personality traits

Antagonism characterized by grandiosity and attention-seeking

Grandiosity

The aforementioned feeling of entitlement. The DSM V adds that it can be either overt or covert (which corresponds to my taxonomy of classic and inverted narcissist.)

Grandiosity is characterized by self-centredness; a firmly-held conviction of superiority (arrogance or haughtiness); and condescending or patronizing attitudes.

Attention-seeking

The narcissist puts inordinate effort, time, and resources into attracting others (sources of narcissistic supply) and placing himself at the focus and centre of attention. He seeks admiration (the DSM V gets it completely wrong here: the narcissist does prefer to be admired and adulated, but, failing that, any kind of attention would do, even if it is negative.)

The diagnostic criteria end with disclaimers and differential diagnoses, which reflect years of accumulated research and newly-gained knowledge:

The above enumerated impairments should be “stable across time and consistent across situations … not better understood as normative for the individual’s developmental stage or socio-cultural environment … are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).”

Christian Sorensen: I will do so briefly, and in relation to Sam’s expansive responses, its expertise on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, its labor for helping people who are victims of individuals with this disorder, or individuals who suffer from it, and regarding to part of the responses provided by me on this interview. For doing so, I am going to based my explanation on psychodynamically and psychoanalytically oriented psychiatry, and on Otto Kernberg’s contributions that respectively from a historical and etymological point of view, have developed the concepts of personality disorder, and narcissistic and narcissistic malignant personality disorders. 

If Sam, has a confirmed diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and this type of disorder is in turn associated with primitive defense mechanisms, and a low personality structure… Then from a clinical and logical perspective, and following a formal reasoning, he would not be able not even ethically, to offer any kind of guidance or therapeutic aid, nor could he claims to possess an expertise in relation to this topic. This last, since its theorizations, excepting those that may be bibliographically referred to other authors, are strictly and synthetically speaking invalids.

The predominant defense mechanism of this type of personality disorders is projective identification, which from a clinical sight, needs to be detected and analyzed, through countertransference by the therapist and therapeutic assistant, in order to offer an effective aid in this context, and in other words to avoid any counterproductive or harmful outcomes. At the same time, to achieve this objective, the person who offers or pretends to offer such help, needs imperatively to possess advanced defense mechanisms, and therefore, a high structure of personality. With respect to Sam’s supposed expertise to refer theoretically on such a subject, it is essential to have a sufficient capacity of insight, in order to be able to actually arrive at meaningful conceptual deductions, and to original contributions, which in consequence could be considered as logically valid, nevertheless individuals diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, due to their secondary narcissism, lack such skill, and for that reason can hardly be denominated as, or invested with any theoretical authority to speak on this matter.

On to the main question, it is the feelings of greatness and superiority, lack of empathy and exploitation of interpersonal relationships.

Jacobsen: There’s a whole mythology built into the idea of narcissism, NPD, etc. One idea is the story of Narcissus. What are some of the mythologies in history and in folk psychology related to or building towards the idea of a more formal psychological diagnosis of NPD or the observation, at least, of someone appearing on the narcissism spectrum?

Sorensen: From the historical point of view, there are some less recent examples such as Hitler, although there was a cocktail of other pathologies within him, and historically current could be Donald Trump, Kim Jong Un and Nicolas Maduro.  From a popular perspective, in my opinion, it is very well represented in movies like “The Silence of the Lambs”.

Jacobsen: In correspondence, Christian, you noted three fundamental axes of identity self-concept, defense mechanisms, and type of object relationship. Christian, can you elaborate on these three axes, please? Sam, can you reflect on these proposed axes from within the professional literature and as a leading expert on NPD?

Vaknin: Pathological narcissism is a reaction to prolonged abuse and trauma in early childhood or early adolescence. The source of the abuse or trauma is immaterial – the perpetrators could be parents, teachers, other adults, or peers. Pampering, smothering, spoiling, and “engulfing” the child are also forms of abuse.

Pathological narcissism has been conceptualized successively as an infantile defense mechanism and a disturbance in object relations. Later, it metamorphosed into a personality disorder. I regard it as a post-traumatic condition coupled with arrested development (puer aeternus, Peter pan). Inevitably, such early childhood traumas render attachment in later adult life very dysfunctional, of course. It also gives rise to cognitive deficits such as grandiosity and to the overuse of defense mechanisms such as fantasy. But these are secondary features and not universal.

Sorensen: It is important to point out that these three axes, are given from a perspective of what means psychic structure. In relation to the self-concept, it refers to a phenomenon that I will denominate as diffusion of identity, that’s caused by difficulties in maintaining an objectal constancy. Regarding defense mechanisms, it is relevant since there is a preponderant presence of what is called projective identification. Concerning object relation, alludes to the fact that bonding relationships that should be significant are not really, because they lack of deep and stable feelings, are viewed for utilitarian and profitable purposes, and are constantly loaded with feelings of idealization and devaluation.

Jacobsen: Christian, also, you remarked on psychiatry and the phenomenological approach, existentialism, and vitalism. So, Christian, what are the reasons for these intersections with respect to a philosophical approach to analyzing narcissism? Sam, how does philosophy play a fundamental role, or simply a role if at all, in orienting and defining the diagnosis of NPD or simply narcissism with psychology?

Vaknin: It doesn’t. The members of the DSM Committee have no training in philosophy. Psychology pretends counterfactually to be an exact science, at least as much as medicine is. Philosophers are not welcome. Freud was a neurologist and tried to create a physics of the mind (“analysis”). The tradition of experimental psychology now dominates and lab coats are everywhere. There is a very strong strand of anti-intellectualism and anti-philosophy in psychology.

Sorensen: Due to the fact that existentialist philosophical point of view, contributes to psychiatry by introducing the ability to achieve a descriptive observation of phenomenon, while the vitalism allows that psychiatry reaches a deeper understanding, in the sense of going beyond a purely biological approach in regards to the problematics of mental disorders or illnesses.

Jacobsen: Some still view mental disorders as some otherworldly phenomenon, as in something spiritual grounded in sin or a disorder of the soul. Why do these supernaturalistic propositions and (non-)explanations continue to persist over time?

Vaknin: Because people are ignorant and feeble-minded, befuddled and fearful, disoriented and at the mercy of psychopathic con artist masquerading as religious leaders, public intellectuals, gurus, mystics, and life coaches with the definitive answers to all their questions immersed in the syrups of love and universal harmony, whatever this nonsense may mean.

Sorensen: Since for some reason, the notion of evil and inclination towards it, is at the base of everything, and therefore the necessary consequence of fear, guilt and punishment.

Jacobsen: Gentlemen, thanks so much for your time.

Sorensen: You are very welcome.

Photo by Shai Pal on Unsplash

One of the dumbest possible ways to conduct oneself as a group in a society, or as the leadership or a collective within a culture, is to start problems or act insensibly where no problems exist or sense would reason otherwise; within the context of the young life and times of Mubarak, this has happened precisely two major times against him. One time in 2014 with even the idiotic grandstanding psychopathy of Abubakar Shekau making open statements against Bala. This is an individual so far beyond the horror of the contexts described and the inequitable difficulties delineated around the world, by Dr. Sikivu Hutchinson, Bridgett Crutchfield/Bria Crutchfield, Mandisa Thomas, Liz Ross, Candace Gorham, Deanna Adams, Cecilia Pagan, Ingrid Mitchell, Lilandra Ra, Marquita Tucker, Mashariki Lawson-Cook, Rajani Gudlavaletti, Sonjiah Davis, and Sadia Hameed, and a number of other exceptional secular women deserving far more media coverage, interviews, references to professional work, and republication of materials (in part or whole) making their individual marks. Many who have supported him in international efforts.

Here’s Abubakar Shekau’s rap sheet: Through Boko Haram, he has displaced more than 2,000,000 people, killed 1,000s, while hundreds have been raped under the ideological banner of fundamentalist, militant Islam of Shekau, or Abu Mohammed Abubakar bin Mohammad al-Sheikawi. This excludes the massive decline from the Nigerian economy based on the transfer of resources to combat the militant group, the lives destroyed in the process through joining, being raped, killed, or displaced, or as dross in the midst of war, mayhem, and hiring for fighting religious fundamentalist lunatics (an extremely foolish or eccentric person).

The second time for Bala was in 2020. He and I were communicating on April 27, and were supposed to conducted several interviews on April 28, as we were talking on April 28. Then the communication went dead on the morning of the 28^th. Obviously, he had been apprehended at that time. I went through the relevant documentation. It was clear. They had concocted a crock reason and then to make a lesson and a show of Bala gathered him and dragged him to Kaduna. Why? Probably, it is to appease religious fundamentalists in various parts of northern Nigeria with some emphasis on Kano.

We still don’t know the whereabouts of Bala; we still do not understand the formal process for the reasoning; we do not see the reason for apprehension by two non-uniformed police officers, dragging away to jail in under 24 hours, jailed in Kaduna, and then presumably jailed in Kano to an unknown location without a formal ability to see a lawyer. This was between April 28 and 29 for the ‘apprehension’ and jailing followed by the transfer to Kano. Bala could be dead or alive. Because, the Nigerian authorities and to some extent the media have been silent on these issues. Even when not silent, they’ve been conspicuously silent on the truth on these matters.

In that, they’ve simply lied. It makes one wonder. Why lie? On the religious proclaimed ethics, it is a sin to lie. On the journalism side, it is unethical to lie. In both contexts, it is a quotidian of untruth, falsity, every time Bala is not provided freedom or a fair, secular trial. Why not give him a fair trial? Why not let the public know the truth about his whereabouts and case? Why keep silent on this most important of issues of the life of a modern pillar of Humanism in Africa? If they wanted a fight (the one we didn’t want), they’ve got it; and, we’re not going to give up.

It has been 55 days since the illegitimate and unconstitutional (in Nigeria) apprehension of Bala. 55 days of a human rights violation for a prominent and known person in Nigeria and made notorious in 2014 because of atheist status, former Muslim, and humanist status. Why is this injustice being permitted in the hallowed halls of the police authorities, the coverage of the Nigerian media, and the legal and human rights mechanisms of Nigeria? Because he is prominent and rejects the common superstitions, denies the veracity of the storybooks in most Nigerian homes, and, the most recognizable social crime, being open about the lack of belief in them, even cutting and direct with the language. That’s why? It’s the reason for the charges against him by S.S. Umar & Co. It was the reason for the Change.Org campaign looking for 25,000 signatures. It was the reason for apprehension to make an example of him. And it could be the difference that makes or breaks the story of him here, because he believed, differently.

I ask Nigerian the faithful. If this is the context in which Nigerians live and remain willing to be silent and complicit on this matter, then the identical charge and actions could be made against Muslims in Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Osun, Ilorin and Sokoto or Christians in Abuja, Benin City, Calabar, Ibadan, Jos, Kaduna, Lagos, Onitsha, Owerri. If not for the sake of another human being endowed with the same human rights as everyone else, then why not for the sake of others throughout Nigeria who believe differently than you, or even the same as you? Bala’s case could become a long-term and large-scale precedent because of his prominence as a non-believer. What if this became the case for every single prominent believer who said something offensive to another believer from a different religion? What would happen to these individuals?

That’s the context in which Bala found himself. It is the environs in which the international humanist community finds itself in regards to the life or death, freedom or imprisonment, situation for Bala. It’s unfair, ungrounded, and a total violation of the Nigerian constitution and of the international human rights of Bala. We have support from ordinary, moderate believers of all stripes – just read social media – and from the international freethought collectives, including the national and local ones in Nigeria. Even in believers’ homes, there will be dissenters, just ask any parent. The fundamental issue is the freedom for Bala, as in the justice for Bala, and some recompense for him, too, because of the travails endured for almost two months of illegitimate, illegal actions and blatant human rights violations in the face of the pressure of religious fundamentalists in spite of the protestations of non-believers around the world and ordinary believers all over Nigeria.

Free Mubarak Bala.

Image Credit: Mubarak Bala.

Secularism seems rife with popularizers, dilettantes, ‘keyboard warriors,’ and scientists. However, regarding formal researchers into the world of secularism and the divides and two-storey buildings of seculars  and the religious, Dr. Phil Zuckerman is a rare individual who takes part in some extensive research into the worldviews and worlds of the “seculars,” the “Nones,” or those without a formal religious affiliation, which can be amorphous – gooey and vague – definitions of the non-religious. When he examined some of the results of the research, something noted within the research was the degrees to which, during a pandemic, faith-based belief systems and, thus, responses utterly failed to deliver on the divine promises. In fact, they worsened the circumstances.

“Back in mid-March, nearly 40 percent of congregants who attended services at a small church in rural Arkansas came down with COVID-19, and a few subsequently died. In April,” Zuckerman stated, “at least 70 people who attended a church in Sacramento caught the virus, and a pastor in Virginia who piously defied social distancing orders within his flock died from COVID-19.”

Amazing – God did not help the most dependent upon his succour. (Many turn out as suckers.) The most devoted, most devout, most dedicated, and the most likely to demise based on a formal belief in the saving grace of God Almighty and the power of prayer. Zuckerman went from Idaho Falls to Frankfurt to Cameroon to South Korea to Cameroon to Israel speaking on the devastation of religion and its ill-equipped worldviews in response to a once-in-a-century pandemic, especially in an era of high-tide science relative to prior history and the tools – and knowledge of in general terms – of the reasons for the disease and death: a virus; not demonic possession, for example.

“While most religious people, communities, and congregations have taken COVID-19 seriously and have followed recommended social distancing practices, many of those pushing hardest to denounce or limit social distancing are strongly religious,” Zuckerman explained, “The fact is, this pandemic has brought into stark relief the underlying differences between a staunchly secular worldview and a fundamentally religious worldview.”

A god who helps those who help themselves is a god who either does not exist or cares not to help those most giving in worship to this god, i.e., the god is either a sadist or an insensate. Your pick. In this, the naturally naturalists, or those who adhere to Naturalism – as in natural events following from prior natural events (on the macro scale), deny the supernatural and the ideas of the religious. The religions claim and the religious believe in a supernatural, otherworldly, order to the constituent portions of life, the universe, and everything.

If a pandemic happens, then the, almost, natural follow-through from a naturalist perspective is to look for functional, scientific procedures and empirically-informed policies to mobilizer actions against the proliferation of a, for instance, virus. In a supernaturalist framework, one can pray for help; angels may assist one; and, God may intervene in the affairs of the believer for the protection, for example, one’s flock and oneself, though this didn’t happen in rural Arkansas.

Zuckerman said, “The results of these different orientations can, sometimes, literally be matters of life and death. We see this in terms of the current COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the strongly secular are more likely to accept the findings and dictates of science while the strongly religious are more likely to ignore or distrust such empiricism, favoring instead faith”

He referenced by Brett Pelham, where, as per an obvious prediction from the data on religion & faith-based thinking versus secularism & scientific-based thinking, the highly religious parts of the United States were “markedly less likely to look up scientific advice regarding best-practices for staying safe…” Religious people aren’t stupid; religion enforces or motivates a worldview of ignorance, motivated not-knowing. The correlation held with education, so the mediating factor is religion.

“According to a recent report, those states that are providing the best support systems to protect their at-risk populations from COVID-19 tend to be the more secular states with lower rates of church attendance and faith in God—states such as Vermont, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Maine—while those states with the worst support systems are nearly all states with highly religious cultures, such as Tennessee, Mississippi, and South Carolina,” Zuckerman said.

And yes, religious exemptions for social distancing furthered the poor outcomes of public health too. It held internationally too. Those more “secular populations and secular leaders” were more likely to “on average” perform better in terms of public health of their respective populations. This is not to deny the positive benefits of community and mental wellness coming from religion in the guise of community involvement and a feeling of solidarity and love with those around oneself. However, why do we need supernaturalism for this?

“To be sure, being religiously-involved has been correlated with many health benefits, especially in societies lacking a well-functioning welfare state that provides free and excellent health care to all citizens,” Zuckerman said, “For example, here in the U.S., people who attend church regularly tend to live longer and report lower stress levels. But what we see today is that the strongly religious appear to not be faring as well as the strongly secular in the face of this global pandemic.”

So, the real culprit is religion in general with hyper-religiosity, specifically; the issue is the extremes of religious belief leading to a denial of the obvious aspects of reality and hoping for some magical cure.  

Photo by Katarzyna Urbanek on Unsplash