"Self help" is a vague term, but they tend to be rooted more in New Age concepts than in Western monotheism. New Age concepts tend in turn to be linked to Eastern religions or spiritual practices. So no, I don't think that self help books have filled the void of Western religions. It might be only in the existential questions that they answer, but then again, the Buddhist idea of an "afterlife" is very different from the typical Christian one, and has a very different appeal.<p>(I think that this is more of a Maslow's Hierarchy kind of thing. But oh well.)<p>Perhaps the typical self help consumer is too wide-eyed and expects too much of life. It might also be that they are turning to un-scholarly, unlicensed authors because no established science or human institution has been able to give them the kind kind of knowledge that they want. In such a case, these psychologists in this article might be wise to think of their professions monumental failure to inspire confidence in the general population. If psychology had found results that were relevant to the common person, I expect them to have been incorporated into the common vocabulary. Instead, psychology is not associated with anything that a <i>healthy</i> person might be in need of; only the 'crazy people'. Of course these psychologists think that self help is too optimistic, when the field has historically been so pre occupied with illness (how old is 'positive psychology', again...?).<p>We might know how a good life is lead, but there is no authority, currently, on <i>how</i> to achieve it (taking into account human motivation and all that). Some will turn to bestselling authors because, really, having sold a lot of books is about as good of a mark of quality in this field at this point. Then perhaps start to proclaim that we are all ONE, because <i>quantum physics</i>. What these might have in common with the archetypical religious person is wishful thinking.<p>These people should consider just giving up on this whole self help thing, anyway, as there are simpler alternatives. Our understanding of the world - at least the world outside of ourselves - is so well understood that we can use this as a sleeping pillow. Gone are the days when a rationally inclined mind would have to also be a philosopher, in order to fill in the gaps where the obvious models of the world don't make sense. Now, you can just 'like' "I fucking love science' on Facebook, make the occasional off-hand joke about homoeopathy, and you're safely in the in-crowd of modern, pseudo intellectual rationalists. "If I can't see it, I don't believe it" is as simple as "If there is no study about it, I don't believe it". What these people have in common with the archetypical religious person is close-mindedness.