Religious Belief = Mental Illness: A More Venomous Response

[cbayer]

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/alanamassey/7632/religious_belief___mental_illness__a_more_venomous_response/

February 27, 2014 2:57pm
Post by ALANA MASSEY
Alana Massey is a writer living in Brooklyn, NY. She writes about the changing landscapes of belief and unbelief for RD, and about women, culture, animals, and entertainment elsewhere online. Alana holds a BA in History from NYU and an MA in Religion from Yale Divinity School.

If humanists ever adopt the concept of sainthood to honor their most impressive members, I hope that Chris Stedman is their inaugural inductee. For those unfamiliar with Stedman’s work, he is a humanist chaplain and author who consistently tries to foster engage and understanding between believers and non-believers and does so with remarkable diplomacy and tact. And his recent article on reasons that atheists shouldn’t equate religion with mental illness was no exception. But I think the hypocrisy and arrogance of this tactic merits a little more venom. So here’s a little more venom.


Has anyone lobbing “mental illness” as a pejorative considered the irony of not being a mental health practitioner making this diagnosis? It wouldn’t be especially egregious were it not for the frequent complaints by non-believers and believers alike that “creation scientist” is an oxymoron. Those complaints are, of course, 100% legitimate. People who are untrained in the sciences have no business making authoritative scientific claims about the age of the universe or the significance of camel bones. But people who don’t know the DSM like the back of their hand ought not be throwing out words like “psychotic” without professional working knowledge of that term. It’s a real and often devastating state of affairs, not just a nasty adjective to throw at people whose beliefs you don’t consider rational.

Let’s also consider for a moment the number of mental health professionals in the world. I don’t know their exact numbers but the people are legion, even if you only count Manhattan. If a case can be made for the religious as mentally ill, don’t you think that community would have made it one? Like, even a fringy one? Or are the angry Internet commentariat and atheist comedians just better informed on what constitutes psychosis? With the possible exception of Sam Harris—who is a neuroscientist and not a psychiatrist—the public figures making this claim don’t have anything close to the credentials to do so.

And if we go to a hypothetical world in which mental health professionals have come to a consensus that religious belief is symptomatic of a devastating illness, we would presumably want to treat said illness. Anti-psychotic medications, despite their many unpleasant side effects, are quite remarkable at combatting the delusions of the psychotic sufferer. And yet, there’s been no indication that taking anti-psychotic medications relieves the religious of their “delusions.” Are we to believe that the psychosis of religious belief is so special, so pervasive, and so untreatable that dozens of available medications have had no documented large-scale effect on these beliefs?

more at link

[skepticscott]

1. Lame and idiotic

One does not HAVE to be trained in the sciences to make accurate statements concerning science. One does not have to be a mental health professional to recognize mental illness any more than one has to be an MD to recognize physical illness. Seriously...is that her argument?

The DSM explicitly recognizes that delusions can be religious in nature. She can argue with "mental health professionals" to her little heart's content about that.

[rug]

2. You have an ugly penchant for using mental illnesses as insults.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218114742#post4

[Starboard Tack]

368. Which is pretty ironic, considering he talks to himself so much of the time

Kinda like those folk he criticizes as delusional for praying to a god he doesn't think exists.

[on point]

80. 1000+

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

82. And one does not have to be a mental health professional to recognize

That saying "religious belief = mental illness" is atheistic bigotry, pure and simple.

[Starboard Tack]

369. Bigotry it is for sure, but I wouldn't call it "atheistic bigotry"

Only a minority of atheists are bigots, but like all bigots they have loud mouths that spew ugly words. The more they marginalize themselves, the louder and uglier they get.
Bigotry is not born of religious belief or of any belief system, but comes from fear of others.

[yodermon]

298. Delusions can be religious in nature, but it does not follow that all religious-ness is delusional.

[Jim__]

3. It's hard to believe that in the 21st century people use mental illness as a perjorative.

Especially that people do this behind claims of their own superior rationality.

[rug]

4. It's harder to believe they are allowed to post on DU.

[Jim__]

6. I agree.

[skepticscott]

7. One need not be using it as a perjorative

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

to apply it accurately to certain manifestations of religion. I know some here regard the labeling of any manifestation of religion as mental illness to be bogus, but those folk are full of crap, and totally agenda (rather than fact) driven.

[Jim__]

20. Really? As what then? A diagnosis?

Sure that's possible - after spending extensive time with the person and going through various diagnostic procedures that lead to the conclusion of mental illness; or citing the conclusions of mental health professionals who have examined the person and reached that conclusion. Otherwise, yes, it's being used as a perjorative.

[skepticscott]

21. Sorry, horseshit

If I see someone at work washing their hands every five minutes for no reason, it's not being perjorative in any way, shape or form to remark to someone else that that seems like obsessive-compulsive behavior. I may be wrong in my assessment (not diagnosis), but the fact that I'm not a mental health professional who hasn't performed a full examination doesn't mean that my assessment can't possibly be accurate.

Try again.

[Jim__]

27. If you're at work counting how frequently other people wash their hands ...

... it's not their problems you should be worried about.

[rug]

28. !

[skepticscott]

31. Is that lameness the best response you could come up with?

Seriously? You're saying that aberrant behavior can't possibly be noticed without engaging in aberrant behavior yourself? That's even sillier than what I was already responding to, so I'll take it that you have nothing to say with any real insight.

[TM99]

34. It is called context.

As a trained psychologist, I know how to observe and ask questions. Lay people, like yourself, who think they have a certain amount of knowledge about mental illness, are bluntly full of shit.

Why is context, observation, and questioning important? If you and I worked together right now, you would see me washing my hands very often for apparently no discernible reason. Except that there is one - I am dealing with a very weak immune system and therefore take extra measures to avoid infections of all types. I am not OCD. So your assessment isn't possibly accurate, it would be completely wrong. Discussing something that personal about me with a co-worker, especially being as wrong as you would have been, is just nasty & hurtful gossip.

One of my biggest pet peeves about the field of psychology is that the DSM and other diagnostic tools are really supposed to be used by those in the field so that we can have a working idea of what techniques, strategies, etc. are necessary to help any individual to feel better about themselves and their lives. All of these pop psychology books and websites provide people with knowledge out of context that is used to bolster arguments, hurt others, and to feel arrogantly superior in their pseudo-knowledge. Psychology is not a 'science' that studies and deals with chemicals or anatomy alone. It is a discipline that first and foremost is about human beings and how they suffer and can be made well.

Equating religious persuasion and mental illness is a stupid way to express your rage. It is hurtful to others and inaccurate, so why do it?

[MellowDem]

36. Who defines what is mental illness?

It's subjective. I think believing in hell is a form of mental illness myself. It causes all sorts of suffering and consternation.

[TM99]

37. Belief that defies reality, eh?

Sounds like you are suffering from religious thinking.

[Dorian Gray]

151. Mental illness is subjective?

For real?

[MellowDem]

190. For real!

[skepticscott]

39. In THAT case, it would be wrong, which is why I qualified my statement

Would there be NO cases in which it would be accurate to evaluate such frequent hand washing as OCD? Of course not, so your point is rather silly. I could provide any number of other examples that work even better, frankly. Your point that it is illegitimate to discern mental illness from behavior is doubly silly, since even mental health professionals can be wrong in such an evaluation. The possibility of making an incorrect evaluation does not invalidate the ability to do so correctly in some cases. And I'm certainly not talking about making a formal diagnosis, then going up to the person and telling them that I've determined they have OCD. On top of that, your point is triply silly, because this discussion wasn't even about such an evaluation being "wrong", but whether using a label of mental illness must always and in every case be perjorative. If I tell a friend of mine, after observing a familiar pattern of behavior, that I think they have a gambling addiction and should get help for it, I've labeled them as mentally ill. Is doing so perjorative? Yes or no?

Nor am I saying that "religion persuasion" as a monolithic entity constitutes mental illness. That you would try to attribute something to me that I obviously haven't said is also rather odd behavior. How would you evaluate it? What I've said is that certain manifestations of religious belief can qualify as mental illness. Do you admit or deny that the DSM specifically acknowledges that delusions or delusional behavior which qualify as mental illness CAN be religious in nature?

[TM99]

41. You are just throwing out a barage of words

and hoping someone won't see through the bullshit.

In no way is it appropriate for you to assess or assume that someone has or doesn't have a mental illness. Even as a trained professional, situational context is paramount so that it is not manipulative, pejorative, or emotionally abusive.

You think you know the DSM, and yet you demonstrate to me that you simply do not. The current DSM-IV exempts religious doctrine from pathology in its definition of delusion. Truly pathological delusions can involve religious imagery or mythology but they are not 'religious in nature' and have nothing to do with the religion but rather the individual suffering from the delusional illness. And as of the DSM-IV, V62.89 Religious or spiritual problem, was added to assist clinicians with normal human beings who are struggling with spiritual issues....not spiritual delusions or pathologies. You can educate yourself on this through the following link:

http://www.spiritualcompetency.com/jhpseart.html

So why is it relevant to your argument to continue to link mental illness and religion, whether monolithically or via piecemeal?

[skepticscott]

69. So you're saying it's NEVER appropriate

For ANYONE who is not a mental health professional to tell a friend that seems to be having psychological or mental health problems that they should seek help? Or for a parent who is not a mental health professional to assess that their child may have a mental health condition requiring treatment? Seriously? That's so ridiculous that I can't even believe a responsible person is writing it.

And as far as the DSM, I would suggest you educate yourself. Here's what the DSM-V says about delusions:

Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g. persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose).[…] Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. […] The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity.

Your claim that a delusion can involve religious themes or imagery but cannot have anything to do with religion is just laughable hand waving. The individual involved does not get those delusions from nowhere. As noted, not every aspect of religion or religious belief involves delusion or other mental illness, but to say that it NEVER can is just silliness. Those who assert a priori that religious belief in any form or manifestation is automatically excluded from being labeled as any kind of mental illness are simply asserting what they wish to be regarded as true and offering special pleading on behalf of religion for reasons of scientific politics, without any actual evidence showing that, if beliefs or behavior stem from religion, they cannot be regarded as manifestations of mental illness.

[TM99]

72. Again

the same.

Your stated example was my major response. To notice someone's hand-washing and to then suggest to a co-worker the diagnosis of OCD is inappropriate. I can't believe any reasonable person can not accept that.

Sure, tell a friend you think something is wrong based on their personal interactions with you or their behaviors. But if you are not qualified to diagnose them, doing so is inappropriate, hurtful, and very unhelpful.

You obviously did not fully understand your quote.

Content includes themes - like religious ones. They are deemed bizarre within context. And yes, there is a difference, though that is what professionals are trained to determine, between an actual delusion and a strongly held idea. From my perspective, there is very little psychological difference between the strongly held ideas of fundamentalist & literalist Christians and anti-theists. That does not mean that either of them have a fucking psychological disorder that is covered under the DSM rubric of Delusional Disorder.

I never said that an individual diagnosed with a Delusional Disorder could not be a religious person. I said that religions and the religious as a whole and delusional disorders are not synonymous. I may disagree strongly with the new DSM V in their removal of Axis I & II, and personally I do not follow the DSM as I do not adhere to a strictly medical model of diagnosis of psychological issues, but The DSM IV nor the DSM V in no shape or form equate delusional disorders as an actual diagnosis with religious individuals or religion. To attempt to say they do is simply factually wrong. You are twisting the words to suit your own agenda.

Were you raised in a strongly religious family or community?

[skepticscott]

76. Did I or did I not say very clearly that I was NOT talking about "diagnosing" people?

Here's a hint: I did say that. It was you who presumed to scold about something much broader and beyond a formal professional diagnosis: In no way is it appropriate for you to assess or assume that someone has or doesn't have a mental illness.. But now you're saying that it IS OK to tell a friend you think they may have a problem involving mental health, based on your personal, non-professionally trained assessment of their behavior. And you cherry pick the DSM-IV to try to cow me, and then say that you don't even follow it or agree with the updated version. Since you've resorted to contradicting yourself blatantly on mulitple occasions, I think we can regard your "professional" opinion as crap. Especially since you're now trying to psychologically assess me over the internet.

And you keep attacking the strawman of me saying that religions and the religious as a whole and delusional disorders are synonymous. Again, I explicitly said the opposite. How would you evaluate someone who keeps doing that, even when they know it's bogus?

[TM99]

83. You keep moving the goal posts and

are being a real dick about it. You are also being the contradictory one.

You stated and I quote:

So you're saying it's NEVER appropriate

For ANYONE who is not a mental health professional to tell a friend that seems to be having psychological or mental health problems that they should seek help? Or for a parent who is not a mental health professional to assess that their child may have a mental health condition requiring treatment? Seriously? That's so ridiculous that I can't even believe a responsible person is writing it.

Your example was a specific diagnosis called OCD. If you said that to a co-worker or friend, then yes, you are being an inappropriate ass. Even if you are a trained professional, we don't go around diagnosing people.

So in response to this above set of questions and statements, I said:

Sure, tell a friend you think something is wrong based on their personal interactions with you or their behaviors. But if you are not qualified to diagnose them, doing so is inappropriate, hurtful, and very unhelpful.

All of us in relationship can share when things are an issue. We can do so without using psychological jargon and diagnoses, and we can do so without being inappropriately by saying they are 'mentally ill' which you will notice I never said to say, did I?

So now that this little canard is resolved, let's move on to the next.

The only one cherry-picking is you. The DSM is a manual - an outline in short-hand and codes for professionals. It is not the 'bible of psychology' nor is it something that non-professional generally get training in how to use or understand. Are you a trained professional in the field? If so, then you know this. If not, then why are you trying to use a text that is outside of your purview to argue with?

I have been trained in the DSM's usage and continue to keep abreast of all changes in it being a licensed professional and a member of the APA. Not agreeing with all of its changes (and I am hardly the only psychologist who doesn't!) nor deciding now in my practice, since I do not take insurance, that its descriptors while moderately helpful are not useful to me in my clinical work, hardly means that I am unqualified to actual discuss it. Even if I chose to use it, I certainly doubt you would meet many professionals in this field who go around discussing the DSM codes with their clients. This is a book for us. Much like an engineer has their codes and guides or medical doctors have the PDR.

This thread is about a response to a common complaint that many anti-theists call religious people and religions delusional with further claims of them being psychologically ill. Do you agree or disagree with that? If you fully reject it as you claim, then why are you trying to argue the finer points of DSM-V diagnosis of Delusional Disorders with me?

I asked you a question. You don't have to answer it. I have noticed that a higher percentage of 'angry' anti-theists do tend to have come from very strict religious upbringings. They have a lot of 'wood to burn' which often precludes rational discussions about such interesting topics as the intersection of the sciences and religion.

[skepticscott]

146. Since you've reached the point

of dodging direct questions and substituting playground insults for anything like fact-based discussion, I won't waste any further time with you. You've lied about what I've said, for reasons that are obvious to everyone (except, apparently, you).

Have a nice day.

[TM99]

161. Internet bullies are always the same.

You accuse me of cherry-picking from a text that I have studied and worked with for almost 25 years. You accuse me of contradicting myself so you can disregard my '"professional" opinion as crap'. You imply I need to 'evaluate' myself.

I call you on your bullshit and say you are being a dick about it (which is what the above is in an argument), and you say I am dodging questions and substituting insults for a discussion? Aren't you precious.

I quoted your exact posts. I asked for clarification of your replies in this thread. I challenged your low level of knowledge of the DSM and the field of clinical psychology which was apparently your only argument in this particular case.

Yes, I am certain it is quite apparent to all what transpired.

[rug]

175. A precise dissection.

[okasha]

348. Exactly.

Psychiatric illnesses have a physical, measurable, objective cause, whether it's lithium or serotonin levels. (Or a number of other chemicals out of whack.)

Pretending that it's just whatever someone decides it is on a dull Wednesday is not only dickish, it casts blame on the ill person for "being that way." After all, if there's no objective cause, then medication wouldn't work and the ill person could change at will. Damned if that doesn't sound like the hawkers of "cures" for homosexuality.

[Brettongarcia]

44. TM99

You are citing yourself as a trained psychologist. Can you furnish a link to your place of professional employment?

[TM99]

47. Why should I provide you with private information

about myself?

[Brettongarcia]

51. I understand. I do the same thing. But if you wish to speak as a professional?

[TM99]

55. Others speak here as professionals in a variety of fields

from law to medicine to government. Some choose to be forth coming with private and personal information. Others choose not to do so.

On an anonymous forum, yes, it possible that some are claiming to be what they are not. I appreciate that.

I am a private person. I don't use Facebook or Twitter. I don't advertise my professional services via the web. I don't write a blog. I only post on a few forums that stimulate my interest. DU just happens to be one of them.

I respect your choice. Do you respect mine?

[Brettongarcia]

58. Of course.

[on point]

78. 1000+

[cbayer]

9. Particularly when those people describe themselves as liberal or progressive.

[Brettongarcia]

40. The Bible itself often warned about false things in religion; including "delusions"

And? Illusions; enchantments; demons; false dreams; false spirits; confused thinking. Which would refer to things that Psychology looks at today.

1) So it seems the Bible itself - or in other words, major elements of religion itself - allow us and even command us to look for what would today be called false ideas - even specifically "delusions" - in others.

Ironically therefore? If we are not allowed to speak of "delusions" say, in religion - which have ultimately a psychological reference - then we are not allowed to follow religion, the Bible, itself. The Bible itself authorized a kind of proto-psychology at least. And it told us to actively watch out for illusions and confused thinking; so we could spot it, and ... repair it.

2) Calling others "deluded" might seem cruel or merely insulting. However, if you don't have time to submit everyone to years of analysis and psychotherapy and so forth? A quick retort might be all one has time for.

3) By the way? This seems obvious when we look at ancient religions, that talked to "spirits" that demanded human sacrifice and so forth.

Modern scholars might suggest that there IS "confirmation bias" in psychology on religion, even in current psychology, by the way. And therefore some researchers are suggesting that we re-think the prevailing positive paradigm on the psychology of Religion.

Do the defenders of religion here defend say, religious human sacrifice as completely functional and psychologically healthy?

[cbayer]

48. So what? That is not the same thing as calling religious people delusional in general.

And the things you list were ascribed to false prophets and demons, not to a belief in god.

Anyway, even if they were, that's no excuse for calling the religious mentally ill.

The rest of your post is very hard to follow, perhaps because the premise it proceeds from is so faulty.

By the way, it does not take years of analysis and psychotherapy (do you even know the difference?) for a trained professional to determine whether someone is psychotic or not. A quick retort is not substitute for a professional opinion.

Who are the researchers that are suggesting that we re-think the prevailing positive paradigm on the psychology of religion? There is no move to do this at all within the reputable psychiatric or psychological community. I think this is another instance in which you have merely made something up.

[Brettongarcia]

50. "False Prophets" claimed to speak for God. Can we criticize their religion? The Bible told us to.

By the way, what DID happen to a recent earlier discussion on this, where I was citing scholarly scholarship on this? I can't find it.

Did the religious censors get it?

It was at the end of one of the recent discussions.

[cbayer]

56. What in the world are you talking about?

There is no religious censorship going on here. If you can't find something that is because you have not adequately searched for it.

[Brettongarcia]

61. My mistake. My scholarly citations on psych bad things in religion, weren't censored. They are here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218113909

This is an informal list that I haven't checked myself.

But just based on a quick Google Scholar search, while much info on religion in Psych is positive, some of it is not.

As our resident Psychologist 99 indirectly acknowledged too, it rather seems?

[cbayer]

63. This link just goes to an OP, not to your citations. Who is our resident psychologist 99?

Do you have any scientific training at all? You posted a list of citations that you didn't even look at and are basing your opinion of a quick google search and a review of the headlines?

I know you have done a lot of internet battle around this topic in the past. Has it been your experience that people just believe what you say and don't actually look things up for themselves?

[cbayer]

67. Immediately above what?

[Brettongarcia]

68. Woops! BELOW conversation between me and 99

{By the way: ever notice some kind of superstition on religion blogs about the 66th post?]

[mike_c]

103. it's only pejorative in the eyes of the receiver, and unnecessarily so....

I have long held that religious belief is delusional, and that persistent delusions are not the hallmark of mental health. That's not an insult. It's an observation. It is no more insulting than noting that eating disorders are unhealthy. It's a simple statement of fact. It might or might not be erroneous-- but that is not the same thing as "pejorative."

[cbayer]

105. Yes, I know you have. It's almost quaint.

It's not an observation. Its a conclusion based on an obviously very limited understanding of psychiatric illness and used to smear those that see the world differently than you do.

A bad diet is unhealthy. An eating disorder is an illness and can be life-threatening. Once again, your actual knowledge in this field is very limited and what you assume you know is basically incorrect.

Perhaps you could share what education, training and experience you have in the field.

Or is this just a belief system that you have developed that has no basis in rationality, reason or science?

[mike_c]

108. yeah well-- if it swims and quacks...

...I still say it's a duck.

[cbayer]

109. Or it might be a decoy with a hunter behind it.

Be careful, be vewy, vewy careful. If you haven't the vaguest idea of how to distinguish the two, you might find yourself in a mess of trouble.

[rug]

125. I have long held that selective observation that feeds a bias makes the observer appear ridiculous.

That's not an insult. It's an observation.

[mike_c]

136. of course....

I take it as a difference of opinion. Not insulting at all.

Best regards.

[Cartoonist]

5. New word needed

I am opposed to religion in almost all its forms. I separate religion from reality. There is no crossover. But no, I do not consider it a mental illness. The human mind is far from being understood. Take any issue and there will be people on both sides. There are still flat-earthers today and I once read a ltte by a fan of the movie Howard the Duck. People who believe in religion are not sick. Their mind just doesn't work the same way as non-believers.

Like belief in an earth-centric universe, any belief can wither under the relentless parade of scientific fact. Uninformed would be a better word than psychotic, but a better word is still needed. One that is not offensive but holds out hope for enlightenment.

[skepticscott]

8. It sounds like you're engaging in special pleading

and saying that any behavior which is a manifestation of religion or religious belief should be excluded from any diagnosis of mental illness, just cuz. And no, religious folk are not necessarily "uninformed" and "psychotic" is not the only word used in such cases.

[Cartoonist]

22. Paging Son of Sam

I was addressing the issue of calling believers "psychos" just because they believe in a God. There are those, who hear God talking to them in their heads, that are psychos. Two different groups.

[cbayer]

11. I would agree that the minds of believers and non-believers function in different ways.

That is why I often make the case that being religious may not be a "choice", as some maintain.

When there is not a relentless parade of scientific fact that disputes the existence of a god, which there clearly is not, it is not reasonable to even consider those that believe uninformed.

It appears that you are saying that non-believers are the ones who are enlightened. Many believers would maintain that it is the non-believer who lack enlightenment.

But I would stick with your original premise that they just see and experience things differently, with neither being superior.

Welcome to the religion group, Cartoonist.

[skepticscott]

13. More of your nonsense

The relevant point is that there is no parade of evidence showing that a god exists, and yet people want to base lives, laws and the destiny of nations on the indisputable fact that one does.

I know you see absolutely nothing wrong with that (considering it to constitute "enlightenment", in fact), and have made a career out of being an blatant apologist and enabler for that position, but it's really sad.

[yeoman6987]

302. As my wonderful late Mom used to say

If there isn't a God and you live your life as there is one so what. If there is a God and you live your life as if there isn't a God, yiekes! I found that cute.

[skepticscott]

303. If there isn't a god and you live your life as if there is one

You've sacrificed time, money and intellectual integrity on the altar of something non-existent. You've allowed your life and your thought to be governed by draconian rules with no basis in rationality.

Paschal's wager is a loser.

[Cartoonist]

23. Thank you for your welcome.

The burden of proof for or against is clearly in the camp of the believers. I am just a man going about my business observing only what my senses tell me. I do not state empirically or unequivocally that there is no God, therefore I have nothing to prove. Believers, on the other hand, make the claim that God does exist without providing a scintilla of evidence.

[cbayer]

24. Burden of proof? What proof?

Since there isn't any, never has been and probably never will be, arguing about the existence of god and saying one side has the burden of proof is a endless and entirely useless activity.

You also have nothing to prove. You have determined for yourself what you believe or don't believe.

What is not right is judging you for that determination…. or you judging others for theirs.

Unless one takes an unequivocal stance, there is no reason to ask for proof. Belief is about faith not empirical evidence.

[Cartoonist]

29. Faith

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Faith is believing in something that you know just aint true. -Mark Twain.

No, there is a burden of proof. One cannot just come out and say that the Earth orbits the sun or vice versa. Copernicus used real data to prove his point. The church used a passage in Joshua as proof of their belief.

Besides, the point I am really making is that sometimes, in confrontations, believers will say something incredibly unscientific like "prove that God doesn't exist." It doesn't work that way. If you make a claim, like "God exists", then you have to prove it if you want me to accept it. I am not making the claim that God doesn't exist, I am just saying that so far, no one has been able to prove it. The last eight words are true beyond reproach.

[cbayer]

45. Mark Twain - offering one of so many views on religion.

I apparently was unclear. There is no burden of proof because there is no battle.

When it comes to discussions for which there exists clear scientific evidence that something is untrue, that is worth confronting.

But it is absolutely pointless to engage in a "confrontation" about something for which there is no answer, unless one is merely invested in arguing for the sake of argument.

You won't find many believers around here saying definitive things then demanding that you disprove them.

If you are looking for that kind of fight, there are lots of places you can find them, but this group is likely not one of them.

[deutsey]

297. Yes...as someone who has researched Twain's views on religion for nearly 20 years

I can say these views are far more complex and nuanced than his oft-cited one-liners lead many to assume.

[cbayer]

300. As is often the case for those whose statements are used to make a point.

[Jim__]

307. It's always worth the time to read Twain, so ... just for grins.

Following the Equator - unabridged.

...



...

There are those who scoff at the schoolboy, calling him frivolous and shallow: Yet it was the schoolboy who said "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

—Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar.

In Sydney I had a large dream, and in the course of talk I told it to a missionary from India who was on his way to visit some relatives in New Zealand. I dreamed that the visible universe is the physical person of God; that the vast worlds that we see twinkling millions of miles apart in the fields of space are the blood corpuscles in His veins; and that we and the other creatures are the microbes that charge with multitudinous life the corpuscles.

...

[deutsey]

310. That dream is one of my favorite passages of Twain's

Here's a link to an interview with Twain after he met a Hindu holy man in India:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dOD7ilN1R38C&pg=PA284&lpg=PA284&dq=%22swami%22+%22twain%22+%22scharnhorst%22+%22india%22&source=bl&ots=FHRSXnQedX&sig=d9xc5YRbxD0gYrt1pHUzymZ-qQ4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N4UXU8W9BKGe0QHLi4DgDQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=swami&f=false

[skepticscott]

30. Unfortunately for you

and your ridiculous agenda, hundreds of millions, if not billions of believers DO take an unequivocal stance. So yeah, we're entirely justified in asking for evidence to back up their claims of the existence of a god. And if you'd ever take your fingers out of your ears and bother to educate yourself about the relativity of wrong, you might find some of that enlightenment that you claim is out there.

Intellectual nihilism in this case is the last gasp of those desperate to keep room for something, anything, that can be called god. But the ice is melting, cbayer…nowhere to hide for long.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

91. And we believers are equally justified in asking for evidence there is NOT a God

You insist there is none, so let's see some evidence. Be specific.

[skepticscott]

92. Where have I insisted that there is none? Exactly where? Link to it.

Let's get that horseshit of yours out of the way right now. Then we'll talk about your cluelessness concerning burden of proof. And if you weary my ears with crap like "I know you've said that" or "It's all over the place" or "I don't need to prove it, it's obvious", we'll be done here very quickly.

Just curious.. were still asking your parents for evidence that there is no Santa Claus well into your 20's?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

166. OK, you probably have not said it explicitly

But do you deny that you believe that there is no God?

[skepticscott]

177. It's good that you admitted right up front

that you lied about what I said, instead of wasting half a dozen exchanges with lame arguments that you didn't.

If you'd like to discuss something I've actually said, feel free to link to it, so everyone will know you're not just making shit up again.

[cleanhippie]

179. Notice the use of "...you BELIEVE there is no god..."

It's the same old, tired trick. No matter how much you try to explain to a believer that you do not believe in their god, they always hear that you believe there is no god.

To me is signals that one is dealing with a bad actor.


Cue the ad hominem from him in 3,2,1...

[malokvale77]

202. ^^^this^^^

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

180. I know that you want to call me a liar, but your slanders are themselves lies.

I would point out that there is a vast difference between "I admit that I lied" and "OK, you probably have not said it explicitly". I suspect that in your eagerness to slander me, you overlooked this non-trivial point. You want, oh, so desperately, to call me a liar. I'm not sure why. I notice that when I demonstrated, through actual quotation, that I had NOT misquoted Richard Dawkins, you literally laughed it off. Undoubtedly because you are not honest enough to admit the fact that your accusation was false.

I also notice that you did not answer my question: Do you deny that you believe there is no God? If you believe that there is a God, then why are you carrying on the way you are? If you believe there is no God, then why not say so explicitly?

I would say that someone who says such things as

So yeah, we're entirely justified in asking for evidence to back up their claims of the existence of a god. And if you'd ever take your fingers out of your ears and bother to educate yourself about the relativity of wrong, you might find some of that enlightenment that you claim is out there.

Intellectual nihilism in this case is the last gasp of those desperate to keep room for something, anything, that can be called god.

Can be said to be saying that there is no God. Certainly, no other reasonable conclusion can be drawn from such a statement. So your slander that I lied about what you believe cannot be taken seriously. YOU are the liar, not me.

[skepticscott]

184. Oh, seriously, you are funny

You've created a false dichotomy (I'll wait while you look that up) between "I believe there is no God" and "I believe there is a God", which is simply idiotic. Can you grasp why those aren't the only two choices for a rational person? Because if not, you're not worth my time.

And you're the only one here (Ok, one other laughable one) who's derived "There is no God" or anything remotely like that from my statement. You really and truly don't get this concept do you? Sad.

[rug]

186. "Because if not, you're not worth my time."

77% of posts in the Religion Group, every one of them cordial and informative.

[Leontius]

182. So you think there is evidence for the existence of God. Good to know.

[skepticscott]

183. Join the club

of religionists here lying about what I've said.

Seriously, do you get some pathetic satisfaction out of something so lame and intellectually dishonest?

[Leontius]

185. So you think there is no evidence for the existence of God. Good to know.

[Leontius]

387. Why are you so afraid to state without equivocation what you think?

It seems quite weaselly and cowardly to hide behind two faced statements all the time. Stand up and be counted .

[skepticscott]

390. If you can point to

any "two-faced" statements I've made, then do so, and I'll be happy to clarify.

Failure to do so will be taken as evidence that you're just baiting and shit-stirring.

[Leontius]

392. Given the chance you disemble and distract you just don't have it in you to be

straight-forward and answer directly do you? I am done answer or dissemble and evade you choose, I already can guess what your choice will be.

[skepticscott]

393. You've offered nothing to answer directly

All you've done is put words in my mouth and accuse me of making two-faced posts. When asked to back that accusation up, you failed miserably.

If you're not even able to formulate a simple and direct question, stop wasting bandwidth.

[Cartoonist]

117. Exactly

" Belief is about faith not empirical evidence."
-
I couldn't have said it better. So can we stop making laws based on Santa's teachings. Can we stop giving special privileges to the followers of the Easter Bunny? Can those of us who insist that reality be based on empirical evidence be allowed to call out reality-deniers instead of being forced to show them intellectual respect?

[cbayer]

118. I don't think we should make laws based on religion at all.

Calling god santa or the easter bunny is really juvenile, you know. I would expect that from an adolescent, not an adult who wanted to engage in civil debate.

We should continue to enforce the 1st amendment and neither give the religious special privilege nor inhabit their ability to practice their chosen religion.

When it comes to scientifically valid information, it should certainly trump religious belief and those that continue to cling to religious belief despite clear scientific evidence to the contrary should be challenged.

But there are good reasons and other areas where I would encourage you to show the same kind of respect that you would want them to show you as a non-believer.

Having faith is not correlated in any way with intelligence.

[skepticscott]

144. Yes, you say that all the time

which makes it pretty clear that you have no answer for the argument and are trying to bluff your way out of it with a dismissal lacking any rational grounds. There is in fact far more real evidence for the existence of Santa Claus than for any god that humans have ever worshipped, so the question is, how are you able to say for certain that Santa Claus doesn't really exist, while still saying that people who don't think "god" exists have no justification whatsoever?

And calling people "juvenile" is what I'd expect from someone (or a family) that not only has no interest in civil discussion, but has no actual facts on their side. Just more of your hypocritical snark and bluster.

[rug]

129. Allow me to point out that your logic has just taken a leap off a cliff.

So can we stop making laws based on Santa's teachings. Can we stop giving special privileges to the followers of the Easter Bunny?

Am I allowed to call this out or I am I forced to show this twaddle intellectual respect?

[Cartoonist]

142. Twaddle?

I'm just giving back. I consider all talk of fantasy beings to be twaddle, and that includes a God in human form. There is more proof to the existence of Santa Claus than there is to an omnipotent being. Sometimes one just has to resort to the ludicrous to point out the complete absence of critical thought by believers.

[rug]

143. If you define Santa Claus, the definition sets its limits and it disproves itself.

This hoary old comparison is intellectually lazy and is no more than a Pavlovian bell.

Yes, it's twaddle.

[Cartoonist]

145. Santa

I refer to a person in history who was the basis for Santa Claus. He may be St. Nicholas or some other old man. Of course, the current embodiment of Santa and his superpowers is believed by children exclusively, but there appears to be some likelihood that there actually was such a man. I will accept the existence of Jesus, but reject his superpowers as well.

[cbayer]

172. And the Easter Bunny? Do you have an equally bullshit based explanation for that as well?

[Cartoonist]

187. Yes

Easter was invented by the church to replace the spring equinox, like Xmas was an alternative to the winter solstice. Hence the egg, a symbol of fertility.

Why the attitude? Have I called any of your posts BS? Do you know how to have a civil conversation?

[cbayer]

189. Oh, malarkey. You brought those things up in order to mock

and denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

Why the attitude? Because of things like that, I guess.

Despite your initial protestations, which I thought might actually be sincere, you are doing exactly what you said you wouldn't.

I know very well how to have a civil conversation. It usually includes not ridiculing or mocking others by comparing their beliefs or what they value to santa claus and the easter bunny.

Do you?

[Cartoonist]

199. Mocking

While you might see a difference, to me there isn't any. Santa or God, they are both unsubstantiated beings. You might see Santa as one, but not God. That is your problem, and is why you see it as being mocked. I am SERIOUS.

[cbayer]

206. Yes, it is clear that you don't see a difference.

But others do and you mocking them is juvenile and unlikely to lead to any serious discussion.

Again, you know nothing of my beliefs or lack of beliefs, but make assumptions based on your preconceived ideas that have no rational basis, most likely because it more easily fits your narrative.

Perhaps it is you that is struggling with rational thought and relying more on unsubstantiated fantasies?

[Brettongarcia]

210. Nearly all serious historians of Religion accept the Santa/Easter account that you seem to reject

[cbayer]

224. I don't reject the historical roots of santa or the easter bunny.

I reject the interchangeable use of those terms for god.

It's nothing but a slur.

[Brettongarcia]

226. Na. Scholars say "Eostre, or "Estre," (SP?), godess related to spring, may be origin of Easter.

Lots of old myths - like "Persephone" - were about plant life dying off in the winter ... and resurrecting or being reborn in the spring. Many scholars suggest that the Christian notion of an Easter resurrection, borrows from Estre.

It's not a slur; it's scholarly History.

That's the problem; many believers haven't read the relevant scholarly literature.

[cbayer]

231. You have apparently missed my entire point.

I accept the historical roots, it's the comparison to god that I reject.

It's a slur, just like saying leprechauns or spaghetti monster or sky daddy. They are all slurs.

Your problem is not that many believers haven't read the relevant scholarly literature, sir.

[Brettongarcia]

233. Well, how about the apparent historical relation of Eastre to Christ? The Resurrection....

If not the Easter bunny....

[cbayer]

234. What is the problem?? Where have I said that I reject that?

Nowhere.

[Brettongarcia]

236. Well, the next step might be to link popular myths too, to these religious forms

Religion interlinks to lots of things. Even "Easter." Even possibly, believe it or not, the Easter Bunny.

It is thought that the Easter bunny is symbolic of the partial reappearance of plant and animal life in spring. After hibernation or relative inactivity underground in the winter. This "reappearance" is linked to resurrection in Persephone.

Even in Christianity, note, Easter is both religion ... and the pop bunny.

Somehow they are intermixed in everyday holy days.

If not in formal theology.

However, perhaps there IS a serious link.

[cbayer]

238. You've taken a completely different train.

[Brettongarcia]

239. Discovering links between our religion, and other religions, even myths, can be painfully ...

...disillusioning. Ultimately though it is broadening.

Even the Bible told us we have to pass through a painful "day" of "fire" to get to the final truth of Christianity.

Some sense of painful insult, disillusionment, is part of the process.

[cbayer]

240. Sorry, this is not about discovering links about anything.

It's only about mocking others in order to diminish their position and elevate one's own.

It's not nearly as complicated as as you are trying to make it be.

I just did a google search for "painful day of fire bible" and came up with exactly nothing.

Serious question here - are you just playing us?

[Brettongarcia]

245. Check out "Judgement Day" and the "Day of the Lord"

This is the day when we are supposed to see a second coming or second appearance of God. At that time, God shows us that many who thought they were following God or Christ, were mistaken; they were following a false idea of Christ.

This is supposed to be a very painful time even for "believers."

The Oxford Companion to the Bible has a good summary of this.

[cbayer]

247. No, thanks. I don't believe any of that and have no interest in reading more about it.

[Brettongarcia]

249. Didn't you stand up for religious education?

Granted religion makes many mistakes. But don't overlook the meaning of Judgement Day and so forth. Generally I'm reading that day as a moment when people discover many huge errors in what they thought was good religion.

[cbayer]

251. I stood up for religious studies.

I think the more people know about religion, the more they will understand some of the things that underlie different cultures and the ways people see/experience the world.

That leads to greater tolerance and understanding of those who may be different.

To me, that's a good thing.

I don't believe in Judgement Day. Do you?

[Brettongarcia]

256. I believe in it as a metaphor: a "day" when suddenly things look different.

I'm not sure this leads to tolerance though. On this day, suddenly things that once looked very good, suddenly seem bad.

[cbayer]

258. We all have days like that, don't we.

Days when all our preconceived notions come crashing down and we have to totally reassess our foundational beliefs.

I had one of those days during Katrina. Sometimes you just don't realize how fragile things are until they fall apart.

But I don't think there will be a day when the cloth will be pulled from everyone's eyes regarding religion.

Nor would I hope for one. I think religion is valuable and that the positive things about it should be nurtured and encouraged.

[Brettongarcia]

260. Well, how about a day when we see a much better sense of religion?

[cbayer]

261. It is my sincere hope that people will work together to achieve that.

[Leontius]

243. No they don't but you would know that if you knew anything about this subject.

Why don't you give it up everyone has figured out you are clueless in this kind of discussion.

[okasha]

267. True.

Eostre-Ostara was the name of a Western European goddess of Spring whose name was adapted to refer to the day the resurrection of Jesus was celebrated--but only in English. Continental languages tend to use some variation of "Passover/Pesach;" eg. "las pascuas" in Spanish.

To suggest that the Celtic/Anglo-Saxon goddess had any influence over the story is absurd. The resurrection was permanently embedded in the Gospels and Paul's writings long before northwestern Europe was evangelized.

[Brettongarcia]

273. Local Greco-Roman and many other "rebirth" myths existed in the area, long before Paul

Cf. the myth of Persephone. Well before Paul.

Even specifically Eostre myths, scholars now suggest, predate Christianity. The myth was Proto Indo-European before it was German, therefore predating Christianity. Some tie her to Astarte/Ishtar, etc. Astarte. Who as a "fertility" god would have been associated with Easter, the reappearance of vegetative life. (Peresphone and others cited by Bullfinch say, as origin of resurrection myths; well before Christianity).

Any of these and many other rebirth myths could well have influenced religion on the British Islands; which were after all colonized by Rome. And the Celts.

Way, way before Paul.

Interestingly, this tie seems further confirmed by the fact that to this day, somehow, the day of the resurrection of Christ ,is somehow still conflated in popular Christian or Easter celebrations, with images of animal fertility; like the Easter Rabbit.

So finally? "Christ" and his resurrection are really, historically ... the Easter Bunny, critics might say, in a sense. The origins were a number of ancient celebrations of the regeneration of life in Spring, in primitive societies; this origin was later culturally colonized by Paul Christianity. Yet the origins are to some extent still evident today in details of the contemporary Easter celebration.

I. e.: the easter bunny. As well as collecting eggs, etc.

[Leontius]

311. The existence of a goddess named Ostara is not even generally accepted.

[Brettongarcia]

318. Cf. Ishtar. Which sounds and looks rather like a precursor to either Eostre - and/or Easter

Mythography is an inexact science; but surprisingly much could be suggested here. Possibly it would be better to trace the origin of Easter further back; to Ishtar. Any disputed Celtic "Eostre" (as noted by Bede, 8th cent) could be a local bastardization/borrowing of that older tradition.

[TM99]

322. Wrong again.

http://bellejar.ca/2013/03/28/easter-is-not-named-after-ishtar-and-other-truths-i-have-to-tell-you/

http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/04/04/easter-eostre-or-ishtar/

Celtic "Eostre"? No. At least recognize that Bede was an Anglo-Saxon, not a Celt. He was writing about traditions that were already hundreds of years in his past.

[Brettongarcia]

326. No way is that blog reliable. But what would I know? My PhD is only in the study of culture

Including mythology.

Which to be sure is a somewhat speculative field. Allowing for a diversity of opinions.

[TM99]

338. Irrelevant

if you are wrong. The blog simply details the information. You can, of course, go read Grimm's works in the original German. I assure you it is all there.

[Brettongarcia]

362. Mythography has moved on since the brothers Grimm, 180 years ago.

Their work to be sure WAS valuable. But?

[TM99]

364. Linguistics is why.

Someone has already replied but to repeat Eostre is Indo-European goddess from a Proto-Indo European goddess of the dawn named *Austrō. She would be cognate with the Greco-Roman titan Eos/Aurora and the ancient Vedic Ushas. These dieties are 'first generation'. They precede the later more personified deities. Eostre is neither equivalent to a Aesir nor a Vanir. She is a 'force of nature' and was never associated with fertility, sex, warrior-ship, etc. That was the purview of Freya. Little is known about Eostre as she was only ever mentioned in writings by Bede.

Ishtar is an Eastern Semitic 'second generation' goddess associated with fertility, sex, warrior-ship, etc. If you were to attempt a connection between the Semitic and the Indo-European dieties, Ishatar would be equivalent to Freya.

So linguistically and mythologically, there is no connection between the two. The only connection that has been made is as recent as the last five years in a Internet meme which was described in detail in the 'blog' I linked to.

[Brettongarcia]

366. Referenced web site is not only source. Even it admits "eggs" and fertility symbols associated with

The "warrior"

In any case, if Eostre proper is a borrowing or loanword earlier Indo-European, likely that is far, far more ancient than Paul, 55 AD. And would have been culturally available to the after all, nearby Semitic New East, or ANE, even as early as 50 AD.

Linkages between Indo-European to ANE culture - Semitic and even Greek - go back tens of thousands of years:

"The various subgroups of the Indo-European language family include ten major branches, given in the chronological order of their earliest surviving written attestations:
1.Anatolian (Asia Minor), the earliest attested branch. Isolated terms in Luwian/Hittite mentioned in Semitic Old Assyrian texts from the 20th and 19th centuries BC, Hittite texts from about 1650 BC;[11][12] extinct by Late Antiquity.
2.Hellenic. Fragmentary records in Mycenaean Greek from between 1450 and 1350 BC have been found.[13] Homeric texts date to the 8th century BC. (See Proto-Greek, History of Greek.)
3.Indo-Iranian, circa 1400 BC, descended from Proto-Indo-Iranian (dated to the late 3rd millennium BC). "

There is a STRIKING similarity in pronunciation, between "Easter" and "Ishtar."

[okasha]

350. Folk etymology is such fun.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work well across language families. "Eostre" is Indo-European; "Ishtar" and its cognates "Astarte," "Ashtoreth," etc.. are Western Semitic.

Also unfortunately, the characters of the goddesses are markedly different. Eostre has no maternal or warrior function, nor does she die in the fall and return in the spring. In Celtic myth, it's not the goddess but the god who dies and returns. For a medieval treatment of the subject, see Gawaine and the Green Knight.

[Brettongarcia]

363. And linguistic "borrowing, " "cultural diffusion" from other cultures, never happens?

Structural anthropology graphs many similarities along select axes. Regional variations and assimilations of course, introduce dissimilar elements.

Note widespread current lexicographical linkups between much of current English, and specifically Indo-European Sanscritic roots.

[okasha]

370. And oh, my, water is wet.

English is an Indo-European language, with roots in Anglo-Saxon (from Continental West Saxon, from which it is almost indistinguishable), Norman French and Latin. There are also sprinklings of Greek, Celtic, and with Eastern European immigration, borrowings from Yiddish and a few Native American terms. The only ones not in the same language family as English are NA languages and Yiddish.

No parallel with "Ishtar" and "Eostre," which remain separated by both time and geography.

[Brettongarcia]

374. English has links to very ancient Indo-European and other languages; 2,000 years old and more

They link to Ancient Persian/Aramaic, Semitic languages, etc.

Far from being barriors, time and geography helped this process. 1) Old as these old cultures were - thousands of years before Paul, c. 55 CE - there was plenty of time for diffusion. 2) Through the Greek and then Roman Empire; to say Germany, and the British Aisles. Cultural exchange, crossed great distances in "geography"; particularly with the aid of the far-ranging empires of Alexander the Great, and Rome.

Time - centuries - also gave plenty of time for this diffusion.

Even the Greek "Eos" could be a much later development, after Ishtar; borrowing, from Earlier Indo-European and ANE cultures.

Given the huge resemblance between the pronunciation of "Ishtar" and "Easter" or "Oestre" or the reconstructed roots, and the relation of Ishtar to fertility (eggs; prostitution/reproduction; Spring equinox), some propose Ishtar as the most viable ancient root of easter.

Which would explain not only the vernal equinox date of Easter; but also the resurrection motif; and eggs, etc.

All consistent with centuries for cultural diffusion, and known loanwords and borrowings from countless ANE cultures in the Ancient Near east.

[okasha]

378. Uhm, no.

Indo-European languages, of which English is one, do not descend from the same roots as the Semitic languages. Let's put this in nontechnical words, since linguistics seems to be something else you have no expertise in. (And yes, before you ask, I do.)

Long ago, in a grassland far way, there arose a tribe of horse nomads with a hunting-based economy that we now call the proto-Indo-Europeans. Because we are able to reconstruct many of their word-forms, we know that they lived in a landscape that was marked by such things as birch trees, rivers where beaver provided a source of fur, and wide steppes (prairies). They had tamed the wild horses we know now as Akhal Teke, possibly the most ancient breed in the world.

Where exactly their original home was is disputed; Eastern Turkey is a possibility, as is the Khazhak-Khirghiz plain, or the lands between the Caspian and Aral Seas. At any rate, it was somewhere in south central Asia.

In time, they began to diffuse to both east and west. The ones who went east came to what is now western China. Several years ago, some of their burials yielded the "Caucasian" mummies found in Urumchi and its vicinity. Their continuing presence is indicated by such things as the depictions of red-haired, blue-eyed Buddhist monks that predate any later European settlement in the region. These populations settled well east of the Semitic peoples.

The ones who went south became the Indo-Aryans, moving into what is now India, Persia and Afghanistan. These populations settled well south and east of the Semitic peoples.

The ones who went west spread out across Europe well north of Semitic peoples. We can follow them across the map because they left behind the name of the goddess Dan/Don/Dana attached to natural features and some populations. Thus we have the Don River in Russia, the Danaans in anciant Achaia (Greece), the Donau (Danube) River, the Dordogne region in France, a River Don again in England and the Tuatha de Danaan (gods, tribes) in Ireland. (And by the way, Ireland and England are the British Isles, not Aisles.)

Semitic speakers, on the other hand, seem to have originated and diffused from a point to the west and south of the Indo-Europeans. They supplanted Sumerian language and culture in Mesopotamia, moving west into Syria (Aramaea) and from there south into the Trans-Jordan and the Arabian desert. Genesis acknowleges a memory of such migrations in the story of Abraham and the ritual formula, "My father was a wandering Aramaean."

While there must have been early trading contact between the two peoples, the Semitic and Indo-European languages evolved separately. Persian (I-E) and Aramaic (Western Semitic; an offshoot of Classical Hebrew, just as koine developed from Classical Greek), are not related. (Either you or your source seems to have confused "Aryan" and "Aramaic.&quot Known historical contact at a much later date between the two groups did give us some limited borrowings, such as "alphabet," from Hebrew "aleph-beth" via Greek "alpha-beta." These borrowings occurred, however, long after the two unrelated language groups were well-established.

The "reconstructed roots," of Eostre and Ishtar are quite different, by the way. "Eostre," "Eos" and interestingly enough "estrus," derive from an I-E root indicating beginnings, while "Ishtar" derives from WS Ish-, meaning "human." (Masc. ish-, fem. isha-)

Easter is connected to the Spring Equinox because Passover is connected to the Spring Equinox. No other explanation is necessary.

[Jim__]

380. The British Isles? Are you sure?

Excellent post!

[okasha]

384. Thanks.

I did a little googling after I posted it, and found the source of the Ishtar/Easter obfuscation. It can be found at a couple of separstist evangelical websites called lasttrumpetmission.com and babylon-mystery.org. Seems that it migrated to Richard Dawkins Facebook page, wherer it was enthusiastically adopted by the gullibe and those too lazy to do a minimal fact check.

[Brettongarcia]

382. Today few people have experience in dozens of exotic languages to fully graph their interrelation

Much future research remains to be done here. To assert dogmatically that Easter comes from the Jews, and that's it, sounds very, very much more like church dogmatics than real scholarship.

In particular, note that even when large-scale dependency relations did not exist between many of the languages noted here - formal "family" relations - it was extremely common for individual "loanwords" and borrowings to travel back and forth, even between formally unrelated cultures. This would have been particularly true when the Greek empire - from 300 BC - and then the Roman, made communication much easier within a 1,000 miles swath that extended from the British Aisles, to Babylonia, Persia, and the Ishtar gates.

In the time of the Jews and then Christianity therefore, there had long existed a very large area of cultural interchange; that could easily carry many peoples and languages throughout the entire Mediterranean basin, and several hundred miles beyond. In that situation, many individual loanwords and cultural concepts - myths - would have spread considerably. I'm not talking about mergers of whole languages here; I'm talking about the cultural diffusion of isolated concepts. Though "loan words."

At present, reconstructed roots to relevant words are speculative. But structural anthropology (assisting Structural Linguistics), can note many conceptual similarities between relevant myths. Since very ancient times - certainly 2,000 BCE at least - ancients have noted the importance of the vernal equinox; whose name is often associated with the "east," and various related phenomena. Eostre? Cf. Eos, or "dawn"; the sun rises in the east.

[okasha]

385. You can give up the smoke and mirrors act now.

You're busted. No genuine scholar would use the type of source where the Ishtar/Easter connection was concocted.

[Leontius]

386. Good advice. I doubt he will take it.

[Brettongarcia]

388. It's been widely asserted. Possibly there is some good scholarship in German; Germans were the

Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 04:37 PM - Edit history (3)

... great Asian scholars.

Note by the way that your own emphasis was on the ORIGIN of language groups, c. 20,000 BCE ff.. But that is a red herring.

The crucial period for early Christianity is probably the Greek and Roman period, c. 300 BC to 100 AD. At this time Greek and Roman empires assured much cultural interchange in the areas we are interested in here. From Britain, to Greece, to Rome, to Persia and the Ishtar Gate ... and the Ishtar myth. Romans famously unified this area to a fair degree; and we can expect a heightened rate of cultural interchange in this critical timeframe. Including of course, religions, myths.

So not only is there phonetic similarity therefore; there was plenty of cultural/Geographic opportunity for such influence. Particularly and especially in the timeframe just before the appearance of Christianity.

At such a time by the way, it might well not have been one, but many regional cultures that developed different and later, regional variations on the "Eoster" myth: Greece and its "Eos"; Germany and its Eoster; and so forth. In general there were many myths in the ANE relating to vernal equinox and spring fertility. Ishtar by the way, is linked to eggs; even prostitution links to fertility.

Many scholars note parallels with Persephone; the Greek goddess relating to life continuing underground in the winter, to emerge in the spring.

Moreover, she is not just Persian: she is "East Semitic Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian goddess of fertility, love, war, and sex.[1] She is the counterpart to the Sumerian Inanna, and is the cognate for the Northwest Semitic Aramean goddess Astarte.

Since she is Semitic, this legend would have been available to jews, therefore. Likely in fact, her myth was assimilated rather directly into ancient cultures around the Jews; so that the Greek Eos and German Oestre would have been later developments, in other cultural spheres.

But heck, what do I know about mythology? Oxford University wanted me to have Max Muller's surviving papers. Though in some ways his work is put down today, he was one of the great scholars of myth, and specifically myth in this particular region. Where I lived for many years.

BIBLIOGRAPHY This remains an hypothesis, as yet not fully substantiated by academic literature. See however: Davis, Tenney L. "The Dualistic Cosmogony of Huai-nan-tzǔ and Its Relations to the Background of Chinese and of European Alchemy." Isis 25.2 (1936): 327-340. Reference to "ASTARTE, ASTAROTH, or ISHTAR (for whom the festival of Easter was originally celebrated)"

One likely direct link with Semitic and Jewish culture, would be in part literature relating to "Esther"; which in the OT is the only book that mentions "GOD" little if all; suggesting an other-religion origin. Possibly on this: "Easter and Yuletide became Christian festivals; and it is this process also which turned a primitive agricultural rite into the Israelite feast of ... on the ritual of the Babylonian New Year at which
there was a portrayal of the victory of Babylon's deities Marduk and Ishtar over those ... " in Littman, Robert J. "The Religious Policy of Xerxes and the" Book of Esther"." The Jewish Quarterly Review (1975): 145-155. Attempts have been made in Christian literature - Christianity Today for example - to review and discredit pagan sources fof course. However, a reliable survey has yet to be written.

[okasha]

391. Wrong again about the dates of language

group diffusion. Otherwise just more fluff and self-puffery.

Ta.

[Brettongarcia]

395. Ishtar + Eos = Eostre, Easter, Estrous.Eastern Vernal Equinox, eggs, fertility,rebirth in the spring

Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 08:12 AM - Edit history (1)

I hear constant curt value judgments from you; but no valid facts. Why should anyone respect that?

Possibly some language dates ARE slightly off. The major linguistic elements are here though. Enough to sketch out a hypothetical etymology/etiology for "Easter." And the origin of myths of rebirth.

Pretty much this is the standard lexicographical, mythological speculation these days, by the way.

Lots of people get on the internet to engage in raw ego contests. That is not my aim. Though it seems to be yours.

[okasha]

396. No, again.

I have offered substantial facts to support my positions. You have not.

What you're now offering as a viable eymology is sourced to two extremely marginal fundamentalist websites, neither of whose authors has any more background in linguisitics than you do. It's nonsense.

If you want to look at raw ego, check your own posts. You've claimed to be a "liberal theologian," but your exegeses are abusurd to the point of grotesquerie. You've argued from ignorance and unsuccessfully with at least three professional psychologists in an attempt to defend the notion that religion=mental illness. You claim that Oxoford University wanted you to assume custody of a set of scholarly papers, yet you refer to its location as "the British Aisles." Etc. You have not shown that you have the expertise you claim in any field. Quite the contrary.

As a friendly gesture, for your own safety, I suggest you avoid little girls with wands.

[Brettongarcia]

397. I suggest you stop consulting web sites, and consult my scholarly bibliographies

And regarding experts in psychology ... who do not cite their credentials? Cf. my own more scholarly bibliography from actual published Psychiatrists and experts....

Re. my pun on Isles?

And as for you?

What are your qualifications for anything, other than a desire to nit pick on the basis of your own total ignorance of the subject matter?

Again and again, I've examined your statements and have found them to be factually false; or based on total ignorance of academic subject matter.

But why try any longer to prove it? Your own words will condemn you, to any true expert who examines them.

The Internet never forgets; what you have said, and what I have said, is now a matter of record.

I am happy to have my statements, vs. yours, examined by people who really know what I am talking about.

[TM99]

398. You have not cited your own credentials, have you?

I asked you in a previous post to please provide them. After all, you insist that other professionals must do so to be taken seriously.

I finally did some research on Cultural Studies. And bluntly you are not being very honest. CS is a relatively new academic discipline. Unlike sociology, it lacks any historic works as its basis. It is not based on psychology, philosophy, or religion. It is very unstructured and lacks any coherent & unified theory. It has roots in modern Feminism, Neoliberalism, and Marxist thought and seems to predominantly focus on literary criticism. Unlike history, anthropology, or ethnic studies, it is concerned with the political dynamics of contemporary culture. From what I can also read, it is not looked upon by other academics as more than a 'fad' as CS lacks a scientific method. There is little to no agreement within the 'field' on methods or a means to hold any researcher to account on their theories.

This really describes you in this thread. You are not a linguist, a mythologist, or a psychologist. You pretend to understand philosophy and religion as well and lack a basic understanding of something as simple as Biblical exegesis. You put forth theories, like this Eostre = Ishtar nonsense, that no academic mythologist, linguist, or historian would even remotely accept as valid. It is so farcical that it is not even wrong. You take articles and researchers in the field of psychology out of context and use them despite correction by those in the field in order to support your own pet theories.

So put up or shut up. Do you have academic training outside of Cultural Studies at a graduate level? Are you also a linguist, a mythologist, a historian, or a religious studies graduate? What is your background in the scientific method? And if so, and because you seem so dead set that on an anonymous message board if one is going to speak authoritatively then a resume is necessary, let's see yours.

[Brettongarcia]

400. I've said I have a PhD in Culture Studies. One credential (given without ID to be sure)

So what is yours?

You are constantly playing with semantics; you asked "do I" have to furnish my dissertation title. Strictly speaking, that definitively says nothing.

What I would therefore ask: simply state what graduate degree(s) you yourself have. I do not require proof.

Skip the language tricks and linguistic framing. They are all too obvious to people in my field; with expertise in literary criticism, among other things.

[TM99]

407. I deleted my first reply to you because

I am simply not going to take seriously someone who believes they are qualified to promote theories like the Eostre = Ishtar meme which is ONLY accepted by select neopagans, fundamentalist Christians, and atheists like Richard Dawkins.

I have already stated that I am a licensed psychologist with a doctorate in clinical psychology. I have mentioned in other threads my other undergraduate and graduate degrees. Go look them up if you are dying to know more about me.

[Brettongarcia]

411. I don't think I'd EQUATE Ishtar with Oestre. Rather it is all part of a far larger synthesis

Of many similar gods. Especially those centered around spring as dying and "rebirth." It would be Ishtar's consort Tammuz that would be particularly related.

To be sure there isn't really good scholarship in English on this hypothesis as of yet. For that matter, mythography is far less exact than Physics in any case.

The good information seems to be pre-Internet, and therefore not conveniently online. In addition, much scholarship in this area is in German. Which I can read well enough. But is not used as much as it should be by the Internet; and even by American scholars.

To be sure too, I explicitly see my field as generating "hypothesis." But? I've cited some academic literature.

[okasha]

410. Temper, temper.

You are an anonymous poster on a message board who has made several extravagant claims, none of which you have substantiated. What you have substantiated with this post is what you are and why you are here.

Do watch out for that little girl.

[Brettongarcia]

412. Who is enormously self-important and smug, and feels adamant judgmentalism is scholarship?

[okasha]

414. Surely a PhD in cultural studies

would recognize the allusion.

[Brettongarcia]

415. Want to spell it out for everyone?

[okasha]

417. "Everyone" doesn't. need it.

Nt

[Brettongarcia]

418. So your libelous insults are clear to everyone.

Not only are you 1) libelous. You 2) are clearly not qualified to offer any professional opinion here; 3) you have never asserted, nor do you evidence, any really qualifying credential. Nevertheless, 4) you have self-importantly felt fully qualified to offer one erroneous and summary judgment after another; 5) including many simply and obviously wrong factual matters.

On top of that 6) you are rude, insulting (/insecure?), in addition to being professionally unqualified. Clearly furthermore, 7) your arguments are ill informed, and extend not much further than what you think you can guess, with your application of confused logic, from the bare appearance of the words. While your guesses moreover are inevitably wrong. Furthermore, 8) you have shown complete inability and disinclination to engage serious academic literature and dozens of citations. Preferring it seems to consult unreliable web sites.

So what are you doing, exactly, in this forum? And what in the world gives you the self-importance to comment here?

[okasha]

420. At the moment,

I'm laughing so hard I can barely type.

[Brettongarcia]

422. Denial. And projection.

Not related to you of course. But about 1% of the population suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

"Some people diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder are characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance. They have a sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of empathy.[4]

Symptoms of this disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR, include:[1]
Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments
Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others
Envies others and believes others envy him/her
Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence
Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others
Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior
Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic

Other symptoms in addition to the ones defined by DSM-IV-TR include: Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends, has trouble keeping healthy relationships with others, easily hurt or rejected, appears unemotional, and exaggerating special achievements and talents, setting unrealistic goals for himself/herself.[5]

Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, and an over-inflated sense of self-importance that is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders.[6]

In addition to these symptoms, the person may display arrogance, show superiority, and seek power."

[Leontius]

423. Please stop you're really embarrassing yourself.

[Brettongarcia]

424. You're good at summary judgements and name-calling

That's an admirable skill

[TM99]

431. My experience in the field has shown me

that when people not in the field start throwing around DSM diagnoses, they are inevitably diagnosing themselves through projective identification.

Tread carefully.

[Brettongarcia]

432. Ishtar + Eos = Eostre or Easter is not quite etymology, or equation; but shorthand

For a much larger process of mythogenesis. Physicists have a term for similar things; Einstein's E=mc2 is not an exact equation for example. But is shorthand for a larger process.

What is the mythological process? Roughly there were hundreds of "dying and rising" gods in ancient society; many relating to fertility, and the return of life to the surface of the earth in the spring. "Ishtar" and her husband are relevant here. But so are dozens of others; Ishtar is just one.

Adding to this, words like "Eos," or "dawn" for the Greeks, bring in the second major element: spring or the Vernal Equinox and so forth. These are sometimes measured relative to the dawn, or rising of the sun (and then its height in the sky). Dawn is also a new beginning; of a new day. Eos and so forth often relate to the "east." Possibly Bede was working from this kind of term especially.

What will we finally discover? What sources are there? Much of the scholarship relating to oriental mythology was done in the 19th & 20th centuries; in German, French, and other languages; much of which is not yet conveniently online or searchable still. So rediscovering the relevant texts is not easy at present; too many contemporaries simply conclude that there is nothing there. Due to inaccessibility of scholarship. And to be sure, due to the inherent difficulty/uncertainty of mythographical analysis.

Then too, a politically powerful, dogmatic Christian bias insists that "God" and at most only the Jews, are the "only" source for its own stories; not any "pagan" sources. Though OT scholars that I have corresponded with - like Dr. Tom Thompson and others - and sources like the story of Gilgamesh, including Ishtar, have begun to make clearly the continuity of ancient Jewish and Christian tales, and ANE myths. Particularly tales of "Noah" and the Flood; "Daniel" tales. And so forth.

[okasha]

349. "Ostara" is a alternate, Latinized version

of "Eostre." Same goddess, different orthography.

[Leontius]

371. The exsitence of a cult of Eostre/Ostara is still questioned as far as I know.

There may be newer research that I am not aware of that confirms it did actually exist in post Roman Britain .

[TM99]

373. Bede is the only written source we have. nt

[Brettongarcia]

375. The only source on "Eostre." From there, we look to other sources: mythography and linguistics

Where we find, beyond the Greek Eos, still more ancient ANE and Asian myths. Including Ishtar

And easter eggs.

Next: as for the bunny?

[cbayer]

171. See, you started your time here saying that you wanted to voice our opinions about religion,

but would limit those such that they didn't attack religious people, as you knew that would be not only against the rules here, but wrong.

Well, I wondered how long that would last, and it hasn't taken long at all.

When you start making bigoted statements like "the complete absence of critical thought by believers", I think you have crossed the line.

And I question whether you ever intended to remain civil.

I know you will get support and high fives for taking this road. I hope you enjoy it.

[Cartoonist]

188. Look at your own posts

When you say "belief is about faith", that is the very definition of an absence of critical thought. I suggest you look up both belief and faith in the dictionary. You will notice that they are both contingent on a lack of empirical evidence.

The problem many people here make about my posts is they can't separate themselves from their religion. My criticisms are against the institutions of religion. I consider their followers to be brainwashed victims. I was brainwashed too. My parents CHOSE my religion for me. I never had a choice. They sent me to a parochial school where I was taught to believe whatever I was told, and punished for not toeing the line. Never was I allowed to engage in critical thought. I started to lose my faith in high school, but it was a very tough ordeal to shrug off a lifetime of brainwashing. It took me several years before I could think for myself.

Again, read your own posts. Try to find some words that are your own rather than a repeat of what you were taught.

[cbayer]

191. So are you saying I am without the ability to critically think and are going to advise

me to start looking up words in the dictionary?

Religion is indeed continent on the lack of empirical evidence. Did someone state otherwise?

The problem I'm having with your posts is that they are offensive and clearly directed at believers, not just belief or institutions. Can you honestly call them "brainwashed victims" and take the position that you aren't criticizing people.

Are you serious?

I'm sorry for your negative experiences with religion. Those were your experiences only and do not necessarily represent the experiences of anyone else. Glad you found your place and my hope is that no one ever regards you in the way you regard believers just because you are an atheist.

By the way, you assume much about me and know nothing. Everything I write is my own. Keep that in mind and stop trying to force what I say into some preconceived notions you apparently have.

[Cartoonist]

200. I'm beginning to think I am talking with a child.

I hate to borrow a saying from religion but, hate the sin, not the sinner. I have no respect for religion, am even antagonistic against it. Excuse me for being against genocide, one of religion's practices. As for you, I don't know you from Eve. The evil is religion, not necessarily its believers.

Can you honestly call them "brainwashed victims" and take the position that you aren't criticizing people.
-
You can't figure it out? The Church is the brainwasher, the believers are the brainwashees. My sympathies are for the believers, my attacks are for the church.

I'm sorry for your negative experiences with religion.
-
Oh, it wasn't so bad. Fortunately for me, they always struck my fat ass instead of my knuckles.

Everything I write is my own.-
-
I haven't heard you say one original thing yet. Just saying.

[cbayer]

207. Yes, you are talking with a child who can't possibly figure out things you might say, lol.

I also never say anything original.

Any more personal attacks you want to throw in there while you are here? Whatever you want to think is fine, but resorting to the ad hom is a bad sign for you.

Your anti-theist position is becoming increasing clear and your rather flimsy introduction where you laid out how you planned to proceed more laughable by the post.

I doubt believers either want or need your sympathy. In fact, I think most would tell you to stuff it.

Just saying.

[Cartoonist]

244. I'll try again

Your anti-theist position is becoming increasing clear
-
Wrong! My position is anti-religion. There's a big difference. I can't prove the non-existence of God, I can only refuse to believe in one until some evidence comes along. I can however charge the institutions of religion with crimes against humanity that continue to this day.

I also never say anything original
-
Now you are putting words in my mouth. You might have original ideas about other subjects, but so far, you've just been repeating the same old talking points you've been taught.

[cbayer]

246. You are probably both as you do not limit your negative comments to religion

but repeatedly extend them to religious individuals.

You can believe or refuse to believe in anything you want. No one here is trying to convince you to believe in anything, or, as far as I can see, putting you down or mocking you for your lack of beliefs.

What do you imagine I have been taught?

If you mean that I have been taught that tolerance is important, that people should be allowed to believe or not believe as they see fit and that those that denigrate others for seeing things differently are exhibiting prejudice at best, bigotry at worst, then, yes. That is what I have been taught and come to embrace.

What points do I make that you see as unoriginal? Which are "talking points"?

[Cartoonist]

252. Like who?

but repeatedly extend them to religious individuals
-
You need some separation. I realize you identify very strongly with your religion, but a criticism of religion is not a criticism of the individual. If I criticize the Chicago Cubs baseball team, that does not mean I think a fan of this team is guilty of anything. When I criticize your religion, I am not criticizing you. That is one of the basic reasons a civil conversation about religion is hard to have.

About tolerance, are you tolerant about the Ku Klux Klan, or do you think they are worthy of criticism? Are you tolerant toward racist bigots? Murderers? From my point of view, and I believe I have facts to back this up, organized religion is responsible for some of the most heinous crimes in history. Excuse me for not being tolerant of genocide, misogyny, homophobia, and racism. I am sorry to hear that you embrace them.

[cbayer]

254. What makes you think I am religious?

The fact that I see things differently than you?

Guess what , I'm not. Now go re-assess everything you have assumed about me.

You accuse me of not having an original thought, but I could easily list the books from where you ideas have sprung and explain why you have applied all your "beliefs" to me, even though I am not what you think.

I need separation? I think it might be you that needs to step back and get some perspective.

Civil discussions about religion are had in this group frequently, but generally not with those that mock people's beliefs or call them brainwashed, illogical, irrational, unoriginal, etc.

I think the KKK is worthy of criticism because they pursue hatred and bigotry, which I oppose. I also think some religious groups deserve strong criticism. I have also criticized some of the actions of some groups of non-believers.

When I do so, I do it because of specific actions or positions they have taken that I think impinge on the rights of or harm others, not just because they are members of a very diverse group that may have some members that do that.

People are responsible for some of the most heinous crimes in history. Some were religious and driven by religious ideas, others not. That does not mean that all religious people are responsible for the most heinous crimes in history.

Men are responsible for the most heinous crimes against women. I am assuming that you are a man. Does that make you equally culpable or should I make some attempt to distinguish different kinds of men?

Yes Cartoonist. I am a genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic racist who madly embraces all of those things.

[Cartoonist]

313. You still don't get it.

Men are responsible for the most heinous crimes against women. I am assuming that you are a man. Does that make you equally culpable or should I make some attempt to distinguish different kinds of men?
-
As a man, I am ashamed of the crimes committed by other men. While I've never visited violence against a woman, I am somewhat culpable, as are all men, because we haven't been able to deal properly with this problem.
So, yeah, members of religions are somewhat responsible for the crimes committed by their religion simply because they plink a few coins in the collection box.

You're not religious? I don't believe you.

[cbayer]

324. Yes I still don't get it and I am a liar.

Since I just don't fit your narrative, I must be both stupid and lying.

I am so done with you.

[Cartoonist]

356. Please put me on ignore.

Or, at least keep your word.

[cbayer]

357. Nah, I think there may still be hope for you.

[hrmjustin]

10. I wish people just argued what they think of religion without saying believers are mentally ill.

[cbayer]

12. It is quite possible for one to make arguments against religion, criticize religion, etc

without attacking religious people, as can be clearly seen by the posts of some of our regular contributors.

And I think the use of psychiatric terminology, and particularly diagnoses, is particularly egregious.

But it becomes rapidly apparent that they generally have no background in or understanding of psychiatric illness and are just like people who use the term "retard" or use "gay" as a perjorative.

[hrmjustin]

14. I agree. I know plenty of non-believers and only one or two can get that nasty about it.

Most just say I am wrong or don't want to get into it.

[cbayer]

16. Before DU, I had never really known any overtly hostile anti-theists.

I knew anti-theists and others who had very, very negative feelings about religion. And sometimes they were negligently hostile, particularly when they incorrectly assumed they were surrounded by people who felt like they did.

But, to a person, they were receptive to feedback from others that prejudice is prejudice and bigotry is bigotry. And, most of all, that replicating the behavior that you say most turns you off about religionists is probably not a great idea.

At any rate, I have such a variety of people in my life and in terms of religion they really run the gamut. Other than a serious problem between an israeli friend and a palestinian friend who can not visit at the same time, there is not issue.

[hrmjustin]

17. Yes DU really was my first real experience with people who were very anti-religion.

[phil89]

84. Shouldn't we be hostile to an oppressive, harmful institution like religion?

Why should we accept other people's irrational beliefs as a good thing?

[cbayer]

89. While we might want to be opposed to oppressive, harmful institutions

in general (be they religious or not), the inability to distinguish those religious organizations that are not oppressive or harmful from those that are makes it very dangerous to be hostile, imo.

In fact, one might see it as bigotry, the essence of which is painting everything with a broad brush based on the characteristics or stereotypes of a few.

You call religious beliefs irrational. That's your opinion, not a fact.

And this site prohibits bigotry based on beliefs or lack of beliefs. Many members here are believers. Are you calling all of them irrational?

[skepticscott]

15. More like the people

who use the term "dumbasses" to describe religious believers, wouldn't you say?

[EvilAL]

304. Then there is the 'bigotry line'

that people get accused of crossing when they start saying bad stuff about someone's religion. Would you agree that unless religious people are attacked on a personal level that it's fair game? If one makes a blanket statement about 'religion', as in 'all religions are _______' is that fair game? I've been accused of some nasty shit by a couple of people around here for either agreeing with, or not agreeing with shit said about religion, but not specific people.

[cbayer]

305. What is bigotry according to you?

It's not just saying bad stuff about someones religion, but it could be calling all believers mentally ill, irrational, sheeple, etc.

Is that not a personal attack?

If one say "religions are…." that is very different than saying "religious people are….".

Bigotry is not just making a personal attack on an individual, but on making a personal attack only because that person is a member of a particular group.

It's like saying that all atheists are untrustworthy or deficient in some way.

That's bigotry. It's based on prejudice.

[EvilAL]

306. If it is directed at people for whatever reason

then I'd say it is. Some people think that saying 'Religions are' is the same as 'religious people are'. I've been accused of it for saying stuff about the bible. It's a book. Sacred/holy/whatever.. Still a book. Now if I had said 'People that read the bible are...' Maybe they'd have a case..

[cbayer]

308. I agree with you, but not seeing the posts for

which you have been criticized, it's hard to really assess why others may have been offended.

There is a lot of ugly vitriol towards religious people thrown around in this group. One has to only read this thread to see some of it.

When one equates religious belief with psychiatric disorders, that is not attacking religion, that's attacking religious believers.

And that can be bigotry.

[EvilAL]

309. I agree that it can in certain instances.

A former member called me a bigot a couple of times. Once over the bible and once over something about the pope. Others have, just not in so many words. I'm not gonna call anyone out, I can handle it, doesn't bother me. Just maakes it hard to argue a point sometimes with someone pretty much saying everything you said is bigoted. Then having to defend yourself over and over while they miss the point. I don't alert or use the ignore function. I am getting pretty good at guessing what some people are going to say though.. hahahah Aaaahh the internet.

[rug]

25. Maybe it's a compulsion.

[cbayer]

26. Hilarious you are.

[Thinkingabout]

18. What would be wrong with allowing choice of religion or no religion? Those who argue for or

Against just may be infringing on the rights of others. Live and let live. I see radical points going in both directions. If it is right for your choice then it is right for one to think for themselves. Radicalism borders some overplay in either direction.

[cbayer]

19. Totally agree.

Those who feel that they have the only answer and everyone else is wrong, crazy or stupid don't really have a leg to stand on anyway.

[skepticscott]

32. We already allow that..mostly

though it's been a centuries long and ongoing struggle for atheists to simply be allowed to exist openly. People have always been allowed to choose religion, but many of them take that right as a right to impose their superstitions on everyone, including those who don't share them.

[Thinkingabout]

33. Yes, my point, it sbould not be a part of either side to call the other names, question their

Mental state. We should strive for tolerance.

[MellowDem]

35. Problem is, homosexuality used to be considered an abnormality...

by these same professionals. Mental health is a soft science. Whether something is a mental illness or not is a completely subjective idea, not something that can be tested. In this sense, what the majority of mental health practitioners say is irrelevant as to proving anything, since it's not like it's something that can be tested.

Religious beliefs do fit into the definition of mental illness in many cases but for one factor, it's socially normative. What is socially normative changes over time, of course. Like homosexuality.

The reason so many believers don't seem "mentally ill" is because they don't really believe what they proclaim to through their religious identification. Those who do actually believe it, and therefore act on it, are much more readily seen as mentally ill.

Basically, society views maladaptive behavior as bad. What is maladaptive depends on the society and is very subjective. I think religion is maladaptive for a lot of reasons. Which is why most believers have dropped all but the most vague of beliefs. They know it's maladaptive too.

Using a soft science like psychology, and considering that psychology has changed it's views and continues to on what is considered a mental illness, and considering it is also subjective and beyond the realm of psychology to determine what is or isn't good behavior in society, the author chose a terrible example to illustrate her point. Psychology has rarely been on the forefront of social thinking, and has had to be dragged along in many cases.

Psychology, being a soft science, is a reflection of our society in a way hard sciences aren't. So it's not surprising that psychologists wouldn't label something that is socially normative as maladaptive. Until it isn't socially normative anymore, of course.

[TM99]

38. Psychology is no more a soft science than medicine.

Both are based on evolving scientific research that must be put into practice by fallible human beings in order to help other fallible human beings to heal.

To suggest that no science other than psychology has changed it's views or continues to grow as we understand more about science shows just how poorly you understand the field of psychology AND science in general.

Newtonian physics was not the end of our scientific understanding of the laws of nature. This little thing called Quantum mechanics evolved out of it.

I recognize in my field that I must stay informed and educated on a broad array of scientific topics. I stay well-read in bio-psychology, neuroscience, psychopharmacology, cognitive studies, philosophy of mind, AI & computer science, and even the field of robotics. Hard scientists have it easy. If you are a chemist, do you need to be well-versed in the philosophy of mind or consciousness studies? If you are an engineer, do you need to be well-versed in the latest advances in AI & Expert Systems?

Finally if you believe that psychologists/psychiatrists in the field have not been on the very forefront of social thinking, then your education is sorely lacking. I would encourage you to read Wilhelm Reich, Heinz Kohut, Rollo May, Viktor Frankl, Erich Fromm, Carl Rogers, Virginia Satir, R.D. Laing, Abraham H. Maslow, and Jay Haley to name but a few.

[Brettongarcia]

42. Many of whom often said rather negative things on religion

Especially say, Freud?

[TM99]

46. As my daddy used to say -

what the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I can be critical of religion without being disrespectful, emotionally hyperbolic, or pseudo-scientific by pretending that being religious is somehow analogous to being 'delusional'.

The article is quite accurate that as an atheist, criticize religion all you want, but to equate psychological diagnostics of mental illness with religion and the religious is simply wrong. It is inaccurate, uninformed, and emotionally inconsiderate of human beings choices of what to believe or disbelieve.

[Brettongarcia]

49. But if much of Psychology says negative things about religion...

Shouldn't we be allowed to look deeper into this? And even to cite existing negative information at times?

To not be allowed to do this, even informally, would be 1) censorship. And possibly say 2) Denial.

Furthermore, if there ARE bad things in religion, psychologically speaking, then don't we have even a moral obligation to allude to them? Even in casual conversation?

Or should we let bad things, and possible psychological tie-ins, to go completely unremarked?

[cbayer]

53. Much of psychology says negative things about religion? No, that's not true

and yet another instance of you just making things up.

While psychologists and psychiatrists have an interest in how a person's religion may relate to their illness and treatment, there is not pejorative stance that you describe at all.

Please cite the negative information you speak of. No one is stopping you from doing that and there is no censorship or denial going on.

[skepticscott]

147. Oh, and now you're presuming to speak

on behalf of "much of psychology"? Not only are you going against your own scolds, which dictate that no one here is allowed to speak for anyone but themselves, but you'll have those who went to psychology school coming down on you for treading on their turf.

[TM99]

57. Much of psychology does not.

Some individuals and schools have been critical and dismissive of religion and other individuals and schools have been supportive of the value of religion in our human lives.

No one is saying to not look deeply into religion or psychology. No one is trying to censor you for pity's sake.

But here is a really healthy and respectful example of what psychologists are currently thinking about religion:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.aspx

It is both critical, scientifically informed, and does not in any way intimate that the religious are somehow delusional in a psychological way.

That distrust causes much of the world’s strife and violence and is one of the reasons the “new atheists,” including British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, PhD, and neuroscientist Sam Harris, PhD, want to see religion disappear. But that will be difficult if not impossible if religion is a byproduct of the way our brains work, as much of the recent research suggests, says Atran. What could work, says Norenzayan, is to replace religion with secular communities built on a common moral foundation. He suggests that Denmark’s society is successfully doing this with its large welfare state, its national ethic of hard work and its strong attachment to political freedom and individualism. But such societies will still need many of the components of religion, including a belief that we’re all part of the same moral community and, therefore, should make sacrifices that benefit the greater good.

To get there, researchers need to continue to fine-tune their understanding of religion, says Barrett. “As the research matures and we bring in other areas of psychology, I think we’ll have a better window into the nature of religion and where it might be going.”

This way of discussing the intersection of psychological science and religion is constructive. What Alanah Massey is rightly criticizing is destructive and unskillful ways of discussing the topic. Alluding that religions as a whole or the religious are suffering from a psychological disorder or delusion is what she is deriding. That is uncivil and arrogantly disrespectful to both the religious and those who do suffer from genuine mental illnesses. You can apprecaite the difference here, right?

[Brettongarcia]

65. Your cited APA article begins noting negative professional psych evaluation of religion...

"Harking back to Sigmund Freud, some psychologists have characterized religious beliefs as pathological, seeing religion as a malignant social force that encourages irrational thoughts and ritualistic behaviors.

Of course, psychologists’ doubts — and those of countless others throughout history — haven’t curtailed religion’s powerful hold on humans. Religion has survived and thrived for more than 100,000 years. It exists in every culture, with more than 85 percent of the world’s population embracing some sort of religious belief.

Researchers who study the psychology and neuroscience of religion are helping to explain why such beliefs are so enduring. They’re finding that religion may, in fact, be a byproduct of the way our brains work, growing from cognitive tendencies to seek order from chaos, to anthropomorphize our environment and to believe the world around us was created for our use.

Religion has survived, they surmise, because it helped us form increasingly larger social groups, held together by common beliefs."



To be sure, after mentioning the negative assessments in a cursory way, then this article becomes wholly positive on religion. This article is entitled "Reasons for Faith" or some such. And particularly, it suggests that the main good thing in religion, is helping us cohere in "social groups."

But on this blog we've previously critiqued this view (from our standpoint as relative amateurs). Our basic objection here, is that often religion seems to allow one social group to cohere, within themselves - but often at the expense of conflict with OTHER, rival social groups, rival religions.

So for example, Muslim belief perhaps allows (at that, only some) Muslims to cohere WITHIN THEMSELVES; but differences between Islam and OTHER social groups and religions, like Christianity, generate conflict.

[TM99]

73. Some not all.

You can understand that distinction, right?

Atheists cohere within themselves, right? You share a common belief often in community albeit virtual ones more so than in person I find. You and others here seem to have ongoing conflict with other groups as evidenced by this thread alone.

Does that make every atheist a person suffering from a psychologically diagnosed disorder? Of course not, that would be as ridiculous as suggesting that all religious believers do so as well.

No matter how hard you and skepticscott attempt to portray it, no professional in the psychological field immediately looks at all religions or religious people and assumes a full blown diagnosable disorder.

Additionally the APA article was to show an example of how to critically analyze religion from a more psychological viewpoint while remaining respectful, civil, and not pretending that someone who is religious is delusional. To read it any other way, is to willfully ignore my post I referenced it in and the article itself.

[Brettongarcia]

74. "Some" psychologists criticize religion, note, does not mean "none"

Your referenced article is one of thousands. Here, we're looking at the counterhypotheses.

If two groups conflict ... then which ONE is the cause?

The point would not be so much to assign blame to either one; but to note however that social coherence in itself, notably in religious groups, is not an unmitigated good.

Granted, it seems that few psych. professionals currently regard any and all religion as "full blown diagnosable disorder." But let's look for a while at the negative side of religion. Which you admit, Psych. acknowledges.

It may be that as such information adds up, future Psych. will emphasize these sides. Even over and above your current hypothesis.

As has been noted here, Psychology does change over time; as witness for example its attitude toward homosexuality.

What first of all would be your more substantive response to my notation of the problem with posing social coherence as an assured good?

[TM99]

75. What counterhypothesis?

This thread isn't about psychological critiques of religion and both its negative and positive effects on society and individuals.

This thread is about an all too common occurrence with anti-theists in equating wrongly psychologically diagnosed delusional disorders with all religions or the religious. That is hurtful, inappropriate, and inaccurate.

If you wish to start a separate thread which politely and respectfully delves deeper into what I or other current psychology professionals think about the good or ill affects of religion on society and individuals, I am more than willing to answer and participate.

I want answer your question as stated here as it is simply off-topic.

[Brettongarcia]

77. Whose narrative, who frames the question, the rules, is a major matter in my own field (s)

It is often regarding as a simple power relationship.

In the present case, who determines, defines, what is the subject of this thread?

I submit that in any case, the subjects are related. To determine what is rude and inappropriate, among other things, we first need to at least briefly determine the relative justice of each side.

If say, a religious zealot was actively murdering an atheist, for heresy, some rudeness and quick action by the atheist, might well be in order.

Generally I hold that religious zealotry has clearly been historically guilty of many executions and persecutions. So that? A certain defensive antagonism is justifiable.

[cbayer]

79. What are your fields, by the way?

The subject of this thread is clear. It is about tagging the religious with psychiatric diagnoses based solely on their being religious.

It's wrong, completely unsupported and harmful to both the religious and those who truly suffer with psychiatric illnesses.

[Brettongarcia]

81. The thread: is accusing religion (in general?) of psych disorders wrong?

That's the question. So we're trying to determine whether it IS indeed, wrong.

What say, about the case of the criminally insane, who are about to physically attack you? If such a case, is rudeness justifiable?

And haven't believers often in fact attacked outside groups? Even physically? And verbally.

My major PhD field is Culture Studies. Which is often relevant to major cultural phenomena like Religion.

[TM99]

85. You are conflating too many subjects and ideas.

The question has been answered. It is wrong. As their is no scientific basis nor culturally acceptable basis for equating religion and psychological disorders, to do so is inappropriate, disrespectful, hurtful, etc.

If someone physically attacks you, self defense is not 'rudeness'. To equate self defense in that way with the rudeness of attacking religious people by calling them mentally ill is simply specious and a very weak argument in its favor.

Whether particular religions or religious individuals have attacked physically or verbally outside groups is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You can not equate the actions of one person or group with the actions of all people or groups. As a Cultural Studies major, surely you understand this.

Are you suggesting by that statement that since it has occurred that way before, then it is simply 'revenge' and is acceptable for anti-theists to attack religious people in physical and/or verbal ways? I really can't believe that is what you would be suggesting.

[Brettongarcia]

95. There may be however, a Culture Studies basis to suggest that Religion is largely dysfunctional.

Or even in a sense, a "delusion." As defined by my remarks to Bayer. Defined according in the present case, to the culture of the Bible.

Agreed: the finding that many religious groups have been responsible for bad things, even murders, does not yet prove that ALL of them are that way. But the study of History - even specifically Christianity among many others - finds a great deal of what would today seem say, "crazy" (unjustified) violence. Especially - but not solely - in the Old Testament. But also in post New Testament Christian history proper.

Is this ancient history relevant to religion today? One of my other graduate degrees is in an Historical discipline. And we are trained to suggest that things that happened in the history of present-day cultural institutions, often continue in one form or another, even in present day branches. From the same historical roots.

And as we here and elsewhere examine one example after another? It may be that the examples add up to a liberal condemnation of effectively, all forms of religion. Past, present, and future. Anthropology has looked for "universals" often. The way it does that is by looking at many individual examples; looking to see if a larger pattern starts to show up in most/all of them.

So let's look at once example after another. To see if a pattern begins to form. Are there so many bad things in essentially all religions, as to justify condemning them as a universal? Let's leave this an open question for a moment; to be decided by examination.

Is doing this, even in a sometimes aggressive way, "revenge"? Possibly not. What I am suggesting mostly is that given the past violent history of believers, some rather firm measures are often necessary. Including at least, an aggressive rhetoric. In part, even defensively. Believers can be quite confrontational; sometimes similarly strong words are required to get through, in response.

Sometimes you have to shout at people; even insult them. To get through. To stop their assaults. Animals bark or growl. Particularly if they have historically growled at atheists and "heretics" for thousands of years; and assaulted them and burned them at the stake too. One needs to shout though, often, just to get their attention.

[cbayer]

87. Criminally insane?

No one is making the argument that insanity is not a real thing.

The fact that people with absolutely no qualifications to do so use psychiatric diagnoses to smear people with religion based solely on the fact that they are religious is what is wrong.

There may be good reasons to criticize religious beliefs and religious organizations, but calling them psychiatric disorders is wrong. There is no good or valid argument against that position.

[Brettongarcia]

93. The phrase "criminally insane" once had legal standing; it refers to criminals who are also ...

...mentally ill. Later it was often thought that "insanity" got you off the hook for crimes.

I'm using it here a bit facetiously for mentally ill persons who commit crimes; like physically assaulting and killing others.

There have apparently been many such people. And here's the important point: a rguably, one might suggest - metaphorically? - that according to current liberal philosophy, most religious wars were criminal; and were based on wrong/false ideas. In which case, huge numbers of religious people will have confused; even in a way, criminally insane.

Or say, would it be wrong to call such persons "confused"? Or even say, "delusional"?

What term(s) should we use? Suppose I stipulate here that for the moment, since this is not a formal paper, but only an informal discussion, that I am not yet using the word "delusional" in the full formal psychological meaning. But in say, an informal - or even say, Biblical sense.

The Bible - St. Paul I think - specifically used the word "delusion." Among dozens of other proto-psychological terms. To refer to confused persons.

Could even nearly all religious believers all over the world be "under a strong delusion" in their religion. The Bible itself even suggested that they can be.

So my current usage, first of all, conforms to Biblical usage. The Bible often told us that many religious persons - even the whole world (Rev. 13.9?) - would one day be found to have been under strong illusions, delusions, false ideas; even in their "worship."

So first of all: should modern religious persons, Christians, refuse to allow this biblical concept and language, to be used? Which is from the Bible itself/God himself?

Next, let's consider the Culture Studies perspective on this. Which is often rather like the liberal philosophy; that would hold that nearly all religions that caused religious wars were in some way wrong. Provisionally here, using the word "delusional" in at least the cultural - in this case biblical - sense.

[cbayer]

94. I know what criminally insane is.

The insanity defense now hinges on whether a person knew the difference between right or wrong or was unable to make that determination at the time due to a psychiatric disorder. It does not "get you off the hook", by the way. You might want to visit one of the facilities in which they keep people who are acquitted based on NGBRI. It's no picnic.

BTW, psychiatric patients are much more likely to be the victims of violent crime than perpetrate them.

What is current liberal philosophy? Criminality is criminality. One does not make the psychiatric diagnosis based on a criminal act. Some religious people commit crimes. Some non-religious people commit crimes. Some religious people have psychiatric disorders. Some non-religious people have psychiatric disorders. There is absolutely no correlation between any of those four groups.

The bible does not suggest that "nearly all religious believers all over the world are 'under a strong delusion' in their religion." You have simply, and once again, just made that up.

No one has argued that the word delusion can't be used, only that it should be used correctly and not as a pejorative smear against religious people. And particularly not when someone uses some amazingly twisted argument to reach that conclusion.

Continue to use it in that way and anyone with knowledge of either religion or psychiatry/psychology will see your position for what it really is.

[Brettongarcia]

99. The Bible says that nearly everyone in the world is to be found deceived in its worship (Rev. 13.9).

IT seems in context that here "worship" is synonymous with religion.

They are deceived, in part, by a false idea of God or Christ.

"Deceived" implies a mental delusion, at least in the broad sense of the word.

In fact, there is a larger picture here many miss. Dozens of similar word are used in the Bible. The word "delusion" is used in one case or more. Though the immediate context of the remark does not fully explain it, finally this and all these related words, finally add up finally to different descriptions of the same event or finding: the moment we find the whole "world" to have been confused, deceived - or say deluded - in its "worship," its religion (rev. 13.9).

[Regarding these various groups of insane persons? I'm interested in the group you (somehow) did not mention: religious persons that do crazy or illegal, violent things.]

So first of all? There is historical - even specifically biblical - warrant, for suggesting that nearly all religious people in the world are under a "delusion." Or any number of similar words: "illusion," "enchantment," mental confusion, false spirits, etc..

Are we yet using the word correctly in the current Psychological sense? Possibly we are; possibly not. But first of all, we are justified in using in a Biblical/culture context.

Or pick another word: the whole religious world can be the victim of say, "deceit"? Or of a "false" idea of God.

Things quite like delusions, after all.

[cbayer]

97. By the way, Rev. 13:9 says "Let anyone who has an ear listen:". That's it.

I am beginning to think that you might just be playing a game where you throw stuff out to see how many people just buy it at face value.

[Brettongarcia]

102. Woops. Rev. 13.7-8. But how do you read that "ear" statement? What does it say?

I read it as telling us that those who are intellectually able will hear the right message here.

That message being: watch out. You yourself might be deceived in your religion.

Many will hear that as warning everybody ELSE, I suppose.

[cbayer]

104. Er, those verses say this:

"Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. It was given authority over every tribe and people and language and nation, 8and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered."

And the statement that follows the "ear" statement says "if you are to be taken captive, into captivity you go; if you kill with the sword, with the sword you must be killed. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints"

How in the world do you interpret that the way you do? What on earth does that have to do with delusions?

I'm sorry, but I can't follow your thinking at all at this point, which generally happens when I engage in discussions with you.

[Brettongarcia]

110. This is part of the larger picture;"warring" adds to convincing with false arguments/delusions

If "all" follow this false religion, then some must do it voluntarily. The armies of the false religion, must be following it with some semi-voluntary will.

Why do it voluntarily? Unless likely, you had been somehow convinced. By false ideas. Or in other words: delusions.

Other parts of the Bible confirm this general overall model. They make the voluntary, mental-convincing side of this more clear, to be sure: they note "magicians" and "sorcerers" and their "illusions" and "enchantments" working to make this false religion work. Along with "false prophets," who are using false arguments, to create false ideas in the masses. False ideas being ... delusions.

So the culture of the Bible finally allows that it is indeed possible for most of the whole world to be deceived, in its religion, by false ideas, confusions, enchantments. And even specifically and by name "delusions."

Therefore? A Biblical/cultural approach to religion seems to justify the look for widespread "delusions" in nearly all religion. Among many other related terms.

[Leontius]

119. I think you may be begining to understand this constant drivel for what it is.

[cbayer]

120. He starts out relatively understandable but seems to inevitably

digress into something I can't even understand.

I'm not sure what to make of it, but it makes discussion very difficult.

[Leontius]

128. Well I'm no psychologist but I think...

[okasha]

133. Bullseye.

Not even from Dimebox U. can you get a graduate degree--never mind multiple graduate degrees--without learning how to quote, cite and document your sources. I refrain from mentioning what a committee would do to a thesis or defense composed of sentence fragments.

[cbayer]

134. I'm having trouble making sense out of this.

I can't tell if it's exaggeration, a game, utter bullshit or what, but this making up of facts is really hard to respond to.

[okasha]

140. That's precisely why

I've stopped responding to him. His assertions have gone from absurd to grotesque. Funny how all the actual professionals in the field--religious, agnostic or atheist---readily recognize the BS for what it is. The consensus among you goes a long way toward proving the point.

[rug]

130. Your definition, unsurprisingly, is incorrect.

Many criminals are mentally ill but they are not criminally insane.

The term erroneously refers to persons who commit acts proscribed by criminal laws but are found, due to mental disease or defect, to have lacked at the time of the act, the actus reus, the requisite state of mind, the mens rea, necessary to have committed a crime.

The correct term is insanity acquittee and they are not deemed to be criminals at all.

[Brettongarcia]

212. Here's the American Psychological Assn quote, linking religion to Mental Illness, AGAIN:

"Harking back to Sigmund Freud, some psychologists have characterized religious beliefs as pathological, seeing religion as a malignant social force that encourages irrational thoughts and ritualistic behaviors. " http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.aspx

The rest of the article goes on to say some positive things about religion. However? This scholarly article does acknowledge that many psychologists "see religion as a malignant social force that encouraged irrational thoughts and ritualistic behaviors" (e.g.; Religion).

Sorry no one here apparently read this full academic reference, from an expert, with understanding; nor the biblical references either.

Is it partly my fault that many don't follow? This of course is an informal discussion on a blog; not a dissertation . I speak informally. But I'm citing the APA, for one thing.

That's how I managed to pass graduate courses in 12 different academic departments, in the course of my interdisciplinary PhD.

[TM99]

214. Good for you.

You can look up a reference.

You do realize that it does not contradict what several of us are saying. Psychologists may be critical of religion. Some even more so than others. I fully agree. I have my fair share of criticisms of religions especially those of the literalistic and fundamentalistic variety.

However, none are currently saying nor has a consensus been made that would require us to update our DSM's that all religions or all religious people suffer from a diagnosable psychological/psychiatric disorder.

"Religion as a malignant social force that encouraged irrational thoughts and ritualistic behaviors" does not a mental disorder make. I don't know why that is so hard for some here to understand. It really isn't complex.

We can identify several malignant social forces that encourage irrational thoughts and ritualistic behaviors.

Just look at Americans and football Sundays and Super Bowl Sunday. There may be individuals who have compulsive disorders such that they gamble on football. There might be a schizophrenic who believes that he is Joe Namath. But no psychologist would say that all followers of the NFL are even remotely suffering from a Delusional Disorder or any other psychological condition JUST because of they do ritualistic behaviors and have some irrational thoughts. Nor would it be a psychological disorder just because LGBT and women criticize American football for promoting bigotry, sexism, etc.

[Brettongarcia]

216. Let's look at the exact wording of the APA article a little more closely

1) Many psychologists, the APA article is telling you, say "Religion" - as it turns out Religion in general; all of it as it, as turns out from a look at the fuller context of the quote - is "a malignant social force."

So as it turns out? Many psychologists ARE condemning Religion. In general, all of it, as it turns out here, and in later remarks.

2) Next: since psychologists are commenting on it, we might suspect that this "social" disorder has of course, psychological ramifications. As indeed the interdisciplinary field of Social Psychology might suggest.In fact indeed, social behavior after all, is to a large extent motivated by, created by, individuals, and their individual and collective minds. Their ... Psychology. While their minds, their psychology, is in turn influenced by culture, social forces. It's a dialectic, etc.

3) The DSM has already been revised at least once. And it is often criticized for what it currently is.

Many of us hope for some serious modifications of it in the fairly near future.

Psychology has already worked one revolution since its foundation; partially leaving Freudianism. We might look forward to the next paradigm shift; modifying the DSM.

Shocking as that might seem.

[Jim__]

217. Please give the exact quote where the article says "many psychologists" are condemning religion.

No bullshit, just the direct quote from the article.

[Brettongarcia]

218. The word in THIS article is "some" shrinks link religion to mental illness; other's say 1/4 of them.

Let's put it this way: a significant number of psychologists link Religion in general to mental illness. Enough that an APA article on the subject feels compelled to mention them. Among them by the way, was Sigmund Freud. Freud is today not really the center of Psychology; (cf. Psychoanalysis). However, he is often thought to be the founder of the discipline of Psychology.

But in any case? Here's a contemporary article perhaps relating to at least one aspect of this. From the professional journal "World Psychiatry":

"ABSTRACT: This article reviews recent advances in the domain of psychiatry and religion that highlight the double-edged capacity of religion to enhance or damage health and well-being, particularly among psychiatric patients. A large body of research challenges stereotyped views of religion as merely a defense or passive way of coping, and indicates that many people look to religion as a vital resource which serves a variety of adaptive functions, such as self-regulation, attachment, emotional comfort, meaning, and spirituality. There is, however, a darker side to religious life. Researchers and theorists have identified and begun to study problematic aspects of religiousness, including religiously-based violence and religious struggles within oneself, with others, and with the divine. Religious problems can be understood as a by-product of psychiatric illness (secondary), a source of psychiatric illness (primary), or both (complex). This growing body of knowledge underscores the need to attend more fully to the potentially constructive and destructive roles of religion in psychiatric diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. In fact, initial evaluative studies of the impact of spiritually integrated treatments among a range of psychiatric populations have shown promising results. The article concludes with a set of recommendations to advance future research and practice, including the need for additional psychiatric studies of people from diverse cultures and religious traditions."

Got it off Medline: http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&sid=87e0236a-aa11-4375-8ac8-160058e178f4%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=cmedm&AN=23471791

[Jim__]

219. In place of an exact quote - just more bullshit.

[Brettongarcia]

221. First? This particular article does note SOME psychologists link religion to mental illness

So let's address that, in itself.

"Some" professional psychologists are suggesting that Religion in general is a disorder. What do you make of THAT?

Can we get a response from you on this substantive matter? Until we do, I'm going to assume you have no substantive response.

By the way? The word "some" does not definitely exclude the possibility that MANY hold this position. And as we document more and more examples here? You will see that indeed, in the case finally, MANY psychologists hold that religion is linked to mental illness.

[Jim__]

223. Still trying to find something to support your statements, eh?

Keep searching. You're bound to find something sooner or later.

As to substance, the entire cited article is substantive.

As a response to the quote, the continuation of the article immediately following the quote will do:

Of course, psychologists’ doubts — and those of countless others throughout history — haven’t curtailed religion’s powerful hold on humans. Religion has survived and thrived for more than 100,000 years. It exists in every culture, with more than 85 percent of the world’s population embracing some sort of religious belief.

Researchers who study the psychology and neuroscience of religion are helping to explain why such beliefs are so enduring. They’re finding that religion may, in fact, be a byproduct of the way our brains work, growing from cognitive tendencies to seek order from chaos, to anthropomorphize our environment and to believe the world around us was created for our use.

Religion has survived, they surmise, because it helped us form increasingly larger social groups, held together by common beliefs.

“If we’re on the right track with this byproduct idea — and the findings are really getting strong — it’s hard to then build the case that religion is a pathology,” says psychologist Justin Barrett, PhD, director of the cognition, religion and theology project in the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford University.

[Brettongarcia]

225. I stated MANY times that THIS article is OVERALL, positive on religion. But...

Since a defender of the faith chose this one as his best example? I noted that EVEN THIS, your best case article, notes other scholars disagree. Scholars who DO relate religion to pathology.

So? Even your best case, your best example ... will not unequivocally affirm your point.

By the way? After dealing with your own best example? Let's look at the really stronger objections to defenders of the faith.... To be sure, my present Medline efforts are quick, informal, preliminary; I haven't published on this particular subject. But let's see what a casual search of academic lit turns up. I'm digging up some perhaps related articles on Medline right now. And posting them here and there.

[TM99]

228. I posted this article

as one presentation of current discussions on religion and psychology that was civil, exploratory, and neither fully positive nor fully negative. I also chose one, and trust me I would be glad to barrage you with others, not to defend faith but to defend civility and stopping the pejorative and false accusations of religious believers as all being mentally ill.

I am personally an ignostic, whose philosophical approach to daily living is Theravada Buddhist in nature, and whose community expression of religion is in the African Traditional Religions. One of my pet subjects is folk medicine and folk religion as 'primitive psychiatry'.

At least get your facts straight when you are arguing with us here, OK?

[TM99]

227. Please just stop.

First, the moment you used the word 'shrink' you lost all credibility.

Second, some does not equal most nor does it equal many. It is just some.

Third, you quote one section of the article that I posted to bolster your agenda but neglect to quote the part that Jim finally did for you where psychologists do not see religion as pathology. Period.

Fourth, I am in the field. I have also been a member of the APA in good standing for over two decades. I am on several subcommittees, involved in various SIIG's, and have been to yearly conferences. There are always interesting discussions on religion, psychology, and their intersection in culture as well as mental health. There is no growing consensus that has ever been presented that religion is on the way to being labelled a diagnosed psychological disorder.

Fifth, studies linking mental illness to those that are also religious are correlative but hardly representative of causative certainty at this point in time. Even the articles you have presented here, many of which I have read, conclude with recommendations for further research, practice, and exploration. They do not draw the conclusions that you are attempting to make here.

I am sorry but you are simply stretching well beyond your field of expertise with this and starting to look quite silly doing so.

[Brettongarcia]

230. 1) "Shrink" is the familiar, affectionate term! :)

2) As I'm noting above, I CONSTANTLY agree that the bulk of the text you chose, tries to relate religion to social cohesion/mental health. However? I note that even your best example, feels compelled to acknowledge a significant dissenting school.

3) In formal logic, "some" means some. It does not definitively mean just a few; nor many; nor most. Nor does it exclude either possibility.

4) I do not say that the current consensus is that Religion in general is a mental disorder.

5) But it's easy to find many scholarly articles that begin to add up to that; suggesting the need for a paradigm shift.

6) I specifically acknowledged that correlation is not necessarily causation. Though this may be the case. As more examples build up, that presents itself more and more as an interesting hypothesis.

7) In fields other than your own, these links are increasingly being taken more seriously.

8) By the way? Persons who are believers, who are sworn in church to absolutely trust and believe in their religion, do not necessarily make the most objective observers.

No matter what their protestations are otherwise.

[TM99]

269. By the numbers:

1) Shrink comes from 'headshrinker'. It comes from a wide societal prejudice against seeking help for psychological problems. Therefore, it is dismissive and pejorative. Some psychologists/psychiatrist may personally find it a term of 'affection' but again not all do. If you want to have a serious discussion, it is usually consider adult and civil to not use a potentially pejorative term if you are uncertain to how it will be taken by your audience.

2) That was only one example. It was not chosen as representative of anything you are now trying to make it to be. It is neither fully negative nor fully positive, but it is civil, polite, and shows that the consensus is that religion is not a mental disorder in toto.

3) With regards to formal logic, please review your knowledge on syllogisms and existential fallacies.

4) & 5) "I did not say but I am saying."

6) If we acknowledge it as a possible hypothesis, I would be interested in discussing it further in a new topic.

7) I am well-trained in several fields. Integrative studies will be necessary for acceptance because one field commenting on another purview without complete knowledge of the later is not really good scholarship.

8) I don't know if this one is in reply to me or not. If so, then you are not reading my posts merely skimming them. I am not a member of any official religion or church and am quite ignostic on the topic of deities.

[cbayer]

232. He can't, because it doesn't.

[Brettongarcia]

235. Actually we're not entirely disagreeing; it's just where we put the EMPHASIS

I agree that there is no consensus in Psychology that religion is a pathology, etc.

However, we both might agree that there are some - even many - articles that might add up to that possibility. Just the most casual Medline search here has found several that would at least allow that hypothesis. And Many of us choose to emphasize THAT trend.

Why put so much emphasis on currently accepted, conservative medical practice, ONLY? There are practical reasons: much of the psychological profession in actual practice, not research, is rather conservative; you're not supposed to experiment too much with patients.

Then too, there's a certain amount of government money supporting the standard Diagnostic.

But let's not deny the possibility, in the near future, of a rather negative assessment of Religion.

There is some significant research that could point in that direction.

[cbayer]

237. There is nothing even approaching a consensus.

In fact, there is general consensus that religion does not represent pathology as can easily be determined by looking at the lack of it in any accepted diagnostic manual.

That there are some who hold a different opinion is meaningless. There are a few climatologists that deny climate change. That doesn't make it less true.

Psychology and psychiatry are not moving towards defining religion as pathology no matter how badly you want that to be true.

Government money supports the "standard Diagnostic"? Where did you get that information? Also a link to your "significant research" that is pointing in the direction of a negative assessment of religion would be appreciated.

[Brettongarcia]

241. Let's allow atheists insults; Psychology articles note bad things in Religion.

I don't have the time here and now to write a full dissertation bibliography on this subject. But just this should be enough to at least begin to suggest that the negative thesis regarding religion, might well be regarded as a viable hypothesis. Some significant psychological research trends in that direction.

Therefore? We should not simply reject atheists who assert that religion is largely bad. Some significant research TENDS TO support them. Even my own very casual efforts here, seem enough to indicate that atheists might be right. Even our resident psychologist proper, allows that some negative evidence does indeed, exist.

My conclusion is therefore that we should give atheists - even at their most negative and insulting - more respect. We should allow them even some expressions of anger. And allow them some insults. Since there might indeed, be many really, really terrible things in Religion.

Even Psychology it seems, does not definitely reject a really awful view of Religion, even in general.

[cbayer]

242. Allow atheists insults? What do you mean by that.

What psychology articles note bad things in religion? I'm not asking for a full dissertation bibliography. A few legitimate citations would suffice.

You may have bad things to say about religion, but it is not at all clear what your hypothesis is.

Atheism means one thing - no belief in god. Anti-theism, on the other hand is the correct term to those that assert that religion is largely bad, and there are good reasons to reject them, as they often express hatred and bigotry towards others who are simply religious.

You do not speak for atheists, not by a long shot. I will not give more respect to anyone who voices bigotry, prejudice and hatred towards others based on things like their personal religion.

I do, however, acknowledge that non-believers also have been treated with bigotry, prejudice and hatred and understand that that has led some people to become very angry.

That by no means means that they are, therefore, entitled to behave in the same way others have behaved towards them.

[Brettongarcia]

248. Note the article abstracts that I've included above; they note bad things in religion

One article for example says that spirituality did not help people in England out of depression; in fact spiritual people had three times more depression. Post 220. Quoting the following: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=90015124&site=ehost-live

I've included references to many other similar articles here and elsewhere.

I think therefore that atheists' rude remarks should be tolerated; because there might be some justice behind their anger at religion. Religion might have done some very bad things. Even to them personally. So we should forgive their rude remarks.

By the way? The Bible also warned about many false things in religion, that pose as good things. Even good spirits can actually be "false spirits."

[cbayer]

250. Your link requires a subscription.

And based on my previous experience with you, I'm not going to buy much of anything you quote from a study.

I really think you are messing with us. Who else's rude remarks should we tolerate? There is nothing wrong with being angry, but a lot wrong with being rude.

I'm the member of some groups that have been done harm. Does that give me the right to be rude to you? Will you forgive me if I mock you?

[Brettongarcia]

253. I think everything I've offered is pretty straight, as far as I know; no rhetoric, no lies.

I don't often lie to people. I'm one of the most honest people I know, I think. Or I try to be.

I do regret not editing some of my remarks, and making them plainer.

Mockery is not ideal.

Basically the main idea I've been trying to convey here recently, is that both the Bible itself, and Psychology, often warned about bad and false things in religion; even in what we think is Christianity. And one "day" or another, we ourselves are supposed to begin to see those things.

When atheists begin to note bad things in religion, they are helping that day come about. Here I'm offering a slightly different reading of "Judgement Day," and/or "Day of the Lord." Which are at least metaphorically true.

There are many articles in Psychology that also confirm there are bad things in religion. I think my post 220 includes at least, an abstract of the article? The important line is where that article rather suggests that for some, being religious/spiritual did not help them, and perhaps made things worse: "spiritual participants were nearly three times more likely to experience an episode of depression than the secular group . The strength of belief also had an effect, with participants with strong belief having twice the risk of participants with weak belief. There was no evidence of religion acting as a buffer to prevent depression after a serious life event. Conclusions These results do not support the notion that religious and spiritual life views enhance psychological well-being. "

[cbayer]

255. You just make up a lot of stuff.

I don't think it's lies, I just think it's sloppy and perhaps you have gotten away with it previously.

I am sure you are a nice person and you are never uncivil, which I greatly appreciate.

But you do say a lot of things that you just can't back up and tread heavily into areas where you clearly don't have a lot of education or experience.

Your agenda is becoming clearer. Let me see if I have it right.

You think religion is generally a negative force and that it should at least be significantly altered, if not eliminated.

From what I can tell, atheists should lead this charge and challenge believers in a way that will make them question their fundamental beliefs.

And you think there is data to back up that this is actually happening and will continue to happen.

Do I have that about right?

[Brettongarcia]

257. Pretty close.

More moderately, I'd say that what is being exposed by atheists and elements of Psychology, are false things in traditional "Christianity."

Perhaps there is room for another kind of better Christianity though; one based more on science, I suggest.

[cbayer]

259. I think we can agree about their being a better kind of Christianity, or

at least the good parts can be encouraged while we work towards eliminating the bad parts - the parts that harm other people.

Maybe we can even work on this together.

[Brettongarcia]

262. Seems possible. I emphasize the unexpected scientific side in religion.

If you are a religious person who practices in a science-based profession, you are already halfway there.

Atheists might find it almost acceptable too, oddly. If they like science.

Not "creation science"; not Christian Science; not Scientology. I think there's a real advocacy of real, actual science in the Bible.

Dan. 1.4-15 King James Edition, is an important example.

[cbayer]

263. While scientists are more likely to be atheists, there are many who are both

scientists and religious.

These are important people, because they have some good things to say about how it's not an either/or proposition and can hopefully help educate the public in areas where religious belief is really stifling scientific truths.

I would like to see the day come when we no longer argue about who trumps who. They are separate but equal, imo, each giving their unique gifts to humanity.

But when it comes down to facts, science wins. Of that I am sure.

[rug]

264. Which, also unsurprisingly, has nothing to do with the legal definition of insanity acquittee.

While you're at the APA website see what aox3 means.

[Brettongarcia]

275. A suggestion which I said "I'm using ... here a bit facetiously."

Seems a little off topic too.

But briefly, parenthetically? In some usages "criminal insanity" would seem self-contradictory. Since if something is insanity or mental illness, then some laws would therefore assert it is not criminal. Those who are insane, mentally ill, are in some modern cultures not held responsible for things that otherwise would be thought to be crimes. However? All that would be different in cultures that do not allow insanity as acquitting anyone of a crime.

In in fact, the term has historical usage, until recently, even in western societies; where there were prisons for the "criminally insane."

The Catholic Church interestingly, at times seems to support the notion that if a bad act is not deliberate, or conscious, or intended, then a person is not held responsible for it. However, there are other models of ethics that would question that. Particularly, we might argue that the person who did the bad act, should have known that it was bad; and deep down, probably did know it in fact.

So that? Most of the "insane" do not get off, in this moral code. IN this code, one can be "insane." But if you commit a crime, you are still held responsible.

[phil89]

86. How exactly

is believing in invisible all powerful beings without evidence of such not delusional? It certainly is, by definition.

[TM99]

88. Not by the agreed upon definition of

professionals in the field.

You may personally disagree, and you are free to accuse others of being so 'deluded'. However, there will be many who will simply not want to discuss things with you as you lack civility and empathy. Given that this is the Religion Group and not the atheists and skeptics group, you may want to be more polite to those who wish to discuss religion without being likened to those with psychological disorders.

Additionally, you seem to assume that all religious people of the various religions believe that 'God' or the 'Gods' are literal invisible all powerful beings.

[cbayer]

90. Since the actual professionals in the field completely disagree with your definition

and offer absolutely no support for your position, you might have a firmly held false belief that you hold in the face of evidence to the contrary.

That is the definition of a delusion.

[skepticscott]

106. Funny that now you seem to think

that you're qualified to identify delusions, but that no one else who isn't a self-declared mental health professional has any business doing so. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[DeadLetterOffice]

162. Um, hello? That's why we are called mental health 'professionals.'

We spend years being professionally trained in such things as making the fine distinction between delusions and unpopular ideas, strongly held opinions, and pure stupidity. I absolutely assert that if you are not a trained mental health professional, then you have no business declaring who is and who is not delusional. (And if you are a mental health professional, you should do such things only after in-depth assessment and with the caveat that you are not omniscient and could possibly be wrong.)

Why are you so deeply invested in the idea that religious belief = delusion? You're putting an awful lot of energy into the argument, and I am curious why you feel so strongly about this.

[TM99]

164. I am glad to see another professional

wading in on this topic.

Exactly!

Thank you.

[skepticscott]

165. Try reading my post again

It was directed at cbayer, not you, and pointed out that she was now identifying delusional behavior in someone else, after upbraiding everyone else for trying to do that when they are not a mental health professional, and when they have not had a chance to properly evaluate someone. The same scold YOU just gave. Why don't you direct it at her, where it belongs?

And can you point to where I've EVER said that religious belief = delusion? I'll give you a hint-you can't, because I never fucking said that. Not here, not anywhere. What is it with the religionistas on this board that they can't engage in a discussion without lying about what other people have said? That's what I feel strongly about…lying, hypocrisy and bullshit. Not your precious professional turf.

[TM99]

168. OK, let's try another approach.

Cbayer used words to suggest that what you were doing was 'delusional'. She didn't diagnose you. If anything she mocked you.

How do you feel? From this post, you seem angry and hurt by it. Good. Now realize that whether you explicitly or implicitly equate mental illness and the religious is insulting to others. It hurts and pisses people off.

Here is your exact original reply to the OP:

One does not HAVE to be trained in the sciences to make accurate statements concerning science. One does not have to be a mental health professional to recognize mental illness any more than one has to be an MD to recognize physical illness. Seriously...is that her argument?

The DSM explicitly recognizes that delusions can be religious in nature. She can argue with "mental health professionals" to her little heart's content about that.

OK, let's look at the first paragraph. I and others have addressed that yes, actually to accurately diagnose a true psychological disorder of delusion versus strong convictions or just willful ignorance or stupidity, you do have to be a professional in the field. Oh, sure, you can read WebMD and see that you have a few signs and symptoms that might suggest you have lung cancer, but to suggest that as a layman you could or should diagnose yourself or another with such a disease is ludicrous. You can get that right?

Now to the second paragraph. The DSM says that those who suffer from a delusional disorder can have delusions that are religious in nature. That is all. Beyond that there is zero connection between religion and mental illness in the DSM. That also has been proven to you but you want to cherry pick a book you are obviously not trained to use. The author is not arguing with mental health professionals by saying someone who isn't a trained professional is inappropriate when they try to suggest a connection between religion and psychological disorders. She is arguing with the atheists that have and do suggest that especially if the atheist in question is not a mental health professional. It is extremely insulting to both the religious person in question AND to those who do suffer from psychological disorders.

So, your response is what makes us wonder whether you do or do not consider religion a 'mental disorder'. It is a simple question, however, all of your responses that I read are double-messaging so it is not perfectly clear. In fact, it looks like you are trying to use the DSM as a justification for such a belief. Why bring it up otherwise?

If you want to clear up any possible misunderstandings of your post for us so that we do not misrepresent your beliefs, then simply do so clearly now in reply to me. Please avoid insults, snark, etc. I am not 'therapizing' you. I am genuinely asking you to clarify your position.

1) Do you believe that religious belief in god or gods is delusional and therefore a mental illness? Yes or No?

2) Then, whether your answer is yes or no, can you not at least empathize with others that when that is communicated by atheists, it is rude, hurtful, and inappropriate?

[skepticscott]

178. Sheesh, read will you?

Cbayer's post wasn't about me. And yet you ramble on for paragraphs and try to analyze me as if it was.

You're tiresome and can't even seem to comprehend what you're trying to comment on. Good bye.

[TM99]

203. So you have nothing then?

You can't answer direct questions. You refuse to be civil.

Maybe you need to retire to your 'skeptics' group and leave the interesting & intelligent discussions on religion and psychology for the grown-ups.

You are basically just a shit stirrer.

[DeadLetterOffice]

169. Ok.

So, I went back as requested and read your post again, and the one it was 'directed at.' (I read the whole thread again actually -- it seemed prudent.)

A few things:
1) cbayer's post seemed to me to be sarcasm/tongue-in-cheek, as opposed to an actual attempt to identify delusion in a person s/he has never met. Clearly it didn't feel like that to you. Since we disagree, maybe we should ask hir what was intended? Then neither of us would have to assume anything.
2) You have not in fact said that religious belief = delusion or mental illness. That seems to have been several other posters. Your point throughout the thread seems to have been more that it is possible for some expressions of religious belief to be indicative of mental illness. I am sorry for getting it mixed up, and apologize.

Also - I'm not a 'religionista' (at least I don't think I am; I'm not exactly sure what it means to be honest). I'm a die-hard skeptic about pretty much everything. Nor do I give a damn about my 'precious professional turf' - I more care that people not be arbitrarily labeled/called/categorized as having a mental illness by people who don't have a clue about mental health diagnostics (or by people who do, for that matter).

I will rephrase my question and ask it again, as I am truly interested in the answer:

Why are you so deeply invested in the idea that religious belief can qualify as delusion? Many many things can become the focus of delusion in those with a delusional disorder. You're putting an awful lot of energy into the argument, and I am curious why you feel so strongly about this.

[rug]

174. My, such vitriol directed at a person tried in a science.

He must be no true scientist.

[MellowDem]

135. Psychology is a soft science...

And what is deemed a mental illness is subjective. You don't dispute that, and that's the big point you didn't address. I never said only psychology changes, rather the point was that unlike hard sciences, psychology is looking at some questions with no objective answers.

I'm not denigrating psychology or soft science in favor of hard science either. I'm just saying it's not surprising psychology, which is a fairly subjective field, wouldn't label socially normative things as maladaptive, and that it wouldn't surprise me if religion becomes seen as more maladaptive as it becomes less socially normative.

I majored in social sciences and have a lot of respect about what they do. But it's a different sort of study than hard sciences. Preferences and priorities come much more into play.

So the author isn't making a good argument by saying atheists should look to what psychologists say about mental illness because atheists are supposed to be about looking at evidence. For one thing, atheism doesn't mean skepticism. For another, there is no such thing as evidence for what is or isn't a mental illness, it's a subjective idea.

[cbayer]

138. Do you also consider psychiatry a "soft science"?

The diagnoses of mental illness is by no means subjective. There are well defined criteria that must be met for any specific diagnosis. Over the past 30 years, the advances in diagnostic tools have been dramatic. There are definitely objective answers and more and more illnesses are being defined by their neurological underpinnings. In the end, I think all major illnesses will be understood the way we understand non-psychiatric disease.

And that's a very good thing, as it will reduce the stigma that comes with the POV that these illnesses are somehow not "real" disease and are just some kind of weakness.

Disease is a process that interferes with normal or adequate functioning in some way. Socially adaptive characteristics are not disease but may actually be advances.

If an atheist who embraces science rejects the science that currently underlies psychiatric diagnosis and illness, they are no different than a creationist. They hold onto a long disproven belief system because it fits their personal narrative.

What you learned some time ago is not longer the case and mental illness, for lack of a better term, is not a subjective condition.

[MellowDem]

148. Yes...

And the definition of mental illness is subjective. It doesn't rely on science.

[cbayer]

170. You are really wrong on this MellowDem (see creationism).

I suggest you look into the advances that have been made over the past 30 years. It doesn't look good to hold onto old ideas that have been replaced by scientific data.

[MellowDem]

192. How am I wrong?

Psychology will always be a subjective field in a lot of ways. Whenever you label something as "normal" vs. "disordered", it will always be a subjective enterprise.

[cbayer]

193. So if I look at some cancer cells under a microscope

And say they are not normal, I am being subjective?

What about a liver that is twice the size it should be?

A person who hears Obama speaking to them over store pa systems and believes the checkout girl is a CIA agent?

You are wrong.

While certain aspects of medicine may involve some subjectivity, much of psychiatry is not at all subjective.

And you do those with psychiatric disorders a great disservice by claiming that it is not so.

[MellowDem]

195. Yes, yes, and yes!

The label normal is inherently subjective.

The reason cancer cells aren't "normal" is because we value health and longer life over death. It's a preference. Of course, cancer cells are indeed "normal" in the sense that they're part of life and the way cells work. Same with the liver analogy ("should" is always a dead give away that you're describing a preference). You have people who believe god is speaking to them over the PA system and that the checkout girl is an angel or a demon. Why is that different from your example? Because religion? We think such people are suffering a mental illness because we prefer beliefs that are backed by evidence, for a while slew of reasons.

I think most people suffer mental disorders as defined by most psychologists at some point of life, I already have.

What's doing people a great disservice is not being open about certain disorders because they are socially normative. Telling someone that sincerely believes in hell and suffers anxiety from it and changes their life to avoid it is suffering a mental disorder. Telling them it's not because it's religion is a terrible thing to do.

[cbayer]

196. See, it's not inherently subjective.

It has a clear definition and the bulk of scientific research is dependent on defining what is "normal" (that is what is standard, expected, replicable) and looking for variations or deviations.

I think you may have studied this long ago, yes? Cancer cells are not normal because they interfere with functioning and disrupt systems, keeping them from doing the job they were designed to do.

Many people suffer psychological difficulties during their lives - probably all do. But serious pathological illnesses are thankfully not that common.

I totally agree with you that the stigma and judgement that prevents people from being able to be open about their psychiatric difficulties is a huge problem and I would love to see it go away.

But when you move psychology/psychiatry into some some subjective realm, it really does not help achieve that goal. Once we see these illnesses as similar to other medical disorders, we will move in that direction.

Religion may or may not play a role in some psychiatric disorders. It is the position that religious beliefs are a mental disorder that is offensive and damaging.

I feel pretty certain that that is not what you intend.

[MellowDem]

197. How is it not inherently subjective?

Things can have clear definitions and be subjective. All standards are subjective.

Saying cells have jobs they are "supposed" to do is all based on preferences. If something "should" do something or is "supposed" to do something, there is a preference underneath that statement. The fact is, some cells function in ways that prolong life and other cells don't. Our preferences are what determines whether it's "normal" or not.

I don't know why saying a belief in an imaginary place of eternal torture with no good evidence is a mental disorder is somehow damaging. Offensive? Probably to some, but so what? Are they offended for any good reason?

The reason these terrible beliefs persist is because they are viewed as "normal", and that is what is damaging.

[cbayer]

205. Have you taken a look at the DSM lately?

The criteria for making a diagnosis,( based on specific symptoms, onset, duration, course) are defined and based for the most part on empirical evidence.

Seriously, you are making the same kind of argument one might hear from a climate change denier or creationist. You just keep saying it's subjective but refuse to even look at the science.

I will concede that there are areas that do remain somewhat subjective, but even they have data driven diagnostic criteria. I refer primarily to diagnoses generally seen on Axis II, like personality disorders.

I'm going to guess that you education and experience in the medical field is very limited. Your ideas about normal functioning are interesting but not really valid. If you are born with a big hole in your heart, it's not about preferences.

Once again, I will point out that the clinical definition of delusion includes hanging on to a belief despite clear evidence to the contrary. In light of that, religious beliefs don't fit that criteria. You can make up definitions and continue to make the claim that religious people have a mental disorder, but it has not basis in fact. One might even suggest that hanging on to such a belief despite evidence to the contrary comes closer to meeting the delusion criteria than your run of the mill religious belief.

You need to fact the fact that religious beliefs are not normal for you but are normal for lots of people. They are also not damaging for most people. They are also really not any of your business unless they somehow impinge on you.

[Brettongarcia]

215. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders? Let's look at what a standard survey says:

"While the DSM has been praised for standardizing psychiatric diagnostic categories and criteria, it has also generated controversy and criticism. Critics, including the National Institute of Mental Health, argue that the DSM represents an unscientific and subjective system.[1] There are ongoing issues concerning the validity and reliability of the diagnostic categories; the reliance on superficial symptoms; the use of artificial dividing lines between categories and from 'normality'; possible cultural bias; medicalization of human distress.[2][3][4][5][6]

This is a quick and simple survey. But note the more academic footnotes.

[cbayer]

229. A "standard survey" is not an uncited cut and paste from wikipedia.

There is indeed controversy, as there is for many standardized diagnostic instruments in medicine. That is what keeps the process evolving.

And the DSM-V has been particularly controversial and it is clearly not perfect, but it is still a tool that is primarily data driven and results in a marked decrease in subjective diagnoses.

Psychiatry/psychology has gone from witchcraft to a recognized medical field in a relatively short period of time and still has a way to go, but it is hardly entirely subjective, as has been claimed here.

[skepticscott]

222. By your definition of "delusion"

The (religious) belief that the Biblical creation story in Genesis is literally true and that the earth and everything on it were created less than 10,000 years ago is delusional. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and yet the majority of American Christians hang on to that belief with unshakeable conviction.

Tell us how that isn't delusional under your definition, cbayer.

[MellowDem]

266. Once you have a definition...

It's possible to be more objective in determining what behaviors fit under a particular definition of disorder.

But who decides what is a "disorder" in the first place? There is no empirical way to test for it, it's a subjective answer. There is no objective value that can be discovered that will tell us the difference between normal and abnormal. That's something we have to decide based on our preferences.

[cbayer]

277. In general, something become a disorder when it interferes

with functioning. While this is not always a bright line, it's a good place to start.

You said that you had been treated for a disorder in the past. Certainly there were some things going on that led you and your doctor to conclude that what was happening was abnormal and needed attention.

[Brettongarcia]

278. If beliefs cause a nation to attack and kill its neighbors, couldn't they be a "delusion"?

[cbayer]

279. A delusion is a fixed belief that persists despite clear

evidence to the contrary.

It is rare for delusions to be shared, but not unheard of. Some cults could probably meet the criteria of a shared delusion, but that would be a real stretch for a religion.

Bottom line is this - applying psychiatric diagnoses to religion or the religious is an ugly, bigoted thing to do it. Those that persist in doing it are only showing their hands and at this point don't even deserve recognition, let alone the effort involved in debate.

I think one could make a similar case for some psychiatric diagnoses that could be applied to non-believers. I have made the case in the past, just to make a point, but I would not even think of doing it seriously, because it's wrong.

[Brettongarcia]

282. Here's a quote from a Psychiatric Journal, saying whole religious groups can be delusional

Faith or delusion? At the crossroads of religion and psychosis.
Pierre JM.
Author information
Abstract
In clinical practice, no clear guidelines exist to distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and "pathological" religious delusions. Historically, psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional, while the current DSM-IV definition of delusion exempts religious doctrine from pathology altogether. From an individual standpoint, a dimensional approach to delusional thinking (emphasizing conviction, preoccupation, and extension rather than content) may be useful in examining what is and is not pathological. When beliefs are shared by others, the idiosyncratic can become normalized. Therefore, recognition of social dynamics and the possibility of entire delusional subcultures is necessary in the assessment of group beliefs. Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective. However, a religious belief's dimensional characteristics, its cultural influences, and its impact on functioning may be more important considerations in clinical practice.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990520

[cbayer]

284. There is not doubt that religious beliefs can represent pathology,

and no one has argued differently.

Persons suffering with psychosis may develop religiously based delusions and/or hallucinations. This is not surprising, as they are experiencing something which is unexplainable and religious explanations lend themselves and may even give a person some solace.

This may happen whether a person was religious or not prior to the episode. I have never seen anything to indicate that a previously religious person is more or less likely to develop religious symptoms during a psychotic episode.

That is entirely different than saying that religiousness itself is a psychiatric symptom or illness.

The article you link to only provides the abstract but does not appear to include any kind of scientific evidence. It is, rather, just one persons hypothesis and even it's conclusion is not clear.

Of course this is a topic which merits discussion, but no professional organization that I am aware of has taken the position that you and others take here. In fact, the major diagnostic manual specifically excludes religious belief from pathology.

If you wish to pursue this as a part of your studies, do so. But continue to take this position in the face of evidence to the contrary is much more in line with the definition of a delusion than is religion.

[Brettongarcia]

377. Recent data cited here suggests spiritual people experience 3 x more depression in UK

Your statement that religious persons are not shown to exhibit more psychotic symptoms than others during an episode, would beg the question. Which is: are many religious ideas - magical thinking; miracles etc. - themselves already psychotic.

Freud - as I've quoted a dozens times here - said that "all religion is delusional." That's in the Pierre article in the Journal of Psychiatric Practice; entitled "Faith and Delusion." The author has a lot of professional experience; he's an MD teaching at UCLA med school, publishing, and heading a Psychiatric center.

As for the current diagnostic manual? Quite a few professionals hate it. One criticized it on our recent "Let the Professionals Speak" blog.

[cbayer]

383. If you honestly look at the data conceding religiosity and mental health,

you will see that it is all over the map with loads of contradictory data.

In short, there really isn't a clear correlation either way.

OTOH, there is a clear correlation with poverty, which may explain why some studies show increased levels of depression and/or anxiety.

Religious people are not psychotic by definition. Taking that position is ugly bigotry and those that take it show clearly where they stand.

I am done discussing this with you. You have neither the education, training or experience to speak about psychiatric disorders and only use it to advance your religophobia. I have no interest in giving you a platform.

[Brettongarcia]

389. My field, Cultural Studies, regards itself as a paradigm shift, generating new hypotheses

It is far less conservative than (themselves disputed) manuals of currently accepted medical practice; it is essentially research, based on new hypotheses. It is somewhat speculative and experimental; but also more original and current than conservative practice.

In general, Cultural Studies questions the larger existing paradigms. I.e., do religions to some extent influence general culture and even medicine, to accept them. And surprisingly, both the Psychiatric and GB spirituality articles that I cited above in fact both offer data to suggest that cultural and especially religious bias - especially in the very-Christian US - have influenced current clinical data. The "Faith and Delusion" article mentions the possibility that whole geographic areas or religions may have bias; the spirituality authors explicitly question US results, vs. UK, and hints that religious differences account for them.

And of course, it seems commonsensical to suggest that since religious beliefs are so deeply held - and held even with explicit opposition at time to reason, with insistence on blind belief and "faith" - that this would be the last element of culture and academe to attain any degree of real objectivity.

As an interdisciplinary scholar of course, I am responsible for a dozen academic fields; and am spread thin. However we believe that our broad assimilation of many different fields gives us unique opportunity to generate broadly integrative hypotheses concerning general multi- cultural influences.

Among other disciplines too, that suggest a kind a pathology to much of religion is not just psychological research like the articles I have cited here; but of course, the record of History. The horrible and considerable record religious wars, genocide, and zealotry.

Can Psychology confirm and deepen what we already know from History?

Psychology is not my area of specialization. But from my brief foray into the subject here, I'd say there's enough preliminary data - and enough scholarly literature - to pursue this hypothesis.

[skepticscott]

149. How many mental illnesses can you name

for which there are 100% objective criteria for determining whether someone has them or not?

Enlighten us.

[TM99]

167. There is quite a bit to address in your reply

so I am going to quote the relevant section in order to keep it more streamlined and organized. You are making two points here that I will address independently but in reverse.

So the author isn't making a good argument by saying atheists should look to what psychologists say about mental illness because atheists are supposed to be about looking at evidence. For one thing, atheism doesn't mean skepticism. For another, there is no such thing as evidence for what is or isn't a mental illness, it's a subjective idea.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it. Anything else you ascribe to it is personal belief. You may believe that atheists are supposed to look at evidence but whether that evidence is 'hard' or 'soft' there is no denying that comparing religions and religious people to those called 'mentally ill' is rude and inaccurate. You can not say that someone is deluded and mentally ill without them feeling slighted. The other point of the OP is that many who use those words are not even in the field of psychology. What is the basis for your belief then? Is it cherry-picking of the DSM as some have done here?

[MellowDem]

194. You say...

"There is no denying that comparing religions to those called mentally ill is rude and inaccurate".

Why is there no denying it? I don't doubt that it offends many people in a society where religion is socially normative. But so what? That doesn't make it inaccurate. Most people that identify as religious in the US are barely so. They already engage in a lot of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty to avoid the maladaptive aspects of religious beliefs. It's the most consistent believers that are seen as "crazy", even by other believers.

You don't have to be in the field of psychology to disagree with what most psychologists think is a "disorder". It's something that is subjective and changes all the time, it's not based on science, but preferences. Psychologists tend to hew to what is socially normative. Not all do, of course. If they said something that was socially normative was a disorder, could you imagine the backlash they would face as a community? So it's no surprise they don't.

I have seen no good reason for why religious beliefs that fit the definition of certain mental illnesses are not indeed a mental illness. So far I've heard that it's offensive, but that's not an argument.

I've had mental disorders before, I don't think it should be a point of shame or used as an insult. I think it's something that needs to be discussed honestly. Religion has so much privilege in our society that that is hard to do.

There are millions of Americans who believe sincerely that there is a hell, and that if they don't do certain things, they will burn eternally. There is no good evidence for this. That is a mental disorder, IMHO. It is maladaptive and creates all sorts of untold suffering. People are afraid their loved ones are burning in hell. They change their lives to avoid certain normal behaviors to avoid it. That's just one of many examples I can think of. Why isn't that considered a mental disorder? Because it's socially normative. It's so socially normative, that children are indoctrinated in this same belief and many end up struggling with this same disorder into adulthood.

[skepticscott]

201. And that's the real point that the

religionists dressed up with mental health professional puffery refuse to respond to.

NOT whether all aspects of every religion and every religious belief constitute mental illness (the idiotic straw man that some here have tried to attribute falsely). Whether it is possible for ANY manifestations of religion or religious belief to legitimately qualify as mental illness, or whether being a manifestation of religion automatically disqualifies a belief or behavior from constituting mental illness. The latter is the question they have carefully and conspicuously tried to divert from answering, instead choosing to haughtily dismiss the former.

[TM99]

204. Why is it so difficult for you and several others in this thread

to simply stay on the topic.

The field of psychology does not view religions or religious beliefs as a disorder. Period.

Are there mentally ill people who are also members of a religion. Sure. Can such disorders like delusions include religious imagery and 'beliefs'. Yup.

But no matter how much you desperately want it to be different because you believe something else, it does not make it so. Psychologists and psychiatrists are not in collusion with some grand conspiracy to make something mentally ill normative and acceptable. We can and are quite critical of religion when it does contribute to issues both in culture and in individuals. Some in the field are religious themselves. Others, like me, are atheists (though I prefer the term ignostic). The same distortions of thinking that are apparent with a fundamentalist Christian, I have seen in this thread with several atheists. It is not about the mythology, the belief system, etc. it is about an individual.

So that is one aspect of this thread and conversation. The other is this. It is simply rude and hurtful to push an agenda that all religions are somehow delusional and therefore are mental disorders. Or that as I said, one individual is psychological disturbed and is a member of a religion and then to lump together all individuals who are religious. As a culture we have agreed that despite stereotypes and generalities, when we lump all individuals in a group together to explain or in explanation of their behaviors, particularly negative ones, that is racism, bigotry, and discrimination. Some theists believe some strangely literal things about heaven and hell. Not all religious people do. Some anti-theists are arrogant shit disturbers with a grudge against all things religion. Not all atheists are like that.

[trotsky]

208. This:

It is simply rude and hurtful to push an agenda that all religions are somehow delusional and therefore are mental disorders.

Who is doing this? You have created a fantastic straw man - an atheist boogeyman of sorts, that you are bashing relentlessly. That's great. But you have done nothing to address the actual stance people are taking.

And you wonder why you're having difficulty?

[TM99]

209. I am not having any difficulty whatsoever.

I admit to being mildly frustrated at several poster's lack of empathy, their poor communication skills, and their inability to be direct.

I suspect I am about to add you to that list.

What is the OP about? Hint - it is a response from a 'believer' who has noticed a growing trend of atheists equating religion and the religious with mental illness.

The OP was also a response and advancement of Chris Stedman's article on 5 Reasons that atheists shouldn't call religion a mental illness. Here is a salient quote from his article:

“Claiming that religion is a mental illness obscures the fact that we all—yes, atheists too—regularly engage in irrational thinking,” said Mogilevsky. “If thinking irrationally is a mental illness, then we are all mentally ill, and the term loses its meaning. As a survivor of mental illness myself, I think we should save that term for situations in which people are truly suffering and having trouble going about their lives.”

Now Stedman was also a further response against several prominent atheists including David Silverman, the current head of the American Atheists, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, an atheist Facebook group in the hundreds, and a little meme blogged on atheist sites since at least 2010 called 7 Reasons Why Religion is a Form of Mental Illness.

This is something happening in rather large numbers and in very vocal ways. Are all atheists of this belief? No, of course not. Are there many that are? Yuppers, as the evidence shows. So I am sorry, this is no strawman.

The issues here with several posters is that they will not simply state yes or no to this question: Do you believe that religion is equal to a mental illness?

Let's ask you Trotsky, as you have now decided to weigh in your five cents on the discussion. Yes or no? It is a simple question.

If yes, then, this discussion is relevant and there are good arguments from myself and others in the field and out of the field as to why this is factually and ethically inappropriate.

If no, then, why the fuck are you posting? I mean, we agree. You are an atheist. You do not believe that those who are religious or that religion in general is equatable to a mental disorder. Furthermore, you agree that doing so is hurtful and gains nothing in a respectful discussion on differences.

If others would also like to answer that question directly, there really is no issue here. There are differences in belief about god or not god, and there is still consensus that neither is a mental illness in and of itself, and to equate one side or the other with that label is hurtful and not a fruitful way to have dialog amongst adults.

See, it really is that uncomplicated.

[trotsky]

211. Well with that attitude it's a complete mystery why you are having difficulty communicating.

You have your bogeyman, keep savaging it. Good luck and take care.

(For the record, no, I don't believe that religion is equal to a mental illness. I have made this clear on multiple occasions.)

[TM99]

213. Hardly a bogeyman, but a legitimate issue for adults

wanting to dialog beyond their differences.

I am sincerely glad to hear that you agree. We hardly have an issue now do we?

[Brettongarcia]

220. Some now suggest elements of even "spiritual" liberal religion correlate to disorders in UK

Possibly, causally? In any case, liberal spirituality does not help the disorder, in British subjects it seems. Finally this means that more and more articles are suggesting the need for what Kuhn would call a "paradigm shift" in Psychology. One that could well soon relate Religion as even a CAUSE of disorder. Or in this case, certainly not its cure.

Here's one current article relating to some of this, at random. This artic le to be sure is not the strongest evidence. Just something interesting taken at random off Medline:

Leurent B, Nazareth I, King M, et al. Spiritual and religious beliefs as risk factors for the onset of major depression: an international cohort study. Psychological Medicine [serial online]. October 2013;43(10):2109-2120. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed March 4, 2014.


"Background Several studies have reported weak associations between religious or spiritual belief and psychological health. However, most have been cross-sectional surveys in the USA, limiting inference about generalizability. An international longitudinal study of incidence of major depression gave us the opportunity to investigate this relationship further. Method Data were collected in a prospective cohort study of adult general practice attendees across seven countries. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months. Spiritual and religious beliefs were assessed using a standardized questionnaire, and DSM-IV diagnosis of major depression was made using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Logistic regression was used to estimate incidence rates and odds ratios (ORs), after multiple imputation of missing data. Results The analyses included 8318 attendees. Of participants reporting a spiritual understanding of life at baseline, 10.5% had an episode of depression in the following year compared to 10.3% of religious participants and 7.0% of the secular group (p < 0.001). However, the findings varied significantly across countries, with the difference being significant only in the UK, where spiritual participants were nearly three times more likely to experience an episode of depression than the secular group [OR 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59–4.68]. The strength of belief also had an effect, with participants with strong belief having twice the risk of participants with weak belief. There was no evidence of religion acting as a buffer to prevent depression after a serious life event. Conclusions These results do not support the notion that religious and spiritual life views enhance psychological well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=90015124&site=ehost-live

[MellowDem]

265. I'm staying on topic...

I don't care what the "field of psychology" thinks on such subjective matters. Their expertise has nothing to do with preferential questions of what is and isn't a disorder.

Religious beliefs of all sorts fit the definitions of mental disorders. The field of psychology currently exempts religion, which is a shame. You certainly seem to want to avoid addressing the point that all sorts of religious beliefs are harmful and fit the definition of various disorders, even as they are also very widespread. You certainly haven't pointed out why religious beliefs should get a special exemption.

I don't think psychologists are in a grand conspiracy, I think most don't consider socially normative things to be a disorder, for all sorts of reasons. And of course some psychologists agree with me.

Again, I could care less if you think it is rude and hurtful to have an opinion that delusions should be labelled delusions, regardless if they're religious in nature or not. I'm not lumping all religious people, I'm labeling specific beliefs. Most religious people I know don't believe most if not all of the religious beliefs their religion claims. They avoid the most maladaptive for sure. It's more a matter of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance then.

So you can stop bashing your strawman.

[TM99]

268. Again, not a strawman.

I don't care what the "field of psychology" thinks on such subjective matters. Their expertise has nothing to do with preferential questions of what is and isn't a disorder.

Religious beliefs of all sorts fit the definitions of mental disorders.

You believe psychology is a 'soft' science that lacks any merit.

You believe psychology is entirely 'subjective' therefore you can discount anything it has to say on the subject of mental health and religion because it is not 'objective'. Yet, you will accept the word of some psychologists that believe as you do (despite not being a consensus nor a majority), well, because you agree with them.

You have tied yourself into a nice little Gordian knot. You can't discount psychology for the reasons given and then use psychological terms and descriptors to discuss why you are against religion and religious beliefs.

You do not care if you are rude and insulting to others here or elsewhere because you hold strong convictions based on illogical premises that you are certain are accurate.

So, you are of the opinion that your thinking is superior to and trumps others thinking and feelings thereby rendering the I-thou relationship of mature adult connections all about the I. That sure sounds like a mental disorder to me or just immaturity.

[skepticscott]

270. And now apparently

It's NOT rude and inappropriate to tell other people that they have a mental disorder, or to "diagnose" them based on posts on the Internet, rather than a proper professional evaluation. This in spite of your frequent screeds elsewhere in this thread decrying those exact things.

Talk about hypocrisy and tying yourself into knots.

[TM99]

271. Whatever.

That sure sounds like a mental disorder to me or just immaturity.

If you seriously thought that sentence was a serious evaluation or diagnosis, you seriously need to go back to high school for remedial education.

You are not interested in discussion. You just like to try to score little dings even if you are in the wrong.

[skepticscott]

287. Which was exactly the point I made above

and which you rejected then, but are employing for your own argument now. As I said, hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty on your part.

[TM99]

291. Tiresome

Do you really even know how you are using that word hypocrisy?

[skepticscott]

314. Yes, I'm accusing you

of taking one position when it suited you and then taking the exact opposite position when it suited you. And of thinking that no one would notice. Call it hypocrisy, call it intellectual dishonesty, call it a complete lack of integrity, I don't much care. It's pathetic, no matter what you call it.

[rug]

315. Congratulations. You've progressed from calling DUers deluded to calling DUers hypocrites.

[TM99]

317. Time for an education

Several atheists yourself included think it is OK to equate in some measure or form religion and mental illness.

You, in particular, when challenged said it was A-OK to discuss a co-worker going so far as to actually using diagnostic terms such as OCD - which is an actual DSM diagnosis.

I called you out on such behavior as being inappropriate. I stated that using actual diagnostic labels whether you were trained as a therapist or not was just not kosher. In a follow-up I specifically said that you could address issues within a relationship (no matter how trivial or deep) just don't use the fucking diagnostic labeling. Show some empathy. I can discuss a friends 'issues' without calling them mentally ill or labeling them a Narcissist.

In my reply to MellowDem, I did not assess or diagnose him/her as having a specific mental illness. I pushed back at his obvious immaturity in believing that his opinions even if they go against the field itself are not worthy of discussion when he is purposefully rude and insensitive. And I quote MellowDem:

I don't care what the "field of psychology" thinks on such subjective matters. Their expertise has nothing to do with preferential questions of what is and isn't a disorder.

And later he follows up by saying:

Whether something is rude or insulting is subjective and meaningless in an argument. People get upset for stupid reasons all the time.

He keeps making the point that psychology is all subjective - not objective.

Therefore saying to MellowDem, and I fucking quote myself:

That sure sounds like a mental disorder to me or just immaturity.

Is not formally assessing or diagnosing him. It is communicating in line with our conversation, which I might add you butted into to score adolescent debating points, that perhaps he has some issues with his beliefs and how he has chosen to express them with religious people on these forms. It is all 'subjective' after all. But mostly, like yourself, he is just being immature. That ain't no formal psychologist diagnosis either.

This is not hypocrisy nor is it intellectually dishonest. And perhaps if you thought more and talked less, you would see that it is congruent with everything I have stated within this thread.

Now go away, your immature freshman 101 philosophy debating skills are pathetic and tiresome.

[skepticscott]

347. Well, let's see now

In Post 41 you said:

In no way is it appropriate for you to assess or assume that someone has or doesn't have a mental illness. Even as a trained professional, situational context is paramount so that it is not manipulative, pejorative, or emotionally abusive. Not diagnose…"assess or assume"…in any way.

And then in Post 268 you say:

So, you are of the opinion that your thinking is superior to and trumps others thinking and feelings thereby rendering the I-thou relationship of mature adult connections all about the I. That sure sounds like a mental disorder to me or just immaturity.

You've "assessed or assumed" that someone has a mental disorder. So, is reading a few internet posts enough "situational context" for a responsible mental health professional to make that assessment? Gee…that's a tough one…

And when you told this poster that you think they may be mentally ill, did you do so out of a sincere sense of professional concern for their mental health, taking care not to be "manipulative, perjorative, or emotionally abusive", or did you just say it as a smear and a put-down, as part of a snarky argument? I think we all know the answer to that one, too.

Oh, what…you say you were just kidding? Not really serious? Lighten up? So how professional is it to throw around the label of being mentally ill willy-nilly, just for fun and to try to feel superior? Seems you've been railing against that for the whole thread.

What..sorry? You weren't kidding? Totally serious in your assessment? You, a self-identified mental health professional, seriously and sincerely told someone you've never met and never spoken to that you think they may be mentally ill? How professional is THAT?

So…let's review. You:

1. Said that X is a bad thing to do
2. Did X

Yeppers...I'm sticking with my diagnosis of hypocrite. No mental health credentials needed.

And no, I'm not going to weary myself with the rest of your rant. The tactic of covering a failed argument with reams of bluster and insults is all too familiar to me. I'm not playing.

[TM99]

359. I am more than confident

in allowing the community as whole to determine which of us is the most accurate in the assessment of the communication in this thread.

[MellowDem]

272. I'm not accepting the word of some psychologists....

I just happen to have the same opinion as some.

I don't think psychology is useless, I think the defining of what is and isn't a disorder is subjective.

I think that according to commonly held definitions of disorder in psychology, religious beliefs of all sorts fit the bill. I'm asking why, then, it gets an exemption. You seem to be ignoring that question.

I do have an opinion on what is or isn't maladaptive behavior, like anyone else. I'm open to being convinced differently, but I've not seen any solid reasons for why many common religious beliefs should be considered healthy and normal.

Whether something is rude or insulting is subjective and meaningless in an argument. People get upset for stupid reasons all the time.

[TM99]

274. So you are still cherry-picking

to support your argument.

Some psychologists are not even the majority. The consensus is that psychology/psychiatry does not equate religion and mental illness.

I really don't understand the illogic here. Either you accept psychology as a science that has relevance for determining mental illness or not.

If you do not, then mental illness does not exist outside of how you subjectively define it. You would be decidedly in the minority, and your opinions, which you are entitled to, would still be useless and inconsequential.

If you do accept it, then why are you not accepting the consensus? As an atheist, you have expressed that science is important. There is scientific consensus, at least right now, that no, religion is not equatable to a mental illness. Do you find it acceptable that there is scientists that deny evolution or climate change?

And yes, while you are entitled to your opinion on maladaptive behavior, if it contradicts the psychological consensus, I am sorry but who cares what you think. It is just an ill-informed opinion and nothing more. You are not in the field. You are nobody - just anonymous person on the internet pushing their own ideas as important whether they are or not.

Finally, who determines whether someone's getting upset is for stupid or I presume the opposite would be smart reasons? You are of course entitled to your opinion once more, and generally speaking, if during a debate there is a lot of rude and insulting communication, the civil argument is generally considered quite done.

Why should any one want to debate you or hear your opinion on this subject, if you simply believe it OK to be insulting to make your point?

[Brettongarcia]

276. TM99: you've misdefined "consensus." Worse, you are using it, using herd rule, as a bludgeon

"Consensus" does not really mean simple majority: it tends to imply near "unanimity." Which your opinions do not have, even within your chosen profession:

CONSENSUS: "synonyms: agreement, harmony, concurrence, accord, unity, unanimity, solidarity"

Furthermore, the fact that the majority of a given population holds a given position, does not always mean that all dissenters or minorities must therefore conform to it.

In the US, this fact is the basis of Civil Rights for minorities among other things.

Can we respect the minority opinion in Psychology?

[TM99]

280. You are simply wrong.

This is not a simple majority. Neither the APA, nor the AMA, nor the DSM, etc. train their practitioners that religion is equatable to mental illness. This is not an opinion. This is simply fact. You obviously dislike the facts, and that does not change them.

Your second idea in this reply is ludicrous in the extreme. Minority opinions may be worth exploring further. They may be worth debunking. You are free to dissent against the prevailing consensus in this field. It is irrelevant as you are not in the field. Furthermore, trying to equate this to civil rights in the US, is pure sophistry.

[Brettongarcia]

281. Here, one journal suggests that a whole Religion, say, can be "delusional"

It seems that elements of the Psychiatric community are heading in that direction.







Faith or delusion? At the crossroads of religion and psychosis.
Pierre JM.
Author information
Abstract
In clinical practice, no clear guidelines exist to distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and "pathological" religious delusions. Historically, psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional, while the current DSM-IV definition of delusion exempts religious doctrine from pathology altogether. From an individual standpoint, a dimensional approach to delusional thinking (emphasizing conviction, preoccupation, and extension rather than content) may be useful in examining what is and is not pathological. When beliefs are shared by others, the idiosyncratic can become normalized. Therefore, recognition of social dynamics and the possibility of entire delusional subcultures is necessary in the assessment of group beliefs. Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective. However, a religious belief's dimensional characteristics, its cultural influences, and its impact on functioning may be more important considerations in clinical practice.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990520

[cbayer]

285. I just plain does not say that. Period.

[Brettongarcia]

288. This nuanced article entertains many possibities - including religion as pathology

This article from the Journal of Psychiatric Practice, and indexed by the national health, often notes doctors finding delusions in large segments of religion(s). Even at times, all religion. (Freud, et alia).

1) First of all, Sigmund Freud suggested that all religion could be bad, and specifically delusional: "Historically, psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional."

2) Second, whole "subcultures" in religion can be delusional: "When beliefs are shared by others, the idiosyncratic can become normalized. Therefore, recognition of social dynamics and the possibility of entire delusional subcultures is necessary in the assessment of group beliefs."

Note here that furthermore, the abstract does not make it clear; but perhaps whole denominations might qualify as religious "subgroups" that are deluded. Or even perhaps whole religions, relative to the many different religions in the world. The term is "subgroups"; with no further limiting specification.

So the abstract does not rule out the possibility that whole religions could be regarded as delusional.

3) And of course, it acknowledges that at least some elements of religion can be delusional. But the abstract does not rule out larger errors; like those suggested above.

4) The article explicitly and specifically furthermore, allows that religious beliefs can be called "delusional," from a rational and scientific perspective: "Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective." ( Some might think the abstract hints this is too easy; yet the authors do not specify that.)

So this article in sum, acknowledges historical and present psychological criticisms of huge chunks of religion. Ranging from even 1) all of it; to 2) subgroups, which might include whole religion. To 3) any smaller parts as well. Specifically 4) it notes that science and reason could well apply the word "delusion" to religious phenomena.

5) To be sure, this article, like many on religion, seems somewhat equivocal. To some it will seem perhaps open to suggesting that there are normative, healthy religious practices; as it alludes to examining "impact on functioning." Yet? Earlier the article noted that it is hard to "distinguish between 'normal' religious beliefs and 'pathological' religious delusions." So that even "normative" religion seems open to criticism.

Some readers might think that this article finally affirms the notion that we should consider that religion might be functional - and therefore good - in social context; in encouraging group membership and solidarity say. Yet note that the article abstract does not unequivocally say that. In fact, it's final remark is equivocal on that point: "a religious belief's dimensional characteristics, its cultural influences, and its impact on functioning may be more important considerations in clinical practice." Note that strictly speaking, this does not suggest that social "functioning" will trump all other considerations; since it does not tell us that social "functioning" is always good.

In fact, social "function" can be bad. So for example, we might use this example: Pope Benedict XVI, in allowing himself to be drafted into the Nazi army in WW II, probably did so to stay alive and free; and his act was functional in that sense. But? It also "functioned" to help the Nazi army.

We should not assume that social "FUNCTION" is always positive.

And so finally? Though this article abstract is somewhat equivocal, and open to many readings, finally we must insist that it does not firmly or unequivocally support the notion that religion is normative, and has a good social function. While indeed, it very seriously entertains the opposite thesis.

Noting moreover that 6) this negative thesis on Religion has solid standing in major elements of the Psychology community. Beginning with Freud himself; but then seconded by many contemporary hesitations expressed here, regarding religion.

[cbayer]

289. Did you actually subscribe and read the whole article?

Because that is an awful lot to conclude from a rather vague abstract.

If so, does the article include any actual data or is it just theory?

[MellowDem]

312. What am I cherry-picking?

I can disagree with the majority in psychology on whether religion should get an exemption from disorders and still think it's useful to categorize mental disorders and try to treat them. I just acknowledge it's a subjective process.

I don't think my opinion is ill-informed, I think that the idea that religion should get an exemption is ridiculous, and have as of yet to hear any good argument for it.

I think that if religions were not socially normative, the beliefs associated with them wouldn't get a pass. Probably doesn't help that many psychologists are religious believers themselves.

[TM99]

316. Because it is all subjective

your opinion on the matter is therefore irrelevant.

Disagree all you want. Believe all you want. No one will stop you thinking what or how you want to think.

People will push back when you are wrong - as in the field of psychology itself does not consider religion to be a mental illness and isn't headed in that direction despite a few articles exploring some extreme literalistic forms of religious expression.

People will also push back especially hard when you are rude and insensitive and suggest that your opinion, which is all it is, is worthy of discussion among civil adults.

[Brettongarcia]

319. What if MOST of Psych doesn't see religion as pathology; significant PARTS of it do

Don't discriminate against minorities; in this case, minority opinion in Psychology. Sometimes the new kid on the block, the minority, is the wave of the future.

A balanced view of Religion should always be prepared to entertain the thesis that it is pathological. Even if as a minority opinion.

In the meantime? We should all be aware that religious believers, zealots, are notoriously censorious and coercive, and intolerant of view that oppose their own. In many eras and segments of society, they censor and burn books - and thinkers - they don't like.

And even Unitarians are believers after all.

[TM99]

321. Significant parts DO NOT!

It is not a minority opinion. There is simply some research on aspects of religion that may border on a psychological disorder. It is not discrimination against minority. I have already addressed that canard. Not everything new is better.

Your assumption that all religious believers are zealots notoriously censorious, coercive, and intolerant speaks more to your psyche than theirs.

One of the biggest flaws I see in most young atheists today is the assumption that all religions and religious people are fundamentalist and literalistic Christians in particular. I know that Millenials were born after the rise of the religious right in this country so perhaps that accounts for a great deal of that view.

You seem intelligent enough. Do some real reading and research on the subject. I would recommend Tillich, Kung, Hartshorne, Borg, Shelby, Fox (Matthew not Emmet), Sanford, the Jesus Seminar, and modern Gnostic scholars like Pagel & Ehrman. You really need to see that not all Christians are as you seem to 'believe'.

[Brettongarcia]

323. The author is with the UCLA med school; his article in the Journal of Psychiatric Practice

Should I call him and tell him that you think he is an inconsequential crank?

What is the author saying? His abstract specifically cited Freud as saying that all of religion is delusional. The writing is also consistent with suggesting all religion, or whole religions, are bad.

I've not only read liberal theologians; I've met and spoken with at least one of those you mention (Borg). And many more current ones.

It's a common delusion among liberal believers that liberal theology is much, much more defensible than Fundamentalists'; but its not. See our referenced literature above: where yet another article suggests that even liberal "spiritual" religion does not help us much; and can even make things worse.

Why do liberals miss the critical side of much of the relevant literature? The problem I have come to see, is that many believers don't really appreciate some of the nuances of language, especially in theology. Religion is often highly controversial; say the wrong thing and you can be killed as a heretic in many eras and places; for that reason, religious writers often speak in a very veiled, equivocal way. Even the language of the Bible is "poetic," or equivocal.

In particular, believers should learn to notice that there is often a critical sub-text in writing by and about religion.

That might be why you apparently missed the full import of that side, of our present author's abstract.Believers often tune this out. The problem is simply, Denial. Believers have been trained all their lives to absolutely believe and trust and follow their religion. Whenever there are any signs of false things in their belief? They go into denial.

Leon Festinger - a famous psychologist - rightly noted that when cult believers' prophesies did not come true, they responded with rationalizations and so forth. I suppose that's a variation on Denial.

[TM99]

340. You really never seam to fully read nor comprehend the posts you reply to.

Did I state that the author was 'an inconsequential crank'?

No, so that is a straw man.

One MD psychiatrist still does not a majority or consensus make. I appreciate you appealing to authority, however, with his credentials.

You insist on thinking that I am a 'believer'. Why is that? I have not said I was once. In fact, I replied numerous times to you alone that I am not associated with a Christian church or denomination - liberal or conservative. I am not a believer in any sense of the word. I am ignostic. Please look it up.

So, I am through going round in round in disorganized ways on this topic. You have strayed so far from the OP it is now looking ludicrous. You do not read the replies provided to you. You make blanket assumptions which are patently false (like that I am a 'believer'). You throw out red herrings, canards, appeals to authority, straw men, etc. If this is the current state of Ph.D. studies and students in this country, well that greatly saddens me.

I suspect you will want this last word, so please do so. I will not be discussing this any further with you.

[Brettongarcia]

342. You do not seem to understand anything I wrote

Henceforth, I do not believe you have any real credential here in Psych.; moreover, none in Theology either, obviously.

Why recommend Liberal theology to me, if you didn't think it had value?

[cbayer]

346. You may disagree, but I think you are out of line to question this member's credibility.

They have been clear about their credentials, which I see no reason to doubt.

And they seem to have a much greater understanding of the subject at hand than do most of the people posting in this thread.

[okasha]

351. nt

[Brettongarcia]

360. I rephrase my objection to - Mr., not Dr.? - 99

He appears to have some professional experience in Psychology.

However, he is quite clearly willing to use semantics, hedging, framing, caveats, word games, to try to "frame" the profession, to favor his own agenda. (Which seems to be at least temporarily co-optive of religiosity)

Again and again, Mr. 99 insists that Religion as Psychopathology, is not the majority or prevailing view; especially it seems in clinical practice (as opposed to academic/theoretical psychology?). If this is true technically, this attempts to shun/shut out/deny a clearly significant minority opinion in even specifically the Psychiatric community. Not only in the world of academic theory, but also at least some clinical practice. A movement evidenced in part by the article cited here, from the Journal of Psychiatric "Practice."

At the same time furthermore, even as 99 asserts his own "ignosticism" - a perhaps valuable movement to be sure - he likes to cite liberal theologians as authority. Suggesting that he misunderstands himself; and still operates in part, in site of his own understanding, out of lingering religious conviction/bias.

In any case though, we are grateful to 99 for furnishing a useful article, to serve as the basis for our present discussion. Though this article suggests that the positive contribution of Religion is social coherence, and though Mr. 99 has used that article to semantically coerce DM to an at least superficially religious agreement, at the same time his article itself DOES correctly allude to a valuable dissident tradition even within the Psychiatric community; which from the days of Freud on, has often suggested that "Religion" - even "all" of it - might well be pathological.

[TM99]

365. It would appear that this is a call-out

but I will let it stand. I choose not to reveal my private identity so I can not 'prove' my professional status here. I can, however, correct your continued errors of thinking and portrayal of my posts in this reply.

I have not 'framed' the profession I have been in for over 25 years by stating that the profession does not view religion as psychopathology. It is not the majority position. It is not even a strong minority opinion at this time. I bluntly challenge you to find any support for your agenda & position that what I have stated is untrue. You may begin your research here http://www.apa.org/ and here http://www.psychiatry.org/. Please provide exact links in a reply in this thread. If I was a gambling man, I would make a lot on this bet.

Clinical practice is based on theoretical & academic psychology. If and when such a time comes, and I personally do not think it will, that theoretical and academic psychology decides that all religions are simply psychopathologies, then the relevant clinical manuals like the DSM and clinical organizations like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association will update their criteria accordingly.

Do you even know what the term ignostic means? I would like an answer to that as you seem to misrepresent my position constantly based on a failure to understand the term and the context used.

It is quite apparent, even before reading a later reply that you were once a 'liberal Christian' that you have had a conversion experience from being Christian to being not Christian and an atheist. I admit that I suspected you were raised in a more literalistic and fundamentalistic religious upbringing and hence the conversion as probabilities are higher for that type of 'conversion' or enantiodromia. Recommending that you explore other more 'liberal', though I would not choose that term, theologians and authors was to show you and others reading this thread that there is a plethora of thought in Christian theology that is far and away from fundamentalism and literal beliefs in mythology as reality. I hardly presented them to you as 'authorities' as you so falsely assert.

I was never a believer. Period. But thanks for guessing wrongly based on your agenda and psychology.

You continue to ignore even my stated words on why I chose to post the APA article that I did. You continue to push your agenda despite the fact that the actual OP is now miles away from your subthreads which I might add continue to veer further and further into the ether.

The only person in this conversation between us misrepresenting their credentials, intelligence, and pushing an agenda is you. Your thinking is disorganized and all over the place. You ignore facts to push an agenda. You project all of this on to others. I could go on.

You have asked me for my credentials. What are yours? If you have a desire to remain private as do I, then please kindly refrain from any further 'calling outs' of me on these forums on such matters. Otherwise, please present your full name, your educational status (graduate student, post grad, etc.), and your educational institution and date of degree receipt.

[Brettongarcia]

367. No callout; though if you'd like to informally cite your credentials,without specific ID, feel free.

As I have.

Your remarks have been very carefully qualified. However the problem is that they have been presented in such a way as to minimize what many academics and others regard as a significant position: that religion even as a whole might be a "delusion." As this source again, suggested, from the Journal of Psychiatric Practice.

Do significant academics hold this position? In many fields outside Psychology many do. Though for that matter? The author of that piece that suggested religion is "delusion," by the way, is a distinguished practicing psychologist. With a very distinguished record:

"Joseph M. Pierre, MD is the Co-Chief of the Schizophrenia Treatment Unit at VA West Los Angeles Healthcare Center; a Health Sciences Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; and the Associate Director of Residency Education at the UCLA Semel Neuropsychiatric Institute and VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System. He is a graduate of MIT, the UCLA School of Medicine, and the residency training program at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute. He has extensive clinical experience working with individuals with psychotic disorders, substance abuse, and patients with “dual diagnosis.” Dr. Pierre is also an active clinical researcher, focusing on clinical trials in schizophrenia and on the treatment of prodromal psychosis in young patients at high risk. In 2005, he received Young Investigator Awards from both the International Congress of Schizophrenia Research and the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. He has authored over 50 papers, abstracts, and book chapters related to schizophrenia and antipsychotic medications. Dr. Pierre is highly involved in resident and medical student education and has received several awards for excellence in teaching including the 2012 UCLA NPI Housestaff Teaching Award. He has presented research findings and lectured to audiences both nationally and internationally and has served as an expert witness consultant in forensic/legal cases involving schizophrenia, the intersection of psychosis and religion, and side effects of antipsychotic therapy."

Particularly interesting is Dr. Pierre's work on "the intersection of psychosis and religion."

[TM99]

372. No matter what data I present to you,

your mind is made up.

First, what 'informal' information would satisfy you? Would you like a run-down of my undergraduate and graduate degrees? My theses and dissertation topics? My certifications and licenses? Perhaps, you would like a list of the languages I speak and read? Or would you like a list of all of the men and women I have received training and supervision from?

Second, I am actually personally acquainted with Dr. Pierre. Please look at the list of his publications at this link:

http://people.healthsciences.ucla.edu/institution/personnel?personnel_id=75145

You will note that most of them are not on the topic of religion and psychopathology. In fact, Dr. Pierre's specialty is in research into psychosis and schizophrenia. Delusions, psychoses, and schizophrenic episodes of a religious nature are very common in the field.

For the record, he and I agree on a lot of issues concerning diagnosis as evidenced in this length discussion on the DSM:

http://www.peh-med.com/content/7/1/3

Another article on the topic of diagnosis, psychopathology, and 'illness' that is relevant:

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/schizophrenia/%E2%80%9Cwhat-do-you-mean-i-don%E2%80%99t-have-schizophrenia%E2%80%9D

Finally, please read this article - Mental Disorder vs Normality: Defining the
Indefinable:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Falien.dowling.edu%2F~cperring%2Faapp%2Fbulletin_v_17_2%2F5.doc&ei=jCYbU4qPHtDfoATJw4DoBA&usg=AFQjCNHPIZIr5skQk7mH6CgmO9GjlRU27w&sig2=ysAsG-dunP8XYCQx5D6BOA&bvm=bv.62578216,d.cGU

It is a word document that you will need to download. Dr. Pierre is not as adverse to religion or the religious as you would like to suggest for you agenda. You will note that he starts this article with a well-known Zen Koan, and likens his approach to that of a Zen Master.

I am sorry. You are simply out of your depth here when it comes to pigeon holing professionals in my field into the categories and positions you wish in order to meet your agenda. You are ignoring what is actually said by this psychiatrists and psychologists.

[Brettongarcia]

376. Nothing spelled out in your post contradicts my point.I'll check links later. Agreeing on a "lot"?

Atheists quote zen koans; Buddhism notoriously is a "religion" with no God.

I am interested however, in your ignosticism (SP?). Sounds like the application of the principle of verifiability, or Popper's falsifiability. Which I like.

My own interest in religion is finding advocacies of proto- experimental science in the Bible; like Dan. 1.4-15 KJE. As per Dr. Woodbridge Goodman, online.

[cbayer]

52. Homosexuality was once considered a mental illness, but that was abandoned a long time ago.

"Mental Health" is a term that is also being abandoned, thank goodness. As the understanding of psychiatric illnesses has progressed, there is much more scientific knowledge about the causes, course and treatments of various illnesses. It is my sincere hope that once day the stigma attached to psychiatric illnesses will be fully eliminated and we will understand that these are brain diseases and not "soft science".

I see that you know about as much about psychiatry as you do about religions outside your very limited experience.

The diagnosis of a psychiatric illness is not completely subjective.
There are tests for many psychiatric illnesses.
What the majority of practitioners say is relevant, as scientific evidence is based on repeatability.
Religious ideas in no way fit the definition of mental illness.

I'll just stop there. But I am going to turn this around on you. When a person makes bald, false statements as you do throughout this post and does so with great conviction despite strong evidence to the contrary, they are much more likely to be approaching the criteria for a delusional disorder than the religious people that you describe.

What you write here makes me queasy. I sincerely hope that you are not in an capacity to provide care or support for anyone with a psychiatric illness, be they friend, family member or colleague.

I think I am seriously done with discussing things with you for awhile. Your views are so extreme and so unfounded and so potentially harmful that they approach being frightening. And even worse, you are so convinced that you are right about things in which you obviously have very limited education or experience.

[Brettongarcia]

43. What are the author's credentials in Psychology?

How does she know that Psychology is NOT saying bad things about religion?

Alanah Massey has a BA in history; and an MA in theology.

[cbayer]

54. What are yours?

[Brettongarcia]

59. Looks like we are all mostly amateurs here in Psych; including the author. So....

[cbayer]

60. And her point is exactly that - if you do not have the education, training and experience in the

field to render a professional opinion, then you have absolutely no business making any statement that would equate religious belief with mental illness.

She doesn't do it and admonishes those who do.

One doesn't need credentials in psychology or psychiatry to say that making diagnoses without credentials is wrong.

[Brettongarcia]

62. So she herself doesn't know if what is said about religion, is wrong?

OK.

What if we simply advance our opinions here - with the explicit qualification/demurer that we are (mostly) nonprofessionals on the subject of Psychology?

[cbayer]

64. What? She knows it is wrong because nowhere in the professional community

is the idea that religion is a mental illness endorsed.

You can advance your opinions all you want, but when you do it with some air of authority and make statements as fact that are just not true, that really goes further than just your opinion.

[Brettongarcia]

70. Note APA citation above; by TM 99

[cbayer]

71. What about it?

[AtheistCrusader]

96. I hope this isn't a continuation of your attempt to make delusion and mental illness a synonym.

Because there are three more common definitions that do not carry that connotation.

[cbayer]

101. Oh, its' not. I long ago recognized that some people use the term delusion very loosely

and don't mean to imply that all religious people have a psychiatric disorder.

Unfortunately, that is not the case for everyone, as can be seen in this thread. This is a continuation of my attempt to let those people know how wrong they are.

Ok with that?

[AtheistCrusader]

114. The term was being used very precisely.

But I agree, simple faith in supernatural XYZ whatever, is not prima facie evidence of mental illness by itself.

[cbayer]

116. The term is being very precisely by some members here to mean mental illness.

It's offensive and wrong on multiple levels.

I thought this author did a great job of expressing clearly and simply why it's wrong.

Those that continue to take that position show their cards and will reap what they sow.

I am very glad that you are not one of them.

[AtheistCrusader]

121. For consideration....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9-2zzX7mNKE/UNCUdN6GxmI/AAAAAAAAS2M/Oqp-X1S0iaA/s1600/Insanity+in+individuals+is+something+rare+but+in+groups+parties+nations+and+epochs+it+is+the+rule.jpg

[cbayer]

123. Not bad and it resonates to some extent. In this case,

he is using what I would call a populist or common definition of a word that has a more definitive meaning when used clinically.

I can see how that is not necessarily objectionable, but, as you and I have discussed, it's important to understand what the person using it intends.

Surely Nietzsche meant it in an allegorical way and not literally.

[mike_c]

98. one can note the self delusion of religionists without making "a diagnosis...."

You know that guy that stands on the corner all day shouting at passersby and having animated conversations with people who are not really there? Although I''m "not a mental health professional" I can tell that his behavior is delusional and self destructive. Likewise, one can note that folks who accept other sorts of delusions as reality are not entirely anchored in the real world, without the need for mental health credentials.

There is little qualitative difference between conversing with invisible strangers on a street corner or conversing with them in church. Nor is there any real difference between having those delusions in public, or when kneeling in prayer. Delusions are delusions. No amount of papering over with rationalizations will change that.

[cbayer]

107. If you are going to use psychiatric terms in a way that denotes psychiatric illness,

which you seem to be doing, the you better know what you are talking about.

You know that that guy on the corner is different, but you don't know why. He may have a brain tumor. His diabetes might be out of whack. Assuming that he is delusional is making a diagnosis without sufficient data and apparently no training or experience.

You are completely over your head on this. You can continue to say it all you want, but others will see it for exactly what it is.

You don't even really know the actual medical definition of the word, yet feel you can use it with impunity. Well, you can and but you are going to be called on it.

[mike_c]

111. I think we might finally have found a point of agreement....

Religionists are like people with brain tumors or who's diabetes is out of whack. Excellent point, cbayer!

[cbayer]

112. Yes, that's right, mike. Religionists are just like people with brain tumors or diabetes.

Your statements just keep getting more and more bigoted and they speak volumes.

I guess my only hope would be that they are confined to religion, but once you allow that kind of thing into your head, it can spread like a virus.

No, I have a second hope and that is that other people treat you with more respect and tolerance than you show towards those you so harshly judge.

[Brettongarcia]

320. How about "visions"? "Voices" from nowhere?

What does Psychology say about them?

[cbayer]

325. Most religious people do not have actual visions or voices.

They may feel a presence or feel they get some guidance or feedback, but actual visions and voices are rare.

[trotsky]

328. Do you have any data or statistics to support that?

Or are you just making it up because you hope it's true?

[Brettongarcia]

334. The major religious texts claimed visions, voices. The Church claims them. Mentally ill people too.

To the extent that modern liberal Christians continue tradition, this is part of their foundation.

To the extent that liberal Christians currently partially disavow, but also partially follow elements of this foundation, they seem rather rootless, and inconsistent.

[cbayer]

335. Modern liberal christians "claim" visions and voices?

I don't think you really know much about modern liberal christians.

[Brettongarcia]

339. I was raised a modern, liberal Christian. But?

On reflection, I began to notice what seemed like problems, inconsistencies, even in modern, Liberal Christianity.

Here? 1) I said in effect that if (or to the extent that) any modern Christians believe in literal visions and voices, then they rely on unreliable things.

While 2) if they merely acknowledge the Bible as a reference, then they cite a document that contains such things.

Then I said that 3) to the extent that liberal Christians both reject parts of the Bible which seem very literal, but then at times allude to it? Then they have committed a new sin: inconsistency.

[cbayer]

341. Like I said, I don't think liberal, modern christians embrace voices and visions.

The bible is a collection of books ripe for cherry picking. It's full of contradictions and it makes perfect sense to take some things from it and leave others alone.

Inconsistency is not a sin and being able to critically examine something and cull the good from the bad can actually be a sign of wisdom.

Are you one of those people who thinks that you can't use some parts of the bible unless you endorse the whole thing?

If you are, and that is how you were raised, I would suggest that you were not raised in a modern, liberal christian denomination or church.

[Brettongarcia]

343. I accept it might be partially good, to partially accept

But ultimately? Taking parts of a thing, then at times appearing to support the whole - say, supporting "religion" - does commit a sort of if not sin, then logical and moral inconsistency.

That is one of my major accusations to Liberal Christianity: inconsistency

To cherry pick seems good in some ways. But note this: if and when you defend "Religion" in general, you will be taken to endorse a very wide swath. Which does not seem consistent.

The logical "sin": inconsistency

[cbayer]

345. One can accept parts of things without endorsing the whole.

I have been the member of many organizations and employed by others where I supported some but not all of what they said and did.

There is nothing wrong with supporting religion, and I agree that there is some importance in staying morally consistent.

Where is liberal christianity inconsistent? In my experience they stand primarily for social justice, civil liberties and caring for the neediest and most marginalized. Just because they share a label with a bigger groups that has sections who do not stand for those things in no way makes them morally inconsistent. In fact, I would argue is makes them just the opposite.

I defend religion because I see the good in it and in many of those who ascribe to it. That by no means that I endorse a very wide swath.

[trotsky]

344. I think your pronouncements of what liberal, modern Christians do or do not believe...

are merely your opinion. While many may not believe that they personally would hear voices or have visions, I think you'd be surprised at just how many accept their validity.

And regarding your comment about culling the good from the bad - as has been pointed out to you countless times, what one defines as "good" or "bad" comes down to your interpretation of the holy book to begin with, giving you a nice circular path to your logic.

[pinto]

100. Interesting discussion, some of it beyond my educational pay grade, but suffice it to say

I feel broad brush, over-the-top, prejudicial characterizations of any group(s) of people are inappropriate in any venue.

i.e. All x are y (insert prejudicial characterization for y, where y is dependent on x). If that makes sense.

[cbayer]

113. We are now moving beyond saying religious people are psychiatrically ill to saying

they are just like people with brain tumors and uncontrolled diabetes.

We better round them all up and do something about this or we could rapidly move into zombie territory.

[okasha]

137. Better call Animal Control, too. (Post 95)

Who knew that veterinary medicine was included in cultural studies?

[cbayer]

139. Damn you, okasha! Now I had to go and read that yet another time

and I swear i get more lost every time I read it.

But I have been known to do my share of growling, lol.

[okasha]

141. Me, too.

And when I was 10, I bit the dentist who insisted that his drilling didn't hurt. When he complained, my dad ruled it a clear case of self-defence.

[NaturalHigh]

115. It's an ugly slur used by hateful people.

[goldent]

122. I think the author demonstrates that it is not an either-or choice

between science and religion. Some chose "none of the above." One thing that some believers and atheists have in common is that they both will gladly toss aside science to propagate their belief system.

[cbayer]

124. Good point. Despite no scientific evidence to support them, there are still

those that take a rigid and dogmatic stance on this, claiming that all religious people have a psychiatric disorder.

It's ridiculously ironic.

And since the technical definition of delusion includes continuing to believe something even in the face of significant evidence to the contrary, one must ask who it is who might be delusional here?

[hrmjustin]

126. I love it!

This will get a response or two but I love it.

[cbayer]

127. It's so ironic.

[Warpy]

131. I see a lot of conflation here

of simple belief with foaming at the mouth zealotry. The former is perfectly normal. The latter is distinctly abnormal and most of those zealots are either sociopathic frauds milking money out of believers who find themselves unhappy in life or they're schizophrenics in need of empathy and strong medication.

Back in the bad old days of state mental institutions, nothing got your ticket to the funny farm punched faster than hearing direct messages from god, lots of them. I know because I worked in one such institution down south on the buckle of the bible belt, where a lot of slack was cut for the extremely pious.

Rather than calling the religious majority insane, I've always suggested that belief is hard wired, a variation of the "third man" survival mechanism by which people directly sense the presence of an other. In our society, that other is god.

In any case, calling all believers insane is a social and tactical blunder of colossal proportion.

[cbayer]

132. I think zealotry is a good place to draw a line.

It implies that the religion has taken over, is excessive and probably harms other parts of a persons life.

It is not unusual for those undergoing a psychotic break to become hyper-religious or to develop religiously based symptoms, as I am sure you know. That can happen whether the person was religious or not religious prior to the episode. I always understand it as a defense mechanism that gave the person some explanation for what was happening to them.

I also am coming more to believe that religion for many may be hard wired and not necessarily a choice. There are both believers and non-believers who could not possibly choose to be the other.

[mike_c]

152. I agree with you completely that humans are hard-wired for religious delusions....

At the very least, we're social animals and extremely clannish. Most primates are. At that level, religious affiliations are essentially clan identifications, something that we are unambiguously hardwired for. But the clannish affiliations have to follow the primary embracing of one or another mythos.

I also think humans are hardwired for susceptibility to mythical thinking. We're extremely good at pattern recognition-- arguably, that's one of Homo's distinguishing characteristics. We create or infer patterns even where none exist, because we're wired to distrust patternlessness. Celebrities die in threes. Spilling salt brings bad luck.

So we delude ourselves into belief in myths that create patterns of understanding about a world that lurches from cause to effect, and we call the mythical forces driving mythical patterns "deities." It comes so naturally to us that we do it unconsciously.

It is delusional though. I mean, the fact that it's a ubiquitous human trait doesn't make it real, or good, or a sign of mental health. Shared delusions are still delusional. Maybe this is a flaw in human nature, evolution's last laugh. I can only state my truth, and it's that there are no gods or supernatural forces governing the universe. I mean, there either are or there aren't, and if I'm wrong then that's MY flawed thinking, which I'm content to own. But if I and fellow atheists are right that the universe is a rational place with no need for supernatural explanations, then religious faith is completely unnecessary. One might argue that it's at least a balm, if not for the long history of suffering it has caused.

[okasha]

155. Perhaps it has escaped you

that people have actual clans--kinship systems--to satify our "clannish" instincts. The Hatfields and McCoys, the MacDonalds and Campbells, the houses of York and Lancaster were not happily massacring each other over religion.

[mike_c]

157. of course....

I did not mean to imply that shared religious delusions are the ONLY manifestation of clan loyalty. I only said that they are consistent with human clannishness, and likely a component of it.

[el_bryanto]

150. This is always an entertaining debate

So Anti-Theists what percentage of genuine believers - i.e. those who aren't just participating for social reasons, are suffering from mental illness?

What percentage are delusional?

Bryant

[mike_c]

153. you've raised an excellent point....

At least some proportion of "believers" are simply members of the clan, folks in need of an identity beyond themselves. Maybe they're the bulk of foot soldiers in religious conflict, the cannon fodder of clashing clan identities. Clan membership is a basic human trait, inherited from our social primate roots.

Those who create the delusions that "members" embrace to effect membership-- maybe they're the ones who are genuinely insane. I don't know. I just think that theism is delusional, and someone creates those delusions. I've always assumed that everyone who professes them is not entirely sane, but maybe that's not entirely true. Most humans are members, not leaders. Maybe most believers are just joiners, hangers on hoping to prove their loyalty and legitimacy in a group context that makes sense to them.

[el_bryanto]

154. So anyone who genuinely believes - like myself - is not entirely sane.

Is that your statement ?

But you are willing to allow as some people are just pretending to believe for social or family reasons, and they don't suffer from being "not entirely sane."

Bryant

[mike_c]

156. I didn't say anyone was necessarily pretending...

...although I have family members who admit to pretending religious faith to avoid conflict with other family members, e.g. "if I told mom I'm an atheist it would break her heart." That's a real quote, so yeah, I guess that's pretending.

Genuine belief in deities? Supernatural things? I certainly think that's delusional. I'll leave it to you to decide whether deliberate self delusion is "sane" or not. Are people who profess that the world is flat sane, despite being shown evidence to the contrary? Are people who insist that fairies and sprites are responsible for the calamities in their lives anything other than delusional? How is that qualitatively different from any other myth about supernatural beings?

Maybe they're all just WRONG, but entirely sane. But when people kill their neighbors over the question of whose delusions are right and who's are wrong, is that sane? When nations go to war over those delusions, is that sanity in action?

[el_bryanto]

158. Why would you leave it to me to decide if it's sane or not?

I mean if I profess, as I do, that I believe in God and I believe I have a personal relationship with him (i.e. I pray and I feel he answers my prayers), isn't, by your standards, my judgement at least a bit clouded? Or is a person who believes in God or in fairies or in a flat earth a good judge of what is sane or not?

To go back to the OP - do you feel qualified to diagnose the sanity of my beliefs/experiences?

Generally I feel that God just wants me to be less of a jerk.

Bryant

[mike_c]

159. oddly, I simply believe that I need to be less of a jerk....

That's a bit of a raw nerve, actually. Awareness of our shortcomings is painful. We all seek to be the best people we can be, or at least we should. It's a lifelong job, and then we're gone, usually before it's finished. But I'm embarked on it myself, without need for deities to tell me so.

I don't want to make this personal. I know you want to draw me into an exchange where I personalize my arguments by applying them directly to you. It's my reluctance to do that which underlies my statement that you need to decide for yourself whether the shoe fits or not. One of the fundamental disagreements I have with the author of the OP is that she maintains that my use of the words "delusion" and "mental illness" are pejorative and meant to be hurtful. They've never been meant that way, only taken as such. Again, one of my goals in life is to be less of a jerk.

I bear no ill will toward people who suffer from persistent delusions, and prefer to keep the discussion at an academic level rather than get into personal name calling.

[el_bryanto]

160. I prefer it to be personal

Because it's not academic to me; it's my life. It's who I am. There was a time when to be homosexual was seen as a mental illness and great efforts were made to "cure" them (shamefully many religious people still believe this). For me, this isn't that different; what anti-theists want is a world in which people like me, if we are around at all, are kept out of the mainstream of society.

Or to put it another way -I consider it a shameful tragedy that right now it's hard to run for major public office while being an open atheist; I would consider it equally tragic if the reverse were true, and people like me were barred from public office because of concerns about their mental fitness.

Bryant

[okasha]

163. There were millions of Southerners

who never thought the word "n-----" was pejorative or meant to be hurtful, but it was. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that what you call your "truth" is a personal belief strongly held despite the scientific evidence against it. By your own definition, you are deluded and "mentally ill."

For the record I don't actually think you're psychiatrically ill. Even if you were, I wouldn't be professionally competent to make a diagnosis. I just think you're wrong, both factually and morally.

[cbayer]

173. You really want to be less of a jerk?

Stop calling religious people mentally ill and delusional.

That's a good start, right there.

[trotsky]

181. Score one for cbayer and her team!

Way to name-call!

[Warren Stupidity]

198. well at least she (inadvertently) indicated that "mentally ill" and "delusional" are not the same.

[trotsky]

176. Well, it's good to know that we are focusing on the real problem - rude atheists.

Thank goodness we don't have to worry about the outrageous religious behavior that said atheists are referring to, like honor killings, abortion clinic bombings, the 9/11 hijackings, etc., etc., etc.

[Vashta Nerada]

283. Religious people are delusional.

Last edited Wed Mar 5, 2014, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

The only reason religion isn't a mental illness (as it should be) is that religion is culturally acceptable. Schizophrenia wouldn't be a mental illness if it was culturally acceptable to be schizophrenic, right?

[cbayer]

286. Oh, horse shit.

But not a surprising response from you.

[Vashta Nerada]

290. Nice counter argument.

You've made me change my mind on this issue. I applaud your superior intellect.

[cbayer]

292. It's really all it deserved.

[Vashta Nerada]

293. Uh huh.

Q: In what country is it perfectly acceptable to talk to imaginary people and still be considered sane?

A: Religious America.

[cbayer]

294. People pray all over the earth and the vast majority of them are

sane according to every recognized psychiatric and psychological organization out there.

The fact that some who don't do this would label the bulk of the world psychiatrically ill says a lot more about them then it does about the religious.

It's a lame, shameful and bigoted position.

Did you read the article? Do you have any legitimate response to it, or are you just going to hold onto your false belief for which there is clear evidence disproving it (the definition of a delusion).

[Vashta Nerada]

295. Yeah, and what if I told you I talk to an imaginary pink elephant many times a day?

Would you think I was crazy?

Hint: Yes you would.

How is that scenario any different than talking to an imaginary sky fairy?

Edit: And my hatred for religion isn't "bigoted". It's a totally justified hatred.

[cbayer]

296. Don't need hints from you, thanks.

Your hateful posts about religion and the religious are known to me.

Since you seem firmly fixed in your position and completely unreceptive to any feedback that you may be harming others with it or displaying overt bigotry, I don't see much point in trying to have a civil discussion with you.

Your arguments about this are old and stale. Your apparent understanding of the complexity of religion and religious people shallow.

And your knowledge about what does and does not constitute a psychiatric illness is pretty much non-existent.

[Vashta Nerada]

299. And here comes the "bigotry" word.

Tell me again how religious people in this country are so oppressed.

[Deep13]

301. Not an illness.

A mental illness has an organic cause. Now, trying to reconcile religious belief with reality, or especially denying reality to protect religious beliefs can cause neurosis, which I understand is more of a psychological disorder than a mental illness.

[Distant Quasar]

353. Yes, anything that is explicable by culture alone is not a mental illness

This is true by definition. There are a lot of religious beliefs that I consider irrational given known facts about the universe, but flawed rationality and mental illness are not the same thing.

[Deep13]

358. schizoprenia is a mental illness.

A person cannot simply change his or her mind to cure it.

[hrmjustin]

327. So after 325 posts have we decided if we are mentally ill?

[cbayer]

329. Yes, some of the completely unqualified individuals who post in this

group have decided that you are mentally ill.

The good news is that they really have no idea what they are talking about and you are probably just fine.

[hrmjustin]

330. I have to say while I found some of the responses insulting, I also

found them amusing.

[cbayer]

332. What is amusing is that some of the positions taken here more closely fit the

criteria for delusional thinking than religious beliefs do.

Proving once again that people will believe whatever they want as long as it fits their narrative.

[hrmjustin]

333. Good points.

Did you have a good Shrove Tuesday?

We had Jambalaya at church.

[cbayer]

336. While there are some areas of Mexico that celebrate Shrove Tuesday, I am

not in one of them.

So the day was low key.

Hope the Jambalaya was good!

[hrmjustin]

337. It was great! I don't get it often so I was happy to have it.

I was the bartender as usual and we had Auctions and made 15,000 dollars for our outreach programs.

[skepticscott]

379. If you could point to even one post out of hundreds

where anyone has said that, or anything like it, I'd be surprised. But you can't. Just more of you making shit up about what other people have said, because you can't base the argument you want to make on any actual facts, and then sticking your fingers in your ears when you're called on it.

Sad.

[ladjf]

331. IMO, a "religious belief" is a personal notion, i.e. an assumed, subjective opinion and as such,

does not equal "mental illness". However, an individual who totally bases his/her World view upon a collection of "personal notions" is very likely to fail to thrive as a living organism. Such a person would likely to have significant psychiatric disorders, i.e. mental illness.

All living organisms on Earth attempt to relate to their Environments in the most opportunistic manner. Lower forms such as plants will attempt to follow this mandate without psychological interference and will live or die according to the "luck of the draw". Humans, on the other hand, are gifted with the ability to think in highly abstract ways, a talent that usually rewards them with extraordinary survival success. But, the gift is a double edge sword and when used to make abstract, subjective views of the physical Universes, could lead to dismal dysfunction, death and extinction. Extreme religious beliefs may fall into this realm of false perception of physical reality and would be a form of mental illness.

[BlueStreak]

352. It isn't mental illness. It may be intellectual lazines or deep-seeded insecurity issues

But those don't necessarily rise to the level of mental illness.

There is no denying that some of the more famous actors in this space are either sociopaths or just plain nuts (see Joel Osteen or Pat Robertson, respectively), but that is not the mainstream of spirit worshipers. Most of them lead mostly normal lives that don't evidence mental illness -- outside of that spirit worshiping thing, which they very effectively compartmentalize.

[Distant Quasar]

354. Using "mentally ill" as a pejorative also exploits the stigma of mental illness

It implicitly invokes common assumptions about the mentally ill, in what amounts to a kind of syllogism:

1) The mentally ill are incompetent and their opinions are of no value.

2) Religious people are mentally ill.

3) Therefore, religious people are incompetent and their opinions are of no value.

I really have a problem with that.

[cbayer]

355. Welcome to religion, Distant Quasar.

I think most people have a problem with that, but a few apparently do not.

I would like to see it eliminated from what is acceptable when people criticize religion or religious people.

[Brettongarcia]

361. There'a another view above though: cf. the "criminally insane" were once held responsible, culpable

For their bad and even criminal misbehavior.

In this case, there is a continued stigma attached to at least, misbehavior in the mentally ill that would traditionally have been considered criminal, and culpable.

Religious zealots who are mentally ill, might still be criticized if they say, murder their children. As many have in recent DU citations.

A VERY recent case from just two days ago? See the dramatic video in yesterday's newsmedia; where a woman drives her van, loaded with her children, into the sea. Later reports say she was talking about seeing Jesus, and escaping "demons.&quot

The children were crying "Our mom is trying to kill us." http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/our-mom-trying-kill-us-hero-recounts-ocean-rescue-n44731

[MellowDem]

381. A more venomous response to this shit article...

Defending delusional thinking because it may hurt people's feelings to call a spade a spade is a cowardly and dishonest thing to do.

[Brettongarcia]

394. CONCLUSION: "All" religion CAN be a "delusion" (Pierre, Jour. Psych. Prac., 2001).

CONCLUSION: “Psychologists Said That All Religion is Delusional” (Dr. Pierre, J.Psych.Prac., 2001).

Could it be true? Could “all” religion be partially bad; even specifically a “delusion”? Could even modern, liberal, spiritual Christianity have bad, delusive things in it?

Today we have “freedom of religion” in the USA. So can we say bad things about religion? Legally, we can. But practically speaking there is extremely strong social resistance to such criticism, from believers. To be sure, Christians at times, will allow that there might be bad things, in say OTHER religions; other than their own. Or even minor small things wrong in their own denomination or church or belief. And yet however, they hold that there are still some good things in Religion in general too; that they can “cherry pick” and retain. So they hold that SOME religion at least, is good. Parts of their own religion are good.; and should not be criticized. But oone way to finally deal with everyone, is to finally suggest that after all, there might be something intrinsically wrong with essentially “all” religion.

Can we really say that “all” religion is flawed? There are plausible arguments that there must be SOME historical and emotional truths in many of our religions; so that it is said we should not condemn “all” of them. However? It might also be suggested that whatever elements of truth there might have been in religion are lost, perverted; as soon as they are put into a “RELIGIOUS” CONTEXT. “Religion,” one might say, imposes a sort of superstitious mindset on everything it touches. And that in itself, that context, might well ruin even whatever valid facts there might be put into it. In line with this, one famous atheist (Christopher Hitchins) has said, “Religion poisons everything” it touches.

So it might be that there is something that is in “Religion” in general, by its very nature, that ruins whatever true things are put into it. Even valid, good facts, are ruined in fact - the minute you think of anything in a religious context. When it becomes part of in effect the giant magical schema that is every religion; a belief in supernatural happenings and so forth. But there are big problems with “supernatural”ism, finally.

Fundamentalists attempt to deal with this by asserting that their Christianity is “not a religion”; rather they say, it is Christianity; Jesus. However, that assertion is easily questioned. And in any case if necessary, we can begin to show problems even specifically with Christianity, in any case.

For this and other reasons I suggest that we “all” move past traditional Christianity and Religion, and even "modern" liberal Christianity. To the scientific study of religion. Religious Studies, and so forth.

[TM99]

399. YOUR conclusion, ONLY!

Is Faith Delusion?

Dr. Andrew Sims says its not -

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/is%20faith%20delusion%20andrew%20sims%20editedx.pdf

Conclusion

I started with the question, is faith delusion? I spent some time looking at precisely what delusion is in psychopathology and then measuring religious faith against it. I concluded that faith, of itself, is not and cannot be delusion, although people frequently have delusions that include religious and spiritual content. I covered briefly various other abnormal phenomenological states and found that, although those with religious belief may well experience them, faith was not causative. I also looked at the nature of personality to assess whether faith could be construed as a product of abnormal personality. Although variations of personality affect the manifestation and self-experience of belief, religious faith exists independent of personality. Finally, I examined the phenomenon of faith, observing its cognitive, affective and volitional aspects. This process has been carried out from the perspective of descriptive psychopathology.

[Brettongarcia]

401. Let's parse this.

Your author asked "is faith delusion." He concluded that faith IN ITSELF cannot be delusion.

But why "in itself?" Could it be that "faith" often does not claim any firm or provable "knowledge" at all; and therefore does not enter into a framework that would call something true or false. Though this would be wrong; faith does often claim knowledge.

Interestingly, seeming consistent with this, the author does acknowledge next that though he thinks that "faith" cannot be delusion, however there are delusions that include religious content.

He next asserts to be sure that "faith was not causative" of delusion.

So? You have at last found one scholarly citation to PARTLY support your case. Against the three or four I have cited.

Then too? Analyzing even your own best citations, deconstructively, finds them qualifying and often cancelling themselves.

You started with a fairly good article that overall emphasized the social coherence function of religion. But even that article started by noting contrary literature.

So far then? You've got nothing definitive at all.

[TM99]

402. You really didn't read the full pdf did you?

Or you simply do not understand the psychology behind it?

My field does not consider religion to be a mental illness or a delusion in and of itself. Your theory is that it is so. I do not have to prove my assertion. You, however, do have to prove yours. And thus far, your few articles to not support your conclusion. They may ask questions certainly. But they do not provide the answer you seek for your position.

[Brettongarcia]

403. I'm reading it. Lets look at your own article, again.

Indeed, it assumes "faith" never really firmly asserts anything; but is based on a "grain of" knowledge. Yet clearly faith does often assert things very dogmatically.

Next? What do you know, the author and your Psychology is suddenly in MY discipline: your author defines delusion as something "conflicting with social and CULTURAL" norms. Culture eh?

And guess what? Your author is quite NAIVE about my field: cultural norms. As it turns out, cultural norms are often wrong, relative to say, scientific facts.

Do I need to prove anything while you do not, since your field is allegedly unanimous? The literature contradicts you; your field is not unanimous. As I've shown over and over.

Yes, you would need to prove it.

But in any case, I'm tired of THESE word games with you.

I am however VERY interested in applying science to religion. Possibly another post will bring that up.

[TM99]

405. Your field does not apply science to religion.

It is deconstructionism only.

Your field is cultural norms? The author and my field is naive?

I am sorry to laugh so derisively, yet, I can not help it. For fucks sake, the fields of psychology and sociology are doing the research and science on norms and have for quite some time.

Shall we discuss the functionalist school?

Or perhaps you would prefer the Marxist school?

I have always enjoyed Erving Goffman's works on social deviance from societal norms as elucidated in one of my favorite works - Stigma.

Or perhaps you would like to discuss Game Theory takes on the subject.

We could also discuss the mathematical models such as the Return Potential Model. Here is an interesting article on that very topic dealing with aggression:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15212174

Yes, please, do stop the games.

[Brettongarcia]

408. In general, my field does not apply much science. But I do

And yes, your citations are naïve. Of course I've read them. But how about say The Social Construction of Reality?

No society is entirely objective. Therefore, defining "delusion" as deviating from social norms, is not an objective definition. It is strictly culturally relative.

Hello?

I'm getting tired of this.

[Brettongarcia]

409. Much of the Internet is just a play field for verbal agression by people who want to be bullies

Or try out their egos, to see what happens.

Fortunately I have a life outside the internet.

Are you using a returns model on aggression to justify your own behavior?

Bye

[el_bryanto]

443. Yeah - that's why people post things "Religion Kills Yet Another Child."

I mean what purpose does a title like that serve? What kind of dialog is likely to engender from such an aggressive OP?

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

446. That phrase would be merely incendiary - if it wasn't simply true

[Sarah Ibarruri]

404. ? What?

Okay, she said:

It wouldn’t be especially egregious were it not for the frequent complaints by non-believers and believers alike that “creation scientist” is an oxymoron. Those complaints are, of course, 100% legitimate. People who are untrained in the sciences have no business making authoritative scientific claims about the age of the universe or the significance of camel bones.

Is she saying that because we who complain that fairy tale believers are trying to get their fairy tales taught in school as science, should shut up if we don't have a PH.D. in science? Huh? This lady is mighty confused.

Then she said:

But people who don’t know the DSM like the back of their hand ought not be throwing out words like “psychotic”

What? Is she asking the population to simply be silent from now on? I strongly suspect she had a deadline to write an article threw this together all too quickly.

Also, while I'm guilty of being the first in the political correctness line quite often, and I think certain terms should not be used out of respect for human beings, I also understand that expletives, insults and attacks often borrow from real things in life. Borrowing from real things in life in no way means that we hate people who suffer from whatever-it-is condition that we've borrowed from. The alternative would be to resort to terms allowed to toddlers: "YOU ARE A POOPYHEAD!" That, will never happen, and if you think it does, I'd not hold my breath if I were you.

[Jim__]

413. No, that's not what she's saying.

From your post:

Okay, she said:

It wouldn’t be especially egregious were it not for the frequent complaints by non-believers and believers alike that “creation scientist” is an oxymoron. Those complaints are, of course, 100% legitimate. People who are untrained in the sciences have no business making authoritative scientific claims about the age of the universe or the significance of camel bones.

Is she saying that because we who complain that fairy tale believers are trying to get their fairy tales taught in school as science, should shut up if we don't have a PH.D. in science? Huh? This lady is mighty confused.

The sentence that preceeds your quote, the opening sentence of that paragraph, makes it quite clear what she is saying. The larger context of your excerpt:

Has anyone lobbing “mental illness” as a pejorative considered the irony of not being a mental health practitioner making this diagnosis? It wouldn’t be especially egregious were it not for the frequent complaints by non-believers and believers alike that “creation scientist” is an oxymoron. Those complaints are, of course, 100% legitimate. People who are untrained in the sciences have no business making authoritative scientific claims about the age of the universe or the significance of camel bones. But people who don’t know the DSM like the back of their hand ought not be throwing out words like “psychotic” without professional working knowledge of that term. It’s a real and often devastating state of affairs, not just a nasty adjective to throw at people whose beliefs you don’t consider rational.

She's saying that creationists are untrained in science and have no business making authoritative claims about the age of the universe. Likewise, people untrained in diagnosing mental illness should not be calling other people psychotic.

Is she saying that because we who complain that fairy tale believers are trying to get their fairy tales taught in school as science, should shut up if we don't have a PH.D. in science? Huh? This lady is mighty confused.

Surely you are capable of speaking and making rational criticisms of people who are trying to get their fairy tales taught in school as science without resorting to name-calling or long-distance diagnoses. Raising rational criticisms will probably be far more productive than childish name-calling.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

416. "Raising rational criticisms will probably be far more productive than childish name-calling."

Absolutely civil discussions and a nice roundtable meeting would be very pleasant, but since when has that been the way the world works? Life has never been perfect, nor will it ever be. As to aggression, which is (I imagine) what this is all about, I've never believed that meeting aggression with peace results in progress. Meeting willing people with peace and willingness is good and constructive. Using peace and calm to encounter those who come at us with aggression? Not so bright.

[Jim__]

419. Lobbing “mental illness” as a pejorative is both ugly and unnecessary.

As she states in the article:

It’s a real and often devastating state of affairs, not just a nasty adjective to throw at people whose beliefs you don’t consider rational.

It's definitely unnecessary. Rational criticism has been fairly successful in keeping creationism out of the science classroom in the US - certainly it has done better than name-calling.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

421. "Rational criticism has been fairly successful in keeping creationism out of the science classroom"

I completely disagree. This is a bit like the ones that hide away from the lines of fire and let others charge forward and take the bullets, and when the front ones are all dead and victory is to be claimed, they claim the victory for themselves and rest on their laurels.

[okasha]

425. It was rational criticism

by scientists, moderate and liberal religious people and pissed off parents and students that got the witless fundamentalists voted off the Texas State Board of Education.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

426. LOL! Right. People who are utterly illogical listened to logic. Right. nt

[okasha]

427. The campaigns and vote totals

Are a matter of public record.

Suggest you stop insulting the Democratic and other moderate and liberal voters of Texas.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

428. So, people who are ignorant and illogical were simply swooning at logic? lol Not. nt

[okasha]

429. Let's be clear about this.

You are calling Texas Democrats ignorant and illogical?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

430. I'm saying that if it's got laws that reflect illiteracy, it's got a preponderance of illiterates.nt

[okasha]

433. Good grief. Did you read the post at all?

The voters of Texas--that would include Texas Democrats, Greens and some sensible Republicans--defeated the worst creationists on the Texas State Board of Education, the elected body that used to mandate which books could be adopted by Texas schools, a couple years ago. The result was that the science books adopted by the Board in the Fall of 2013 are creationism-free. They include straight up evolutionary content with no nods to "Biblical" or creationist "alternative theories."

What's illiterate about that?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

434. I think Creationists are a slew of illiterates. Having debates with them is pointless. nt

[okasha]

435. Irrelevant.

n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

436. Surely you refer to your train of thought, no? nt

[okasha]

437. No, I refer to every one of your responses,

none of which gives shows any evidence that you were actually responding to what I posted.

[Brettongarcia]

438. Here's another psychological article noting "delusion" in religion. Causing murders:

Clinical research here found Religion inextricably intermixed with mental "delusion" in filicide:





"Conclusion
"In this article, we argue that mental illness, psychological functioning, and the psychology
of religion all contribute to acts of filicide. Specifically, chronic mental illness, coupled
with childhood narcissistic injuries and religious delusions that provide meaning to
confusing psychotic experiences, may increase the likelihood that this dreadful act will take
place. In the end, we hope that our psychodynamic model encourages further discussions
on the many contributing variables to this form of child murder, with a particular return to
the family-of-origin experiences and psychological processes that may contribute to such
acts. After all, understanding its many layers can only strengthen preventative efforts in
order to reduce its prevalence in contemporary societies."

"Religious Delusions and Filicide: A Psychodynamic Model
Academic Journal
By: Knabb, Joshua J.; Welsh, Robert K.; Graham-Howard, Marjorie L. Mental Health, Religion & Culture. Jun2012, Vol. 15 Issue 5, p529-549. 21p. 1 Diagram. DOI: 10.1080/13674676.2011.594998. , Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?sid=0787b9b2-c3c2-4b48-9535-2cf26434af66%40sessionmgr4003&vid=3&hid=4206&bquery=Religious+AND+Delusions+AND+Filicide&bdata=JmRiPWY1aCZkYj1hOWgmZGI9Y21lZG0mZGI9YXdoJmRiPXN5aCZkYj1sZ2gmZGI9cGJoJmRiPXNlciZkYj10ZmgmdHlwZT0wJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d

[hrmjustin]

439. So how would you deal with this?

[Brettongarcia]

445. You suggest that religious murders are based on psychological illness; but psychologists themselves

... are here telling us that religions themselves - specifically "religious delusions" - are partially responsible.

As we've found here in 3 or 4 academic articles.

[hrmjustin]

448. Well I never mrt anyone suffering from this.

So what do you suggest?

[Act_of_Reparation]

449. I've never met anyone who has bought "The Bodyguard" soundtrack...

...but according to the RIAA, it is the 4th Best-Selling Album of All Time.

And this is why anecdotal evidence is useless.

[hrmjustin]

450. Ok but my question becomes what is the solution to this issue?

[cbayer]

452. The claim is untrue and not worth arguing, imo.

[hrmjustin]

453. I know but I want to know what they think the cure is?

BTW Rhiannon is back.

[cbayer]

455. There is no answer to a question about a false piece of information.

I saw that Rhiannon was back and was glad.

[hrmjustin]

456. Your right.

[Brettongarcia]

458. De-programming.

Here we've just cited at length, 3 or 4 or more Psychologists in professional journals telling us that it - "Religious Delusion" - is real. And IS a problem. Hundreds more could be found.

A psychological program that tries to debunk delusions is part of the therapy.

[cbayer]

461. Lol. Ok, let's put all psychiatric patients who have any kind of religious symptoms in camps

and de-program them!!

We can pin their eyes open and make them watch Pat Robertson videos over and over again.

That's the ticket!

[hrmjustin]

462. Thank you for answering.

[Brettongarcia]

463. In addition to addressing delusions, analysis would focus on deeper issues that motivated them

Many religious problems mentioned in the literature seem to focus on "narcissistic" injury specifically.

(In my presently rough understanding, that in turn relates in part to problems of one's self esteem, and social status. Often extreme actions are taken to try to feel more important in larger social settings, it seems. Here we see a counter to the "Social Coherency" theories; suggesting that extreme and often rather dysfunctional actions are taken, in attempts to fit into or triumph in social settings.)

[cbayer]

440. It doesn't note that religion is inextricably intermixed with mental delusion.

It finds that those with chronic mental illness in which people develop religious delusions may increase the risk of filicide.

If you read this, you will see that the mental illness comes first. The delusions follow and are a result of the disease. As with many patients, religious delusions may develop in order for the person to explain what is happening to them.

Twisting this around to have it say anything different than that is dishonest.

I am so done with this thread and the horrible things that some people feel it's ok to say.

Keep searching and posting things you think support your position. They don't.

[Brettongarcia]

441. The secret to the Bible is that its language is open to two readings: one is negative about holy men

Many religious writers understand this double message. Including the second negative one. In many of the above articles, the authors present 1) one voice that seems to support religion. On the other hand, 2) they also present a voice or reading that can be taken negatively.

Take this passage from one above-cited article:

"Psychological functioning, and the psychology
of religion all contribute to acts of filicide. Specifically, chronic mental illness, coupled
with childhood narcissistic injuries and religious delusions that provide meaning to
confusing psychotic experiences, may increase the likelihood" of parents killing their children.

Note carefully that this phrase does NOT firmly, unequivocally deliver the positive reading of religion: the positive reading that reads this as saying that 1) "the psychology of religion" is in itself healthy; but is perverted by psychopathology. On the contrary, this selection is 2) STILL open to the reading that ALL religious psychology (and therefore Religion in general) is bad.

It is likewise open to two readings, on the subject of "religious delusions." That phrase might be taken in a positive vein to assume that 1) religion is usually good; but includes SOME "religious delusions." But it is also open to the reading that 2) ALL religious ideas (like religious psychology), are "delusions."

Readers will pick up one voice or the other, according to their mindset. And what they can stand to "face" or "bear."

But the important thing to note that this article uses the high theological style. Which is ... continuous equivocation between two very different opinions on religion. And one of those voices, readings, is very, very negative on the subject of Religion.

Amazingly, curiously, most of our most sophisticated theological/religious texts, are consistently open to this critical second reading.

All this suggests that most of our religion is really a coded message. ON the surface, when we are young, we hear a first simple reading. One that tells us to follow our religious and other leaders religiously; because they are good. But the next voice begins to acknowledge some serious problems, even in our highest holy men. And in our religion, our Christianity.

[Brettongarcia]

459. The professional article just quoted here does not assign causal priority to mental illness

In regard to early "childhood" narcissistic injury, and here coterminous "religious delusions."

Here's our latest professional article explicitly on "mental delusions":

"Specifically, chronic mental illness, coupled
with childhood narcissistic injuries and religious delusions that provide meaning to
confusing psychotic experiences, may increase the likelihood that this dreadful act will take
place."

This quote does NOT specify that mental illness precedes religious delusions. It assigns no chronological etiology, at least in the early days of formation.

In the meantime, it is even worded in such a way as to leave open the hypothesis that in fact early childhood religious delusions are the CAUSE of later psychological disorder.

[cbayer]

460. I already debunked that article and showed you how it doesn't say what

you claim at all.

Religious delusions are symptoms of psychiatric illness. Religious delusions are not parts of a belief system.

It doesn't have to say that mental illness preceded religious delusions, it's a given. Delusions are symptoms of an illness.

You are completely misreading this and, frankly, do not have the qualifications to make the interpretations that you make.

I am not willing to discuss this with you further, but will point out when you use this in a distorted and false way to make an invalid point.

[Feral Child]

442. For those NOT encumbered

by their own emotional need, there is the career to consider. Psychologists/Psychiatrists need to get paid, and the quickest way to career-suicide is to tell the absolute truth.

The problem with the human psyche is balance. Evolution builds on existing frameworks. We've been granted, by evolution, an ability for coherent "thought", but it's slaved to our endocrine system.

The tragedy of human intelligence is that it's often over-ridden; most of our decisions are based, not on logic, but how we "feel".

Our universe can be an awe-inspiring place, but it's also pretty scary and most of us simply can not accept our insignificance in the cosmos; hence, we've invented a consensual alternative to reality to reassure ourselves.

The mass outrage at having this aberrant world-view attacked by properly labeling it has cost, not just careers, but lives.

Our intelligence has launched technology that, in the short term, makes us healthier and more comfortable. The long term price of that is a world where biological diversity and the intimate workings of our ecology is enfeebled and threatened.

We're not a sustainable species. We war with ourselves and our entire planet to assure ourselves that we're "chosen", somehow "special" and immune to entropy.

Time will eventually leave us behind.

Time isn't infinite, but it's so vast that our meager structures can not endure, primarily due to our hubris.

If we can't leave our fear, rage and greed behind (and we simply can't) we'll leave ourselves with nothing left to exploit.

As a species, we deny this in order to feel safe: Is this not madness?

I consider it a good thing that distance buffers the universe from our predation.

[Brettongarcia]

444. SUM

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 09:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Academic writings though, have SOME use. So let's not entirely reject them. Our present OP has invited a quick survey of serious literature on the subject of Religious "Delusion."

What are we finding in our discussion? Most of the academic articles cited recently on DU about religion have flirted with what I am calling the “Social Coherence” defense of religion: the idea that religion is functional in that it helps unite communities in Christian or other fellowship, unity. However there is a basic and terrible flaw in social coherence itself: groups with strong social coherence, often achieve it by shunning or even executing dissidents. As in say, Nazism. (Cf. mothers killing their “bad” children, as part of their own desire to fit in religiously; Ameen Washington SP? And Bigotry in religion. See Dr. Pierre's conclusion on religious “delusions,” in Jour. Psych. Prac., 2001. Also DU remarks on Evolutionary Advantage to religion and ToM – Theory of Mind - activity).

So there are some really ugly aspects to social coherence. And in religions which depend on it. And finally, given some awareness of that ugliness? It now seems that many Psychology articles here that appear at first to support religion with its social coherence, finally begin however to hint at a really dark side to all this. Because of the dark side to religion and social coherence, many articles which seem to find positive things in religion eventually, begin to exhibit a certain hesitation, instability; a self-critical, self-deconstructive side. Which can be found in the use of certain unstable, polysemic, equivocal terms. Like say, “religious delusions.” Terms which in one reading seem to suggest that 1) merely SOME things in religion, are delusions. But which in another reading can be read as 2) assuming that ALL religion is delusion.

Many of these articles are by joint authors. And they exhibit some variance in their message, because of that. But likely, given the double-edged nature of religious group coherence, even the more religious academics eventually allow a certain ambiguity to creep into their investigations of “religious delusions.” Most of their articles' conclusions and abstracts are written in such a way as to justify a 1) positive, but 2) also a very negative conclusion, regarding both whatever specific religious problem is being examined by each article. But also a negative conclusion regarding “Religion” in general; including Christianity itself. This ambivalence can be seen particularly in polysemic/ambiguous terms like “religious delusions.” Terms which are generally, studiously, open being read as condemnations finally, of essentially ALL religion.

Most of academic literature on religion seems to studiously allow itself to be read as being negative on the subject of religion. Partially because much of religion, Christianity seems to focus not just on social in-group “fellowship” - but also on exclusion of out-groups. Like Jews, Gays, Communists, and so forth.

For this reason? CONCLUSION: many “Psychologists Said That All Religion is Delusional” (Dr. Pierre, J.Psych.Prac., 2001).

[Feral Child]

447. Thoughtful post.

I find myself agreeing with it, in toto.

[cbayer]

454. Excuse me?

I have a lot of interest in the role that religion plays in politics. The religious right have been a very destructive force and continue to be a threat. This deserves a lot of attention.

In addition, the divisive nature of religion works to the detriment of building coalitions that work towards mutual goals within the democratic party.

Who are you to tell me to find another topic to post about or to get a life?

Looks to me like you spend a fair amount of time in cooking & baking. That has much less to do with politics than religion. Should I tell you to get another subject to post about or get a life?

[Brettongarcia]

464. So what is the bottom line on the phrase "RELIGIOUS DELUSIONS"?

What are “religious delusions” and what do they do? From the weak to the strong thesis....

Some confusion might exist as to what we mean by “religious delusions,” and how influential we feel they are. Basically, “religious delusions” would be broadly, simply, religious ideas that seem demonstrably false. While regarding their importance, we might trace a graduated series of progressively stronger and stronger hypothesis. As follows: first, 1) can we say informally, that there seem to be false ideas, delusions, in some religions? (Like say, promises of physical miracles, “all” and “whatever” we “ask.” Cf. the Bible itself warning about religious “delusions,” and “false” things.) Then 2) does say Psychology suggest formally that there are such things as religious delusions? (As it does in fact; ref. Wiki). Then 3) are these religious delusions related to mental illness, psychological delusions proper? Do they come from some prior mental illness? Or even 4) do religious delusions occur apart from, 5) or even prior to, mental illness? And finally: 6) do religious delusions even CAUSE some mental illness? And/or 7) is all religion essentially delusional?

Here, hypothetically, we have been mostly defending the stronger statements. But in any case, even the weaker theses are significant. If all we can say is merely, informally, that there seem to be many false things or delusions in most religions, even that of course is extremely important.

Proving that essentially all of religion is delusion, and that it causes mental illness and poverty and dysfunctionality, will take a great deal of work to be sure. But it is hoped that our present discussion has begun to show some ways that this might be eventually more firmly demonstrated.

Our present finding? At a bare minimum, the Bible itself acknowledges “delusion”s in religious things (Ps. 62.9; Isa. 41.29; Jer. 10.15; Ezk. 13.8; 2 Thess. 2.11). While the term “religious delusions” is explicitly embraced by major figures in formal academic Psychology; which relates them to mental illness. Furthermore, though the current DSM sidesteps this, major figures like Freud and many since, have even said that all religion is a delusion (Dr. Pierre, Jour. Psych. Prac., 2001).

Therefore the phrase “RELIGIOUS DELUSIONS” has formal standing in Psychology - and should be allowed in (DU and other) public discussion. Even the notion that even "all" religion is delusional seems supported by key elements in Psychology as well.

[el_bryanto]

457. Yes - it's totally insane to post about religion in the religion forum of DU.

That's just messed up.

Bryant