Religion and Mental Illness

[Prolescum]

I prefer not to be an ancient Roman

Because you'd be less edumacated? Very cromulent, sir, very cromulent.

This fits in well with your ridiculous anti-proper noun crusade.

 

[Nordmann]

Hi Prolescum

I meant to write a hope, I said generally akin, and I don't think I mentioned insanity. Did you even bother to read it or just rush out a retort hoping to score? What were you saying about the level of conversation you're above again?

I can think of an appropriate parable if you'd like, it was written by Luke and involves wood.

"A hope"? One? Which one? Most religious people I know refer to hope very much in their justification for holding such beliefs, but they tend not to limit themselves to just one hope. Can you elucidate?

What does "I said generally akin" mean? In fact your assertion was "I am suggesting that belief is generally more akin to hope than delusion (as I understand it, being an atheist from birth)". What in fact does this mean? All belief? Belief with justifiable grounds? Blind belief? Blind belief in all its manifestations? To me "akin" means "similar but not exactly the same". Does this mean then that you are actually agreeing with me? If so, why the tone you adopt? You need to explain yourself better before you profess to take such umbrage at people not having a clue what you mean. Elucidation, if only for couretsy's sake, would not go amiss.

What does " ... or just rush out a retort hoping to score?" mean? Is the speed of my retort at fault here and being held up as offensive behaviour? I have most evidently read what you have written and, as I have said, fail to discern much of a point either to it or in it, at least without elucidation on your part. Can you elucidate? Or is it you who is trying to "score" here?

The answer to "What were you saying about the level of conversation you're above again?" is that I have been trying to keep this conversation at a level at least above petty ad hominems. The assumptions you make are unwarranted and the rancorous tone of your comments is undeserved.

When you retort with something of more substance then we can have a conversation, or even a debate. Thanks, by the way, for the reference to an aristotlean import into the christian myth (unacknowledged by them of course). It is indeed apposite. I am most earnestly attempting to exchange acknowledgement of beams and motes here for the reason stated simplistically in the christian version, but am doing so partly in an effort to avoid that either of us succumb to the actual and inevitable fate in store for they who do not understand the aristotlean logic which originally lay behind it. Nothing to do with damnataion of course (or even a supposed Luke, for that matter) but one worth looking up if you're not already familiar with it.

Pointer: Use of obsolete morphology when constructing English plurals (eg: Fora) is, in many circles, considered the height of "pseud". Consider this a beam traded.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

This fits in well with your ridiculous anti-proper noun crusade.

I've made it clear that it's my personal opinions and I don't expect anyone to follow what I do. Therefore your accusation that I have an anti-proper noun crusade is completely ridiculous and without any merit whatsoever. And once again, I was merely stating my opinion - my preference not to be an ancient Roman (oh yea that's a proper noun isn't it?) or a grammar Nazi or just an asshole who loves to go around correcting people's English grammar to the point of making them hate you with a vengeance (which I don't do yet though) - albeit with a link to a blog post by someone who quotes a dictionary, states his opinions and allows comments which lets others state their opinions. Perhaps the lesson you ought to learn is that everyone have different opinions on what they should do (whether they should call it fora or forums) and you should stop trying to push your opinion on others that improper grammar is somehow intolerable to the highest degree (more intolerable than religious dogma and islamic terrorism?) because many consider it tolerable in the right place at the right time. But there you go, with your attacks once again. They'd call you Grammar Nazi for a reason - you attempt to group grammar rule-breakers into concentration camps and gas them with your poisonous grammar-demanding stench just because you think the world must be pure with proper grammar just as Hitler though Germany must be pure with Germans only. Get a life, dude, and let the Jews be...

PS: Go ahead dissect my reply above as much as a biology student dissects a dead frog.

And by the way, it's absolutely correct to say "forums" and people prefer it because unlike somebody, they don't want to sound like a douche pretending to be a Latin scholar. But that doesn't make saying "fora" wrong.

 

[Prolescum]

"A hope"? One? Which one? Most religious people I know refer to hope very much in their justification for holding such beliefs, but they tend not to limit themselves to just one hope. Can you elucidate?

A hope that there is something beyond and above this life, the one you describe as a delusion of something beyond. If you're stuggling, there's a funny picture thread somewhere.

What does "I said generally akin" mean? In fact your assertion was "I am suggesting that belief is generally more akin to hope than delusion (as I understand it, being an atheist from birth)". What in fact does this mean?

Using my own words as a guide, am I asserting or am I suggesting? In case it's not clear by this point, it means exactly as stated.

All belief?

No. Do you require training wheels to infer context?

To me "akin" means "similar but not exactly the same".

Yes, that's right. I'm not religious and cannot speak for them, so I pass on the information I'm given as I understand it.

Does this mean then that you are actually agreeing with me?

We agree that Person A and Person B are both delusional, but I'm not making unqualified statements about all religious people, so no not really.

If so, why the tone you adopt?

Please read my last post, this has been answered.

You need to explain yourself better before you profess to take such umbrage at people not having a clue what you mean.

Others seem perfectly able to understand what I'm saying despite this derailment. Remember, you're the one who replaced the topic (what's the difference between Persons A and B) to whatever cock measuring contest you think this is.

I will note that I did expected someone to come along and assert that all religious people are delusional. It's a common theme amongst those with an axe to grind.

What does " ... or just rush out a retort hoping to score?" mean?

Go back to the post, read the quote and the relevant response again.

Is the speed of my retort at fault here and being held up as offensive behaviour?

No, your attributing someone else's words to me is. Well, it's not offensive... just wrong.

I have most evidently read what you have written

This is in dispute.

and, as I have said, fail to discern much of a point either to it or in it, at least without elucidation on your part.

That is a problem you must deal with, I hold no responsibilities toward you.

Can you elucidate?

Are you having difficulty finding a synonym for elucidate?

Or is it you who is trying to "score" here?

Score? No.

The answer to "What were you saying about the level of conversation you're above again?" is that I have been trying to keep this conversation at a level at least above petty ad hominems.

Oh? Let's have a look at your first response to me before I'd said anything beyond an exasperated cry at yet another 'aren't the religious just delusional' thread...

Prolescum - good point. Or else you dropped something heavy on your toe just as you wrote it. Hard to know.

But you're above being petty so we'll let it slide.

The assumptions you make are unwarranted and the rancorous tone of your comments is undeserved.

Like your assumptions that all religious people are delusional? That's warranted by which evidence? I'd also be interested in the assumptions I've made. Bullet points please.

When you retort with something of more substance then we can have a conversation, or even a debate.

:lol:

Thanks, by the way, for the reference to an aristotlean import into the christian myth (unacknowledged by them of course). It is indeed apposite. I am most earnestly attempting to exchange acknowledgement of beams and motes here for the reason stated simplistically in the christian version, but am doing so partly in an effort to avoid that either of us succumb to the actual and inevitable fate in store for they who do not understand the aristotlean logic which originally lay behind it. Nothing to do with damnataion of course (or even a supposed Luke, for that matter) but one worth looking up if you're not already familiar with it.

Double :lol:

Pointer: Use of obsolete morphology when constructing English plurals (eg: Fora) is, in many circles, considered the height of "pseud".

We've established that you won't accept the idioms of others. We must all be delusional.

And by the way, it's absolutely correct to say "forums" and people prefer it because unlike somebody, they don't want to sound like a douche pretending to be a Latin scholar.

I didn't say it wasn't proper to use forums, I just used the word fora. YOU decided to pick it up. That makes you a hypocrite.

Just so you know this, FT, my problem with your anti-proper noun crusade (the name was a joke) has already been defined in the thread where it was discussed. I don't have issues with subverting the rules, I have an issue when the intent is to piss people off for no reason, which you've stated as your main reason.

Edit: added response and added missing word

 

[Nordmann]

Ok - thanks. I had wondered if you were actually capable of elucidating. Now I know.

 

[Prolescum]

Ok - thanks. I had wondered if you were actually capable of elucidating. Now I know.

:lol:

 

[televator]

I do think one can live with a mental illness and still retain a level of sanity to deem them socially functional. I think a lot of people do already -- including myself.

I also don't find it dehumanizing to at least have a discussion trying to identify whether or not religion falls into a category of mental illness. If anything, it might make our arguments against it more insightful in a way if we can truly determine the very nature of the cognition behind it. Perhaps it is belittling to some people in a subjective and emotional sense, but that can't be helped some times. I mean people feel that's it's belittling to talk about the bio-chemistry behind emotions like love.

I tend to lean toward the side that at least sees the parallel with delusional beliefs. Personally, I have considered delusion as an illness, but I don't know if that is the case in proper channels of psychiatry.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Yep, 85% of the world is Crazy

 

[Aught3]

Yep, 85% of the world is Crazy

Please, it's clearly closer to 99%.

 

[Laurens]

Yep, 85% of the world is Crazy

I never claimed that all religious people are crazy. I'm saying that the specific kind of religious people who actually hear voices talking to them, and experience delusions etc, (like those described) are by comparison quite similar to people diagnosed with mental health problems.

 

[Memeticemetic]

I never claimed that all religious people are crazy. I'm saying that the specific kind of religious people who actually hear voices talking to them, and experience delusions etc, (like those described) are by comparison quite similar to people diagnosed with mental health problems.

It kind of amazes me how many people missed this obvious intention and have taken it to ridiculous extremes in one direction or the other. Hell, the vast majority of religious people I know are far more sane than I. What does that say about theism/atheism general? Jack about shit about squat.

 

[Exmortis]

Mhm... Allllot of metaphors here...


Say whatever you like about religious belief, call it brainwashing, a series of cocurrent mental delusions, a series of cocurrent delusions as a result of brainwashing.
However, those labels do not properly represent the base concept of a religion, and phrased simply, Religion is reassurence.


It is like a doctor giving a person with terminal cancer a bottle of suger pills immidiently after which the doctor explains that those pills will cure the dying man. It may make him feel better psychologically, but physically he is still dying.

Religion essentially works on the same core premise as the example above, it aims to make people feel at peace with life and death by deluding them into thinking that if they worship this incredable entity they will have a good life and will gain another life after death (Just like pacman!).

Which I suppose would work if you did indeed truely believe.
Let me explain, say you believe that god shows himself though everything good that happens. You get a paper cut, you find a band-aid on the kitchen table (GOD!). You lose your car keys so you look though your bag and find a winning lottery ticket (GOD!). You get into a serious car crash your buddy who was driving dies and you are on the verge of death but after tireless surgical intervetion you survive. (GOD!)

My point here is that if you pay more attention to the good things that happen to you (because you are looking for proof of god to validate you beliefs) consequently you have less time to pay attention to the bad things... or at least that is the theory I am working off.


There is also moral blackmail and world creation elements thrown in there too but they don't effect the point I am trying to make here.


Also, I would like to make clear that I do not recommend theism as a life choice, that level of unsupported certainty is ridiculous... Okay... that is my rant of the month.

 

[Prolescum]

I never claimed that all religious people are crazy. I'm saying that the specific kind of religious people who actually hear voices talking to them, and experience delusions etc, (like those described) are by comparison quite similar to people diagnosed with mental health problems.

It kind of amazes me how many people missed this obvious intention and have taken it to ridiculous extremes in one direction or the other.

The intent hasn't been missed (I dealt with it specifically); the whole question is spurious. It is only Nordmann who asserts that all religious people are delusional.

 

[Nordmann]

It is only Nordmann who asserts that all religious people are delusional

The clinical definition of delusion and the requirement to believe as factual unsubstantiable assertions on the part of others, which a religious observer claims as necessary to sustain their faith, overlap. That is what I asserted.

Delusion is not evidence in itself of insanity or even of poor mental health. However submission to delusion in the face of evidence which could readily dispel it is not conducive to rationality and this leaning towards irrationality is actively encouraged of their congregation by the administrators of all religious faith systems. If there is something which is truly common to all "religious people" it is this.

 

[Prolescum]

It is only Nordmann who asserts that all religious people are delusional

The clinical definition of delusion and the requirement to believe as factual unsubstantiable assertions on the part of others, which a religious observer claims as necessary to sustain their faith, overlap. That is what I asserted.

Ahem.

Are you saying that the majority (the religious) are all delusional?

Yes.

Delusion is not evidence in itself of insanity or even of poor mental health.

I said nothing about insanity.

However submission to delusion in the face of evidence which could readily dispel it is not conducive to rationality and this leaning towards irrationality is actively encouraged of their congregation by the administrators of all religious faith systems.

Not exclusively hence the uselessness of the original premise.

If there is something which is truly common to all "religious people" it is this.

How about skin?

 

[Andiferous]

In order to illustrate my point we shall imagine two hypothetical people.

Person A is a diagnosed schizophrenic who suffers from paranoid delusions. They believe that the government is sending coded messages to them through the TV and various people they are in contact with. They feel like their whole life has been a big conspiracy and that they are inadvertently a secret government agent being controlled and manipulated by powerful external forces.

Person B is a convinced religious believer. They believe that God has chosen them specifically to evangelise the gospels, and that they have a special gift of communication with God through prayer in order to do this. They firmly believe that God is in control of their destiny and that God communicates to them through the events of their life.

Question: In terms of psychology is there much difference between Person A and Person B?

Yep, 85% of the world is Crazy

Please, it's clearly closer to 99%.

I differ; all of us are crazy. Let's just say 100 and make up a margin of error.

I've posted a link a while back (a few times) to a study that showed no correlation between spiritual affliation and depression, but an obvious trend for the extremes of either end to be 'happy' with life. Those who call themselves agnostic or hover in the centre show a stronger trend to depression. I think more interesting would be the study of fundamentalists on either side and delusional capacity.

That said, mental illness is such a broad term, and proven so common either temporarily or permanently for everyone, and the OP question seems derogatory to some (or all) people by the question, despite the fact that I don't understand its intention or meaning.

If more people who think and question have bouts of depression than fundamentalists who fail to empathise, then I'd be rather proud to be considered mentally ill... because only extremists would assume so... and I'm sure more fundamentalists are sociopaths.

 

[Nordmann]

Hi Prolescum. I never said or implied that you said anything about insanity. It was a phrase used by another poster in this thread which I have tried to address by insisting that it actually has no place in this discussion. Your apparent urge to throw back a person's post in sections with comments attached seems to take precedence over actually understanding what that person is actually saying or even retaining any relevance to your commentary, so I'll give it to you again in simple language which you might have more luck with in understanding.

Belief in a deity with powers over people is a form of delusion, at least according to most standard dictionary definitions of the term "delusion". In psychology the term has in fact quite a specific meaning - "an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary" - and is regarded as sufficiently aberrative a tendency as to constitute an indication of pathological behaviour on the part of the subject. On this basis my earlier statements are, I believe, correct and I have been careful to qualify any "assertion" on my own part with two additional contentions, that delusion is not exclusive to religious observers and that it is not always necessarily indicative of a pathological disorder. It is still delusion however, and it is still an essential part of religious observation in any religious code you may wish to name.

If you disagree with this I would appreciate hearing your reason behind doing so. You may think you have made your reasoning plain, but apart from what looks like a compulsive necessity to gainsay points which you believe were made but actually never were, I am afraid you haven't succeeded in explaining your view very well at all.

Hi Andiferous. Sociopathic behaviour is characterised, amongst other things, by an inability to empathise with others, and therefore extremely fundamentalist religious views can indeed encourage a person to behave in nominally sociopathic ways. But it is also characterised by an apparent absence of conscience and an impaired understanding of consequence, neither of which would necessarily be included in the profile of a fundamentalist. This to me shows the danger in attempting to equate religious behaviour with mental illness. My own assertion would be that voluntary subscription to delusional beliefs can indeed be a first step towards clinical illness but it is not necessarily a step that the majority of religious observers take. The majority however do, through necessity, become accustomed to dichotomous reasoning in order to accommodate their delusion, and while this also could be a first step towards actual illness it is most often, in my view, simply a tragic waste of time and brains on their part, and one for which society is the poorer.

 

[Andiferous]

Hi Andiferous. Sociopathic behaviour is characterised, amongst other things, by an inability to empathise with others, and therefore extremely fundamentalist religious views can indeed encourage a person to behave in nominally sociopathic ways. But it is also characterised by an apparent absence of conscience and an impaired understanding of consequence, neither of which would necessarily be included in the profile of a fundamentalist. This to me shows the danger in attempting to equate religious behaviour with mental illness. My own assertion would be that voluntary subscription to delusional beliefs can indeed be a first step towards clinical illness but it is not necessarily a step that the majority of religious observers take. The majority however do, through necessity, become accustomed to dichotomous reasoning in order to accommodate their delusion, and while this also could be a first step towards actual illness it is most often, in my view, simply a tragic waste of time and brains on their part, and one for which society is the poorer.

Hello again Mr. Nord.

I believe I must have been confusing again, but to simplify things, I think we're on the same team. From their vague statements, most on the thread (including ever elusive Prolescum phantom) are on your team as well. No need to argue any of us, and not useful if we don't communicate or understand each other anyway. And I give Meme an excessively hard time about being a militant atheist in occasional comments as well. So hey, we're on the same team.

I'd not be as harsh as yourself, though, and claim that any human is immune to delusion; or that life is worse for having it. I'll get into the definition of faith argument later (It's accepting an uncertainty by its very definition which is admitting to self-delusion on many levels; and I believe no human on this planet hasn't used this clever adaption. It's actually fantastic for intellectual development and survival for a species who has been born needing to understand why and what is the meaning of their lives. Power of mind over matter. Go figure.)

Supporting your point, I was trying to say in apparently a cryptic way, that those extra confident and happy extremes on either end of the spectrum (ie: theist -> atheist) were all equally fundamentalist. I do believe in atheist fundamentalism and I see it as horribly similar as the opposite variety. We commented on Squawks blog one time about that stuff. Either extreme is terribly similar.

I would never stoop to using mental illness as an insult, and furthermore, while it was a quick theory of mine that extremists could loosely be connected with sociopaths (including rabid athiests), I probably pointed that out (I apologise) in anger of the whole question. But it is worth studying yeah?

We should never make light of mental illness; and I have often seen it used in a Victorian mad-house terror. I hate the term to begin with. We all have emotional issues and I fear the sanity most of those who don't address those. I guess it irks me to imagine the implication. That said, consider me mildly mentally ill as well, if it suits anyone who cares about that stuff. So it's me and Televator now, go team. I respect most those who are honest in difficult circumstances in defense of a principle - so go speak up folks.

The question is insulting and likely unintended, I trust.

Study is here if you are interested: (old post)

Apparently I've been very convoluted latelly. Let me know If I come off weird again; I tried, but don't have much editing time atm.

 

[Guardian Angel]

It is only Nordmann who asserts that all religious people are delusional

The clinical definition of delusion and the requirement to believe as factual unsubstantiable assertions on the part of others, which a religious observer claims as necessary to sustain their faith, overlap. That is what I asserted.

Delusion is not evidence in itself of insanity or even of poor mental health. However submission to delusion in the face of evidence which could readily dispel it is not conducive to rationality and this leaning towards irrationality is actively encouraged of their congregation by the administrators of all religious faith systems. If there is something which is truly common to all "religious people" it is this.

What other things are common to all religious people?

 

[Andiferous]

With any luck, a kidney.