Faith and madness, am I too harsh?

[late]

I've been atheist longer than most of you have been alive.

But it's clear to me that the OP was basically a troll.

If you take the long view, religion is in decline. The Pope used to control armies, now, not so much.

People like religion, you can't talk them out of it. So you learn to live with it.

There are fights that need to be fought, ones where this is at least some chance of a win. This just isn't one of them.

 

[Angel]

I am afraid this one went over my head. Not understanding it. Maybe it's my inability to think abstractly? :lol:

Tim the Plumber, the OP, has gone missing for five days.
My post meant to point up that fact with an iconic image that Tim, given his location, should recognize, and with a little humor in the hope that all is well with him.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Talk about evasion! You've tested your materialism by trying to walk through walls. Sure.
You are mistaken about science and the hard problem of consciousness, but I only tried to help you with an example. So far you have not offered anything from your personal experience -- from your personal experience no less -- that would contradict Chesterton's point about materialists. This is what we're mooting here, just to keep us on track.

This of yours I cannot comprehend:

I cannot understand what you're saying here, let alone what it has to do with my reminding you of the arguments I've made in this forum.
Evasion? You claimed I made no arguments; I pointed out that I have. What are you on about here?

Your inference from the religious belief of madmen to the madness of religious belief is the oldest logical fallacy in the book.

As Calamity said;

I would have to agree that clinging to weakly supported beliefs probably requires a slight degree of mental illness. And the stronger one holds to those beliefs the more they may be influenced by mental illness.

The bible tells me homosexuality is bad--slight degree of mental illness.
God told me to kill gays---strong level of mental illness.

I understand that you don't want to post your arguments again because the feeling you got last time you did it was not nice. That was because the arguments you posted were obviously drivel.

If they were strong you would take this opportunity to fire tham off agian.

The bit I don't understand is the degree of conciousness involved in your thinking. Is it outright dishonesty or something much more mentally fundimental?

 

[Tim the plumber]

You are too harsh. Faith is fantasy wish fulfillment. Most people with faith behave no differently than atheists do in their everyday lives. The default human state is that of survival in the physical world. Faith is not much different from other forms of entertainment through fantasy. Only when fantasy gets mixed up with everyday survival activity does it start to border on madness. But even then, humans are quite resilient and stubbornly retain the ability to survive.

I'm not convinced about the fulfillment part. Also I find they lie far more than atheists.

 

[Tim the plumber]

The sort of concrete thinking and inability to appreciate literary symbolism on an abstract level, and taking it all as literal truth, is a prominent feature of schizophrenia. This is not only true of religious scripture, but any sort of abstract literature with metaphors and symbolism, especially things like poetry. They take it all very literally. I am in the medical field. Believe me when I tell you cannot reason with a schizophrenic. It is a very biological/chemical phenomenon. They just need medication.



That's not to say ALL religious people are like that. But many of those who insist on literal understandings of the ancient literature some call "scripture" have elements of this sort of inability at abstract thinking.

Yes, well siad. Good explaination.

My question, I think, is; do those believers who are not in the mental health system have a little schizo going on? Is that because they started with it or was it the result of being religiously indoctrinated?

 

[Angel]

As Calamity said;



I understand that you don't want to post your arguments again because the feeling you got last time you did it was not nice. That was because the arguments you posted were obviously drivel.

If they were strong you would take this opportunity to fire tham off agian.

The bit I don't understand is the degree of conciousness involved in your thinking. Is it outright dishonesty or something much more mentally fundimental?

Welcome back, Tim!
Drivel and dishonesty were underrepresented in your absence.

Namaste.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I listened to Appiah. He does seem very charming and very insightful. I enjoyed it very much. One thing that exists in the DSM manual to sort out an individual's cultural beliefs from psychiatric delusions is that the belief being asserted by a psychiatric patient should NOT already exist in that person's culture. If a person has grown up with certain prevalent cultural mythologies and beliefs, anything they say based on it should not be construed as being evidence of a psychiatric illness.

It is interesting, for example, to look at the criteria in the DSM manual for diagnosing "Delusional Disorder". I want to draw your attention in particular to criterion #7. :

1.The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2.That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3.Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4.The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5.There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him/her, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6.An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7.The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background.
8.The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
9.The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10.Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

________________
So what does all this mean to our discussion? Well, simply that in the presence of prevalent cultural delusions, you cannot diagnose individual members of that culture with a mental illness. That's probably because if an idea or story, no matter how dysfunctional, outrageous, or outlandish, is hammered into a child's head repeatedly from the time they are at a tender and impressionable age, then it's going to be no surprise that they will continue to believe that idea when they grow up. But that doesn't make the story or idea any less dysfunctional, outrageous, or outlandish.

Is that not just a bit of a get out clause to allow the mental health industry to function in a society where they would otherwise have to diagnose more than half of the population as a bit mad?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Tim the Plumber, the OP, has gone missing for five days.
My post meant to point up that fact with an iconic image that Tim, given his location, should recognize, and with a little humor in the hope that all is well with him.

Been working too hard.

 

[Daisy]

It's as complicated as the human mind is...

https://campuspress.yale.edu/perspe...th-the-connection-between-faith-and-delusion/

 

[VanceMack]

Yes, well siad. Good explaination.

My question, I think, is; do those believers who are not in the mental health system have a little schizo going on? Is that because they started with it or was it the result of being religiously indoctrinated?

I think what you will find is that a- a majority believe in God so its not unreasonable that a majority of schizophrenic people will have a religious component. b-most non-organic schizophrenia originates as self think, which is usually built around an individuals feelings of failure, lack of self worth, and ultimately, guilt. c-non-religious people are equally susceptible to feelings of guilt and self loathing.

 

[Angel]

Been working too hard.

That's proper champion, that, lad. Where there's muck, there's brass.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, well siad. Good explaination.

My question, I think, is; do those believers who are not in the mental health system have a little schizo going on? Is that because they started with it or was it the result of being religiously indoctrinated?

I am pretty sure it's the result of being indoctrinated from a very tender and impressionable age. After all, as a kid, if you have every single trusted authority figure in your life (parents, teachers, preachers, uncles, aunts, friends at school, etc....) believing in and telling you a particular story, no matter how fantastic and outlandish, you are likely to start believing it.

I don't know if you have had a chance to review some of the conversation in earlier pages where we were talking about how in the DSM manual for mental health specialists, they are not allowed to make a psychiatric diagnosis like schizophrenia or delusional disorder if the beliefs being asserted are part of that person's cultural background.

 

[ataraxia]

Is that not just a bit of a get out clause to allow the mental health industry to function in a society where they would otherwise have to diagnose more than half of the population as a bit mad?

If you take that clause out, they would have to call almost ALL humanity for almost all its history as mad.

Skepticism has been very much a tiny minority view, restricted to perhaps a handful of the ancient philosophers in ancient Greece and India, and has really only become more culturally prominent since the European enlightenment. I would point specifically to the Galileo affair, where he was able to definitively show, through extensive evidence, that the church had been wrong in its geocentric doctrine for over a millennium and a half. If they had been wrong on that, more educated people started wondering, what else could they be wrong on? That was the chink in the armor of the infallibility of religious doctrine that has since blown into a full blown fragmentation.

 

[gfm7175]

I am pretty sure it's the result of being indoctrinated from a very tender and impressionable age.

Is being an atheist or an agnostic the result of being indoctrinated from a very tender and impressionable age? Or does that only apply to children who were raised to be religious?

 

[Tim the plumber]

I am pretty sure it's the result of being indoctrinated from a very tender and impressionable age. After all, as a kid, if you have every single trusted authority figure in your life (parents, teachers, preachers, uncles, aunts, friends at school, etc....) believing in and telling you a particular story, no matter how fantastic and outlandish, you are likely to start believing it.

I don't know if you have had a chance to review some of the conversation in earlier pages where we were talking about how in the DSM manual for mental health specialists, they are not allowed to make a psychiatric diagnosis like schizophrenia or delusional disorder if the beliefs being asserted are part of that person's cultural background.

Yes, I read through it.

The ex-social worker I know tells that there is a NFB abrviation for cases in Barnsly, darkest Yorkshire, which means that the behaviour they are doing would be enough to get them sectioned (legally coded as mad) anywhere other than Barnsley. Normal for Barnsley. Chasing your husband around the house/village/pub with a carving knife and a hammer.... etc.

Are you saying that being indoctrinated will lead to believing in God or that it will lead to inceased schitzo?

 

[Tim the plumber]

If you take that clause out, they would have to call almost ALL humanity for almost all its history as mad.

Skepticism has been very much a tiny minority view, restricted to perhaps a handful of the ancient philosophers in ancient Greece and India, and has really only become more culturally prominent since the European enlightenment. I would point specifically to the Galileo affair, where he was able to definitively show, through extensive evidence, that the church had been wrong in its geocentric doctrine for over a millennium and a half. If they had been wrong on that, more educated people started wondering, what else could they be wrong on? That was the chink in the armor of the infallibility of religious doctrine that has since blown into a full blown fragmentation.

I think you are stepping gently around the subject.

I am more blunt.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Is being an atheist or an agnostic the result of being indoctrinated from a very tender and impressionable age? Or does that only apply to children who were raised to be religious?

If it is indoctrination into believing in things that are not real it would have the same result.

 

[ataraxia]

Is being an atheist or an agnostic the result of being indoctrinated from a very tender and impressionable age? Or does that only apply to children who were raised to be religious?

Atheism too could result from being indoctrinated from a young age, if it's accepted uncritically. The point is to learn to question and think critically. If your cultural story is that the earth is balanced on the back of a turtle, it's going to be much easier to start losing that belief as soon as you start looking for evidence or thinking about it critically, than it is that we just don't have any evidence for otherworldly deities right now.

 

[gfm7175]

Atheism too could result from being indoctrinated from a young age, if it's accepted uncritically. The point is to learn to question and think critically. If your cultural story is that the earth is balanced on the back of a turtle, it's going to be much easier to start losing that belief as soon as you start looking for evidence or thinking about it critically, than it is that we just don't have any evidence for otherworldly deities right now.

I can mostly agree with that.

 

[gfm7175]

If it is indoctrination into believing in things that are not real it would have the same result.

I can agree with that statement.

 

[expat_panama]

...start looking for evidence or thinking about it critically, than it is that we just don't have any evidence for otherworldly deities...

Interesting.

Critical thinking studies that I've participated in require the ability to amass evidence for both sides of a question as a prerequisite for serious thought. Quite often a situation can emerge where there can be compelling evidence for both sides, in which case the original question has to be reexamined.

Has that ever happened w/ you or do your critical thinking skills just not get that far?

 

[Angel]

I can agree with that statement.

Subtlety is lost on Tim, gfm.
But I admire your patience and faith in humanity.

 

[ataraxia]

Interesting.

Critical thinking studies that I've participated in require the ability to amass evidence for both sides of a question as a prerequisite for serious thought. Quite often a situation can emerge where there can be compelling evidence for both sides, in which case the original question has to be reexamined.

Has that ever happened w/ you or do your critical thinking skills just not get that far?

I grew up in a fairly religious household. I still respect the religious opinions of my family, insofar as I can understand how they, and uncounted generations of my forebears before them, held such beliefs. But having carefully weighed both sides, I can no longer continue to seriously hold on to such views.

 

[RAMOSS]

I


If the religious promise to keep the poetic and abstract out of the world of real facts and decisions in the real world, I would have no problem with their abstract stories. They are beautiful. I love reading the Bible as a work of literature, much as I love reading Dante's Divine Comedy or Homer's Iliad. But I am still not going to go operating in the real world as if Sea God Poseidon is really on the side of the Greeks against the Trojans. That's just an inability to separate the abstract from the real world, in the same way the Schizophrenic is looking for the literal eggshells under his feet just because of a figure of speech the doctor used.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Your inference from the religious belief of madmen to the madness of religious belief is the oldest logical fallacy in the book.

Well...probably not the oldest. But one of the most insidious, it certainly is. This is absolutely a fallacy. What Tim seems to want to say is:

1. (For all x)If x is religious, then x is mad

as one of his premises. But that's what he also seems to want to prove, so he clearly cannot do that. That'd just be circular reasoning. So instead, he goes:

2. (For all x) If x is mad, x is religious.

That's the reason for the bit about how people with schizophrenia are all (mostly) focused on religious figures. We are supposed to accept 2 as a reasonable premise, which maybe it is. I've only known a few individuals with psychotic delusions, but they all seemed to think they were talking to angels or yakshas or whatever. So let's say I buy 2. But then Tim still needs to prove 1. How can he do that? Well, he really cannot, but he tries to get close by affirming the consequent of 2:

3. x is religious

4. therefore, x is mad

Going the wrong direction on the conditional, and then I guess the idea is to treat inference like a conditional. Actually, I'm not so clear on this part of the strategy, but in any case, what he wants is 1, which is: (For all x) if x is religious, then x is mad. But obviously, three of these moves (1, 3 and 4) are fallacious, so it's unclear how he could reason toward the needed conclusion.

Anyway, that's the logical territory as I see it. It's basically the same deal as when opponents of pornography point out that all the rapists in prison in the Unites States looked at porn before they started raping, and try to conclude that therefore porn is bad because it causes men to rape.