Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 07-17-2005, 03:26 AM

Does anyone have unique beliefs? The beliefs of psychiatric patients have followed ideas in society - it used to be x -rays being able to read their thoughts - not sure what it is now.

Issue is danger to themselves or others. Are people so trapped in their own thoughts that they are not caring for themselves, or believe they must go and kill someone?

All these behaviours, mad, religious, criminal, drug induced, fantasy induced, warfare, should be seen as having a common ancestor in how we interpret reality and interact with life and others. We put labels around some behaviours, like bubbles, and focus on them more intensively, and set up institutions to control them. A major institution is the state, who we allow to go to war for example. But even war is becoming privatised with terror groups.

Maybe we need new institutions to control religious behaviours.....

WagesofSin · 07-17-2005, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I would prescribe a dose of existentialism and humanism!

Wouldn't those simply be more "buoys" added to the equation? There really seems to be no reason to grab on to any particular buoy other than personal preference...

Spanish_Inquisitor · 07-17-2005, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricK

DSM-IV says about delusion:
"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith)."

That last sentence is a bit of a cop-out! Are conspiracy theorists delusional? They certainly fit the first part, but if one defines conspiracy theory belief as a sub-culture then that automatically excludes them. If I start a religion I may be delusional. And my first group of followers may be delusional. But if the religion stays around for long enough, then people with exactly the same beliefs are suddenly not delusional!

Eric

Yes. It's a bootstrap argument - you're delusional until you're able to suck enough people into your delusion, after which you're no longer delusional. A very democratic way of voting yourself out of mental illness.

Under this theory, Jesus was delusional, until he recruited his disciples.

SI

Killer Mike · 07-17-2005, 01:44 PM

A book "Religion and Mental Health" published by Oxford University Press is written by university professors. There is a direct correlation to the amout of "religiousity" and the amout of neurosis. In other words the more religious someone is the more neurotic they are. There are all sorts of other psychological issues as well. There is an inerrant danger of emotional trauma caused from religious indoctrination. The emotional pain can be as great as being raped. In religious cults the deprogramming efforts are usually accompanied by a great deal of emotional pain/ confusion on the part of the cult member leaving theri religion. For some it can takes years to fully recover and some never fully recover. Many former cult member experience a great deal of anger, often directed towards their leader. "Toxic Faith" is written by Albert Ellis, a professor of psychiatry. And "Leaving the Fold. A Guide for Those Leaving Their Religion" is written by a PhD in psychology and has some good advise in helping deal with religious deprogramming.

But the bottom line is that religious people are "nuts". They have their own language, belief system and trying to "reason" with them is like trying to "reason" with Archie Bunker.

show_no_mercy · 07-17-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricK

DSM-IV says about delusion:
"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith)."

That last sentence is a bit of a cop-out! Are conspiracy theorists delusional? They certainly fit the first part, but if one defines conspiracy theory belief as a sub-culture then that automatically excludes them. If I start a religion I may be delusional. And my first group of followers may be delusional. But if the religion stays around for long enough, then people with exactly the same beliefs are suddenly not delusional!

Eric

It seems as though the DSM-IV is guilty of argument ad populum...

TiffyToo · 07-17-2005, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

A book "Religion and Mental Health" published by Oxford University Press is written by university professors. There is a direct correlation to the amout of "religiousity" and the amout of neurosis. In other words the more religious someone is the more neurotic they are. There are all sorts of other psychological issues as well. There is an inerrant danger of emotional trauma caused from religious indoctrination. The emotional pain can be as great as being raped. In religious cults the deprogramming efforts are usually accompanied by a great deal of emotional pain/ confusion on the part of the cult member leaving theri religion. For some it can takes years to fully recover and some never fully recover. Many former cult member experience a great deal of anger, often directed towards their leader. "Toxic Faith" is written by Albert Ellis, a professor of psychiatry. And "Leaving the Fold. A Guide for Those Leaving Their Religion" is written by a PhD in psychology and has some good advise in helping deal with religious deprogramming.

But the bottom line is that religious people are "nuts". They have their own language, belief system and trying to "reason" with them is like trying to "reason" with Archie Bunker.

Thanks, these sound like books I should check out. The times of my life where I was drawn into fundamentalism were bad times of my life...the first one when I was a very messed up teenager and then the second time when I was going through a trauma. I don't mean to dismiss the notion or the veracity of spirituality at all when I say this, rather to point out that I was drawn to extremes of religion when my life was at the worst points. I cannot account for people who get into this stuff when everything in their life is going well, as that wasn't my experience. The one thing I know for sure is that when I've asked questions of fundamentalists because I really didn't "get something," they've come back with answers that I get even less. Often they will quote scripture and this really doesn't answer my question either. I feel like they are speaking a different language.

Oxymoron · 07-18-2005, 06:28 AM

I am currently wrestling with the question "is there really a difference between a liberal theist and a fundamentalist one?" After all they both believe the same mythology as if it were fact, and to an atheist outsider it all looks like shash to me.

Of course an OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disease) sufferer who washes their hands 100 times a day differs vastly from those of us who do so a few times, and is this extremity of scale (and the anguish that accompanies it) that distinguishes the "normal" from the "pathological".

But I don't see liberal/fundamentalist like this. In fact if anything fundamentalism seems more internally consistent, because if you're going to believe one bit of mythology without standards of evidence, what distinguishes that from any other bit of mythology? You might as well believe the lot. Secondly - even if you don't accept that - it comes down to interpretation. Fundamentalists just believe a passage means something else. Otherwise the mechanism is the same - Just Believe.

For this reason, I consider the whole gamut of religious faith evidence of mental dysfunction. There are just benign instances and repugnantly dangerous ones.

whichphilosophy · 07-18-2005, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oxymoron

I am currently wrestling with the question "is there really a difference between a liberal theist and a fundamentalist one?" After all they both believe the same mythology as if it were fact, and to an atheist outsider it all looks like shash to me.

Of course an OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disease) sufferer who washes their hands 100 times a day differs vastly from those of us who do so a few times, and is this extremity of scale (and the anguish that accompanies it) that distinguishes the "normal" from the "pathological".

But I don't see liberal/fundamentalist like this. In fact if anything fundamentalism seems more internally consistent, because if you're going to believe one bit of mythology without standards of evidence, what distinguishes that from any other bit of mythology? You might as well believe the lot. Secondly - even if you don't accept that - it comes down to interpretation. Fundamentalists just believe a passage means something else. Otherwise the mechanism is the same - Just Believe.

For this reason, I consider the whole gamut of religious faith evidence of mental dysfunction. There are just benign instances and repugnantly dangerous ones.

I think fundamentalist is an incorrect misleading term:

Taking the relevant dictionary definition it reads:
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

In fact Al Qaeda, and other fanatics have not returned to fundamentals. They have taken a few extreme measures and perverted them.

Forcing men to have long beards (minimum one fist long)
Forcing women to wear veils (this is not in the Koran)
Murdering civilians which is forbidden in the Koran)
Disprespecting other faiths and beliefs which is alien to the Koran

So what we have really is a splinter from a main religion that alters the concepts not returns to fundamentals.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-17-2005, 03:26 AM	#11
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Does anyone have unique beliefs? The beliefs of psychiatric patients have followed ideas in society - it used to be x -rays being able to read their thoughts - not sure what it is now. Issue is danger to themselves or others. Are people so trapped in their own thoughts that they are not caring for themselves, or believe they must go and kill someone? All these behaviours, mad, religious, criminal, drug induced, fantasy induced, warfare, should be seen as having a common ancestor in how we interpret reality and interact with life and others. We put labels around some behaviours, like bubbles, and focus on them more intensively, and set up institutions to control them. A major institution is the state, who we allow to go to war for example. But even war is becoming privatised with terror groups. Maybe we need new institutions to control religious behaviours.....

07-17-2005, 01:44 PM	#14
Killer Mike Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,033	A book "Religion and Mental Health" published by Oxford University Press is written by university professors. There is a direct correlation to the amout of "religiousity" and the amout of neurosis. In other words the more religious someone is the more neurotic they are. There are all sorts of other psychological issues as well. There is an inerrant danger of emotional trauma caused from religious indoctrination. The emotional pain can be as great as being raped. In religious cults the deprogramming efforts are usually accompanied by a great deal of emotional pain/ confusion on the part of the cult member leaving theri religion. For some it can takes years to fully recover and some never fully recover. Many former cult member experience a great deal of anger, often directed towards their leader. "Toxic Faith" is written by Albert Ellis, a professor of psychiatry. And "Leaving the Fold. A Guide for Those Leaving Their Religion" is written by a PhD in psychology and has some good advise in helping deal with religious deprogramming. But the bottom line is that religious people are "nuts". They have their own language, belief system and trying to "reason" with them is like trying to "reason" with Archie Bunker.

07-18-2005, 06:28 AM	#17
Oxymoron Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: http://10.0.0.2/ Posts: 6,623	I am currently wrestling with the question "is there really a difference between a liberal theist and a fundamentalist one?" After all they both believe the same mythology as if it were fact, and to an atheist outsider it all looks like shash to me. Of course an OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disease) sufferer who washes their hands 100 times a day differs vastly from those of us who do so a few times, and is this extremity of scale (and the anguish that accompanies it) that distinguishes the "normal" from the "pathological". But I don't see liberal/fundamentalist like this. In fact if anything fundamentalism seems more internally consistent, because if you're going to believe one bit of mythology without standards of evidence, what distinguishes that from any other bit of mythology? You might as well believe the lot. Secondly - even if you don't accept that - it comes down to interpretation. Fundamentalists just believe a passage means something else. Otherwise the mechanism is the same - Just Believe. For this reason, I consider the whole gamut of religious faith evidence of mental dysfunction. There are just benign instances and repugnantly dangerous ones.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.