Corwin

Well let's look at this.... it's an argument I've made before myself...

People who have 'religious faith' :

Believe in something which nobody (or not everybody) else can percieve.

Believe (usually) that they're in personal contact with some person or force that again, only the 'select few' can percieve.

Believe in an account of reality that does not match observed fact.

Believe in things like a global flood, (that has been repeatedly disproven) talking snakes and talking burning plants, (hallucinations) and a cosmology that is totally out of whack with anything observed since the discovery of the telescope.

Continue to believe in this thing that only they can percieve even when confronted with proof that it does not exist.

Have a history of violent behavior when their belief is challenged.

Now.... I'll freely admit I'm not a professional psychologist.... but which part of this DOESN'T match the clinical definition of psychosis?

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]</p>

ohwilleke

Your strategy is a sure failure as a debate topic (having done debate for a little while in college). The premise of religion as a mental illness just doesn't fly. It may be an illness of society, but it isn't generally a mental illness. There is also a fair amount of literature even in the secular community that argues that science will not kill religion, even if it isn't true.

Do not wish to be associated w/ II

Well for a start the beliefs are "shared by the patient's culture or subculture", thus they don't qualify as delusions. The individuals themselves do not hallucinate- if you ask them they would tell you that it is 'as if' these things are happening. Moses was probably psychotic at the time when he saw the burning bush etc., but current believers aren't.

These people are not psychotic. If you meet someone who is then you will understand the difference. Granted certain aspects of their belief system do have a 'psychotic quality', but they are not psychotic in themselves.

Corey Hammer

You're right. You're not a psychologist. Mental illness is defined as where you are a danger to yourself or others. Let's deconstruct your arguments...

There is an implied, "All," here.

No one else can perceive your thoughts and only you can do so. Does that make you are mentally ill?

Does that make people who believe they have been abducted by aliens mentally ill? Or merely misguided?

Neither do you or anyone else for that matter. Reality is perceived within the contexts of our personal biases. Memory is reconstructed in light of our biases (see also, false consensus effect, false uniqueness, actor-observer bias, etc). Does that make us all mentally ill?

Kenneth Miller accepts modern cosmology. As he has religious faith, this disproves your "All people with religious faith..." statement.

And you do any better? <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000107" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000107</a>

Does your behavior on this thread indicate that you are mentally ill? Also, do you have scientific proof that God(s) or spirits do not exist?

Are Unitarian Universalists violent? Again the implied "all" is disproven.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Corey Hammer ]</p>

Corwin

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer, thanks for playing. Danger to yourself or others has nothing to do with the definiton of mental illness. Most schizoids aren't a danger to anyone, yet they're still mentally ill. You're confusing the requirements for forced medication and/or institutionalization with the definition of mental illness. They aren't the same thing.

Yes, there is an implied 'all' in my points. There's a problem with this? You would have a problem with me implying 'all christians believe that the bible is the word of God?'

Am I claiming that my thoughts are some all powerful physical being? No. Now you're just nit picking.



Considering a number of them display symptoms including paranoia, delusions of grandeur, persecution complexes and other forms of dementia? Both before and after their alleged 'abductions?' I'd have to say yes there Alex....

Increasingly, religious types are disregarding their holy writ in the face of proof of how delusional it is. Mental illness does, in fact, come in degrees. (Or do you think all psychotics are raving homicidal maniacs?) The answer? Kenneth Miller is not AS psychotic as say, Kent Hovind.

Ah.... ad hominem. How.... refreshing.
Your lack of understanding on that topic isn't my problem. I finally let it drop because I was getting a headache from banging my head against my desk in frustration. My scientific proof that Gods or spirits do not exist? How about the fact that without exception, every religious text in human history has been disproven by modern science? That's a start in my book.

Most general arguments can be 'disproven' if you focus down to a particular level. It doesn't prove you right, just desperate to make your point.

How's this for a proof of my point? (Of course you could never actually DO this... but it would be interesting....) Take a group of highly religious people, and give them a course of Haloperiadol treatments... and watch what happens to their 'faith.'

Do not wish to be associated w/ II

As I said in a post above the personality disorders are extremely vague and many psychiatrists do not consider them as mental 'illness' at all- so the suggestion that those with schizoid personality disorder have a mental illness is strictly correct but is more fuzzy than the other illnesses, such as those involving psychosis.

If I am misreading your post then the word you are looking for is 'schizophrenic' not schizoid, as that has its own particular meaning in pscyhiatry.

I am not sure I would want to carry out your haloperidol experiment. I suspect that if we took a group of totally normal people and put them on doses of a butyrophenone used to treat acute psychosis then not only would their 'faith' be reduced but so would any other kind of meaningful conversation with them. Many of them would probably even doubt their own existence, if they were awake enough to debate!

Interesting thought though- wonder if it would get ethical clearance.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas McPhee ]</p>

Corwin

The point applies whether you're using strict definitions or not. Most schizophrenics aren't dangerous to anyone either, they just aren't able to function in 'normal' society. Corey's post seems to imply that all schizophrenics/mental patients are homicidal or otherwise dangerous... and this simply isn't true.

----

Don't wonder. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]</p>

Do not wish to be associated w/ II

I wonder what the ethics application would look like?

Aims: To demonstrate that those who display religious beliefs are loopy.

Methods: WE will take 100 fundamentalist christians and dope them up to the eyeballs on haloperidol. Once they are zonked out and are on another planet we will administer a questionnaire to determine the strength of their religious beliefs. Those who maintain some sort of belief will receive more haloperidol until they stop doing so or become unconscious/ dead, whichever comes first.

Risks to participants: What does it matter? 100 fewer Godbots HAS to be a good thing.

Corwin

*chuckles*

Well we don't have to give them that much....

We give people haldol all the time... hell we give it to people for non-psychotic disorders in small doses.... (it's used for TS as well... bad idea in my humble opinion... but there it is...)

Corey Hammer

Really? What is psychological definition of mental illness then?

You're right. The three personality disorders related to schizophrenia are merely dysfunctional (like the other personality disorders, but they can become psychotic under certain conditions; e.g. nariccistics will be become psychotic under traditional Freudian therapy). However, schizophrenics are mentally ill because they are a danger to themselves or others (which in fact is also the clinical definition of abnormal).

Nope. It's a logical refutation of your argument. To explain, I showed that simply being unable to share an experience does not make the one person mentally ill and the ones who cannot experience it mentally healthy.

Nice assertion. Do you have data to support that? What about the ones that do not display any dysfunctional behavior? Are they mentally ill?

If they are rejecting their holy writs as invalid, why are they mentally ill?

No, it is only reductio ad absurdum. You made a statement and I showed you why it didn't apply based on your behavior. Simply refusing to acknowledge evidence does not make one mentally ill, unless you are not telling us something.

Really. All religious texts have been disproven. That's news to me. Are you saying that Jerusalem didn't exist? What about Mohammed? I guess he didn't exist either. Or are you saying that words written by men didn't grasp what God really was and those words only are disproven? I'll say it again...What evidence do you have that disproves the existence of God(s) and spirits? Show us your Babel Fish.

Could that be because you are guilty of the fallacy called hasty generalization? And, it may not prove me right, but it clearly proves your statement false.

Do you even know what that drug acts upon?