Scottyman

Hi all! A good friend sent me a copy of this and I thought I would share it with you.
_________________________________________________

Ending Biblical Brainwash
For better mental and cultural health, it's time we classified religious
fundamentalism as a psychological disorder
By George Dvorsky

Betterhumans Staff
[Monday, December 16, 2002] Imagine that you're a psychiatrist. A new
patient comes to see you and says that he regularly talks to an invisible
being who never responds, that he reads excerpts from one ancient book and
that he believes wholeheartedly that its contents must be accepted
implicitly, if not taken literally.

The patient goes on to say that that the world is only 6,000 years old and
that dinosaurs never existed. He brazenly rejects modern science's
observations and conclusions, and subscribes to the notion that after death
he will live in eternal bliss in some alternate dimension. And throughout
your meeting, he keeps handing you his book and urging you to join him, lest
you end up after death in a far less desirable alternate dimension than him.

Is this a mentally healthy person? If you were a responsible psychiatrist,
how could you answer yes? These symptoms border on delusional schizophrenia,
which the American Psychological Association's DSM-IV describes as involving
a profound disruption in cognition and emotion, assigning unusual
significance or meaning to normal events and holding fixed false personal
beliefs.

So, should you insist on follow-up appointments along with some strong
medication? Well, quite obviously, the patient is a religious
fundamentalist. So he would most likely not be diagnosed with a
psychological problem. In fact, such a diagnosis could land you in hot
water; the patient's religious beliefs are constitutionally protected.

Yet, perhaps it's time this changed, and that we made religious
fundamentalism a mental and cultural health issue. People should be able to
believe what they like, but only so long as their convictions don't harm
others or, arguably, themselves. Fundamentalism, however, breeds fanaticism
and often leads to terrible violence, injustice and inequality. If society
can force drug addicts into rehabilitation because they're a danger to
themselves and the public, then we should be able to compel religious
fundamentalists to undergo treatment as well.

Religion as virus of the mind

The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins considers religion an
opportunistic and dangerous virus of the mind. Comments such as these have a
long history, as religion has been a particularly popular target in the
post-Enlightenment age. Marx claimed that religion was the opiate of the
people. Freud claimed that it was an infantile need for protection in place
of the parent. Ayn Rand thought that belief in God was demeaning to man.
Nietzsche put it this way: "Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of
man's blunders?"

Dawkins' theory has much merit. He describes religion as a "meme," an idea
that gets passed from person to person and generation to generation like a
virus that infects hosts to reproduce its genes. Under this view, religion
is a potent memeplex that works at a cultural and psychological level. Some
psychologists even believe that the human brain is hardwired for
spirituality, perhaps to help rational and intelligent organisms remain sane
and functional while dealing with the confusions of existence.

Regardless, the human psyche has proven fertile ground for religious memes,
which have evolved and withstood selective pressures over time and, as a
result, now "organize" their hosts in such a way that institutions,
including the legal system, have come to their protection. Evangelical
memes -- such as those of Jesuits and Jehovah's Witnesses -- are some of the
best at reproducing.

When faith goes bad

Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with this. Under memetic theory,
any idea that gets reproduced is a meme. So when do religious memes go bad?
What distinguishes fundamentalism from other types of religious belief
systems?

Philosopher Daniel Dennett, in an essay called "Protecting Public Health,"
provides some guidance. "As science and technology eliminate the barriers
and friction that have heretofore constrained our human powers and thereby
limited the scope of our moral choice, mankind's need for a reasoned,
consensual, and open-minded ethics will become ever more pressing," he
writes. Dennett is concerned with the fallacies and misinformation that
people cling to -- including conspiracy theories, superstitions, mysticism,
astrology and, especially, fundamentalism. He states, "Fanaticism of every
sort, on every issue, is bound to compete for our attention...[and]
unfortunately, many people cling to the simple wrong answers, and are even
prepared to die -- and kill -- for them."

Intervening in people's thinking, however, is a sensitive issue, as it
touches upon freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. People
have the right to be foolish, naive or dogmatic, just as they have the right
to smoke cigarettes and drink too much alcohol.

So at what point do a person's convictions become a health issue? In my
opinion, the answer is this: A belief becomes cognitively unhealthy when the
believer's free will and normal critical processes have been damaged by the
belief system's dialectic. I argue that fundamentalist religions, insofar as
they cripple a believer's ability to have free will, exhibit rational choice
and appropriately assess the nature of the physical environment, have
already passed this threshold.

Danger to society

Moreover, the effect of fundamentalism on society is as detrimental as the
effect of fundamentalism on believers. Fundamentalists are the ones who fly
planes into skyscrapers and murder doctors that perform abortions. They are
the ones who deny the existence of proven physical phenomena while rabidly
insisting on the existence of clearly unsubstantiated marvels.

They are also incapable of recognizing that they have a problem, and are
often amongst the most intolerant people on this planet, commonly referring
to non-believers as pagans, heathens, or infidels.

And historically, underdeveloped sciences, mystically perpetuated pseudo
sciences and false assumptions about the nature of reality have resulted in
misery and countless social injustices. The more rational the understanding
that humans have about their existence, the better off they are in dealing
with the hazards of life and developing humane moral philosophies.

Acceptable belief systems

Of course, some beliefs and worldviews are more debilitating than others
(both to the believer and to the society around them). Orthodox and
literalist theologians apply a very limited worldview to reality, often
basing their perceptions of existence on ancient texts and mythologies.
Fundamentalist Judeo-Christians are no exception, as many still believe in
Creationism, a 6,000-year-old earth and Noah's Ark.

But what about more moderate beliefs? What about belief in an immaterial
soul? Or that Jesus performed miracles? Is it mentally unhealthy to believe
such things? When do we cross the line and infringe upon constitutional
rights?

Ultimately, belief in the soul or Jesus's resurrection is not so unhealthy
as to render believers dysfunctional. Some of the brightest and most
creative contributors to society were (and are) staunch Christians. It was
Bach, after all, who composed music for the glory of God.

Furthermore, most people in the West rarely think about the deeper
ramifications of their existence and humanity's relationship with God.
Sermons are no longer fire and brimstone threats but, instead, poignant
stories about why we should love and help our neighbors -- issues that I
would categorize as self-evident truths, and hardly the monopoly of
religious doctrine.

Modern religions are useful in that they have taken on the character of
moral philosophies which help followers with interpersonal and intrapersonal
relationships. Religions form an important, if not essential, role in
society. They offer community, existential explanations, compassionate and
valuable moral codes and an outlet for the human need for spirituality.
(Personally, I am agnostic, as I recognize just how sublime and mysterious
the universe really is.)

Also, neither modern scientism nor any other contemporary belief system is
perfectly healthy. In fact, stubborn Western empiricists could learn a lot
from Eastern philosophies. As Freud once said, "It is a mistake to believe
that a science consists in nothing but conclusively proved propositions, and
it is unjust to demand that it should. It is a demand only made by those who
feel a craving for authority in some form and a need to replace the
religious catechism by something else, even if it be a scientific one."

The differentiating factor must be this: A belief system is a mental
disorder when it causes believers to deny the observations of empirical
methodologies. With fundamentalists, this involves denying the nature of the
physical world as it is being presented in favour of archaic and unyielding
irrational orthodoxies; their brains have been infected and debilitated with
unsubstantiated nonsense.

Kill the meme, not the patient

Since I'm arguing for categorizing something as a disease, it only makes
sense for me to also propose a cure. And it is this: Engineer fundamentalist
memes out of existence.

Fundamentalists have been mobilized by an unconscious meme that seeks to
protect and propagate itself at all costs, even at the expense of a host's
mental well-being. Viruses do exactly the same thing, often killing a host
as they seek out transmission vectors.

The best way to prevent a meme from gaining a stranglehold on a host is to
prevent it from reproducing in the first place. With religious
fundamentalism, I propose two key elements for memetic immunization.

The first is responsible and accountable education and reporting of
information to the public (including educational institutions, the media and
the government). Children who are taught Creationism rather than natural
selection, for example, are being primed for memetic infection. The second
is raising the standard of living of all people. Assisting Third World
nations would help alleviate problems of disenfranchised youths who become
desperate and turn to religious fanaticism.

As proof of this strategy, we need only look at how the Taliban recruited
members: They attracted poor and uneducated boys who easily accepted radical
Islam as an outlet for their frustrations. And without proper education they
were unable to properly distinguish religious gibberish from fact.

An important point needs to be made here, however: Killing a cultural
artifact is not analogous to killing people. Culture is not self aware.
Irrational fundamentalists should be treated as we treat others suffering
from psychological ailments and offered immediate help. We should see them
as suffering from a disease and help them to accept a more moderate
religious stance and develop a more balanced life.

Hopefully, this will return to them free will, rationality and self-respect.
In my opinion, these are the elements that give human lives meaning and
purpose.


George Dvorsky is the deputy editor of Betterhumans and the vice-president
of the Toronto Transhumanist Association, a nonprofit organization devoted
to encouraging the use of technology to transcend limitations of the human
body. He is also the director of Sentient Developments, a Transhumanist
think tank, and a freelance writer. You can reach him at
george@betterhumans.com.

JusticeMachine

So if we get ride of all religions, then all of the wars will end, and starvation and hate. All gone when we eradicate religion.

Ooorrr....is it possible that, regardless of the reason, people with opposing ideas/ideal/morals/beliefs will always be at odds with one another. Regardless of the excuse being used, humanity will have conflict, it is unavoidable.

We will never have a perfect utopia. (Unless everybody’s ideas/ideal/morals/beliefs are the same i.e.: It will never happen)

So the point of make any given idea/ideal/moral/belief the boogie man of all the worlds ills is moot, it is ludicrous.

Scottyman

I think you missed the point. He's not saying that all religious beliefs are bad and even points out that it may be necessary to some extent. What he is saying is that hardcore religous fundamentalism along with ignorance is most likely the cause of the hatred that went along with the 9/11 hijackers. If I told you that there was a full moon amd it was purple and you had a blindfold on, would you take my word for it if or would you want to look for yourself. Education is the key whether you believe or not in any form of supreme being.

Amos

I did not read the post Scottyman but you are correct in stating that hardcore religious fundamentalists are trouble makers. I call them fanatical Jesus worshippers who must have things backwards because Jesus told us to "follow [him]" and never once suggested that we must worship him. In fact they are condemned in Rev.13, in Rev.14 the mark of the beast is assigned to them and in verse 6-12 it is explained how we can recognize them.