Bookman

Thank you for the reply, Koy. I think where I'm having the most trouble with your argument is accepting that the belief in god is a delusional belief. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll freely admit I have a bias here: I'm nowhere near as hard-line as you or Kally about the dangers inherent in theism. I'll see if I can explain my reservations on that point adequately.

It is true that I assert that god does not exist, and I do so with no reservations. I accept as a given that belief in a deity is a false belief. I'm not certain if I can accept that it is delusional. I'll attempt to explain the difference, at least as I understand the terms.

You and I have accepted that the omnimax god fails the reality test on the problem of evil if nothing else. You and I have asserted that it is not reasonable to accept the existance of gods given the total lack of evidence thereof. But these arguments hinge on logic in addition to perception. Is any belief in the absence of evidence inherently delusional? I suppose we could define it that way, but is that appropriate clinically? Is the faulty application of logic a sign of psychosis or something else?

I haven't said that part very well, but I hope you get the sense of what I mean.

Back to your definition: "defective or lost contact with reality". I just don't see how the god hypothesis is clearly contradicted by ordinary perception.

In the absence of that, for god-belief to be a belief that requires psychological treatment I suppose that one would have to demonstrate that the belief, in and of itself, is harmful to the believer. And that is a completely different argument, is it not?

That was a bit of a ramble. I'm not totally secure in my position here, but I did wish to try and convey what the stumbling blocks were to your argument. This has been thought-provoking.

Bookman

Koyaanisqatsi

Lest anyone think I'm avoiding Meta's other posts and because I told him I'd get to it, here's to it.

For the rest, kindly excuse this sidetrack. You can skip it if you like, because most of it will be the same kind of evisceration done prior by others and myself:

In true Metacrock fashion, you have completely missed the question. I don't consider religious ideas to be "crazy," I consider them to be delusional. If you were a true scholar, you'd know what the difference is and address your arguments accordingly instead of childishly rewriting them to fit your cross wiring.

Multiple Personality Disorder is a highly functional disorder yet it is one of the most complex and elusive disorders ever to be diagnosed. Indeed, if "functionality" were the primary barometer, you'd never know you were talking to a Multiple.

Functionality is not a legitimate barometer. Talk about the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc! .

No. When you study "the data" you find "they" have more functionality and fewer incidents of depression or other mental problems then non-believers. When anyone else studies what little data you've provided here, we see that the evidence is primarily talking about behavioral operant conditioning having a "less likely" standard of effectiveness and/or the obvious, which is that indoctrinated people find comfort in their indoctrination!

All of which is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the irrational belief in magical fairy god kings is a psychosis or a delusion or something else that should or should not be clinically diagnosed and treated accordingly by the psychiatric community.

Speaking of silly, oft repeated opinions, yours are no longer required.

Here we go...

Who stated this? From the misspelling of "schitzephrenia" I'll assume it is you and therefore discard it as utterly worthless until you qualify who has stated it.

Then I'll destroy it.

Although others have effectively dealt with this, I'll just note once again the shoddy quality of your scholarship and demonstrate conclusively that you are one of those debaters I always relished to go up against, because you made it so easy.

Your argument is: Religious ideas and practice not corrollated [sic] with pathology. Your "evidence" in support of this argument, however, does not support it in the slightest and is a perfect example of your beloved fallacy that you accuse me of making.

BTW, I'll just go ahead and assume we're talking about institutionalized "spiritual subjects" somewhere, yes?

To whit:

Are you truly so incompetent that you can't see we have no support for your argument right out of the gate?

Your argument is that religious ideas and practice are not correlated with pathology. That means that your evidence would have to prove that there is no causal relationship between having religious "ideas and practice" and pathology. Just so we're absolutely clear on this.

Your evidence, however, claims that as far as pathology is concerned (psychosis), the authors noticed that those with "psychotic ideation" (thoughts, mind you, just thoughts) are "not necessarily preoccupied with religious concerns" (whatever the hell that might mean) "nor do they frequently attend religious services."

How does this evidence support your argument that there is no correlation (no causal relationship) between religious ideas and pathology? How? All this evidence says is that certain people with what the authors claim had psychotic ideas (how they measured that would be interesting) were not "necessarily" preoccupied with religious concerns.

Inconclusive speculation that tells us absolutely nothing, other than the fact that the authors noticed that some of the people that they considered to have "psychotic" ideas forming in their heads, did not appear to them to be necessarily preoccupied with religious "concerns."

This tells us absolutely nothing at all about the possible causal relationship between religious ideas and psychosis; whether or not religious ideas cause psychosis! Nothing.

I can't wait for this!

Come again?

What? No relationship between a "measure" of mystical experience and psychopathology? Or "reported" mystical experience and lying? For whom? Who are these people having the "mystical" experiences?

Isn't it just possible, genius, that this quote you've taken out of context (as evidenced it begins with "found")is saying that these researchers found that the people they interviewed who had reported having a measure of "mystical experiences" were not, in the opinions of the researchers, either insane, psychotic or lying about their alleged mystical experiences?

Don't you think that's what the evidence is trying to tell us, little clubber? The main clue would be that they weren't found to be lying, yes?

Do you apply any critical thinking to the quotes you've obviously regurgitated from somebody else's website?

Present the page number and full bibliography for this please so I can find it myself and officially demonstrate to everyone here your disingenuous scholarship.

Clucking bell! What the hell has all this mess got to do with your argument, No corrollation between mystical experince and mental illness? All this tells us is the subjective experiences of schizophrenia, drug trips and "mystical ecstasy" are more different than alike! The subjective experiences are more different than alike.

This, too, says nothing at all about there being no correlation between "mystical experiences" (which no one here has defined or even talked about to begin with) and mental illness!

Your evidence does not support your arguments at all and your arguments have nothing to do with the thrust of the OP. It's literally as if you've got these Chick's Tracts that somebody else compiled for you on some website somewhere just waiting to cut and paste wherever you damn well please..

Your evidence does not support your arguments and your arguments are not applicable to this thread. Do you understand what that means? That means, in essence and practice, you have presented no arguments.

Not "Psychology and religion." The website is "Psychology of Religion," but I'll let that slide due to the fact I suffer from dyslexia too and it may have been an honest mistake on your part.

It's worthy to note this selection from Dr. Nielson's website (a personal website, by the way). Emphasis mine:
Indeed. It should also be noted that the following quote was not found on the link Meta provided. The actual link is <a href="http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/psyrelpr.htm#maslow" target="_blank"> here</a>:

That last line has already been pointed out, but I'd like to reiterate that this ultimately tells us nothing and provides us with no information, other than to confirm a delusional experience of a "mystic." Although Meta gets to the rest of this quote (making it look like there's more to this than meets the eye), here's the rest of the quote from Michael Nielson regarding Maslow (emphasis mine):

Great.

Gesundheit. Is this a person? If so, I couldn't find him anywhere on the website, so if you wouldn't mind tidying up your scholarship a little and tell us what this means, that would be appreciated.

Now, on to your claim that "religious people are more 'self-actualized'" (whatever the hell that means):

Oh, now I get it. You're trying to slip meditation generated transcendence (commonly referred to as "mystical experiences" by the TM'ees) past us all as the equivalent to seeing Christ in a biscuit or the Virgin M in cloud!

To quote you: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's hysterical, Meta, just hysterical!

Hey, ho, what a shock. Yet another unqualified source from nowhere! Considering you keep insisting that I go do your own research for you, I'd think you'd give me the right links, much less a link!

Oh well, no matter. As with every single thing you've laughingly called evidence, this too shall be passed...

What?

Again, what? What does "keeping healthy-mindedness on top" mean?

You can't possibly be serious about this. Confession is good for the soul, eh?

Jesus Christ, Meta, you've catapulted off the deep end on this one.

What a marvelous clinical diagnosis! I can certainly see how you'd consider this to be authoritative evidence for your argument, Meta! Let's ask some of the former Catholic cultmembers here whether or not they felt clean and fresh and free after the "purging," shall we?

HEALTHY-MINDED IDEAS? I can't take anymore of this nonsense.

Would you care to explain to me what a "healthy-minded idea" is? I mean in the clinical sense that would render any of that nonsense either applicable or even relevant in any way, shape or form?

Please? I'm dying to read your response on this one.

Ahh, yes, the "Faith Factor" and the nee National Institute for Health Research that isn't the National Institute for Health Research...

What "reviews?" Is this another summary of someone else's summary? "Religous commitment" to what and to whom?

Great. More vague dreck.

So, the "review" or whatever this is points out that there is a need for "additional longitudinal studies featuring health outcomes," but you're going to go ahead and quote it anyway as if it were definitive?

Tended to show. They didn't show mental health benefits, but they tended to.

"Coping" and "protection" from problems? Protection? What the hell does that mean?

Meta, you're a cult member, perhaps you can explain what the word "protection" from problems means?

In the meantime, I'd certainly appreciate you never put any ellipses in your quotes. I do not trust either yourself or your disingenuous scholarship, so please provide me a link to this and I actually will do your research for you.

What is this? Is this your addendum? Their addendum? Their methodology? A literature search? That's the extent of their study.

FOR F*CK'S SAKE MAN, are you ever going to provide evidence that has any kind of credibility to it at all? JUST ONCE would be nice.

" target="_blank">http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/amaro.html][/quote]</a>

The link is dead, long live the link, and who gives a rat's ass what "shrinks" assume?

Is there a source for this tripe? Was that the dead link provided up top?

Exorcism?

What does this tell us? NOTHING. "The psychotherapist should be limited to observing the uses their clients make of the representations of the image of God in their subjective world, that is, the uses of the function of omnipotence."

What has this got to do with anything at all? F*CK!

And we're back.

And it still tells us nothing, other than Maslow's lack of credibility.

And see also the parts of the article, which had this to say:

There's already a phrase for this: Placebo Effect. And don't for one second pull up the Danish bullshit about the placebo effect not being true or I'll rip you yet another touch-hole.

HOLY SHIT! And just exactly how did they go about establishing this? Do you care? No, of course not, because you're not a scholar who thinks critically about the worthless tripe you present as evidence.

Define precisely for me how any "scientist" could possibly study the "predicter of existential well being," if you please.

So, once again, being a member of a cult makes cult members happy about being a member of cult.

What a shock.

And what another pointless waste of my time. But please, oh please keep arguing your straw man that shit evidence is better than no evidence, won't you? I so enjoy a good laugh.

hezekiah jones

I join the chorus:

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

sentinel00

Is it just me, or does everyone imagine Luis Black's (Daily Show) voice and delivery when they read Koy's posts?

Kudos, sir, and kudos again!

daemon

Oh, very nice observation, sentinel. I cracked a grin reading Koy's closing sentences like that...

Koyaanisqatsi

I was going more for the late great Bill Hicks, but...c'est la vie. I'll take what I can get.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, again, it's not so much an argument as it is a question. In my Aunt's case, unfortunately, it's not a question; it's a daily hell, which they consider to be a daily heaven, however thinly their denial lies on the surface. She (and my Uncle and most of my cousins from that marriage) don't just "believe" a god exists; they are firmly convinced and live their lives according to born again christian cult theology as if that "reality" is the only reality.

Now, is this fundamental or learned? That's why I'm asking the question and still wondering why it isn't at least classified as some form of clinical delusion or psychosis or something new or what?

Well, "reasonable?" That's too tame of a word for me, but go on.

Perhaps those do, yes.

I think this is where we might part company, since it isn't "belief in the absence of evidence" nor is it necessarily belief without supportable evidence. It is irrational, vehement assertion that the "christ reality" (for lack of a better term) factually exists and is (as many around here put it) "presupposed" that this is the only reality and worse, that the rest of us are the ones living in a false reality; a false reality that has eternal dire consequences.

Good question, and central to my OP, but I would contend it goes far beyond merely the faulty application of logic and into a fantasy/reality replacement paradigm, where this false reality actually and literally replaces "real" reality.

Now, to pre-empt any philosophical tangents, if possible I'd like to keep this from a psychological standpoint, regardless of all of our aparent lack of discipline.

Psychologists/psychiatrists routinely make judgments of "delusional" and or "psychosis" disorders based upon a model of how close to "reality" a patient may or may not be is what they primarily do, so a long spiral down into "what is or is not reality" is not really what I'm looking for. Just a BTW.

I do and I appreciate the point.

You should meet my relatives .

Seriously, though, as I mentioned before, perhaps we need to break down levels of "delusion" and see if that gets us anywhere.

Clearly there are psychotic people, who also happen to have fanatical theistic beliefs. But there are also "normal" people who happen to have fanatical theistic beliefs (and all manner in between), which only manifest themselves, shall we say, when that particular surface is scratched, so a black/white model obviously won't result in anything salient.

Again, perhaps there is something else between the clinical "Delusional Disorder" and "Psychosis?" Or, perhaps we're back to levels of indocrtination?

One thing is clear. Most of us were once a part of these kinds of cults and "woke up" (i.e., deprogrammed ourselves) so it must not be (I think) necessarily "hard-wired," but then there are many many cult members who proclaim that it is inherent within us all and that's where it "really" comes from.

The Judeo/Christian mythology certainly supports this notion of something theistic inherent (i.e., hard-wired) within us all and act accordingly, so perhaps deconstructing that will yield interesting results?

Again, it's pretty much pure speculation at this point, which is why I've tried to open this all up into a more "free for all" (except Meta ) approach to see what comes out in the wash.

Very true and another excellent point. We'd have to start getting into what the "harm" would be, beyond the idea of historical events, but I think there is also a consideration of the harm to society, which is also a part of psychological considerations.

Thanks, and don't worry about the ramble. As you can see, that's what I was hoping for, because there is definitely something to this, I think; whether it's clinical or social or simply indoctrination is what this post was supposed to be all about.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Seeker196

"I know its a bizarre belief and that it contradicts what we know scientifically about the universe, but in what way does the belief that goddidit contradict the perceptory (if that's even a word) experience of the average person? How does that belief cause defects in their interactions with the world?

Bookman "


Good points all B-man. I think i agree with you now, in that belief in God of itself is not delusional. However, I do assert that many of the fundamentalist manifestations of this belief ARE delusional.

Bookman

I've only time for a quick response, so I'm going to focus on just one bit of what you wrote.

I agree that somewhere around here is where you and I aren't currently seeing eye-to-eye on this. I'm not ready to abandon the position that the "christ reality" is accepted as a proposition simply due to logical fallacy. As you so frequently point out, such beliefs aren't inborn and they don't arrive spontaneously. They must be learned. As such, can we not consider their acceptance merely falling prey to the twin fallacies of <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum" target="_blank">argumentum ad populum</a> and <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#authority" target="_blank">argumentum ad verecundiam</a>?

At the risk of stepping directly from the shaky ground of my lack of knowledge about psychology directly into a quagmire of complete uncertainty, it seems to me that there are at least two distinct types of delusional beliefs. One would be a perceptual delusion: seeing 'em (or hearing 'em) where they ain't. I think we're in agreement that garden-variety theism isn't a delusion of this type. A second type would be a delusion about the nature of reality which can not be confirmed by the senses directly or easily. It is looking at these that raises what I believe to be the key question that my lack of knowledge is insufficient to answer: Is it an important component for a clinical delusion that the person so diagnosed be self-deluded? Clearly the hallucinator is self-deluded, as is the stereotypical nutter who believes that he's Napoleon. Neither of these people is responding to inculcation (to invoke one of your favorite terms) -- they are essentially manufacturing a belief about reality out of whole cloth. Not so for the theist, and this seems to me to be an important distinction.

Bookman

David Bowden

Okay, now, I realize that this thread is about whether psychosis and theism are related. But I thought I'd toss in something that I posted elsewhere, regarding paranoia and the founders of religions - surely it's not too far off-topic.
This is from the Oxford Guide to the Mind, recently published:

"Thirdly, paranoiac delusions bear a disconcerting, embarrassing resemblance to the beliefs held and propagated by founders of religions, by political leaders, and by some artists. Such people often make claims on behalf of themselves, their religious ideas, their country, their art, which would be regarded as grandiose and delusional if their ideas did not harmonize with the deeds of their contemporaries and thereby achieve recognition and endorsement. Nowadays anyone who claimed to be the Messiah, who addressed God as his personal father, and asserted that 'he who is not for me is against me' would be at risk of being referred to a psychiatrist and diagnosed a paranoiac. But presumably in the first century AD His Word spoke to many -- as indeed it continues to this day to do. Similarly, any politician who asserted the innate superiority of his own race and claimed that his country was the victim of an international conspiracy would today raise doubts as to his sanity, but in Germany in the 1930s Hitler found all too many people prepared to agree with him. There must, it seems, be some as yet unformulated relationship between the psychology of paranoia and that of prophets and leaders."

-article by Charles Rycroft, located on pp 171-172 in Oxford Guide to the Mind, edited by Geoffrey Underwood. 2001 Oxford University Press.