Religophrenia

[elijahblackwood]

Hello all that may read this post.

I’m not sure if this topic belongs in the human question section. I guess as it involves questioning the consensus human opinion, then it might just be in the right place.

I’ve enjoyed reading many of the topics that are discussed in all the forums here, TPOD in particular has been able to grab the attention of a wider audience, I’m not a physicist or engineer and I want to understand more about what is being said. To begin with I'll start off in a forum to which I am more suited.

As a young child I loved astronomy but it appeared glaringly obvious that something was seriously wrong with the consensus view. What I found peculiar was the way in which teachers and many other people involved in my scientific education were parroting information that had been handed down from one generation to the next, often in gospel-like form. Even more interesting was that most of my teachers back then apparently had no inkling of just how ridiculous they often sounded, especially when laying down Einstein’s thoughts as golden rules.

Anyway, it was this and other early experiences in education that caused me to abandon my dreams of a career based in astronomy and instead look at the driving force behind what appears to be in some sense, mass delusion.

IMHO, many areas of science are no different to religion in that they are fundamentally based on the belief of theories. Take medical-science’s stance on schizophrenia for example. It is thought that approx 51 million people world-wide suffer from a serious mental illness characterized by a disintegration of the process of thinking, of contact with reality, and of emotional responsiveness. It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction. (Wikipedia)

In comparison, something that isn't recognised as mental illness; it is thought that as many as 1 billion people worldwide follow the Catholic Church doctrine or theory. That is 1 billion people who engage in thinking characterized by losing contact with reality and of emotional responsiveness, and which also manifests in paranoid or bizarre delusions (the devil, damnation etc) which present significant social dysfunction (child abuse and paedophilia).

I’d be grateful for anyone’s thoughts. It seems to be a case of a power that can dismiss it's own delusion.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Elijah,
Welcome aboard.
Interesting points you raise there but they seem to me to be predicated on the idea that there is such a thing as mental illness. The labelling of any aspect of human behaviour as a mental illness is a subjective decision.
How do you know that the devil and damnation are 'paranoid or bizarre delusions'? Child abuse and paedophilia are not the sole province of Catholics and I would suggest that only a tiny percentage of the 1 billion plus Catholics engage in such things.

[elijahblackwood]

Hi Grey cloud, thank for the welcome.

You said

Interesting points you raise there but they seem to me to be predicated on the idea that there is such a thing as mental illness

My points were predicated on the fact that schemes such as ICD-10 and DSM-IV exist to recognise human conditions that have been collectively accepted under the general definition of “mental illness”

The labelling of any aspect of human behaviour as a mental illness is a subjective decision

I appreciate there is a lot of subjective input in the diagnostic process, individual doctors, specialists, friends and family, as well as the individual themselves all have an input to some degree. But at the same time, the specialist who invariably ends up making the diagnosis will use guidelines laid down by collective reasoning or consensus opinion if you like.

How do you know that the devil and damnation are 'paranoid or bizarre delusions'?

Good point! I don’t. I based my views on the fact there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that I know of that shows Old Nick, God, Heaven and Hell aren’t abstracts of the imagination. By evidence I mean that which has been gathered by scientific methods. My point here was that a schizophrenic is defined as being mentally ill for abstract thoughts and behaviours, whilst at the same time many Catholics (including some of my family members) believe in a reality engulfed by fire are not.

Child abuse and paedophilia are not the sole province of Catholics and I would suggest that only a tiny percentage of the 1 billion plus Catholics engage in such things

No, of course not, I wasn’t suggesting that Catholics as a general rule engage in abuse of any kind, or that all of them believe in the extremes of hell and damnation etcetera, it was just a comparison to highlight the selective nature of labelling. By the way I’m not picking a fight with Catholicism, but it seems to me that most religions, as well as some scientific disciplines have their own school of thinking which includes extreme radicalism as well.

I appreciate that individuals commit sexual abuse and they are not associated with religion, but my area of interest remains within religion and unfortunately for the Catholic Church it has been under the spotlight in recent times. Yes it is a very small minority of priests and vicars that committed the abuse but this is the Catholic Church or God’s trusted house of representation, thus the impact and fall out is bound to be more profound than your individual paedophile because of what the Church is meant to represent.

This goes back to my point about abuse of power. To have a global position of authority based on what appears to be delusion, which you then use as a platform to discredit rival delusion, be it scientific or religious is worth investigating surely?

[mague]

I appreciate that individuals commit sexual abuse and they are not associated with religion, but my area of interest remains within religion and unfortunately for the Catholic Church it has been under the spotlight in recent times. Yes it is a very small minority of priests and vicars that committed the abuse but this is the Catholic Church or God’s trusted house of representation, thus the impact and fall out is bound to be more profound than your individual paedophile because of what the Church is meant to represent.

This goes back to my point about abuse of power. To have a global position of authority based on what appears to be delusion, which you then use as a platform to discredit rival delusion, be it scientific or religious is worth investigating surely?

Hi Eliha,

i am roman catholic on the paper. I was raised as such but later found my own way through spiritualism. I dont feel offended.

Your picture of the catholic church is incomplete. Devil and damnation are an outdated concept. The official program is rather about humanism, social interaction and the respect of life.

I do not understand why you are picking on the catholics. They are a human organisation like a lot others out there. Abusing childs is bad indeed. What do you think how many murderers, drug dealers, child abusers and rapist we could find in the worldwide police force ? And while the concept of god and a church may be a delusional concept, the concept of the police is to protect the people, which is absolutely real.

[elijahblackwood]

Hi Mague

I appreciate this would probably offend a lot of Catholics because my comparison was made between belief of a religious doctrine and the abstract thinking of a particular mental illness. One is deemed fit for purpose, the other is not. I am a Christian on paper. I don't believe there are mental illnesses, just different states of mind.

You say my picture is outdated but unfortunately in my personal space it is not. My neighbours firmly believe in what I have raised, we discussed it a couple of months ago. I also have many family members that indulge in these beliefs even though the context might be outdated and limited to a few worldwide.

I picked on a Catholic belief or state of mind and compared it to a schizophrenic belief or state of mind because I wonder why one is regarded as socially acceptable and the other is not. And I totally understand that abuse isn't confined to any church or religion, sadly it is everywhere in the world.

Thanks

[StevenJay]

For me, the religions of the world represent nothing more than a collection of committees composed of type "A" personalities claiming to know THE Way.

[mague]

Hi Mague

You say my picture is outdated but unfortunately in my personal space it is not. My neighbours firmly believe in what I have raised, we discussed it a couple of months ago. I also have many family members that indulge in these beliefs even though the context might be outdated and limited to a few worldwide.

Thanks

Hello Elijah,

thats how the story goes. Old and death tends to stagnation and youth brings motion. Every astro physicist will agree here. The dialog of both is what keeps the wheel going round in the long run. The only thing one can do is to form his part of the dialog according to his own higher and noble truths. Past that only time can tell..

[mague]

For me, the religions of the world represent nothing more than a collection of committees composed of type "A" personalities claiming to know THE Way.

In regard of the growing ecumenical movement i think its changing from THE way to A way. Nowadays christian priests teach TaiChi and buddhist meditation techniques within their communities. All is in motion.

In the big picture it would be a sad day when the concept of the "caretaker of lost and wounded souls" vanishes from the planet.

[elijahblackwood]

For me, the religions of the world represent nothing more than a collection of committees composed of type "A" personalities claiming to know THE Way.

Hi Steven and thanks. From a personal perspective; when I was a kid I remember some family members having my grandmother committed because she was regarded as mentally ill. The same people regularly scold me and other younger family members at christmas time for our sins and lack of faith, and when things get heated after the wine has been consumed, the same family members point out graphically where we are heading.

This is what triggered my thoughts. When I sit and listen to family members who hold down professional careers and openly express what I regard as bizarre beliefs, I wonder why they didn't end up in the asylum in the room next door to my grandmother.

Of course, many areas of science are the same. I wonder why scientists are allowed to hang on to delusions such as blackholes and invisible matter and are not put into straight jackets.

[elijahblackwood]

In regard of the growing ecumenical movement i think its changing from THE way to A way. Nowadays christian priests teach TaiChi and buddhist meditation techniques within their communities. All is in motion.

In the big picture it would be a sad day when the concept of the "caretaker of lost and wounded souls" vanishes from the planet.

Hi Mague

I genuinely wasn't picking on the Catholic religion, lots of religions and many areas of science have radical beliefs that are worthy of psychological assessment imho. I chose the doctrine of hell and damnation because in my mind it is the most extreme, but at the same time in a different context, look at black holes, invisible matter, WIMPS, MACHOs etc - do these fall into the category of delusion as well?

[mague]

Hi Mague

I genuinely wasn't picking on the Catholic religion, lots of religions and many areas of science have radical beliefs that are worthy of psychological assessment imho. I chose the doctrine of hell and damnation because in my mind it is the most extreme, but at the same time in a different context, look at black holes, invisible matter, WIMPS, MACHOs etc - do these fall into the category of delusion as well?

Hi Elijah,

dont worry. I think i understand you quite well. I am not a friend of forced doctrines either. On the other hand many of the "delusions" have their roots in pre-scientific psychology. If you lie then you sin and you will end in hell. In psycholigy the lie is the first step into a neurosis or shizophrenia. You mind has to control two stories, the true one and the other one. This is energy consuming and confusing. In the long run this will collapse and the person usually ends in a negative situation (hell).

My family have been rather liberal catholics, but i know the other ones, those who take the words and never ask a question, too. Personally i think it is a christian duty to ask, or the religion cant renew itself through the centuries.

Its the same with scientific topics. At the beginning there was no difference between science and religion. It was about finding the truth, because we need the truth to do the rigth thing. Without truth we cant recognize the sin.

[Antone]

IMHO, many areas of science are no different to religion in that they are fundamentally based on the belief of theories.

I would take this a step or two further and suggest that many so-called scientific theories ARE religions--in the most negative sense of the word. A good example would be anthropomorphic global warming which (as far as I can tell) is not based on any scientific data--and in fact contradicts most of the empirical evidence. Belief in this religion appears to be based solely on faith. And there is even an analogous equivalent to Hell, in the global catastrophes that the faithful predict. As well as to the clergy, in the likes of Al Gore, (and other pseudo-scientists) who preach the gospel with very little if any reliance on fact--and in many cases intentionally lie and manipulate to suppress and skew the truth.

Slightly more subtle parallels can be found in the "religion" of mainstream astronomy and the non-EU theories of the universe. Halton Arp draws this parallel in chapter 10 of his book "Seeing Red". But it involves a similar sort of ingrained dogma that seems to ignore the evidence while protecting itself through institutionalized means.

...schizophrenia for example. ...most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction.

In comparison, ... people worldwide follow the Catholic Church doctrine ... [and] engage in thinking characterized by losing contact with reality and of emotional responsiveness, and which also manifests in paranoid or bizarre delusions (the devil, damnation etc) which present significant social dysfunction (child abuse and paedophilia).

This is an interesting comment, but there are some significant distinctions between these two cases...

1. Belief vs. Perception: People who believe in God are typically dealing with a non-empirical BELIEF--which may or may not be true. While there isn't any empirical evidence to support the existence of God, Heaven or Hell, etc... there also isn't any empirical evidence that proves these things do not exist. Often times, these beliefs are based on well thought out and logical deductions. For instance, they may believe that living organic matter could not spontaneously appear. How could an eye appear? How would it develop? Why wouldn't other animals of the same species avoid this mutation--the same way an albino wolf is ostracized by it's community? And so forth. There are a great many things which can lead one (by inductive reasoning) to logically conclude that there must be some higher organizing principle. And religions that believe in god provide a ready made explanation--and so are not entirely unreasonable assumptions to adopt. It is no less rational to believe in God than it is to believe that God does not exist.

By contrast, people who are schizophrenic tend to be dealing with empirical sensory input that they perceive to be real--but which does not seem to correspond to the reality that other people perceive. Even the paranoia can probably be seen as basing his feelings on misinterpreted empirical input. For example, they see someone glance at them out of the corner of their eye and interpret that as being watched. This is clearly a malfunction of the schitzophrenic's ability to perceive and process information the same way that the rest of us do--and thus, there is justification for saying that it is abnormal and a mental illness.

Note that it is possible that schizophrenics are picking up on things that are (in some sense) real... which the rest of us are simply unable to perceive. For example, that paranoid may be picking up psychic impressions from people who project fillings of ill will. A patient who sees spiders crawling on the wall may be picking up subtle "energy bubbles" which his mind interprets as spiders--and so forth.

2.Functional vs. Dysfunctional: Not all schitzophrenic-like behavior is diagnosed as schitophrenia. For instance, I occasionally hear a voice calling my name and turn around to find that no one is there. This, however, is very infrequent and even at it's worst it has never significantly interfered with my ability to lead a normal life. As with all diagnosis, the main determining factor as to whether someone is diagnosed with a particular condition or disorder--is the extent to which that disorder interferes with their ability to lead a normal and productive life. Generally speaking, people who are diagnosed with schitzophrenia are either suffering a significant dysfunction in their life, or they are showing signs that generally lead to a worsening condition over time and thus need to be treated to stave off that eventual decline.

By contrast, religious belief tends to be a strongly positive influence--both on individuals and on societies as a whole. According to Howard Bloom in his (excellent) book, The Lucifer Principle, two things are extremely important to the well being of virtually all animals: (a) the sense (or illusion) of control, and (b) a sense of purpose.
For example, if two f mice are put in two cages with an electrified floor so that when the current is flowing there is no way for the mice to avoid the shock--but one cage has a level so that the mouse in it can deactivate the electrical current to both cages... the mouse with the lever suffers very little negative effect from the experience, with the mouse without the lever (and thus no sense of controlling the shock) suffers very pronounced effects. For example, they become listless, loose weight, had higher blood pressure and show a number of other signs of ill-health. Numerous cases seem to demonstrate the same need for control in humans (and other animals). For example, the CDC did a study which suggests that adult humans who are deprived of all hope are 4x more likely to die of heart disease.

Other cases demonstrate the importance of purpose in one's life, for example, numerous studies have show that after a person retires they are much more likely to die--and the reason appears to be that those people who die tended to defined the purpose of their life in terms of their work. When they no longer had work, they no longer had purpose and so they literally lost health and died. Other cases and studies give further support for this idea.

Now, it shouldn't be too difficult to understand how religious belief can provide both a sense of control and a sense of purpose to one's life.

In many ways... communities function much like living organisms--and religion has the ability to supply the much needed sense of control and purpose to entire communities as well. To paraphrase the bible, the people of god flourish when they grow close to god and perish when they don't. You don't have to believe in God to understand why this has generally speaking been the historical trend.

Christianity started as a small and persecuted religion--two of the main advantages it had over other religions was (a) it was an inclusive religion--meaning that you didn't have to be a particular race come from a particular society to belong to it. and (b) it's adherents were highly fanatical. In many cases, they were willing to give their lives to be faithful. And as a result it grew to become the dominant religion on the face of the earth.

Early Christian communities tended to be feudal in nature. As Howard Bloom says, "the average serf was nailed to the land as Christ had been nailed to the cross..." He was subject to famine and plague, and the major decisions that affected his life were all made by the lord of the manor. It was not uncommon for marauders to raze his cottage, steal or destroy his crops and rape his wife. Sometimes such things happened at the hands of his own king. Clearly the serf had little hope of improving his lot and very little control. Yet the need for control is biologically hardwired into virtually all creatures--which explains why the church, who promised the serf the ability to control what would happen to him in the afterlife had more power than any king.

Again, it isn't necessary to believe in God to understand the good that a religion can bring to an individual or a community as a whole--and so, I would suggest that it isn't rational to base our assessment of religion (and the good or bad that it represents) solely on such things as whether or not God actually exists.

3. Society Wide Dysorders: As I said earlier, communities (and that includes a religious body) function in many ways like a living organism. And just as some humans develop mental dis-orders and become socially dysfunctional--so too, some religions have at times become dysfunctional. Sometimes this dysfunction benefits the certain groups--and so can be seen as highly functional for that group--while being a serious detriment to other groups. For example, radical Islam is an extremely oppressive religion for women. And it produces terrorists who try to kill others who are not Muslims--so for these two groups radical Islam is clearly a highly dysfunctional religion. Yet Muslims are (by far) the fastest growing community on the face of the earth. This goes back to my last point--for while other religions (which have been loosing their traditional fervor) tend to be declining, Muslims (who are among the most fervent of all religions) are rapidly increasing in number and political might.

There are a number of key beliefs that make radical Islam highly functional as a religion--even though it is also highly dysfunctional to certain groups--both within Muslim religion and outside of it.

The point here, however, is that these cases of dysfunction are more akin to the dysfunction that we see in a schizophrenic than they are the belief systems that we see in a typical religious person. For example, a priest who develops a yen for young boys, engages in paedophilia because he has sexual urges that he can't control and the easiest (and safest) way for him to satisfy those urges is to take advantage of the young boys in his charge. But just as most people have senses that functional normally (and so are not schizophrenic) so too most priests function normally and do not take advantage of the small boys in their charge.

In conclusion... while there is a subtle similarity between the two groups you mention, I believe the dissimilarities are far more significant than the similarities.

[elijahblackwood]

Hi there Anton. I agree with your summary of wayward scientific endeavour.
I also agree there are distinctions between my comparisons but make a point to remember these are defined by commonly agreed consensus - but as we have established a great deal of consensus opinion is skewed to varying degrees, ranging from hilarious to downright outrageous.
Belief vs. Perception - Doesn’t one require the ability to be able to perceive something before one can choose to believe it? It may well be that schizophrenics are interpreting data in a different way but different doesn’t necessarily equate to being wrong or abnormal. This is a belief based on perception.
If we are talking about a malfunction in interpreting empirical/sensory data then religions and many areas of science belong in the category of mentally unbalanced because they ignore the data and replace it with something that contradicts what has been perceived, often putting in its place imaginary constructs.
I would say that “majority” thinking or reasoning doesn’t automatically make it right. We only need to remember flat-earth philosophy or the outrage that Copernicus caused, likewise the struggles of Galileo and the widely held belief that heavier than air flight was impossible are some examples that demonstrate just how badly consensus opinion has been wrong.
Perception is primarily a subjective experience imo and it’s not necessarily abnormal if it doesn’t fit with a common train of thought. Such differences might very well be considered abnormal to medical science but lest we forget that the same institute won’t even consider the works of Royal Rife or Robert Becker because it is deemed quackery. Is this a malfunction or is it simply a case of self-interest like Big Pharma practices with the placebo effect?

[daveycreatrix]

Hi Elijah,
I think that one of the key tactics of those in power or holding positions of ‘authority’ has always been to question the sanity or at least to disparage the moral or scientific judgements of those that see otherwise and dare to question the current tenants of belief of their age or the prevailing or aspiring belief structure, whether this be religious, political, scientific or otherwise.

Yet such is inevitable.

As William Blake has it:

Yet all men do not see alike…..
"The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing which stands in the way.
Some see Nature all ridicule and deformity, and some scarce see Nature at all.
But to the eyes of the man of imagination, Nature is Imagination itself.
As a man is, so he sees."

Challenging the beliefs of those in ‘power’ often comes at a high price.
Such as you may witness throughout the course of history in many ways, ranging from suffering excommunication, (or if you prove to be more persistent to various forms of torture or dismemberment including burning at the stake, - whether you choose to repent or not) to the relatively benign forms of today such as professional ‘excommunication’, financial ruin or simply in our internet savvy community of simply booting you off the forum!

This has always been the risk run by those who wish to question the belief structures placed before them. Ultimately for us all this comes down to; if you don’t stand for something, (Your own sense of moral obligations) you’ll fall for anything!

Interestingly, the two operative words in your posts seem to be referring to power and delusion.

Forgive me for going on memory (and others may correct me) but I believe that this is Lao-tse’s take on this one.

“Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power………..He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still”

Such runs the perennial philosophy.
The original ‘comparative mythology’, - or ‘methodology’.

Those who wish to possess material power, power over others and the beliefs of others or power over nature will obviously not agree with this, even though the contrary often represents the core of their professed religions, philosophies, political or scientific theories. Wishing to hold such power is the source of their delusions, in my humble opinion.

In other words such people substitute their lack of personal power by seeking to have power over the bodies or beliefs of others and over the natural world. Generally speaking (Again in my own personal opinion, and what do I know?) the more one wishes to hold power over others, the beliefs of others and over nature is proportionate to the lack of power over oneself.

Being blind to ones own ‘delusions’, leads to projecting them upon other people and onto the ‘outside’ world. And hence the need to bolster ones own beliefs through having others subscribe to them, if not voluntarily then at least through manipulation, the appeal to ‘authority’ or failing this through outright force, depending upon the measure of ‘power’ at one’s disposal.

Yet such ‘delusions’ if they may be, stand as nothing to the stifling of personal conscience and the ‘organisation’ of the consensus of the majority.

“You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, "What did that man pick up?" "He picked up a piece of Truth," said the devil. "That is a very bad business for you, then," said his friend. "Oh, not at all," the devil replied, "I am going to let him organise it."

The dissolution of the Order of the Star
J. Krishnamurti 1929.

Such do we deceive ourselves.
Personal opinion, that’s all.

What constitutes ‘mental illness’ and ‘quackery’ of course deserves a post of its own.
Davey

[elijahblackwood]

Hi Davey

Nice reply. Cheers. Perhaps everyone ought to make an effort to apply some kind of methodology to understanding the world outside what they have been told, although in my experience alot of people seem averse to this, hence we get organisations like NASA leading us through stargate 9.