The Mental-Illness Theory of Religion

[Jagella]

There are some viable theories of religious belief, and to posit that religious belief is a mental illness is one such theory.

It should be instructive to begin to discuss this theory with an analogy that should clarify that psychological disturbance underlies belief in gods and the supernatural. Let's say that I am sincerely claiming that I am in touch with powerful extraterrestrials. I say I communicate with them telepathically. I can and do ask them to use their highly-advanced technology to help me, and they grant my requests. I testify that their help to me has included their curing my illnesses and altering the weather for me. When skeptics ask about my ET friends, I explain that the skeptics need to please these ETs by accepting their existence. Otherwise, the skeptics will receive nothing from them!

It gets even better. I am certain that one day soon these ETs will arrive on earth from space with a spectacular display of their most advanced technologies. They will alter the light-refraction traits of the atmosphere to darken the sun and make the moon blood-red. They'll even make it appear that the stars are falling to the earth! And if that's not impressive enough, they will incinerate all people who have refused to believe in them with death-ray energy beams. Those of us who have faithfully followed these ETs will be teleported into their spacecraft to be taken away to live in paradise forever on their planet, Mumbo-Jumbo.

I'm crazy as anybody here, both believer and unbeliever, can clearly see. I'm very deluded. Yet, with just a few changes of the words I'm using, you can uncover basic Christian theology.

Why, then, is Christianity and other religions not mental illness?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 63 by ttruscott]

Do you sin, or not (yes/no)?
Is sin the environ of a rational person (yes/no)?

Sin is merely not living up to a standard. One does not have to respect the standard to sin against it. I regularly sin against the standards of the SJW snowflakes and it doesn't bother me a bit.

So you sin, that was a simple "yes."
And sin jeopardizes your immortal soul, yet you stated, "I regularly sin... and it doesn't bother me a bit."
Risking such great self-harm fits the definition of insanity, particularly the blasé way you dismiss such a serious matter.

But you have said that sin is not the environ of a rational person. (That was a simple "no.") As if you are not interested in jeopardizing your immortal soul. This does not strike me as sane behavior. Perhaps I am wrong?

[bluethread]

Do you sin, or not (yes/no)?
Is sin the environ of a rational person (yes/no)?

Sin is merely not living up to a standard. One does not have to respect the standard to sin against it. I regularly sin against the standards of the SJW snowflakes and it doesn't bother me a bit.

So you sin, that was a simple "yes."
And sin jeopardizes your immortal soul, yet you stated, "I regularly sin... and it doesn't bother me a bit."
Risking such great self-harm fits the definition of insanity, particularly the blasé way you dismiss such a serious matter.

Only if that is what the SJW snowflakes think AND they are correct. I personally do not think the SJW snowflakes are correct. So, therefore, even though I sin against the SJW snowflakes, I am not worried about my immortal soul.

But you have said that sin is not the environ of a rational person. (That was a simple "no.") As if you are not interested in jeopardizing your immortal soul. This does not strike me as sane behavior. Perhaps I am wrong?

Sorry, I think you are mistaking me for ttruscott. I did interrupt to point out that one can not say they do not sin simply because they do not believe in the moral standard. That said, if one does not accept the moral standard, it is not a matter of mental illness for one to sin against it. However, it is still a sin according to that moral standard.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 72 by bluethread]

It is a sin against a religious standard,* and I think we have met the criteria for a mental illness.
If one worked with a sharp knife, but was not worried about being cut, that would be a problem.
Just as if one threatened ones' immortal soul but wasn't worried.
The fact that you say this isn't a problem is indicative of the symptom of "denial."

As to TS - you answered, and he is free to chime in at any time, now that we're finished.


* = There was a poll, and only religious people think we all sin. The rest of us do not sin. You can go ahead and believe everybody sins, but you are simply disrespecting other peoples' beliefs when you do.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 72 by bluethread]

It is a sin against a religious standard,* and I think we have met the criteria for a mental illness.
If one worked with a sharp knife, but was not worried about being cut, that would be a problem.
Just as if one threatened ones' immortal soul but wasn't worried.
The fact that you say this isn't a problem is indicative of the symptom of "denial."

Ok, it is a violation of a presumed divine law. Many SJW snowflakes claim divine authority. To the extent that they do, violating what they consider to be divine law would be to sin against them. However, my lack of concern regarding what they contend to be divine law is not a sign of psychological "denial". It is actual outright denial. I deny that those things are divine law. That is not mental illness, that is rational rejection.

There was a poll, and only religious people think we all sin. The rest of us do not sin. You can go ahead and believe everybody sins, but you are simply disrespecting other peoples' beliefs when you do.

Yes, I am disrespecting their beliefs. I am committing a sin as defined by their beliefs, if they consider their beliefs to have divine authority. If they do not claim that they have divine authority, I am not committing a sin. It is the nature of the law, not the views of the person committing the act, that determines if a sin has been committed.

[William]

[Replying to post 74 by bluethread]

It is the nature of the law, not the views of the person committing the act, that determines if a sin has been committed.

Wrong. This implies that the nature of the law is beyond question in determining what 'sin' is.

If people did not break such laws in order to take a stand on the nature of those laws, we would still be burning witches and stoning adulterers, owning slaves, etc.

We know that such actions are abhorrent, so to justify them as acceptable because of the law is simply to use the law as an excuse to commit atrocities.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 74 by bluethread]

It is the nature of the law, not the views of the person committing the act, that determines if a sin has been committed.

Wrong. This implies that the nature of the law is beyond question in determining what 'sin' is.

No, it does not mean that the law is beyond question. It is a matter of definition. Sin is a violation of a divine law. It does not stop being a violation, just because one does not recognize the deity, just as violation of a municipal law does not stop being a violation simply because one does not recognize the municipality. One may say that it can not be enforced, but it is still a violation.

If people did not break such laws in order to take a stand on the nature of those laws, we would still be burning witches and stoning adulterers, owning slaves, etc.

We know that such actions are abhorrent, so to justify them as acceptable because of the law is simply to use the law as an excuse to commit atrocities.

It's not a matter of whether it is acceptable or not, nor is it the nature of any pparticular law. It is the nature of law, that variance from that law is a violation of that law. Islam requires one to pray to Mecca five times a day, the fact that I do not do that means that I am sinning with regard to Islam. That does not bother me because I do not agree with that law. However, the fact that I do not agree with the law does not change the fact that I am violating that law and thus sinning in relation to it. Just because it doesn't bother someone to sin, does not mean it is not a sin.

[William]

[Replying to post 76 by bluethread]

No, it does not mean that the law is beyond question. It is a matter of definition. Sin is a violation of a divine law. It does not stop being a violation, just because one does not recognize the deity, just as violation of a municipal law does not stop being a violation simply because one does not recognize the municipality. One may say that it can not be enforced, but it is still a violation.

So in relation to burning witches etc, if one does not do as the law of the alleged 'divine being' one is in violation of that aspect of law which involves enforcing said law which is broken.

The idea that something can be questioned has everything to do with being free from those laws which are made by humans and/or claimed to come from so-called 'divine entities' in order that in questioning questionable laws, one can start the process of eliminating them from having any power over ones ability to think and reason for oneself.

One is only bound to a set of laws that one chooses to be under and one does not require laws in order to behave as one knows one is best to behave.

In that, this appears to be exactly what Jesus was pointing to in saying that if we love one another we fulfill every law which is not unquestionable.

Islam requires one to pray to Mecca five times a day, the fact that I do not do that means that I am sinning with regard to Islam. That does not bother me because I do not agree with that law. However, the fact that I do not agree with the law does not change the fact that I am violating that law and thus sinning in relation to it.

You do not agree with that law why? Because it is questionable, that is why. This does not mean that questionable laws to which you do abide, are any more substantial and violating them does not mean any actual SIN has been committed. The law does not actually mean that those breaking it are sinning. Violating questionable laws is not sin, no matter who decides that it is or how much power and authority they have to enforce it and punish those who violate it because they understand that it is ethical to do so.

Just because it doesn't bother someone to sin, does not mean it is not a sin.

Claiming that a law you obey means that you do not have to be 'bothered' by any sin committed by doing so, does not mean that you are not sinning.

Sin is sin, regardless of any laws which tell you otherwise, and not questioning such laws is no excuse or exemption.

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 50 by Jagella]

Why aren't you sure?

Because I'm not a mental health professional.

If my ET analogy classifies as a delusion and therefore a mental illness, then why not religion?

Then that's all you need.

Did you know that Freud classified religion as a delusion?

I'm not surprised.

Then why not believe in the sun?

I do. I believe that the sun is a star of X size and mass, it promotes life on this planet. I don't believe it to be anything special or supernatural as I've seen no evidence of that.

You can know it's real by just looking at it.

KNOWING and BELIEVING aren't the same thing.

It's qualifications as a god are far better than anything else religion has to offer.

Perhaps. But that's one of the things that's great about a belief system - you don't need anything to believe in something. I can believe this pen on my desk is a salamander-like creature from another planet, but that doesn't mean it is.

I'm confused. Is there something in there that we disagree on?

Mostly, I don't think so. I was simply answering your questions

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 57 by FarWanderer]

You just got to get a personal barb in there, eh? I'm not diagnosed with any mental illnesses, but I have experienced paranoia as a result of my former Christian beliefs.

It's not personal. I know next to nothing about you anyway.

Oh there's nothing "personal" about you telling me I'm mentally ill. Why would I take it that way?

I did not tell you you were mentally ill. I asked how you know you aren't. I am not questioning whether you are mentally ill or not. I am questioning whether the reasoning behind your belief in the matter is sound.

Seriously, to tell somebody that they are mentally ill need not be an insult any more than telling them they are physically ill is an insult. If my doctor diagnosed me with any illness, physical or mental, would he be insulting me? Like a doctor I'm pointing out that some people might be mentally ill. If they are mentally ill, then they need to get help, and I'm glad I helped them get help.

Thou doth protest too much.

[JoeyKnothead]

From various comments within the thread:

In popular and even religious perlance, sin is doin' you somethin' a god, or God himself, gets upset to find out you did you one or more of you some of 'em.

My experience / evidence indicates it's only ever humans that can explain what is it, or ain't it, a sin. And nigh on each and every time, it's the "sin claimer" that's upset you did commit you that 'sin'. And how it is, in some of them times, and don't this beat all, they's as guilty of that very sin as a mule is to havin' him some big 'ol ears behind his big ol' eyes.
And a fetchin' to stubborn.

Conclusions?

'Sin' is far less a tellin' on the God in question, as it is the claimant who claims you're guilty of doin' you some of 'em.

"Why, I'll have you know, I speak for God himself" ain't so fancy to me, when I find out he picked you to do it for him.



Perlance.