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?

[bluethread]

What humans do is not so much behave differently from chimps, but rationalize that behavior, which chimps probably can't do because chimps have never studied philosophy or theology so that we can conceal ourselves in tangles of fuzzy reifications of imaginary concepts like "justice" and "free will".

That is the view of naturalistic fatalism. If one holds to the view that morality is merely a coping mechanism for rational hominids, then one would have to admit that it is acceptable to put an antisocial human down, as is the practice of other hominids. That rationalistic coping mechanism serves to provide an opportunity for rational hominids to adapt their social interaction to minimize such drastic measures. So, even for the naturalistic fatalist, there is a significant difference in how antisocial behaviors are handled. That said, as Jordan Peterson points out, the existence of such differences does not mean that one can not learn something from the similarities. As to the effect, this rationalistic coping mechanism seems to be an improvement over the less rational hominid behaviors, because the more rationalistic hominids drastically outnumber the less rationalistic hominids.

[Neatras]

What humans do is not so much behave differently from chimps, but rationalize that behavior, which chimps probably can't do because chimps have never studied philosophy or theology so that we can conceal ourselves in tangles of fuzzy reifications of imaginary concepts like "justice" and "free will".

That is the view of naturalistic fatalism. If one holds to the view that morality is merely a coping mechanism for rational hominids, then one would have to admit that it is acceptable to put an antisocial human down, as is the practice of other hominids.

This is plainly misleading. You go with trying to define naturalistic fatalism as "morality is just a coping mechanism," and go to, "Therefore wholesale slaughter of the "other" is permissible." Even if I were to grant, under utilitarian principles, that putting humans down can lead to greater "good" with respect to some pre-defined metric, that still doesn't connect "morality is a coping mechanism" to "acceptability of murder."

I know what it is you're trying to say. If morality is an evolved characteristic, then there is some compulsion or "ought" to discard human lives if it sustains the collective moral framework. But even that is just the ranting of a Christian that's angry his preferred moral framework (the imagined one put down by an imaginary god) isn't taken seriously. So if you can't have this moral framework you want, you'll simply declare that the ones that others have necessarily lead to murder. It's a scorched earth policy, and very juvenile.

What's that saying? If I can't have it, nobody can. You simply try to monopolize ethical/moral values.

[bluethread]

What humans do is not so much behave differently from chimps, but rationalize that behavior, which chimps probably can't do because chimps have never studied philosophy or theology so that we can conceal ourselves in tangles of fuzzy reifications of imaginary concepts like "justice" and "free will".

That is the view of naturalistic fatalism. If one holds to the view that morality is merely a coping mechanism for rational hominids, then one would have to admit that it is acceptable to put an antisocial human down, as is the practice of other hominids.

This is plainly misleading. You go with trying to define naturalistic fatalism as "morality is just a coping mechanism," and go to, "Therefore wholesale slaughter of the "other" is permissible." Even if I were to grant, under utilitarian principles, that putting humans down can lead to greater "good" with respect to some pre-defined metric, that still doesn't connect "morality is a coping mechanism" to "acceptability of murder."

No, "morality is just a coping mechanism," is how I was summarizing what TSGracchus was proposing. The view that human behavior can not be significantly different from other hominids is naturalistic fatalism. All of your objections ignore that premise. I did not say, "Therefore wholesale slaughter of the "other" is permissible.", as your quote of me above attests. I also did not refer to a greater "good". There is no greater "good" in fatalism. There is only the inevitable, which is part of my point. I also did not refer to "murder". That also does not make sense under a fatalistic premise, because, according to TSGracchus, "justice" and "free will" are just "imaginary concepts".

I know what it is you're trying to say. If morality is an evolved characteristic, then there is some compulsion or "ought" to discard human lives if it sustains the collective moral framework. But even that is just the ranting of a Christian that's angry his preferred moral framework (the imagined one put down by an imaginary god) isn't taken seriously. So if you can't have this moral framework you want, you'll simply declare that the ones that others have necessarily lead to murder. It's a scorched earth policy, and very juvenile.

What you "know" about what I am "trying" to say, is not correct. There is no anger in my evaluation of the differences between rational hominids and non-rational hominids, under the presumption of naturalistic fatalism. If our social construct is not significantly different from the non-rationalist hominids, then one would expect the same behaviors. However, it has been observed that the behaviors of rational hominids are indeed significantly different from non-rational hominids. Therefore, even if morality is just a mental construct, that mental construct is significant.

What's that saying? If I can't have it, nobody can. You simply try to monopolize ethical/moral values.

No, what it is saying is that morality makes rational hominids significantly different from non-rational hominids. I have said nothing about who can or can not have ethical/moral values.

[alexxcJRO]

We don't diagnose PTSD by measuring the "balance of neurotransmitters".

It's inferred by behavior and subject reports.

We where not talking about diagnosing mental illness. We were talking about “teaching mental illness�, what causes mental illness like “Humans illness cannot be defined into existence dear sir. It manifests when certain physical conditions in the human body are meet.�.

Stay on topic dear sir.

There is a time and place for material reductionism, but not in the realm of mental illness. Otherwise we wouldn't even call it a "mental" illness in the first place.

It’s irrelevant what is called. Every human illness it’s caused by an abnormality(structural or chemical) in the human body. This is a fact dear sir.

"Teaching mental illness" is weird grammar someone else came up with. However, depending on the methods and content, teaching can certainly result in a mental illness.

Firstly,

I was talking with someone who used these terms: teaching mental-illness/mass mental illness, taught insanity/mass insanity.

Secondly,

“His imparting of knowledge has lead to mental illness/mass mental illness.� is just as stupid I am afraid.

Thirdly,

You are basically saying teaching-imparting knowledge to an individual, many individuals can cause individual mental illness/mass mental illness.

Q: How do you know this dear sir?
Q: Are you some kind of trained psychiatrist?
Q: Can you provide some evidence for “imparting of knowledge can lead to mental illness/mass mental illness?

[alexxcJRO]

Like i said with drug-induced psychosis one can manipulate certain physical conditions that lead to PTSD like torturing someone extensively phisically and/or mentally in order to produces an imbalance between neurotransmitters serotonin and substance P which will cause PTSD.

The development of PTSD is not this straightforward. Not all humans who experience extreme trauma will develop PTSD. The reasons for this are not fully understood, but it may be related to variations in brain structure.

This fact is easily observed in that not all veterans of combat will develop PTSD. There are many variables, but some where around 10% will develop PTSD. So in your example, where an individual is exposed to extensive physical and/or mental torture, about 9 out of 10 individuals will not develop PTSD.

I know. I just wanted to say that is possible for a human to induce mental illness in another human.

Q: If extreme torture produces in only 10% of causes a chemical imbalance, a mental illness how moronic is to say one can teach individual mental illness, mass mental illness; teaching-imparting knowledge to an individual, many individuals causes individual mental illness/mass mental illness. ?

[FarWanderer]

There is a time and place for material reductionism, but not in the realm of mental illness. Otherwise we wouldn't even call it a "mental" illness in the first place.

It’s irrelevant what is called. Every human illness it’s caused by an abnormality(structural or chemical) in the human body. This is a fact dear sir.

Are you saying that mental experiences cannot cause mental illness? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying. And it's ridiculous.

[alexxcJRO]

There is a time and place for material reductionism, but not in the realm of mental illness. Otherwise we wouldn't even call it a "mental" illness in the first place.

It’s irrelevant what is called. Every human illness it’s caused by an abnormality(structural or chemical) in the human body. This is a fact dear sir.

Are you saying that mental experiences cannot cause mental illness? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying. And it's ridiculous.

Firstly,

Dear sir,

S1: Trauma which is a mental experience can cause mental illness.
S2: Every human illness it’s caused by an abnormality(structural or chemical) in the human body.

Both S1 and S2 are facts. Both this statements are true.

Secondly,

I said this in previous post:

"Either you have an imbalance between neurotransmitters serotonin and substance P which is the reason for your PTSD or not.

Either you have the trauma which is the reason for your imbalance between neurotransmitters serotonin and substance P or not. "

So i said basically "mental experience can cause mental illness" and then you came and "Are you saying that mental experiences cannot cause mental illness? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying. And it's ridiculous."

Q: What is happening ?:)))

Thirdly,

The ridiculous thing is saying teaching-imparting knowledge to an individual, many individuals can cause individual mental illness/mass mental illness.
You were saying this.

Please don’t ignore dear sir.

Again:

Q: How do you know this dear sir?
Q: Are you some kind of trained psychiatrist?
Q: Can you provide some evidence for “imparting of knowledge can lead to mental illness/mass mental illness?

[FarWanderer]

There is a time and place for material reductionism, but not in the realm of mental illness. Otherwise we wouldn't even call it a "mental" illness in the first place.

It’s irrelevant what is called. Every human illness it’s caused by an abnormality(structural or chemical) in the human body. This is a fact dear sir.

Are you saying that mental experiences cannot cause mental illness? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying. And it's ridiculous.

Firstly,

Dear sir,

S1: Trauma which is a mental experience can cause mental illness.
S2: Every human illness it’s caused by an abnormality(structural or chemical) in the human body.

Both S1 and S2 are facts. Both this statements are true.

Then I have no idea the point you were ever making with S2 in the first place.

Secondly,
I said this in previous post:

"Either you have an imbalance between neurotransmitters serotonin and substance P which is the reason for your PTSD or not.

Either you have the trauma which is the reason for your imbalance between neurotransmitters serotonin and substance P or not. "

So i said basically "mental experience can cause mental illness" and then you came and "Are you saying that mental experiences cannot cause mental illness? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying. And it's ridiculous."

Q: What is happening ?:)))

Your posts are hard to interpret.

Thirdly,

The ridiculous thing is saying teaching-imparting knowledge to an individual, many individuals can cause individual mental illness/mass mental illness.
You were saying this.

Yes, depending on the content and methods. You ever heard of "Red Asphault"?

Q: How do you know this dear sir?

It's obvious as the sky is blue that knowledge can affect mental states negatively. Teach the history of American slavery, or the Haulocaust. Teach about psychopathic killers. Teach about the Rape of Nanking. Some people are bound to be affected.

Q: Are you some kind of trained psychiatrist?

No and irrelevant. This is about metaphysics and semantics.

Q: Can you provide some evidence for “imparting of knowledge can lead to mental illness/mass mental illness?

This is just the first Q again.

[alexxcJRO]

Then I have no idea the point you were ever making with S2 in the first place.

This was my initial point addressed to Willum:

Mental illness cannot be taught or defined into existence. Either you have it or not. It’s not an abstract concept.
Either you have schizophrenia which is reason for your psychosis or not. Either you have you have been exposed to environmental(being raised in a city, cannabis use during adolescence, certain infections, parental age and poor nutrition during pregnancy) and genetic factors or not.
Either you have systemic lupus erythematosus which is the reason for your psychosis or not.
Either you have Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and Parkinson's disease which is the reason for your psychosis or not.
Either you have a tumor which is the reason for your psychosis or not.
Either you have child trauma which is the reason for your psychosis or not.

No and irrelevant. This is about metaphysics and semantics.

It’s about reality too.
People becoming mentally ill after being taught about Holocaust, American Slavery, Serial Killers.

Your posts are hard to interpret.

That's not my problem.

Yes, depending on the content and methods. You ever heard of "Red Asphault"?
It's obvious as the sky is blue that knowledge can affect mental states negatively. Teach the history of American slavery, or the Haulocaust. Teach about psychopathic killers. Teach about the Rape of Nanking. Some people are bound to be affected.

That’s in your head.

I don’t believe this nonsense dear sir.

Saying that people will become mentally ill(suffering from psychosis, PTSD because of trauma) after going to a course that teaches about serial killers or on a course of history which teaches about Holocaust or American Slavery is just bonkers.

Just saying it is like this does not make so dear sir.

One needs to supply evidence for his claims.

Please present the evidence that people after going to a course on serial killers or on a course of history which talks about Holocaust or American Slavery have become mentally ill(suffering from psychosis, PTSD).

Let’s not forget about the rules.
“Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim. “

[Willum]

[Replying to post 208 by FarWanderer]

Mental illness cannot be taught or defined into existence.

and this is why I stopped speaking with Alex... In a very topic where we are supposed to challenge the assumption of mental illness being ascribable to religion, he avoids the matter of the OP:

Religion is clearly a social or mass phenomenon, so we can't simply tag individual definitions to the kind of madness it generates.

So we clearly need to soften our definitions so the OP can be discussed.

For example, objectively, there is something very wrong about invoking imaginary creatures so that humans can go kill other humans en mass.

But war is not defined as a mental-illness, even when imaginary creatures are invoked.
But clearly there is something wrong with this.

Using imaginary creatures to invoke any kind of injustice, en mass, is clearly wrong.

So we have three gaps we clearly need to address before we can consider the subject:

What is the insanity of the group to be called?
Should we call war for imaginary creatures an insanity?
and address the issue of religion and other beliefs en mass.

It seems to me like an interesting conversation, one you can't have if you are going to dismiss anything interesting by apply definitions that clearly apply to individuals, and not groups, such as the religious.