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?

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 224 by FarWanderer]

Religious warfare certainly is pathological, but I don't really see it as different from say, the Nazis' justification.

Point of order: Nazi's used religion as a justification for war.

Sure, but not predominately. The point anyway is that bad justifications for war exist outside of religion.

The resulting irrational actions I think result because of an aversion to confronting the complexity of life, particularly moral complexity. They want a world in which they can "know" the right path so that they can feel comfortable with the decisions they make, otherwise they'll have to face the stress that comes with uncertainty (which is not trivial).

While I don't disagree, I need to elaborate:
Do you really believe that because they don't know, they have a right to exterminate (in a disheartening number of instances) those whom some God-invoking leader has said to exterminate?

Oh dear, no. Of course not. If a person places their "right to certainty" above another person's life, I cannot call that anything other than pathological.

In fact, yeah, that is exactly what pathology is, I think. Whether the justification is religion, racism, nationalism, ideology, it all comes down to that. Even hypocrisy in general is fundamentally the uncritical certainty of one's own righteousness.

So yeah, when a religious adherent places their "right to certainty" higher than that of another person's life, I would agree that at that point their religious belief has become pathological.

So I will take a step outside the OP: I will put forward for criticism that: There is little difference between an individual claiming they killed for God (accepted as insanity) and masses killing for God.

I just question how many of them are really killing for God. War and peace ebbs and flows even if the scripture doesn't change, so I think that shows at the very least that religion is only one factor out of many regardless of what the zealots may claim.

The only real difference between the two is mass-murder as a result of mass hallucination or mass belief in a admittedly unprovable creature, is here-to-fore unrecognized form of insanity, and part of its pathology is it is socially acceptable.

Mass murder being socially acceptable is pathological. If irrational religious beliefs are what is making it social acceptable, and it certainly can be, then they are part of that pathology.

Let me ask, though, what of those versions of religion where the imaginary man in the sky commands his followers to love everyone rather than kill all the non-believers? Is that a mental illness?

Or better yet, what if the command from the imaginary authority is more or less to be a decent person, who is generally opposed to war but still willing to take up arms in a just opposition against tyranny? Does that belief constitute a mental illness?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 231 by FarWanderer]

I don't think anyone can disagree.
Except Alex.
But the rest of us - clearly there is something insane, if not clinically mental ill about religions that invoke beings that can't be proven to kill, steal and so on.

It really does need a name: I mean, BESIDES Judeo-Christianity.

[alexxcJRO]

This is just being dogmatic about definitions.
Dogmatic.

This is you admitting I am right dear sir.)

Well, what you are talking about is an equivocation fallacy whether you called it as such or not.

This just shows to me that you have an ignorant disdain for logical arguments in general.

Nonsense sir.

You are imagining it.

“In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.[1][2]Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first?" routine is a well known example of equivocation.[3][4]
It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.[1]
Some examples of equivocation in syllogisms (a logical chain of reasoning) are below:

All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.

Here, the equivocation is the metaphorical use of "jackass" to imply a simple-minded or obnoxious person instead of a male donkey. “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Willum did not use a particular word/expression �mass hysteria� in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.

There is no "mass hysteria (b)"= mass hallucination. There is no multiple senses of the word/expression: “mass hysteria�.

It’s only one: “In sociology and psychology, mass hysteria (also known as collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior) is a phenomenon that transmits collective illusions of threats, whether real or imaginary, through a population in society as a result of rumors and fear (memory acknowledgement).�

He taught mass hallucination is synonymous with mass hysteria.

Give me the quote?

I said in post 147:
“I never heard of institutionalized and triggered-episodic insanity, mass insanity, mass hallucinations.
I only know of individual insanity, individual hallucination, mass hysteria. “

Willum said in post 148:
“Surely you have heard of mass hysteria/hallucinations?�

I said in post 149:
“I said “I only know of mass hysteria. I never heard of “mass hallucinations.“

And then you ask: “surely you have heard of not know of mass hysteria?�

Q: Seriously? What is happening?

Also there is no such thing as a mass hallucination.
I did not find any credible, psychiatric source talking about “mass hallucination�. I did not find any mention of mass hallucinations in the scientific literature. �

Willum said in post 150:
“Since it needs to be spelled out to you:
Nah, it already HAS been spelled out to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria
Apparently your ability to perform a little research is compromised as well. “

I said in post 151:
“Nonsense dear sir.

It's not the same thing.

I already read the wiki page.

Mass hysteria means a contagious exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement that spreads through a population as a result of rumors or fear.

We are talking about hallucination(visual, auditory, olfactory).

"In sociology and psychology, mass hysteria (also known as collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior) is a phenomenon that transmits collective illusions of threats, whether real or imaginary, through a population in society as a result of rumors and fear (memory acknowledgement).[1][2]
In medicine, the term is used to describe the spontaneous manifestation (production of chemicals in the body) of the same or similar hysterical physical symptoms by more than one person.[3][4]
A common type of mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment,[5] sometimes referred to as mass psychogenic illness or epidemic hysteria.["
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

Like i said:
There is no such thing as a mass hallucination.
I did not find any credible, psychiatric source talking about “mass hallucination�. I did not find any mention of mass hallucinations in the scientific literature.
You are free to prove me otherwise. �

Willum said in post 154:
“If you choose to deflect based on definitions, good for you. You and other users can hold up a dictionary to discuss your ideas. “

I said in post 155:
“It’s not just about definitions.
Mass hysteria it’s a proven phenomenon.
On the other hand mass hallucination is not.
Until I see compelling evidence for mass hallucinations(two or more people having the same auditory, visual, olfactive hallucination) I will refrain for belief. �

Willum said in post 156:
“Mass hysteria then. I thought they were the same thing, my mistake. “

When I have more time

Q: When will that be exactly?

Chill. Do you not want to actually understand where I am coming from??

I was clarifying my position in response to the reference of "mass" mental illness, because obviously it cropped up because religion is a mass phenomenon and religion is the focus of the OP. I do not know what "mass" mental illness is except that it's a larger scale.

Chill.

You said: “it has never been my position that religion constitutes mass mental illness.�
And I said I never accused you of saying religion constitutes mental illness because I never used the word religion.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 231 by FarWanderer]

Mass murder being socially acceptable is pathological. If irrational religious beliefs are what is making it social acceptable, and it certainly can be, then they are part of that pathology.

Let me ask, though, what of those versions of religion where the imaginary man in the sky commands his followers to love everyone rather than kill all the non-believers? Is that a mental illness?

That is a good question, but I would have to go with, 'no,' because one can't have a mental illness that puts one in a right state of mind, that would be a crutch.

Or better yet, what if the command from the imaginary authority is more or less to be a decent person, who is generally opposed to war but still willing to take up arms in a just opposition against tyranny? Does that belief constitute a mental illness?

An imaginary God against tyranny... hmm, we are veering into the moral, such as is killing in great number moral for freedom. Way beyond this post I think.

What we are speaking about is if groups experience a mass hallucination of imaginary creatures... is is still mental illness?

That is they are hallucinating the existing of a creature they believe to be the same. It is a kind of transcendental hallucination, because even thought they believe it is the same God, each describes this God's characteristics differently.

But I believe we both think this is insanity.
What do you do when insanity is socially acceptable? When this excuses mass murder?
Such as the actions of Moses.
The actions of genocide, and so many more, brought to us by a mass-hallucination, or a mass believe in a creature that can't be shown to be real?

[FarWanderer]

Well, what you are talking about is an equivocation fallacy whether you called it as such or not.

This just shows to me that you have an ignorant disdain for logical arguments in general.

Nonsense sir.

You are imagining it.

“In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.[1][2]Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first?" routine is a well known example of equivocation.[3][4]
It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.[1]
Some examples of equivocation in syllogisms (a logical chain of reasoning) are below:

All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.

Here, the equivocation is the metaphorical use of "jackass" to imply a simple-minded or obnoxious person instead of a male donkey. “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Willum did not use a particular word/expression �mass hysteria� in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.

Firstly, equivocation is possible by implication. If I argue that evolution should be dismissed as mere speculation because "even the scientists just call it a theory" I am equivocating while only ever saying 'theory' once.

Secondly, unless Willum was doing this, he is not "defining into existence" anything in any sense. After reading through your discussion (thank you), it is now clear to me that your problem is with inventing new definitions, which has nothing to do with existence.

There is no "mass hysteria (b)"= mass hallucination. There is no multiple senses of the word/expression: “mass hysteria�.

It’s only one: “In sociology and psychology, mass hysteria (also known as collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior) is a phenomenon that transmits collective illusions of threats, whether real or imaginary, through a population in society as a result of rumors and fear (memory acknowledgement).�

I am the Lord thy Definition. Thou shalt have no other definitions before me.

[alexxcJRO]

Firstly, equivocation is possible by implication. If I argue that evolution should be dismissed as mere speculation because "even the scientists just call it a theory" I am equivocating while only ever saying 'theory' once.

Irrelevant nonsense born out of desperation to save what cannot be saved.

Dear Lord of Logic there is no multiple senses to “mass hysteria� to equivocate upon.
Willum was not equivocating.

Secondly, unless Willum was doing this, he is not "defining into existence" anything in any sense. After reading through your discussion (thank you), it is now clear to me that your problem is with inventing new definitions, which has nothing to do with existence.

Dear sir he was conjuring up an imaginary phenomenon by saying it was synonymous with a real, proven phenomenon.

I am the Lord thy Definition. Thou shalt have no other definitions before me.

Instead of boring me with one liners why don’t you bring the evidence you were talking about.
It’s weekend. More free time.
I am waiting.

[FarWanderer]

Firstly, equivocation is possible by implication. If I argue that evolution should be dismissed as mere speculation because "even the scientists just call it a theory" I am equivocating while only ever saying 'theory' once.

Irrelevant nonsense born out of desperation to save what cannot be saved.

You are free to define your way to victory in your own head.

Dear Lord of Logic

Love it. Keep calling me that.

there is no multiple senses to “mass hysteria� to equivocate upon.

According to the [strike]Holy Bible[/strike] dictionary.

Willum was not equivocating.

On that we can agree.

Secondly, unless Willum was doing this, he is not "defining into existence" anything in any sense. After reading through your discussion (thank you), it is now clear to me that your problem is with inventing new definitions, which has nothing to do with existence.

Dear sir he was conjuring up an imaginary phenomenon by saying it was synonymous with a real, proven phenomenon.

You used the phrase "defining into existence" only once in your conversation with Willum, at the very end, and it was in response to him inventing a definition.

As you would say, what is going on?

I am the Lord thy Definition. Thou shalt have no other definitions before me.

Instead of boring me with one liners why don’t you bring the evidence you were talking about.
It’s weekend. More free time.
I am waiting.

I'm booked. You won't see me at all this weekend, except maybe a short post here or there.

[alexxcJRO]

According to the Holy Bible dictionary.

Irrelevant one liner because one cannot accept he was wrong.

You are free to define your way to victory in your own head.

No sir.
It was really irrelevant to talk about equivocation when it was really not possible to have one.
It was really irrelevant to talk about equivocation when Willum did not made an equivocation fallacy.

You used the phrase "defining into existence" only once in your conversation with Willum, at the very end, and it was in response to him inventing a definition.

As you would say, what is going on?

Dear sir he was “defining into existence� aka he was conjuring up an imaginary phenomenon by saying it was synonymous with a real, proven phenomenon.

I'm booked. You won't see me at all this weekend, except maybe a short post here or there.

Yeah. Yeah. Keep dodging dear sir.
Interesting you have time to respond daily and create syllogisms but you don’t have time to present the evidence you already have.

Q: How much time does it take to copy paste some info and links?

[FarWanderer]

According to the Holy Bible dictionary.

Irrelevant one liner because one cannot accept he was wrong.

I was not wrong about anything. Informal (implied) arguments are just formal ones with necessary parts left unsaid. The logical structure is the same, so the fallacy doesn't go all non-existent just because the whole argument wasn't uttered.

And one-liners can make great points.

You are free to define your way to victory in your own head.

No sir. It was really irrelevant to talk about equivocation when it was really not possible to have one.

What if I told you there's a different Holy Dictionary that words the definition differently (yes, believe it or not, not all dictionaries agree). It'd be like the Bible vs the Koran. What will we do then???

But MORE IMPORTANTLY, why would it even matter if there weren't???

You used the phrase "defining into existence" only once in your conversation with Willum, at the very end, and it was in response to him inventing a definition.

As you would say, what is going on?

Dear sir he was “defining into existence� aka he was conjuring up an imaginary phenomenon by saying it was synonymous with a real, proven phenomenon.

When I ask what is going on, it doesn't help to just repeat back the very same words I asked the question to.

When did he do this conjuring thing? When did he say a real phenomenan was synonymous with an imaginary? How are these two events connected?

[alexxcJRO]

I was not wrong about anything. Informal (implied) arguments are just formal ones with necessary parts left unsaid. The logical structure is the same, so the fallacy doesn't go all non-existent just because the whole argument wasn't uttered.

Q: Do you have comprehension issues?

Pffffff. )
There are not multiple senses to "mass hysteria".
There is only one. Therefore it is impossible to commit the equivocation fallacy with the word "mass hysteria" for you would need multiple meanings.

What if I told you there's a different Holy Dictionary that words the definition differently (yes, believe it or not, not all dictionaries agree). It'd be like the Bible vs the Koran. What will we do then???
But MORE IMPORTANTLY, why would it even matter if there weren't???

Please supply the definition that proves there is a second meaning to "mass hysteria".

When did he do this conjuring thing? When did he say a real phenomenan was synonymous with an imaginary? How are these two events connected?

I was skeptical of B.

Willum said B = A.
He supplied evidence for A as being a real phenomenon.
In his head because A = B, therefore B is a real phenomenon.

Reality cheek:
-B is a imaginary phenomenon.
-A and B describe two different concepts.

Observation: He did not said B is imaginary. I said B is imaginary.





Let's not avoid this shall we:

Yeah. Yeah. Keep dodging dear sir.
Interesting you have time to respond daily and create syllogisms but you don’t have time to present the evidence you already have.

Q: How much time does it take to copy paste some info and links?