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?

[alexxcJRO]

[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.

Until I see a coherent, falsifiable hypothesis and compelling evidence for this hypothesis I will refrain from belief. I will stick with what the trained psychiatrists say and what the studies show.

But you guys can talk all you want about imaginary nonsense like:
-all/the majority of religious people suffer from psychosis.
-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.
-mass(6 bilion) mental illness; mass hallucinations.
-taught individual mental illness; taught mass mental illness.
-none from 6 billion of people suffering from psychosis show any symptoms specific to the disease, responds to anti-psychotic meds.

[FarWanderer]

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.

If we want to talk about whether such things exist in REALITY as opposed to the abstract then it is a question of measurement. That's why I brought up how mental illness is often diagnosed by behavior rather than neurotransmitter imbalances.

It does not HAVE to be conceived of as a physical phenomenon. Yet you insisted that it must be. You DEFINED it that way only a few sentences after declaring that you "weren't defining anything".

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.

I never claimed learning about the Holocaust could cause PTSD. I conceive of PTSD as something strictly involving a personal horrific memory. I only brought up PTSD as an example of mental illness that is often best conceived in terms of the subject's interpreted meaning of personal experiences and their inability to reconcile it with their normal lives, rather than in terms of some detached description of their brain's chemical state.

In the case of psychosis, a syllogism:

P1) Stress can be a factor in causing psychosis.
P2) Learning about awful things can raise stress.
C) Therefore, learning about awful things can be a factor in causing psychosis.

Being as you are demanding evidence, please let me know whether it is (P1) or (P2) you are contesting.

And you haven't explicitly argued against my claim that mental illness can be caused by teaching depending on the teaching methodology. What's your stance on that?

[TSGracchus]

Part of the problem with discussing this subject is the inadequate and inaccurate definitions of our vocabulary. All "illness" is a reaction to stress. This may be the biochemical stress produced by microbes, the fear stress produced by predators, or the prolonged stress of our crowded "civilized" environment to which we are very poorly adapted. Religion is a symptom of these stresses, the stresses which arise at least in part from our ignorance of our own nature.
The first of the "Four Noble Truths" of Buddhism is that life is suffering. We pursue pleasure and fear pain. (In the Bible, what was the "original sin"? It was learning the difference between "good" and "evil".) We suffer under the illusion that we can avoid pain and the loss of pleasure. We deny reality, but reality persists. We refuse, for instance, to believe in death. Fear of death is a survival mechanism, but too much fear of death will hasten our demise.
So, strictly speaking, religion is not an illness, it is a symptom of an over-stressed thinking machine. It is a stripped gear in the machinery of reason, a disconnect between what we believe and what is real.
A Christian may recite, "Yea, though I walk through the valley of death, i will fear no evil,..." but the fear is still there as is the "evil".
Prolonged stress, even of the mild sort, is toxic. It produces a positive feedback loop that disturbs the dynamic stability of the organism, which causes the organism to break down. (See for instance, Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers: The Acclaimed Guide to Stress, Stress-Related Diseases, and Coping by Robert M. Sapolsky.)
"Experience" causes chemical changes. Some of these changes manifest as "memory". Some experiences cause epigenetic changes, changes to the protein coat of the chromosome that switch the DNA on or off or modify behavior and biochemistry, and these changes may even be inherited. (Google, for instance, "hunger winter epigenetics")
I repeat: Religion is not an illness. It is a symptom.

[alexxcJRO]

If we want to talk about whether such things exist in REALITY as opposed to the abstract then it is a question of measurement. That's why I brought up how mental illness is often diagnosed by behavior rather than neurotransmitter imbalances.

It does not HAVE to be conceived of as a physical phenomenon. Yet you insisted that it must be. You DEFINED it that way only a few sentences after declaring that you "weren't defining anything".

Nonsense dear sir my response was to Willum who said mental illness can be taught.

And I said you cannot learn mental illness. It is not an abstract concept.
I am not defining anything.
You cannot learn yourself some environmental and genetic factors or some schizophrenia.
You cannot learn yourself some systemic lupus erythematosus.
You cannot learn yourself some Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and Parkinson's disease.
You cannot learn yourself some a brain tumor.
You cannot learn yourself some child trauma.

In the case of psychosis, a syllogism:

P1) Stress can be a factor in causing psychosis.
P2) Learning about awful things can raise stress.
C) Therefore, learning about awful things can be a factor in causing psychosis.

Being as you are demanding evidence, please let me know whether it is (P1) or (P2) you are contesting.

And you haven't explicitly argued against my claim that mental illness can be caused by teaching depending on the teachingmethodology. What's your stance on that?

Firstly,

Q: Are you unable to read?
I said: A=“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). “
I did not said: “Please present a theoretical form that can show this things might exist in theory�
Perfect fluids, solids, gas exist only in theoretical realm, not in reality.
Please present the evidence that such a thing as A exists in reality.

Secondly,

I always wonder how any can find compelling as evidence the playing with words.
This is not evidence dear sir. This is just an embarrassment.

You are defining your hypothesis into existence. The same Ansel did with the God hypothesis in his boring and weak syllogism.
I can define your hypothesis into non-existence.
Here:
P1) Severe stress or anxiety can cause psychosis.
P2) Learning about awful things induces a low level of stress.
C) Therefore, learning about awful things does not cause psychosis.

“Psychological causes

“severe stress or anxiety�
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/psychosis/causes/�
“abuse or trauma - if you have experienced abuse or a very traumatic event, you are more likely to experience psychosis.�
https://www.mind.org.uk/information-sup ... wObJUOFT58

[Bust Nak]

Q: Are you unable to read?

Moderator Comment

That was needlessly provocative.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[FarWanderer]

Q: Are you unable to read?

Q: Is there anyone you think is worthy of admiration or emulation who would ever resort to such an arrogant and immature insult?

If we want to talk about whether such things exist in REALITY as opposed to the abstract then it is a question of measurement. That's why I brought up how mental illness is often diagnosed by behavior rather than neurotransmitter imbalances.

It does not HAVE to be conceived of as a physical phenomenon. Yet you insisted that it must be. You DEFINED it that way only a few sentences after declaring that you "weren't defining anything".

Nonsense dear sir my response was to Willum who said mental illness can be taught.

And I said you cannot learn mental illness. It is not an abstract concept.
I am not defining anything.
You cannot learn yourself some environmental and genetic factors or some schizophrenia.
You cannot learn yourself some systemic lupus erythematosus.
You cannot learn yourself some Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and Parkinson's disease.
You cannot learn yourself some a brain tumor.
You cannot learn yourself some child trauma.

The only claim here I disagree with is "I am not defining anything".

Define-
state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.

How is it that you are not doing this with the term "mental illness"?

I always wonder how any can find compelling as evidence the playing with words.
This is not evidence dear sir. This is just an embarrassment.

I never claimed it was evidence.

You are defining your hypothesis into existence. The same Ansel did with the God hypothesis in his boring and weak syllogism.

Ansel's establishment of a hypothetical God as "a being that exists" is meaningless because all hypothetical things exist in the hypothetical "real" world in which they are being spoken of. There is nothing that "doesn't exist" or "may not exist" as part of its definition, even in the context of a hypothetical.

With my argument I am not trying to pull any such trick as making a hypothetical real simply by placing the label "real" on it. Aside from the fact that both arguments are syllogisms they couldn't be more different. That you lump them together like this just shows to me that you have an ignorant disdain for logical arguments in general.

I can define your hypothesis into non-existence.
Here:
P1) Severe stress or anxiety can cause psychosis.
P2) Learning about awful things induces a low level of stress.
C) Therefore, learning about awful things does not cause psychosis.

Your logic is formally invalid. P1 and P2 do not together preclude that learning about awful things causes psychosis- only that it does not cause it through stress. You are mocking my logic, Ansel's logic, and formal logic in general without even having a solid grasp of how any of it works.

This is not to say that I don't understand your point. You are essentially saying I am equivocating on the word "stress" in my P1 and P2, which would make my conclusion invalid.

I disagree. The difference is degree, not quality, and stress is cumulative. Any stress can contribute. Also, I think you underestimate the role of group identity. America's history of slavery very deeply affects the way a lot of black Americans see themselves, for example. Its long-term effects are not to be underestimated.

Consider how quickly the kids in the brown-eye-blue-eye exercise internalized their roles. That was just for, like, one day? Perceiving oneself as being at the bottom of the status hierarchy for a long period of time is highly stressful.

And in regards to psychosis, my only goal was to prove that it is possible in principle for learning something to result in it, not that it is common or even that it has been documented. It was you who set the bar so ridiculously high as psychosis rather than more mundane mental illnesses like depression or anxiety.

Also your lack of response to my question about your position on teaching methodology has been noted.

[alexxcJRO]

The only claim here I disagree with is "I am not defining anything".

Can you point the exact phrase you have problem with?

I never claimed it was evidence.

But I asked you for evidence. So no evidence then.

Ansel's establishment of a hypothetical God as "a being that exists" is meaningless because all hypothetical things exist in the hypothetical "real" world in which they are being spoken of. There is nothing that "doesn't exist" or "may not exist" as part of its definition, even in the context of a hypothetical.

With my argument I am not trying to pull any such trick as making a hypothetical real simply by placing the label "real" on it. Aside from the fact that both arguments are syllogisms they couldn't be more different. That you lump them together like this just shows to me that you have an ignorant disdain for logical arguments in general. "

Ansel defines God as maximal great being that has all the perfections and then says existence is a perfection. He is conjuring God using made up definitions.
I can say also that Maximally Visible is a perfection. Because a maximally being has all the perfections it must have Maximally Visible too.
But God is not maximally visible. Therefore a maximally great being does not exist. God defined as a maximally great being does not exist.

This is not to say that I don't understand your point. You are essentially saying I am equivocating on the word "stress" in my P1 and P2, which would make my conclusion invalid.

I disagree. The difference is degree, not quality, and stress is cumulative. Any stress can contribute. Also, I think you underestimate the role of group identity. America's history of slavery very deeply affects the way a lot of black Americans see themselves, for example. Its long-term effects are not to be underestimated.

Dear sir I was talking about quantity of stress.
Big quantity of stress(severe stress) causes psychosis. Low quantity of stress does not.
Saying teaching which induces low quantity of stress can cause psychosis is moronic.
It's as moronic as saying watching Gory Horror Movies causes psychosis.

[FarWanderer]

The only claim here I disagree with is "I am not defining anything".

Can you point the exact phrase you have problem with

"Mental illness cannot be taught or defined into existence. Either you have it or not. It’s not an abstract concept."

^ This is defining mental illness in a certain way. Now to be clear, I do not object to your definition per se, but I think you are being unproductively dogmatic about it for the context of this discussion. It is the same complaint Willum had as well.

I never claimed it was evidence.

But I asked you for evidence. So no evidence then.

I explained the basis of my position, which is sufficient. My claim was simply not as extreme as you have been characterizing it as.

It was never my intention in the first place to confront you on whether mental illness could be taught, only on whether it could only be conceived of in physical terms and nothing else.

Ansel's establishment of a hypothetical God as "a being that exists" is meaningless because all hypothetical things exist in the hypothetical "real" world in which they are being spoken of. There is nothing that "doesn't exist" or "may not exist" as part of its definition, even in the context of a hypothetical.

With my argument I am not trying to pull any such trick as making a hypothetical real simply by placing the label "real" on it. Aside from the fact that both arguments are syllogisms they couldn't be more different. That you lump them together like this just shows to me that you have an ignorant disdain for logical arguments in general. "

Ansel defines God as maximal great being that has all the perfections and then says existence is a perfection. He is conjuring God using made up definitions.
I can say also that Maximally Visible is a perfection. Because a maximally being has all the perfections it must have Maximally Visible too.
But God is not maximally visible. Therefore a maximally great being does not exist. God defined as a maximally great being does not exist.

Yes, that is another way to refute his argument. However, it only demonstrates that it is absurd (wrong) by example. It does not actually adequately explain why, because your claim that it uses a "made up" definition is trivial. All definitions are made up. You can make them up on your own authority, or you can appeal to the authority of social consensus, but either way they are made up.

This is not to say that I don't understand your point. You are essentially saying I am equivocating on the word "stress" in my P1 and P2, which would make my conclusion invalid.

I disagree. The difference is degree, not quality, and stress is cumulative. Any stress can contribute.

Dear sir I was talking about quantity of stress.

OK, but I also made the point that stress is cumulative.

[alexxcJRO]

"Mental illness cannot be taught or defined into existence. Either you have it or not. It’s not an abstract concept."
^ This is defining mental illness in a certain way. Now to be clear, I do not object to your definition per se, but I think you are being unproductively dogmatic about it for the context of this discussion. It is the same complaint Willum had as well.

I was talking about defining into existence.
Do you make the distinction between defining, describing an existing phenomenon and defining into existence an imaginary thing, manipulating definitions that talk about existing phenomena in order to encompass imaginary things.

I explained the basis of my position, which is sufficient. My claim was simply not as extreme as you have been characterizing it as.

Backpadling!!! Really? )

Dear sir as per forum rules claims can be chalanged for evidence.

"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. "

This was your claim: "teaching can certainly result in a mental illness."

And i chalanged you for evidence.

Yes, that is another way to refute his argument. However, it only demonstrates that it is absurd (wrong) by example. It does not actually adequately explain why, because your claim that it uses a "made up" definition is trivial. All definitions are made up. You can make them up on your own authority, or you can appeal to the authority of social consensus, but either way they are made up.

The problem is not with defining terms.
The problem is with conjuring things by manipulating definitions.

OK, but I also made the point that stress is cumulative.

This is getting really boring.

Dear sir the stress that caused child trauma that caused psychosis is cumulative also.
The problem is that the cumulative stress that caused child trauma that caused psychosis is severe while the cumulative stress from learning about awful things or watching Gory Horror Movies is much less severe.

H1: Severe cumulative stress(--->child trauma as a result of child abuse) can cause psychosis.
H2: Much less severe cumulative stress(--> learning about awful things in a course about American Slavery, Serial Killers or by watching Gory Horror Movies) can cause psychosis.

H1 is suported by evidence, by the psychiatric community.
H2 is not.
H2 does not follow from H1.

So i am afraid you have nothing, nada, zilch.

What you have is an unproven assumption, assertion.
You know what rational people do with unproven assumptions, assertions. They ignore them.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 218 by FarWanderer]

So we are in agreement at least that vocabulary and definitions don't exist to discuss the phenomenon exactly, according to a pathology, yet all but the least observant of us can see that, for example, going to war over an creature that can't be shown to exist, is mentally wrong.

I mean there is no way to justify murder over something you argue about existing in the first place, whether you are one person or a hundred thousand?

I was taught as a child that if my faith was strong enough, I could walk on water, like Peter, and I had tried it, at four years or so, a lot. But I was taught a mental-illness of sort, no? No, but what was it that made me believe irrationally?

Now you may pish the four year old's believe, but millions of people believe today that if they believe some force they can't demonstrate exists will take them to heaven, and as a result, act irrationally on this planet.

This is what we observe, regardless if words and definitions have been created yet.
So the question is, how shall we discuss it?