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 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?

Dear sir,

We already have an explanation for this, we already have the vocabulary.

It is called indoctrination, the illusory truth effect, and conformity.

indoctrination
ɪnˌdɒktrɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
"I would never subject children to religious indoctrination"
archaic
teaching; instruction.
"methods that were approved for indoctrination in divinity"

For example citizens of N. Korea believe that their leader doesn’t need to take dump.
There is not pathology sir, they have just been brainwashed with repeated propaganda.
They have been teached to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
This is very succesful if it's done it to young minds because they are very susceptible to manipulation.

You say a false thing too many times it becomes "true".

"You only use 10 percent of your brain."
"Vitamin C cures the common cold."
“The Earth being the centre of the Universe�
"Humans evolved from chimpanzees."

All this things are false yet are/were perceived as true.
There is a glictch "the illusory truth effect" in the human psychy that equates repetition with truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

"Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms.[1] Norms are implicit, specific rules, shared by a group of individuals, that guide their interactions with others. This tendency to conform occurs in small groups and/or society as a whole, and may result from subtle unconscious influences, or direct and overt social pressure. Conformity can occur in the presence of others, or when an individual is alone. For example, people tend to follow social norms when eating or watching television, even when alone.

People often conform from a desire for security within a group—typically a group of a similar age, culture, religion, or educational status. This is often referred to as groupthink: a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics, which ignores realistic appraisal of other courses of action. Unwillingness to conform carries the risk of social rejection. Conformity is often associated with adolescence and youth culture, but strongly affects humans of all ages."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity

[FarWanderer]

"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.

What imaginary things? Religion isn't imaginary.

Whether I define an existent thing or a non-existent thing the verb "define" has the same meaning. If I define a pegasus as a winged horse no one would accuse me of trying to "define them into existence". "Defining into existence" is self-evidently nonsense. It has utility in illustrating an equivocation fallacy between being defined as existing and actually existing, but you seem to just apply the term to any definition you don't like.

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

Yep, depending on content and methodology.

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.

I see. You think I was conceding a point and falling back on my other point. That would be boring if that were what I was doing.

You were telling me that yes, it is a matter of quantity rather than quality, but that it was not sufficient to prove my point. Great. I knew that from the start. Which is exactly why I also said in the very same sentence that stress is cumulative.

• -If stress is cumulative, then even light stresses still increase your stress level no matter how high your stress level already is.
  -If all stress is of the same quality, then you can combine any kind of stress. Stress is stress, no matter the source.
  -Presumably, psychosis manifests when stress levels reach a certain threshold.
  -Therefore light stresses can be a factor in reaching that threshold and developing psychosis.

It really is a mundane claim I am making. Should be neither controversial nor interesting.

[alexxcJRO]

What imaginary things? Religion isn't imaginary.

Dear sir I am not talking about religion. 😊))
For example defining into existence mass hallucination by saying is mass hysteria.

Yep, depending on content and methodology.

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. "
Please present the evidence.

You were telling me that yes, it is a matter of quantity rather than quality, but that it was not sufficient to prove my point. Great. I knew that from the start. Which is exactly why I also said in the very same sentence that stress is cumulative.


-If stress is cumulative, then even light stresses still increase your stress level no matter how high your stress level already is.
-If all stress is of the same quality, then you can combine any kind of stress. Stress is stress, no matter the source.
-Presumably, psychosis manifests when stress levels reach a certain threshold.
-Therefore light stresses can be a factor in reaching that threshold and developing psychosis.

It really is a mundane claim I am making. Should be neither controversial nor interesting.

Dear sir you said “"teaching can certainly result in a mental illness."
Not teaching can be a factor among multiple factors.
Teaching alone can cause psychosis not teaching combined with other factors can cause psychosis.

Don’t change on me like the weather. It looks bad.

Q: Dear sir how do you know the cumulative stress from teaching awful things alone(ex: going to a course of history that talks of American Slavery or going to an FBI course on serial killers ) or watching Gore Horror movies alone can reach that threshold and therefore can cause psychosis?

[FarWanderer]

[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.

Religious warfare certainly is pathological, but I don't really see it as different from say, the Nazis' justification. It's fairly uncommon I think that people actually war for religious reasons really, in spite of what they might say. Whatever the declared justification, the reasons are usually far more primal, like "they are a threat to us" (which is informed by religious differences) or "I want their stuff".

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?

Children in particular lack the critical faculties to question their authority figures. "Rationality" didn't even exist in you at the time.

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.

Yep. For many it's because they never grew up in this regard. It is not an accident that God is often referred to as "the father"; it really is about having an authority to guide you. That way you don't have to think.

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). So dogmatic adherence to scripture is really a defense mechanism that protects the source of their stress-relieving certainty. Of course this explains the obsession with scriptural inerrancy as well.

Even the idea of the afterlife serves to lessen the anxiety over death. So I guess I am saying that for some, religion actually nets a benefit for their mental health.

Of course it is fine when dogmatic beliefs just result in peculiar, yet benign religious ceremonies at church. Not so OK when "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and the like is on the menu. Religion has its benefits and disadvantages.

Yeah I can't really jump on board with you on this religion=illness thing. The only situations in which I might call religion a mental illness is when the need for certainty gets to the point of being pathological.

[FarWanderer]

What imaginary things? Religion isn't imaginary.

Dear sir I am not talking about religion. 😊))
For example defining into existence mass hallucination by saying is mass hysteria.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please grammar better.

You were telling me that yes, it is a matter of quantity rather than quality, but that it was not sufficient to prove my point. Great. I knew that from the start. Which is exactly why I also said in the very same sentence that stress is cumulative.


-If stress is cumulative, then even light stresses still increase your stress level no matter how high your stress level already is.
-If all stress is of the same quality, then you can combine any kind of stress. Stress is stress, no matter the source.
-Presumably, psychosis manifests when stress levels reach a certain threshold.
-Therefore light stresses can be a factor in reaching that threshold and developing psychosis.

It really is a mundane claim I am making. Should be neither controversial nor interesting.

Dear sir you said “"teaching can certainly result in a mental illness."
Not teaching can be a factor among multiple factors.
Teaching alone can cause psychosis not teaching combined with other factors can cause psychosis.

Don’t change on me like the weather. It looks bad.

Now you are just wrong. I said teaching could result in a mental illness (in general), but with regard to psychosis in particular the very first time I mentioned it I only said it could be a factor. And at another point I once said teaching could cause it in principle. That's it. Since then it's taken several posts to get across the point that it can be a factor.

And now that you finally understand, you accuse me of "springing" it on you.

Please.

[alexxcJRO]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please grammar better.

Mass hysteria is a real phenomenon proven by overwhelming evidence.
Conjuring an imaginary concept like “mass hallucinations� into the real world by saying mass hallucination is synonymous with mass hysteria.

Now you are just wrong. I said teaching could result in a mental illness (in general), but with regard to psychosis in particular the very first time I mentioned it I only said it could be a factor. And at another point I once said teaching could cause it in principle. That's it. Since then it's taken several posts to get across the point that it can be a factor.

And now that you finally understand, you accuse me of "springing" it on you.

Please.

Firstly,
My argument was always “Mental illness cannot be taught�, that teaching alone cannot cause psychosis. This was always my argument with Willum.
We were talking about religious people suffering from delusion-psychosis in mass, about teaching mental illness.

Q: Did you really not comprehend this? 😊))


Secondly,

You said "teaching can certainly result in a mental illness."

Q1: Did you not said that teaching about American Slavery, Serial Killers, Haulocaust, Rape of Nanking can cause mental illness?

Q2: If yes to Q1 what mental illness did you had in mind? How do you know this?

Q3: If no to Q1 why did you respond with "Teach the history of American slavery, or the Haulocaust. Teach about psychopathic killers. Teach about the Rape of Nanking. " to my questions: "Q: How do you know this dear sir?", "Q: Can you provide some evidence for “imparting of knowledge can lead to mental illness/mass mental illness?" ?

viewtopic.php?t=34153&postdays=0&postor ... &start=200

[FarWanderer]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please grammar better.

Mass hysteria is a real phenomenon proven by overwhelming evidence.
Conjuring an imaginary concept like “mass hallucinations� into the real world by saying mass hallucination is synonymous with mass hysteria.

Perfectly clear. Thank you.

You are referring to an equivocation fallacy. "Mass hysteria (a)" is a well-defined and well-documented phenomenon, but nonetheless "mass hysteria (b)" could still be a useful concept. It's fine so long as it's understood that (a) and (b) mean different things. It's only if you conflate them that you've made a logic error. Equivocation is very common. Most major theist arguments do it some place or another.

While you might not like the fact that Willum was taking a word you know to mean one thing and using it to mean something else (which can certainly create confusion), he clearly wasn't making the conflation error.

He was not "defining into existence" anything.

Firstly,
My argument was always “Mental illness cannot be taught�, that teaching alone cannot cause psychosis. This was always my argument with Willum.
We were talking about religious people suffering from delusion-psychosis in mass, about teaching mental illness.

Q: Did you really not comprehend this? 😊))

I wasn't even interested. I was provoked by your assertion that all mental illness had a physical manifestation, and what appeared to be a dogmatic insistence that mental illness should only be conceived of in terms of brain structure, ignoring the behavioral, or the psychological perspectives.

All the stuff about teaching and psychosis and whatnot was just because you asked. I was never very interested in it as a debate topic. As you may have guessed, I am more interested in philosophy and logic and such.

Secondly,

You said "teaching can certainly result in a mental illness."

Q1: Did you not said that teaching about American Slavery, Serial Killers, Haulocaust, Rape of Nanking can cause mental illness?

Q2: If yes to Q1 what mental illness did you had in mind?

None in particular. I realize that I am not well-versed in the technical definition of the term "mental illness". I was thinking more along the lines of anxiety or depression, broadly speaking.

In the case of the atrocities I mentioned I was specifically thinking of those for whom their identities are related: Blacks, Jews, and Chinese respectively; and maybe the respective villains as well.

I can provide evidence for at least the first two. I doubt there's much out there on Nanking because it's not as relevant to western researchers.

As for learning about psychopaths, it's more anecdotal. Maybe I can pull something up. I don't know.

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

Just for the record, it has never been my position that religion constitutes mass mental illness. You will see this clearly if you read my most recent response to Willum or if you read my earlier exchange on this thread where I take a rather severe position against the OP.

[alexxcJRO]

You are referring to an equivocation fallacy. "Mass hysteria (a)" is a well-defined and well-documented phenomenon, but nonetheless "mass hysteria (b)" could still be a useful concept. It's fine so long as it's understood that (a) and (b) mean different things. It's only if you conflate them that you've made a logic error. Equivocation is very common. Most major theist arguments do it some place or another.

This is ridiculous. )

Dear sir there is no "mass hysteria (b)"= mass hallucination and I did not said he made an equivocation fallacy.

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

I am saying he is conjuring mass hallucination from the imaginary realm into the real realm by saying it’s synonymous with mass hysteria.

All the stuff about teaching and psychosis and whatnot was just because you asked. I was never very interested in it as a debate topic. As you may have guessed, I am more interested in philosophy and logic and such.

So you didn’t want to debate me on the subject of psychosis but you kind of did that.
Now your complaining. )

In the case of the atrocities I mentioned I was specifically thinking of those for whom their identities are related: Blacks, Jews, and Chinese respectively; and maybe the respective villains as well.

I can provide evidence for at least the first two. I doubt there's much out there on Nanking because it's not as relevant to western researchers.

As for learning about psychopaths, it's more anecdotal. Maybe I can pull something up. I don't know.

Please present the evidence that shows that teaching about American Slavery, Serial Killers, Holocaust, Rape of Nanking, Red Asphault can cause anxiety disorder, depression disorder.

Just for the record, it has never been my position that religion constitutes mass mental illness. You will see this clearly if you read my most recent response to Willum or if you read my earlier exchange on this thread where I take a rather severe position against the OP.

Q: Do you see the word religion is this question � Q: Can you provide some evidence for “imparting of knowledge can lead to mental illness/mass mental illness?"?

I don’t.

[Willum]

[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.

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?

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.

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.

[FarWanderer]

Dear sir there is no "mass hysteria (b)"= mass hallucination

This is just being dogmatic about definitions.

and I did not said he made an equivocation fallacy.

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

There is only one meaning to mass hysteria:

Dogmatic.

I am saying he is conjuring mass hallucination from the imaginary realm into the real realm by saying it’s synonymous with mass hysteria.

Give me the quote?

All the stuff about teaching and psychosis and whatnot was just because you asked. I was never very interested in it as a debate topic. As you may have guessed, I am more interested in philosophy and logic and such.

So you didn’t want to debate me on the subject of psychosis but you kind of did that.
Now your complaining. )

You asked. I answered.

Please present the evidence that shows that teaching about American Slavery, Serial Killers, Holocaust, Rape of Nanking, Red Asphault can cause anxiety disorder, depression disorder.

When I have more time.

Just for the record, it has never been my position that religion constitutes mass mental illness. You will see this clearly if you read my most recent response to Willum or if you read my earlier exchange on this thread where I take a rather severe position against the OP.

Q: Do you see the word religion is this question � Q: Can you provide some evidence for “imparting of knowledge can lead to mental illness/mass mental illness?"?

I don’t.

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.