Why Isn't The Belief In God Considered Mental Illness?

James_S_Saint · May 29, 2016, 10:42pm

Every “theory” is a proposed god (a law of nature): “My theory is that XXX has absolute control/authority over the situation of YYY”.

A “false god” is an incorrect theory. Those who worship Relativity are in fact worshiping a “false god”. Those who worship Newtonian physics theories worship false gods. Those who worship quantum physics are just devils and mindless babblers.

The theory that there is but one “true god” is debatable considering semantics, but the idea was that none of the theories are absolutely true, instead there can only be one law that can never, ever be broken by anything (aka “God”). Hence, “Don’t worship idol theories”.

Ierrellus · May 30, 2016, 12:31pm

Everyone has the potential for being a believer in God. Some choose not to believe.
Free will? Determinism? Neither option applied to choice amounts to insanity.
Nothing to do with the physical? My God experience was a jolt of awakening that was physical, mental and spiritual.
Any division of my human trinity amounts to insanity,

Ierrellus · May 31, 2016, 11:39am

Insanity is the inability to maintain a balance of influence on mind of the MBS interactive reality. It has nothing to do with belief in God.

Artimas · May 31, 2016, 7:08pm

Will isn’t free.

Ierrellus · June 1, 2016, 11:34am

Whose will isn’t free and why not?
Would an atheist admit that he had no choice in becoming an atheist? That the cards are stacked by DNA and environment does not rule out the possibility of choice among belief systems. Otherwise there would be no change. We could only believe what we were programmed to believe.

Bob · June 1, 2016, 5:06pm

At Dictionary.com, worship means this:

reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
the object of adoring reverence or regard.

Do you really think that people “worship” theories? I don’t think I have ever worshipped a theory, and so I have difficulty in associating theories with a proposed god.

I did support creationism for a while, after being amazed by a pseudo-scientific book on the flood, but I then recognised the flaws in the argument. I wouldn’t say that I worshipped that argument.

Mictlantecuhtli · June 1, 2016, 6:37pm

Bob:

HaHaHa:

I have been on ILP for almost ten years and the only reason you’re complaining is given the thread subject.

No sensible person would call others swine in reference but because your buddy is religious also like yourself you won’t dare criticize him. I am antagonistic in philosophical discourse because I like bringing people out of their comfort zones where I’m completely unapologetic for this. You can complain if you want but I will not change.

In fact you haven’t considered my first post on the subject, which attempted a rational review of religious sentiment:

I think the main reasons are the mystery of existence and the freedom of interpretation.

Especially today, we have so many possible interpretations of religious texts, that we literally don’t know what people originally believed. Our society has gone through paradigm-changes so complete that we think completely differently to the way people used to think. As a result, the religion of today is open to a vast array of possible meanings – who is to say what is feasible?

The whole concept of life on a rock on the edge of the universe is crazy, but that is the way it appears to us. Because of our sentient abilities, we need theories to stop becoming dazed and batty, and if you think that religious theories are wilder than scientific ones, then you haven’t informed yourself thoroughly. Scientific theories tend to bracket out the mystery of existence with a sentient mind, leaving a gap for lack of explanation. It is this gap that we all try to bridge with some idea that we often haven’t really thought through to the end.

Religion uses symbol, metaphor, myth and analogy to bridge that gap, which was originally far wider than our gap today. But that doesn’t mean that it is any more unhinged than the theories non-religious people have in their minds. What is disturbing, and has been for some time, is the fact that religion has become fanaticised, and fundamentalists reduce the scope of interpretation to their own rendering of the “truth”, threatening all others with the fires of hell at the least.

This behaviour is bizarre, but it seems to show how desperate people are for something that will bridge the gap of unknowing. The fact that there is widespread depression and distress in our society shows that other people show their desperation in other ways. In some ways, it is questionable to ridicule moderate religionists for their acceptance of religious ideas, since they use these ideas to cope with that gap, with the least of social tribulation. For many there is no alternative, if they are to find relief and contentment in their lives.

If we are to question religious concepts, we need to know what function they have in peoples lives and ask ourselves whether there is an alternative. We have to bear in mind that we are all very different in our general outlook, depending on our background and education, so it isn’t feasible to think up some simple solution and demand that all take the same pill.

My point was that religion is in the realm of artistic expression, since it too attempts to describe experiences otherwise unfathomable, and just as many artistic geniuses have been accused of madness, so too have religious people not been understood.

I wouldn’t disagree that some interpretations of religion are madness, just as some mad people scrawl on canvases and want it to be recognised as art. But this doesn’t mean that art or religion is madnesses. The caricature of the mad scientist doesn’t mean science is mad, but that there are aspects of science that disturb us greatly.

The belief in God that many display also disturbs me greatly, since it is often a caricature of my experience that one could deem godly, being superficial, loud and presumptuous in many cases. My experience has been quiet yet invigorating, it has been confusing but in the end enlightening. It has seldom had physical expression, but has knocked me over in some cases.

The same has happened to me at a concert, hearing an orchestra, when viewing a beautiful landscape, or when hearing the sound of the jungle rise after a long meditation. If you wanted to put me into an asylum for these experiences, what kind of a world would we live in?

I myself personally don’t want to put anybody in an asylum. It’s against my way.

I think the entire species is insane where no sanity exists. If we were to follow psychiatry in its totality we would have to lock everybody up on the planet.

I’m just wondering why psychiatry doesn’t prescribe religion as a mental disorder in this thread.

James_S_Saint · June 1, 2016, 6:57pm

I most certainly do. I have spoken too often to too many professors who simply state that XXX theory cannot be contended with (else it would already be done). Thermodynamics comes to mind. When any theory becomes dogma, it is a proposed “god”, “worshiped” as holy and intractable. The “Second Law of Thermodynamics” is a notably worshiped theory supposedly in absolute authority over nature, yet that “law”/“theory” was proven wrong countless times. Still today, many professors teach it as holy, immutable doctrine.

Many today profess the Big Bang theory with the same fervor, although that one is more of a theory of what took place rather than a theory of how things work. Relativity, Quantum Physics, and The Standard Model (recently forced into revision) are the more common gods of the day.

When something is explained to someone in many ways, many times without any of it registering, a mental illness is suspect.

Bob · June 1, 2016, 7:09pm

Okay, I’m catching on …

James_S_Saint · June 1, 2016, 7:12pm

I wasn’t quoting you with that comment.

Artimas · June 1, 2016, 8:45pm

You can’t have free will when you as a person are shaped by influence. It’s just a will, not a free one.

We have the will to choose, but we choose what we choose due to who we are as individuals, and who we are as individuals are shaped by influence, genes, etc.

Mictlantecuhtli · June 1, 2016, 9:19pm

James S Saint:

Bob:

Do you really think that people “worship” theories?

I most certainly do. I have spoken too often to too many professors who simply state that XXX theory cannot be contended with (else it would already be done). Thermodynamics comes to mind. When any theory becomes dogma, it is a proposed “god”, “worshiped” as holy and intractable. The “Second Law of Thermodynamics” is a notably worshiped theory supposedly in absolute authority over nature, yet that “law”/“theory” was proven wrong countless times. Still today, many professors teach it as holy, immutable doctrine.

Many today profess the Big Bang theory with the same fervor, although that one is more of a theory of what took place rather than a theory of how things work. Relativity, Quantum Physics, and The Standard Model (recently forced into revision) are the more common gods of the day.

HaHaHa:

I’m just wondering why psychiatry doesn’t prescribe religion as a mental disorder in this thread.

When something is explained to someone in many ways, many times without any of it registering, a mental illness is suspect.

A bit vague. I need you to give me some examples.

Mictlantecuhtli · June 1, 2016, 9:30pm

It was actually religion that hindered all of that so…

You’re not helping your case here.

Mictlantecuhtli · June 1, 2016, 9:37pm

It was religionists that thought it was flat…

Mictlantecuhtli · June 1, 2016, 9:43pm

White males are “evil” and therefore are obviously the spawn of the devil.

Mictlantecuhtli · June 1, 2016, 9:53pm

Science is equally dogmatic, yes. We are however discussing traditional religion here, namely how a cosmic sky daddy rules the entire universe.

Ierrellus · June 2, 2016, 12:19pm

Choice devoid of free will appears to me to be an oxymoron.

Kriswest · June 2, 2016, 7:56pm

Free will is just the short version of : You are free to choose what you will of these choices before you.

Artimas · June 2, 2016, 10:26pm

But are YOU actually getting to choose as who you were shaped into?

If a person gets beat all their life then has to choose between doing it themselves or not, what would they choose? It depends on the extremity of their getting beaten, genes, and other external influences that shaped them.

You are not just a blank slate choosing freely, you choose certain options due to being you, who you were shaped into.

Free will is choice without restriction not simply choice alone. You may choose something, but it isn’t freedom of choosing, your choice may be a direct result from anything that happened in the past.

The past restricts everyone from certain things due to them being who they are. It has to do with environment and biology. Those things act as restrictions that do not allow one to be a blank slate who shapes themselves.

To say we all have the ability to shape ourselves from beginning wouldn’t make sense or even be possible.

Artimas · June 2, 2016, 10:30pm

But you aren’t free to choose because the past has influence over the choices you make.

One can make a choice, but it isn’t free choice. Not like being a blank slate.