If one takes a good look at religious figures such as Saul/Paul, Mohammed, Abraham, …; we find that the revelations they had are very similar behaviors to what we deem “psychosis” today. I think this could very well explain why we don’t have very influential prophets today … because we lock people exhibiting similar forms of behavior up or medicate them because it is an illness.
Isn’t it feasible that these great historic “revelations” that so many people today revere where really nothing but psychotic episodes?
It is believed by some researchers that a lot religious figures of this kind were temporal lobe epileptics. Indeed, there is a personality associated with temporal lobe epilepsy known as the Geschwind syndrome, of which hyperreligiosity is a symptom.
Today we in the west have a kind of irrational horror of ‘madness.’
However, it was not always thus, and even today, there are so-called primitive societies where the ‘insane’ are exalted and regarded rather as important gifted members of the tribe.
We know as little about psychosis now as we knew when Pinel released the insane from their manacles, i.e., we still have no ‘cures.’ Perhaps the iron bars and the padded cells have gone in the outer world but they’ve been replaced by inner prisons of drugged stupor…
Let us remember too that the boundaries between ‘madness’ and very great art are often difficult to define…
Maybe Paul was an epileptic but that doesn’t in any way diminish his contribution to humankind.
Certainly we have more, (and more elaborate,) theories; and, of course, we still have the old time-honoured electro-convulsive ‘therapy’ to ‘create’ grand mal seizures in the patient…!
Although I appreciate what you are saying, “psychosis” is a term no longer deemed correct. There are psychotic disorders, but “psychosis” is too general.
The old meaning was “a severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning.” Historically, the term has been applied to many conditions, for example manic depressive psychosis, that were first described in psychotic patients, although today many patients with the disorder are not judged psychotic.
We must differentiate between organic and non-organic (exogenic and endogenic) disorders, acute and chronical disorders.
Gross impairment in reality awareness as evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, markedly incoherent speech or disorganised and agitated behaviour have a number of causes and must be sorted accordingly. The thought that “religious personalities” could have been subject to such attacks is opposed by the fact that the complaints are generally ongoing disorders - we have no evidence that the disorders of these persons remained sufficiently as to support the thesis.
The problem with the term psychosis is that it implies that certain psychic configurations are ‘healthy’ while others are not, (by saying it is such a state as needs a ‘cure’) without defining by what characteristic we define healthy from unhealthy.
For my purposes an unhealthy psyche is one which contains within it a desire to be cured, that is, altered in such a way as not to resemble it’s previous configuration; low self-esteem. A healthy psyche is one which seeks to continue in its present configuration, i.e., one is satisfied with oneself.
Now, certainly, nobody would argue that the so-called prophets mentioned in religious texts possesed psyches that resembled those of the common man. The religions themselves say these men were very unique. However, difference is not the measure by which we objectively judge a psyche. Self-contentment is.
All major religious figures agree in that they consider their psychic states, which they termed communication with God, to be ultimately fullfilling. Therefore we can assume that they had quite extraordinarily healthy psyches.
There is an interesting book out done by a pair of neuroscientists called ‘Why God Won’t Go Away’ where they discussed the neuropsychological differences between unhealthy psychotics, and Catholic nuns in a state that is called ‘Spiritual Union’. There are actually 2 different parts of the brain at work in each case. It’s a fascinating read for anybody interested in the psychology of religios states.
I just think it is interesting that if someone claimed to today what people like Saul, Abraham, and Mohammed claimed to witness ages ago, then we wouldn’t hold that person in very high regard by contemporary standards. In fact, we probably hope that they start taking their medication again.
And we certainly don’t have “revelations” like we did long ago today because similar behavior is deemed “insanity.”
I think the example of the mother who killed her children because God told her to. This lady is insane by today’s standards. Now if we look at Abraham who claimed that God told him to kill his son; he is not insane?
In my opinion, Abraham and the lady who killed her children because God told her to both have questionable levels of sanity, but we have people who considered Abraham’s actions “just” for nearly killing his son and a lady “insane” for killing her children through the same medium.
Enigma, although you apparently did not read my post, I’ll respond nevertheless.
Contemporary standards and the standards existing in ages past CANNOT be compared, one to one, because we’re dealing with entirely different cultural and survival standards. They must be viewed relatively. This is an obvious mistake that a lot of people nevertheless make when comparing religious ideas spanning vast time periods or geographic areas.
In fact, it would make little sense to compare Abraham with Saul and Saul with Muhammad.
The current phychological or socially accepted definition of insane is most certainly not the causal agent in a “revelation”. You’re logic is screwed.
What you mean to say is that revelations are not accepted as a moral impetus because such things are deemed abnormal or insane today. Granted.
However, most psychologists believe that what religions term ‘revelations’ are examples of imagery used by the unconscious to translate hidden meanings and desires to the conscious mind, as happens in dream imagery. This was the basis of the entire work of Carl Jung, one of psychology’s three founding fathers. Neither Freud nor Adler would have disagreed to that in principle.
Maybe we would all be better off if we listened to our ‘revelations.’
As to whether that imagery can come from God or not, I won’t comment.
In a court of law, simply claiming that God had commanded her to kill her children would not be anywhere near enough evidence to classify her as ‘insane’, thereby acquitting her of guilt. A full psycological investigation would need to be performed and the criminal act in question would hold very little influence on a judgement of her mental state.
So no, this lady may be immoral by today’s standards. She is not insane.
Since I was not Abraham’s therapist, I can’t comment on his mental health. But, as to whether his claim that God told him to kill his son can be used alone to determine his sanity, the answer is no.
Your use of the words ‘just’ and ‘insane’ is what really reveals the flaw in your reasoning. You’re trying to associate mental health with moral character. They are unrelated.
If you wish to argue their moral standards, then by all means, do so. But, since most people on this board are relativists (myself included), you’re going to have problems with it. In any case, you have no argument at all in regards to their mental health.
P.S. - And this is interesting… Delusional - a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self.
Because you continue to maintain i[/i] an opinion (object regarding the self or outside the self) despite the fact that it’s self-defeating flaws were brought to your attention (false belief), I could make a good argument that you are quite delusional… Perhaps you should take your medication.
A few Sundays ago i was with this a group of people. It was cold out side and they had all gathered around this man in a funny looking garment. They all had “palms” in there hand and were waving it joyfully in the air while walking down the street proclaiming how great god is etc etc. Singing there songs and waving there palms I finally realized, religious people a wacos.
I once saw 70,000 football fans screaming obsenities at a bunch of players on the field. It was 10 degrees out and lots of the guys didn’t have shirts on and painted their faces. The outcome of the game had no bearing on their lives but yelled and screamed as if their survival depended on it.
I once new a girl who owned 87 pairs of shoes.
I know a bunch of guys who spend endless hours staring through at a computer monitor and posting nonsense theories about the nature of reality and hero worshiping a guy who went insane when they should be thinking about their career, family, etc.
I once knew a guy who said religious people are wacos. The strange thing about him was that he spent a lot of time talking about religion online.
That’s not what modern psychology thinks on the matter. Nor were these three the fathers of psychology. Jung and Freud weren’t even psychologists, and I don’t think Adler was either. Modern psychology would speculate that revelations of the kind in question are based on delusions, hallucinations, over-attribution or even imagination.
Such comparisons are based on biographical accounts, typically. Obviously we cannot have a rigorous diagnosis, but frequently the accounts accord very well with their modern counterparts and there’s no reason to think that the symptoms or incidence of such conditions has changed. In any case, such is only ever presented as compelling speculation.
I certainly can look at biblical times through contemporary standards … and I just did. To claim that I “am not allowed” doesn’t really serve much good after the fact and the ad hominem doesn’t really serve much appeal to your argument either.
“God” tells Abrahan to kill is son: Hallalujuah!
“God” tells a woman to kill her children: Insanity!
I certainly cannot put myself in the mindset to justify “God” telling anyone to kill their children in any period of time. However, I’m intrigued by the notion that someone can rationalize such an act just because of the timeframe.
We can certianly look back into the past with understanding of today and we don’t really have much of a choice to do otherwise. To say that the present doesn’t apply to understanding the past is not accurate by any account. The only way we can possibly review the past is through the present. It is impossible to empathize historically without regard to contemporary understanding. Although, I don’t you really are claiming empathy, but rather ignorance only to justify your theistic bias.
Obviously, evaluating anything without a frame of reference is impossible, however, the attempt is always objectivity. By identifying that which appears to be deeply rooted in human nature we can go a long way toward dissuading false assumptions which our based only on our current cultural outlook.
I am most certainly not claiming empathy. I believe you misrepresented certain historical figures and used a psychological term to make a moral judgement without showing how the two were related, so I was correcting you. How is that ignorance?
As for my theistic bias, although I probably do have some bias, you don’t know in which direction it leans, something I purposely avoided. You might be somewhat surprised, however, if you found out.
My bias in this case is clear. I have a real problem with gross, misleading oversimplifications such as:
The one-to-one comparison is silly and childish. You’ve made no attempt to understand the allegorical meaning behind the story of Abraham, nor have you looked at the situations leading to the woman and her children.
Although this is a free country and you are allowed to hold any opinion you like, I believe this kind of junk is counterproductive to a society already corrupt with intolerance and emotional judgements like this one.
If your ire is at the jab I took at you at the end of my post, know that I’m only attacking what appears to be an emotional outburst. Something we’re all guilty of (including myself) from time to time. I therefore apologize, as I was being quite a bit childish myself.
Sigmund Freud is very often referred to as ‘the founder of Modern Psychology’. I don’t feel as though I have to back this up. I lumped Jung and Adler together with him because they were his contemporaries in the Psycholanalytic movement who probably would have agreed with my asessment.
All three, however, were most certainly phsychologists.
Since I don’t have any numbers on various opinions in the field, I can only disagree. In any case, it’s not central to my argument.
I wholeheartedly agree. However, if the speculation has flaws, they should be brought forth, especially if the motive and tone behind the speculation is not understanding but derision, which I believe it is.
No, that would be William James. And they’re not psychologists; psychology is a science and their methods were not scientific.
I mentioned a few in the other thread, and have many more.
It’s speculation because it comes from indirect evidence, not because of any doubts about its validity. And derision has nothing whatsoever to do with it. These observations are objective for the purpose of expressing possible historical connections with modern interpretations.