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

[Artimas]

The expansion, red shift and background radiation does NOT mean the big bang happened, it could be something completely different that happened for all we know, I will accept it as fact once we can prove it’s 100% consistent, once we can actually provide experimental data we will then -know- instead of -believe-.

It is a scientific theory, not a law, fact, etc.

Gravity happening = law

Big bang = theory.

There is a huge difference. It may be our most plausible answer right now, but in another 100 years what will the next be?

[surreptitious57]

@Artimas

And James I do appreciate you and others pointing out and providing reason as to how / why
science relies on faith as well and is tied down with dogma the same as a lot of modern religions

Like any human discipline science is less than perfect but I would still take it over religion any day. However the faith and dogma are limitations of scientists
rather than science itself. The scientific method is in principle the most brutal and uncompromising methodology ever devised. If it were practised by robots
it would be absolutely perfect so one needs to be aware of the subtle distinction between the method [ perfect ] and the methods practitioners [ imperfect ]

[James_S_Saint]

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]

@surreptitious57

@Ierrellus

Why is not belief in God considered mental illness ? Because it can be based on physical reality

Belief in God is not considered a mental illness for there are too many people who believe in him

So it has absolutely nothing at all to do with physical reality or else everyone would be a believer

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]

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]

@Ierrellus

@surreptitious57

@Ierrellus

Why is not belief in God considered mental illness ? Because it can be based on physical reality

Belief in God is not considered a mental illness for there are too many people who believe in him

So it has absolutely nothing at all to do with physical reality or else everyone would be a believer

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,

Will isn’t free.

[Ierrellus]

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]

@James S Saint

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”.

At Dictionary.com, worship means this:

1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
4. 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]

@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]

@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.

[Bob]

@James S Saint

@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.

Okay, I’m catching on …

[James_S_Saint]

@Bob

@James S Saint

@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.

Okay, I’m catching on …

I wasn’t quoting you with that comment.

[Artimas]

@Ierrellus

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.

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]

@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]

@James S Saint

The Earth could never have been discovered to be spherical if it was a “mental illness” to believe that it wasn’t flat.

It was actually religion that hindered all of that so…

You’re not helping your case here.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@Kriswest

@James S Saint

The Earth could never have been discovered to be spherical if it was a “mental illness” to believe that it wasn’t flat.

That is a good point since most at a point believed it was flat. Changes in knowledge changes beliefs. Since Gods at this point cannot be proven or disproven. Belief and disbelief are swinging until concrete evidence for either side is found.
Add that religion is different than belief in superior entities/beings. Is it belief in beings that may be a mental illness or mental issue or belief in a religion?

It was religionists that thought it was flat…

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@Ultimate Philosophy 1001

@James S Saint

As long as a person hates in the politically correct direction, it is called neither hatred nor prejudice (for example hating white males is never pointed out as anything but appropriate and justified behavior).

I don’t get why hating white males are getting all the hate. We should spread it around, hating humans in general.
Drop this white male thing and let’s make it hip to hate the whole human race.
When I was a kid, there was a periscope turret on the top of the fort. I used to pretend to shoot it at all the passing cars…I didn’t suddenly stop if the driver wasn’t a white male…in fact, I most of the time, I couldn’t even see the drivers. Same with fake shooting people with my fingers.

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

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@Artimas

Science is becoming religion, because they teach things as 100% without consistency and experimental data.

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

[Ierrellus]

@Artimas

@Ierrellus

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.

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.

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

[Kriswest]

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