Mental Health, delusions, are these arguments necessary?...Are they Valid?

Turtwig

One thing I noticed increasingly more and more is that many atheists seems to accuse theists of being delusional. Some even go further and point out that theism is bad for your mental health. Is such an argument really necessary? Furthermore, is it a valid argument to be making?

I don't strictly think it is. My position is that all humans are delusional by their very nature, some more so than others, but I can't really make the claim that I'm not as delusional as your average theist in general.

I'd like to hear both sides discuss this(cordially:)).

ShooterSF

I don't think the claim is necessary but I do see the point in it. Believing in something without ample evidence seems odd.

I'll apply the scientology test here. If you had a brother/sister or other family member join scientology and become devoutly involved would you consider their mental heath suspect?

Agricola

I wouldnt say theists are delusional in the strict medical / clinical sense of the word (whatever that is)

As many prominent atheists have said, if people are indoctrinated with something from a very early age they will tend to believe it wholeheartedly. Dawkins believes this to be a case of simple darwinian evolution. Kids who believe everything their parents tell them have a better chance of survival. And so the cycle continues.

I more or less agree with you, people are inherently delusional. We generally buy into all sorts of superstitions. Its just some of us are less-so inclined to it.

Galvasean

I think it's more like a drug than a mental illness. If you had been brought up on religion and it's various 'highs' all your life you'd have trouble quitting, even if you somehow knew it was the right thing to do.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pushtrak

Galvasean wrote: »

I think it's more like a drug than a mental illness. If you had been brought up on religion and it's various 'highs' all your life you'd have trouble quitting, even if you somehow knew it was the right thing to do.

I like that metaphor, because by extension you have the other side who see it as merely a placebo. I can't remember a time in my life where I was a believer. The more I would give it a chance, the more I found myself opposed to it.

Ickle Magoo

While rather derogatory & often deliberately so, I think the term delusional is used to highlight a very real theistic phenomenon. We hear and make arguments all the time about theists being able to rationalise their beliefs while dispelling all others that depend on exactly the same kind of faith or lack of supporting evidence. There is certainly an element of ignoring some evidence and a blinkered interpretation of the rest going on; from an atheist perspective there is an illusion or distortion of reality which is, technically, delusional.

It's a phrase I always associate with RD now and while I think it more than fitting on some occasions (pilgrimages, mystic healing, visions and venerable images in toast for example), I don't think it's a particularly useful phrase to throw around in the average debate due to it's other uses in psychiatric terminology. While basing your life around something & talking to somebody without requiring definitive evidence they are actually there is certainly kooky, that's not the same as having a mental illness.

liamw

I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with a theist's mental health. I do think the beliefs are delusional though, primarily becuase of compartmentalization and confirmation bias.

Coriolanus

Well, to a certain degree we're constrained by pragmatism. While I do view it as actively delusional to believe in God (and some of the fundies are the worst, claiming regular spoken word contact), for all intents and purposes it's harmless on a day to day personal level.
Whether good or bad, I wouldn't treat someone who believed in Ra or Fairies all that differently to a Catholic, ie: Not all that different to how I'd treat an atheist or agnostic, for all intents and purposes.
It's interference, whatever the source, that's a problem. I foam at the mouth at some of the atheistic letters in the IT as much as I do at the Brenda Power.

Goduznt Xzst

Malty_T wrote: »

I can't really make the claim that I'm not as delusional as your average theist in general.

This thread reminds me that I haven't seen Húrin around here in a while, discussions like this where usually his favourite

Anyway, enough nostalgia, Malty_T you say you can't claim that you aren't as delusional as a theist. Tell me then, what do you know that isn't currently supported by any empirical evidence?

I'd have no problem with a theist who says God may exist, and the bible might be inspired by a deity, then they would be no different than say, someone who visits a chiropractor or an acupuncturist.

What separates theists and firmly puts them in the delusional camp is they know God exists and they know their holy texts where inspired by him. You should not give a theist any more leeway than you would a person who believes as a fact that the gnomes in his garden come to life at night.

When a theist discusses God with you, don't think they imagine it's like discussing with you which flavour of ice cream is the best, in their minds they see Gods existence as a foregone conclusion without doubt, they view the discussion more like trying to explain to a blind man that there is a Sun in the sky. This absolute conviction in their knowledge is the source of their delusion.

Xluna

Ah sure we're all a bit nuts anyway.:P

cavedave

"The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. For example, in the family, husband and wife, mother and child do not get along; who defines whom as troublesome or mentally sick?...[the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed.

Thomas Szasz

I do not accept the whole "myth of mental illness" argument but Szasz does have a good point that we tend to label anyone we disagree with "crazy".

This has been by governments (it still seems to go on in Russia) and churches to silence those who disagree with them.

"Mental illness" is an expression, a metaphor that describes an offending, disturbing, shocking, or vexing conduct, action, or pattern of behavior, such as schizophrenia, as an "illness" or "disease". Szasz wrote: "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic.

Sam Vimes

Calling them delusions and saying they're mentally ill goes too far imo but the point being made is valid. Human beings, even perfectly healthy ones, are susceptible to any number of cognitive flaws and biases such as confirmation bias, hyperactive agency detection etc and people's minds can conjur up the most amazing and convincing illusions, be they visual, auditory or just a warm fuzzy feeling after they think they've talked to god.

But a lot of people don't know this, they don't realise how easy it is for their senses and their minds to fool them. Since the belief of an awful lot of people is based on things they think they've experienced or prayers that were answered (forgetting all the ones that weren't), you have to explain the flaws in human perception and that vision they had of Jesus sitting at the end of their bed was most likely the result of that cheese sandwich they ate and being over tired

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

that vision they had of Jesus sitting at the end of their bed was most likely the result of that cheese sandwich they ate and being over tired

Please tell me where you buy your cheese. I want some of the cheese that can do that.

mjg

PDN wrote: »

Please tell me where you buy your cheese. I want some of the cheese that can do that.

jesuscheeses.com

Ickle Magoo

PDN wrote: »

Please tell me where you buy your cheese. I want some of the cheese that can do that.

Those plasticky kraft cheese slices give me really vivid, weird dreams; available in most supermarkets. :cool:

Owen

It's definitely delusional to believe in an invisible sky wizard. It's frightening that we, as a species, still need to cling on to this (As frank zappa put it) chimpanzee part of the brain working. It's more frightening that parents brainwash their children from birth that God most definitely does exist, and if you don't obey him, you're going to hell. And it's even more frightening when I read on here boardsies who claim family members have spoken dialogue with God/Jebus.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Please tell me where you buy your cheese. I want some of the cheese that can do that.

Any cheese can do it and no cheese too. It can happen for any number of reasons but mostly when people are over tired

But I recommend laughing cow cheese for best effect :P

Zombrex

I think religion is a delusion, but I don't think it could possibly be considered a mental health problem, and I think such arguments are based on ignorance.

Quite the opposite of being a mental health problem religion seems to be the natural response of the brain to stress and other damaging things.

Studies have shown that religious like behavior manifests itself in people under times of stress particularly when they are experiencing a feeling of being out of control.

This would explain I think why you get a lot of "rock bottom" conversions, people finding God or Allah when they are at their lowest.

It appears to be a sort of self defense mechanism in the brain to deal with the problem of organising a chaotic out of control world.

We basically stop trying to organize a chaotic and out of control world (since we can't) and instead start to imagine the world around us in units of order that make more sense to us. This relieves stress and depression and seems to allow people to start structuring their lives piece by piece.

I'm not sure how much research has been done into demonstrating that this explanation is accurate but it is a fascinating explanation.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not sure how much research has been done into demonstrating that this explanation is accurate but it is a fascinating explanation.

There has been some into ritualistic behaviour in pigeons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_the_pigeon

One of Skinner's experiments examined the formation of superstition in one of his favorite experimental animals, the pigeon. Skinner placed a series of hungry pigeons in a cage attached to an automatic mechanism that delivered food to the pigeon "at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior." He discovered that the pigeons associated the delivery of the food with whatever chance actions they had been performing as it was delivered, and that they subsequently continued to perform these same actions.[34]

One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return.[35][36]

Skinner suggested that the pigeons behaved as if they were influencing the automatic mechanism with their "rituals" and that this experiment shed light on human behavior:

The experiment might be said to demonstrate a sort of superstition. The bird behaves as if there were a causal relation between its behavior and the presentation of food, although such a relation is lacking. There are many analogies in human behavior. Rituals for changing one's fortune at cards are good examples. A few accidental connections between a ritual and favorable consequences suffice to set up and maintain the behavior in spite of many unreinforced instances. The bowler who has released a ball down the alley but continues to behave as if she were controlling it by twisting and turning her arm and shoulder is another case in point. These behaviors have, of course, no real effect upon one's luck or upon a ball half way down an alley, just as in the present case the food would appear as often if the pigeon did nothing—or, more strictly speaking, did something else.[35]

They perform an act that sometimes coincides with reward and sometimes doesn't and they falsely make a causal link between the act and the result basically by ignoring all the times it didn't work. The idea of prayer jumps immediately to mind. The research isn't conclusive but interesting nonetheless.

Turtwig

There have also being several indications that other animals partake in rituals, even funerals. Though this is still a topic that needs much research done on it because far too much evidence is anecdotal and we all know how dangerous that is.:)

Myksyk

The clinical definition typically used for delusion is "a fixed belief which is held despite overwhelming evidence that it is false". Do with that what ye see fit!

Within a mental health context it is usually (though I suppose not entirely exclusively) applied to people's perceptions about demonstrably and tangibly true-or-false claims. It could be argues that this cannot reasonably be applied to the 'rational' argument for the existence of a supernatural entity which cannot be explicitly and directly disproven or shown to be definitely false.

nesf

Myksyk wrote: »

The clinical definition typically used for delusion is "a fixed belief which is held despite overwhelming evidence that it is false". Do with that what ye see fit!

Within a mental health context it is usually (though I suppose not entirely exclusively) applied to people's perceptions about demonstrably and tangibly true-or-false claims. It could be argues that this cannot reasonably be applied to the 'rational' argument for the existence of a supernatural entity which cannot be explicitly and directly disproven or shown to be definitely false.

Yeah it's not really applicable to theists. Believing you're the King of Tara is quite different to believing in a non-interventionist god.

Sam Vimes

nesf wrote: »

Yeah it's not really applicable to theists. Believing you're the King of Tara is quite different to believing in a non-interventionist god.

But what about believing in an interventionist god? Why is it rational to believe that god, say, helped you in an exam but not to believe that your hand was guided by the noodly appendage of the flying spaghetti monster?

Ickle Magoo

nesf wrote: »

Yeah it's not really applicable to theists. Believing you're the King of Tara is quite different to believing in a non-interventionist god.

Believing some kind of super-being created the universe for no better reason than to sit and watch it, is quite bizarre too tbh...

nesf

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Believing some kind of super-being created the universe for no better reason than to sit and watch it, is quite bizarre too tbh...

Bizarre perhaps, provably false? No.

Now someone who believed it happened as written in Genesis is a different matter.

nesf

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But what about believing in an interventionist god? Why is it rational to believe that god, say, helped you in an exam but not to believe that your hand was guided by the noodly appendage of the flying spaghetti monster?

Well, helped you in an exam is rather vague. I was thinking more of the violating the laws of nature style intervention.

Ickle Magoo

nesf wrote: »

Bizarre perhaps, provably false? No.

Now someone who believed it happened as written in Genesis is a different matter.

Well, that's the point isn't it. It's not provably false that a small budgie called Malcolm didn't create the world and if anyone claimed that, his mental health would certainly be called into question...

nesf

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, that's the point isn't it. It's not provably false that a small budgie called Malcolm didn't create the world and if anyone claimed that, his mental health would certainly be called into question...

Yeah, but there isn't a long history of people believing in the All Powerful and Wrathful Malcolm and the Mystery of the Blessed Yellow Feathers.

Ickle Magoo

There's a long history of people believing in all kind of weird and wonderful stuff, what I don't understand is why people demand respect for the possibility of one while dismissing others as being ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned they are all much of a muchness - all hail the mighty Malcolm! :pac:

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Please tell me where you buy your cheese.

Here's where:

pH

robindch wrote: »

Here's where:

No whey!

Goduznt Xzst

nesf wrote: »

Yeah it's not really applicable to theists. Believing you're the King of Tara is quite different to believing in a non-interventionist god.

It is completely applicable to Theists. A person who believes in a non-interventionist God is not a Theist, they are a Deist.

Deists I can handle. I mean they are no different than the guy who wears his lucky socks when his team is playing. People who have beliefs that are irrelevant to humanity I have no qualms with.

bnt

nesf wrote: »

Yeah it's not really applicable to theists. Believing you're the King of Tara is quite different to believing in a non-interventionist god.

This is what I'm starting to call the NoMRe argument - that the religion criticised by atheists is Not My Religion. Karen Armstrong does this too, as do other educated and sophisticated theologians, who don't take scriptures literally and have practically analysed their gods to death.

This misses the point however: it is not sophisticated theologians who think they are literally drinking the blood of Jesus, or who literally expect to spend eternity shagging 72 virgins after they blow themselves up. It is not sophisticated theologians who are sacrificing children in Uganda. Complaing that atheists don't understand all the niceties of theology is pointless, once you realise that the billions of religious believers in the world don't understand it either. :rolleyes:

bnt

nesf wrote: »

Yeah it's not really applicable to theists. Believing you're the King of Tara is quite different to believing in a non-interventionist god.

This is what I'm starting to call the NoMRe argument - that the religion criticised by atheists is NotMyReligion. Karen Armstrong does this too, as do other educated and sophisticated theologians, who don't take scriptures literally and have practically analysed their gods to death.

This misses the point, however: it is not sophisticated theologians who think they are literally drinking the blood of Jesus, or who literally expect to spend eternity shagging 72 virgins after they blow themselves up. It is not sophisticated theologians who are sacrificing children in Uganda. Yes, Catholics in Ireland don't literally sacrifice children - so say NotMyReligion if you like - but what about the emotional sacrifice you put them through? Complaining that atheists don't understand all the niceties of theology is pointless, once you realise that the billions of religious believers in the world don't understand it either. :rolleyes: