Religious Absurdity And Modern Psychological Baggage.

[NikolaiI]

One thought occurs to me is that perhaps the writer of that offensive article has made some errors themself. Perhaps they've reinforced their own belief with too many emotions to think rationally or logically about the issue. For instance let me ask you if you believe in reality. What is reality? Is reality one thing, or all things? If you say reality is the sum of all that exists, can you then tell me if reality is visible? Can it be proven? In fact, reality is not something that is physically seen or proven, yet we all agree that reality exists. Or some quantum scientists say we actually have no clue! But they're not to be discarded because they have new information. So I am not talking about "speaking" or praying to reality but perhaps even sensing it. You sense and feel this invisible thing, that you cannot prove, yet we all agree it's okay. Now, that you're thinking logically, let me try to explain something else to you. Many people believe in God as the source of reality, where reality came from, and where it would return... this is called to many Brahman. Others don't have a name for it; of course many have so many different ideas about it. We believe that there are levels like anything, and reality came from somewhere else, that it has a source in something, call it the Upper Force or Consciousness Force or God or anything. Many philosophers call it the Absolute Truth... etc. It's not illogical or irrational because it's precisely the fulfilling of rational or logical-- it's super-logical. I know this is very abstract. It does not need to be called super-logical. It's only my view but I believe that many believe God to be the source of reality-- in whatever form or with whatever labels; and I am speaking for any that hold this view. It is a valid philosophical standing. Thank you.

If you still disagree because you think it's wrong to believe in something non-phsyical, let me ask you again why you believe in reality. Prove what reality is to me. Prove what the sun is to a culture of bacteria.

To clarify what I think of this article, it's offensive and needlessly divisive. We sometimes are scared by what we don't understand, which is possibly why there is racism, etc., this is another instance of that.

[The Atheist]

I don't think man can quite escape from solipsism.

Yeah he can. It's not that hard.

If you still disagree because you think it's wrong to believe in something non-phsyical, let me ask you again why you believe in reality. Prove what reality is to me. Prove what the sun is to a culture of bacteria.

If you can get past the fact that things are real and not just sensory perecptions driven by beliefs, I can do just that.

The sun is bigger and hotter than bacteria.

To clarify what I think of this article, it's offensive and needlessly divisive. We sometimes are scared by what we don't understand, which is possibly why there is racism, etc., this is another instance of that.

Nothing to do with lack of understanding as far as I can see. I usually find people who write that sort of article to be very well versed in what causes religious thought and feelings.

Fear is possible, because some theists are downright scary: Fred Phelps, the people behind Jesus Camp, several sects of islam, YECs, lots of 'em. The fear isn't based on lack of understanding, but instead a complete understanding of how beliefs in invisible beings can be perverted to cause violence and bloodshed. Fear is a correct response to extremism.

It is no relation whatsoever to racism, which is completely irrational.

[Psycheinaboat]

I'll have to blog about my fascinating conversations with dead people sometime.

[NikolaiI]

Fear is possible, because some theists are downright scary: Fred Phelps, the people behind Jesus Camp, several sects of islam, YECs, lots of 'em. The fear isn't based on lack of understanding, but instead a complete understanding of how beliefs in invisible beings can be perverted to cause violence and bloodshed. Fear is a correct response to extremism.

It is no relation whatsoever to racism, which is completely irrational.

I wasn't talking about him, but about normal people.

[The Atheist]

I wasn't talking about him, but about normal people.

Define "normal".



.

[Pendragon]

i'd call spinoza(sometimes), thoreau, nietzche, winny the pooh, ect enlightened bc they take sense perception and experience as their basis for reality, rather than concepts/ theories.

christians throw the term saved around like its identical to enlightenment. its not. in fact, they're polar opposites. being that their reasoning for contentment lies in scripture, not experience

How easily one forgets that Nietzche actually was insane, and died that way. I respect the man's philosophy, and consider him largely misunderstood by many religious folk, but facts are facts, and he was certifible. I had to accept the fact of my own Bi-Polarism and take steps to control it. Religion didn't make me that way, I was born with it, as Nietzche was with his problem. His philosophy didn't drive him insane. So careful with whom you group as mentally incompetent.

God Bless

Pen

[Drkshadow03]

I was unimpressed by the guy's arguments.

1) He starts with your stereotypical approach of reaching for low-hanging fruit by attacking the most extreme and ridiculous portions of religious society as opposed to the mainstream, but then applies those results to the mainstream.

2) Poorly footnoted. So unless I have prior knowledge about a topic I have to take much of his evidence on belief, such as his comment about the Amish and lightning rods, the various African groups. Sure, I am a reference librarian and know how to research any of those topics on my own. However, that's not the point. He expects me to accept his evidence on faith without pointing to any real documents that in fact demonstrates this is what group X believes. In other words, I have to rely solely on his word and authority. The problem here is actually one of style. I am a firm believer that style and content should mimic each other whether in fiction or an essay. It doesn't make sense to write an essay questioning authoritarianism underlying religious belief and doctrine, and then force the reader to rely on your authority by not properly footnoting.

3) I fundamentally disagree with the guy's nihilistic philosophy. Even if it didn't go against my religious beliefs, I would still disagree because it would go against the thoughts of the other philosophers I admire. I see the world as a much more positive place than he seems to, and I see the importance of helping other people as one of the key components to the meaning of life.

4) he turns to psychological constructions like the "ego." At least, I think he drew on some Freud. Why would anyone attacking the underpinnings of belief turn to Freud whose many ideas consist of one unproveable assertion after another?

5) He makes a lot of assumptions about what motivates religious belief, which are ultimately situated in his philosophy.

[Jozanny]

I think one thing to remember is that Freud was one of the first theorists to show that mental illness is a matter of degree, and that human feelings have certain universalist traits. It may be a perfectly normal reaction to feel hurt if a superior betrays you, but if that hurt becomes a feedback loop which creates vengeance fantasies, then intervention might be useful against that emotional pain. In the same vein, your sense of spirituality is not in itself a symptom, but may become so if it is not tempered with some degree of a rational check.

I have always had a clash with metaphysical sensibility. I doubt I would have been driven to become a writer if I did not--the difference, however, between my struggle with metaphysical query, and a believers, is that I reject religion and a deity as a rational answer to any sense of being exceptional beyond my biology. There is a new study going on about the briefly dead, and near death experiences, about why in some cases it seems that the mind survives the dying brain of the patient in surgery. Whatever discoveries this study may lead to, unlike some of the doctors involved, this experience doesn't freak me out, because sub-atomic particle behavior is counter-intuitive. At the quantum level, a particle can be a particle or a wave, and all kinds of bizarre interactions go on; it is in this sense that I think consciousness, and the mind, is in some way tied to quantum theory.

If it is now coming out that the universe is in fact not symmetrical, then living matter may be equally asymmetrical in the process of its motion and cessation. Maybe one day to be fully understood, or not--but insanity is tied to excess, not to what we might or can imagine.

[islandclimber]

i love the religion section discussions/arguments that at some point or other always get personal.. I have been called stupid, and ignorant in nicer ways so many times in this forum haha... this one seems to be going on in a quite a pleasant manner so far...

a question.. who is more delusional, the religious man who believes in a god, or a supernatural idea, or some infinite concept.. or the scientist who believes in theories just as ridiculous, subatomic theories, string theories, quantum mechanics???

Is the religious man that claims to converse with god delusional, or is the scientist who follows absurd theories using words and ideas and machines we created???

My point is science is just as faith based as any religion, it is just drilled into us, and accepted by the majority as being real, even though theories that we believe in are falling flat on their faces all the time, new ones popping up in multitudes to replace...

I myself follow no religion, don't really believe in science and it's ideas either, I choose to accept that the universe is infinite and timeless in some way and both these terms are beyond our comprehension.. but I also do not judge others by what science/religion they choose to have faith in... as long as it satisfies them and makes them happy, more power to them...

people who ridicule other's faiths and beliefs are just insecure in their own... in my opinion... cheers

[Virgil]

And then there's the scientist who believes in subatomic theories, string theories, quantum mechanics and still believes in God. That's me. Only I'm an engineer, not a scientist. Good post Islandclimber. I haven't seen you around much.

[The Atheist]

a question.. who is more delusional, the religious man who believes in a god, or a supernatural idea, or some infinite concept.. or the scientist who believes in theories just as ridiculous, subatomic theories, string theories, quantum mechanics???

That's a tough one, but I'll play.

First off, I don't know of any scientists who "believe" in theories as ridiculous as the supernatural. Some scientific theories may seem as silly as the supernatural, but scientists don't usually believe in them until they've been shown to be testable and consistently so. Science isn't about belief, it's about observation and testing.

Unlike the supernatural.

Is the religious man that claims to converse with god delusional, or is the scientist who follows absurd theories using words and ideas and machines we created???

What "absurd theories" do sientists follow? As I've just explained, because they seem absurd to a layman, it doesn't mean it is absurd. The proof is in the testing and observation. It would be absurd to say the sun orbited the earth. If it was observed to be orbiting the earth, it wouldn't be absurd at all. Scientists tend to state their observations rather than dream up absurd theories. That's the realm of pseudoscience.

My point is science is just as faith based as any religion, it is just drilled into us, and accepted by the majority as being real, even though theories that we believe in and falling flat on their faces all the time, new ones popping up in multitudes to replace...

I'll ignore the faith basis of science, because you're hopefully realising now that faith doesn't enter into observation and testing.

The important part is that you realise that sometimes, scientific theory is found to be wrong. When that happens, science changes to accommodate the facts. That scientific theory can be proven wrong and therefore updated is a good thing. This is why we don't have scientists trying to turn lead into gold any more. We know it doesn't work.

Just out of interest, you claim there are multitudes of scientific theories falling on their faces and being replaced ann the time. Could you name just a couple? Just two scientific theories which have fallen over and been replaced recently.

Thanks.

I myself follow no religion, don't really believe in science and it's ideas either,...

This is interesting. You've used so much of science to make that post. 1000 years ago, you might have written something one person could read - in the unlikely event that you were one of the chosen very few who were literate. Now, you can sit at a keyboard, manufactured entirely by machines, using computer software encoded with laser beams onto a silicon chip smaller than your little fingernail, sending the message instantaneously across thousands of computer cables, optic fibres and shortwaves to other people.

But you don't believe in science.

[Sweets America]

i love the religion section discussions/arguments that at some point or other always get personal.. I have been called stupid, and ignorant in nicer ways so many times in this forum haha... this one seems to be going on in a quite a pleasant manner so far...

a question.. who is more delusional, the religious man who believes in a god, or a supernatural idea, or some infinite concept.. or the scientist who believes in theories just as ridiculous, subatomic theories, string theories, quantum mechanics???

Is the religious man that claims to converse with god delusional, or is the scientist who follows absurd theories using words and ideas and machines we created???

My point is science is just as faith based as any religion, it is just drilled into us, and accepted by the majority as being real, even though theories that we believe in are falling flat on their faces all the time, new ones popping up in multitudes to replace...

I myself follow no religion, don't really believe in science and it's ideas either, I choose to accept that the universe is infinite and timeless in some way and both these terms are beyond our comprehension.. but I also do not judge others by what science/religion they choose to have faith in... as long as it satisfies them and makes them happy, more power to them...

people who ridicule other's faiths and beliefs are just insecure in their own... in my opinion... cheers

Hey you, get out of my mind!

I totally agree with you. You rock, my friend.

[islandclimber]

You speak of testing and observation.. observing things we cannot see, testing with instruments we created to detect and observe things we thought might exist.. so little faith needed there... to say science requires no faith is absurd... we create the language used to describe the things we see... we create the instruments used to dissect these things, to tear them apart and see what is supposedly behind.. anything in science requires a huge degree of faith to believe in if you think about it... it requires the astonishing presumption that human language is correct in it's definitions of the universe, that these instruments we created to detect things we had already presupposed to exist do actually work on detecting something real, and not a bunch of imaginary things that scientists created long before we even had the instruments to detect them.. but no, of course, no faith is needed at all.. just relying on observation and testing of absurd theories is enough... okay... scientist's observe sure, they also create ridiculous theories on things they can't possibly have almost any knowledge of.. any scientific theory on the origin of the universe is garbage... I have heard scientific theories on the idea that universe is finite and time is finite.. interesting... so tell me what came before the universe??? it is absolutely necessary that existence, or non existence is infinite... time either does not exist or it is infinite... there can be no starting or ending point.. and if science argues I would like any logical argument put forth against either of those statements... please... science falls flat on it's face every time it attempts to provide theories on existence, on beginnings, on ideas of infinite and timeless... and this is because these things are beyond human comprehension.. that is where religion steps in, the possibility becoming closer to infinite existence, to infinite awareness, to enlightenment, nirvana, heaven, and so many other things science can't comprehend or understand...

theories that have fallen on their faces.... hmmmm... well about a zillion different string theories, special relativity has been shown to have holes in it in certain situations unless modified... there was a string theory where the universe must have 26 dimensions, most of them hidden.. hmmm.. absurd>>>??? yes.. did this scientist use observation and testing to come up with this theory.. no.. not really... the big bang theory has fallen in and out of favour so many times by this point it is absurd to even think about it... and to say the big bang was the start of the universe because we see the universe might possibly be expanding, even though we don't where the edge of this supposedly finite universe is, well that is absurd.. and if the universe is infinite... well how does an infinite thing expand.. please tell me.. i am quite interested in gaining knowledge on these well observed and tested theories.... like how we observed the big bang..

but thanks again for convincing me of the error of my ways.. i will be a good little citizen now and believe exactly what science tells me cause I would be lost without it.. as shown by me using this computer here... by the way, I have actually just finished work for good and am going to live in a tent... so you won't have to worry about me using all that science has to offer for too much longer... instead i will be wandering around the earth the way it is was meant to be wild and pristine, beautiful, and hopefully in places still untouched by the destructive hands of science, which has done more to ruin the world than all religions put together...

but to tell the truth i have argued this same thing in this part of the forum so many times now, that it has become kind of pointless to do so again... there will always be people who think that what they believe in is better and superior to what others believe in.. people who don't realize that faith brings much more happiness and peace than science ever will.. maybe it brings problems too but so does science.. buddhism is a completely peaceful religion that is about total faith in infinite awareness... what siddhartha and christ originally taught is so much different from what has come to be... but anyways, i digress, and i have to go, so cheers...

Hi Virgil, see i like that, someone who has faith and believes in many things... maybe just the best way to be.. instead of believing that everything is nothing, and nothing is everything, like me...

thanks sweets..

[Jozanny]

science falls flat on it's face every time it attempts to provide theories on existence, on beginnings, on ideas of infinite and timeless... and this is because these things are beyond human comprehension.. that is where religion steps in, the possibility becoming closer to infinite existence, to infinite awareness, to enlightenment, nirvana, heaven, and so many other things science can't comprehend or understand...

So a non-believer is to be resented because he or she seriously questions what enlightment or achieving nirvana means? I don't get this type of sing-song chip on the shoulder. Scientific explanation isn't perfect. At the end of the day, things are the way there are because that is how it is, and the primate mind evolved around the notion of agency, probably as a survival skill, and so the lack of an agency in the face of material evidence is probably difficult for the primate mind to accept, but that doesn't mean that existence has all these different levels and planes of advancement either. If it did I think it would be fairly evident by now. God doesn't seem to progress like a historical narrative, and that is rather odd to my way of thinking. To the Hebrews deity was a Hebrew patriarch, but to Indians deity has a multitude of configurations, similar to African totem, and to the Christians deity is a human it is permissible to eat for salvation. Technological progress is flawed, certainly, but it has helped this species far more than doctrine or new age mysticism makes sense.

However, psychiatric illness and religious belief or lack of it has no correlation, and that is what this thread is about.

[Pendragon]

However, psychiatric illness and religious belief or lack of it has no correlation, and that is what this thread is about.

Exactly. There are several things people have mentioned I might argue with, but the point of this thread doesn't go their direction, and we really should try to stick to the subject matter for once.

Religious beliefs, philosophy, and science: None of these determine if someone is delusional. If they are, they got that way on their own either through heritage or through simply refusing to accept things as they are.

One can be, as I am, a Minister, and still accept that few things will prove my faith, and not be rocked by it.

The Philosopher will come to realize that not everything suits his or her philosophy and continue on.

The scientist will recognize that theory is theory, but won't stop with his or her experiments to prove them.

Delusion sets in when one refuses to see anything other than one's own cherished belief.

God Bless

Pen