It seems that most people who have become religious*as adults, have done so in a time of great personal harsdhip. Such as losing their job, going through a divorce, falling severely ill, losing of a loved one, committing a crime ... - something that the person experienced as great personal hardship.

Psychologically seen, the religiousness or spirituality that such people have developed, could in some cases be explained as a complex interaction of various defense and coping mechanisms. In other words, some people's religiousness or spirituality is not as genuine as they would like others to believe.

For example, a man who has committed a crime feels strong guilt over it. To pacify this guilt, he accepts Jesus as his personal savior and preaches the Gospel to others. While all along, the actual internal conflict that he feels over the committed crime remains unresolved.
However, someone with keen psychological insight could speak to such a man, make him aware of his denial and that his religiousness is actually fake. This could cause this man great distress, make him defend his religion even more fiercely; but it could also make him lash out in violence against self and others.

Considering that many people who have become religious as adults might have such and similar psychological motivations for their preaching of their religion and for defending it,
how ethical is it to challenge them, be it either psychologically, or religiously/philosophically?





* I am using the term "religious" in its broad sense, meaning anything from being a fanatic to occasionally opening the Bible.

Why do you want to challenge the religious? Is it an expression of some neurosis you suffer from?

Why do you want to challenge the religious? Is it an expression of some neurosis you suffer from?

There is the possibility that what the religious claim is actually true.
Perhaps God exists and all those of us who do not believe in him will go to eternal hell - and I wouldn't want that. This is why I cannot simply dismiss the claims of the religious as if they were neurotic babble.

No replies??

Some people lose their religion due to times of personal hardship. I think one should consider each person as an individual, each with their own motivations for pursuing a particular explanatory metaphor.

I could see where someone seems too sensitive or neurotic to discuss their religion or lack of it.

I think one should consider each person as an individual, each with their own motivations for pursuing a particular explanatory metaphor.

Many religious people, on the other hand, act the opposite: They consider all people the same, supposedly to fit the same explanatory metaphor.


I could see where someone seems too sensitive or neurotic to discuss their religion or lack of it.

That too. But it seems to me that those most "neurotic" ones discuss their religion the most.
How many happy religious people discuss their religion here?

Originally Posted by spidergoat
I think one should consider each person as an individual, each with their own motivations for pursuing a particular explanatory metaphor.

Originally Posted by Greenberg
Many religious people, on the other hand, act the opposite: They consider all people the same, supposedly to fit the same explanatory metaphor.

I agree with Spidergoat.

I could see where someone seems too sensitive or neurotic to discuss their religion or lack of it.

Especially here, where accuracy and a fire-retardant suit are advisable.:D

That too. But it seems to me that those most "neurotic" ones discuss their religion the most.
I'll have to grant that point.

How many happy religious people discuss their religion here?
S.A.M seems happy to me:shrug:

I actually started to reply to the post, but the OP didn't seem well formed (an ethics question, a religous question, a psychology question). It was also out of sync with your first reply to me.

Since this is a public board, and none of us is in a position to make a clinical assessment regarding the mental state of the participants, I'm not sure how to respond, except by judicious use of the 'ignore' feature. Oh, and I'm pretty sure it's a bad idea to challenge an armed, psychotic sociopath whose been off the meds.

People become religious later in life for all sorts of reasons - most of the time this is probably stemming from what they were taught as a child. It's not too often a person raised Muslims (even just causally) will grow up to become Shinto or a Scientologist. The same goes for a person raised Shinto or Scientologist.
As for why do people become atheist? Well, it could easily be the same (a hardship) but also, if one is a monotheist, they already are atheist for millions of Gods and Alien Over Lords and etc.. and for some people they are able to make the mental leap of not believing in this one last one.

MII

I find many people who are not religious are still quite superstitious or have a strong affinity towards luck and lucky numbers and silly stuff like that. It really hardwired into the brain, cause .. effect ... question ..answer. I think that's why casinos do so well. Casinos are like the Mosques, Cathedrals etc... of the secular world.

Movement in bush
Must be a Tiger
Instantly Accept Line of Reasoning (no time to think or debate)
Run Like Hell
Live to reproduce
Was actually a Bunny Rabbit
Still Lived to Reproduce so passes these sets of genes that encode for this line of mental processing to future humanity.

Movement in bush
I wonder what that was?
Ponder question.
Find clear answer - Oh a Tiger
Turn to Run
Eaten

Movement in Sky
Would Run Like Hell but no where to Run
Must be one of the Gods
Accept line of reasoning
Still Lived to Reproduce so passes these sets of genes (and now memes) that encode for this line of mental processing to future humanity.

Also, there are lots of devout Muslims who convert to Xianity and some who even convert to Scientology - they become Just as devout only now are Xians or Scientologists. You can tell it's really part of their genetic makeup.

Why do you want to challenge the religious? Is it an expression of some neurosis you suffer from?


Me thinks you have scratched the surface of many driven athiests in here.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

We should never question the claims of the faithful, since it could hurt their feelings.

If religion truly makes you happy then there is no reason to tell people that they are not religious and that they are repressing their problems. They may figure that out on their own or maybe they have moved on. My point is let people be happy unless they are infringing upon others ability to be happy.

It seems that most people who have become religious*as adults, have done so in a time of great personal harsdhip. Such as losing their job, going through a divorce, falling severely ill, losing of a loved one, committing a crime ... - something that the person experienced as great personal hardship.

Psychologically seen, the religiousness or spirituality that such people have developed, could in some cases be explained as a complex interaction of various defense and coping mechanisms. In other words, some people's religiousness or spirituality is not as genuine as they would like others to believe.

For example, a man who has committed a crime feels strong guilt over it. To pacify this guilt, he accepts Jesus as his personal savior and preaches the Gospel to others. While all along, the actual internal conflict that he feels over the committed crime remains unresolved.
However, someone with keen psychological insight could speak to such a man, make him aware of his denial and that his religiousness is actually fake. This could cause this man great distress, make him defend his religion even more fiercely; but it could also make him lash out in violence against self and others.

Considering that many people who have become religious as adults might have such and similar psychological motivations for their preaching of their religion and for defending it,
how ethical is it to challenge them, be it either psychologically, or religiously/philosophically?





* I am using the term "religious" in its broad sense, meaning anything from being a fanatic to occasionally opening the Bible.

actually such persons who come to spiritual life via suffering are but one of four categories (italics/bold mine)

BG 7.16: O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me — the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

IOW they are but one of four categories of beginners . All four require piety as a foundation, however ... and the further you go up the ladder the greater one's chances of making a more steady commitment to spiritual life.

(for instance one searching for knowledge is better than the inquisitive, who is better than the seeker of wealth, who is better than the distressed ... simply because, as you so adroitly seem to perceive, the foundation can easily be mitigated by circumstance ... many people come to god after experiencing suffering and after getting some relief, gradually deteriorate into materialistic consciousness)

If such a person advocates that they are on the perfectional platform (ie transcendentally situated) ...

BG 18.54: One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me.

....there is certainly no harm in indicating how they are merely stabilized on an inferior level of practice. Perhaps further advancement could be indicated by introducing philosophical queries to prod them on (namely like do they think that the world exists primarily for their enjoyment or not) but as with all such attempts, it has to happen in the framework of personal relationship of trust and confidence.

If a person (any person) simply thinks you believe their beliefs to be worthy of contempt, they will reciprocate accordingly ("a person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still")
:shrug:

(as with many ethical issues, it boils down to individual circumstances of persons involved)

I actually started to reply to the post, but the OP didn't seem well formed (an ethics question, a religous question, a psychology question).

Yes, in put in questions from several fields, this was deliberate.
I think most of the relevant questions concerning communication and life in general are interdisciplinary.


Since this is a public board, and none of us is in a position to make a clinical assessment regarding the mental state of the participants, I'm not sure how to respond, except by judicious use of the 'ignore' feature.

Of course, we cannot really know whether the person on the other end is suffering from some psychological disorder, or whether what they claim is The One And Only Truth, and then there is everything inbetween.

Given that they might be suffering from some psychological disorder, is it ethical to engage in deep discussions with them (because this might cause them great stress)?

Given that they might be right in their claims about The One And Only Truth, is it ethical to ignore them?


I think we have all come across people who seem deeply religious and who defend their religion fiercely; but where there is also reason to believe that their religiosity is not genuine.

Consider this scenario:

1. A person has done something they feel bad about.

2. The person desperately wants to feel good and worthy again.

3. The person turns to their own sense of ethics, or to other people, or to religions and philosophies to find a way to feel good and worthy again.

4. After some unsatisfactory search, they find Christianity, the Bible. There, they see a way to feel good and worthy again.

5. But in order to do so, they need to believe in God.

6. They try and they try to believe in God, and at first, it amounts to nothing, no sign from God. They think "Uh, so what ..."

7. They still feel pressured by the wrongdoing (1) that set them on this search. They want to feel good and worthy again.

8. They go back to seeking God. They read or are told that all it takes to believe in God or to know God is to simply want to do so, to be humble, pure and sincere.

9. They endure, they pray, they want to believe in God - but still, no sign or proof of God. The old wrongdoing burns them, and they want to feel good and worthy again. They want to think of themselves that they are a basically good person, they want to move on with their life. They want to think of themselves as humble, sincere and pure. They don't want to be liars.

10. They are facing the dilemma: They can either continue thinking themselves evil, insincere, worthless and remain stuck in life. Or they can declare they believe in God. - For if a person believes in God, this is proof that they have been humble, sincere and pure.

11. In time, the dilemma becomes more and more demanding, causing a lot of strain. The person is by now under great psychological stress, possibly also with intense physical symptoms. The person wants, more than ever, to feel good and worthy again. By now the only way to achieve this seems to be to believe in God - that is, to declare they believe in God, because they still have no sign or proof of God.

12. In a critical moment, the stress becomes too great, and the person resolves it by declaring they believe in God. They reinterpret their life experiences accordingly, so that they appear to be proof of God's existence.
They regain their sense of self-worth, and they begin to feel good and worthy again, they deem themselves humble, sincere and pure.

13. To maintain this state of well-being, they need to continue to pray, read the Bible and discuss their belief in God with other people, in order to stifle any doubt or suspicion they themselves might have.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1776028&postcount=206

Suppose that someone's religiosity has developed this way, as a complex mixture of defense and coping mechanisms.

Can the religious claims of such a person still be believed?

Is it ethical to challenge them and test them to see whether their religiosity isn't simply a complex mixture of defense and coping mechanisms?
E.g. is it ethical to ask them something like: Show me that your faith in Jesus is nothing but what you guilt-tripped yourself into believing because you couldn't handle the despair over having been abused as a child/having had an abortion/being an alcoholic/committing a crime/...!


But like I said above, given that they might be right in their claims about The One And Only Truth, is it ethical to ignore them because we suspect their religiosity might have other -disingenuous- sources and motivations?

It seems to me that the non-religious are in a double bind:
If they challenge the religious, they risk causing them great stress which might have unpredictable and harmful consequences (given that the non-religious do not wish to cause harm to anybody).
If they don't challenge the religius, they risk their own damnation.
If they don't challenge the religius and believe the claims of the religious blindly, they risk throwing away their own integrity.

(Granted, these double-bind situations typically apply only in Christianity where a person has nothing to go by but a book and the testimony of others.)

We should never question the claims of the faithful, since it could hurt their feelings.

But the faithful can say and do whatever they want to?

(as with many ethical issues, it boils down to individual circumstances of persons involved)

But at least as far as Christianity is concerned, what you are saying above is usually not the case.

But given that what Christianity claims about God might be true, what are we to do? Ignore all our experiences and blindly believe what Christians tell us?

But at least as far as Christianity is concerned, what you are saying above is usually not the case.
actually I would argue that the information I provided was non-sectarian and holds as general knowledge for practically all sorts of religious endeavour

But given that what Christianity claims about God might be true, what are we to do? Ignore all our experiences and blindly believe what Christians tell us?

Behind all religious claims there is philosophy.

If a person wants to make claims without philosophy, why bother discussing philosophy with them (what to speak of believing them)?

If a person wants to make claims without philosophy, why bother discussing philosophy with them (what to speak of believing them)?

At least as far as Christianity is concerned, in my experience, things are different.
It is as if it were part of the Christian doctrine that the claim of belief in God (and many other things) can be made without the support of philosophy.

And if it is true that God is a creator (and everything this implies) and that even a babe can know better than "learned men", then philosophy is redundant anyway.

What drives me to discuss these things is the fear that Christianity might be right, and that I might be making an irreversible mistake in not heeding their doctrine.


actually I would argue that the information I provided was non-sectarian and holds as general knowledge for practically all sorts of religious endeavour

What you provided seems common sense, yes.
But if you've ever discussed with Christians, you might have noticed that they do not care about such considerations.

I've actually been told by Christians that they do not care what I have been through or what I want; the Truth is one and plain for all to see, except for those who do not want to see it. - I mean, sure, they might be right, I cannot prove they are not.

At least as far as Christianity is concerned, in my experience, things are different.
It is as if it were part of the Christian doctrine that the claim of belief in God (and many other things) can be made without the support of philosophy.
basically the only religions that are practically bereft of philosophy are animism.
Polytheism comes in as second

And if it is true that God is a creator (and everything this implies) and that even a babe can know better than "learned men", then philosophy is redundant anyway.
To be reunited with god (in full consciousness) doesn't require that one be a genius.
It simply requires that one has genuine love for him.
Its kind of like asking to what degree must a person be philosophical to love someone else (the answer being, to the degree that they have "issues" is the degree that they require to be philosophical - at least babes don't require any in depth training to appreciate a loving mother)

What drives me to discuss these things is the fear that Christianity might be right, and that I might be making an irreversible mistake in not heeding their doctrine.
sounds like you have philosophical issues




What you provided seems common sense, yes.
But if you've ever discussed with Christians, you might have noticed that they do not care about such considerations.
I have many experiences discussing these things (from lecture halls to door to door) with all sorts of people (including christians) in a variety of cultures and countries (well, at least five).
Regardless of their religious inclination, if a person is a little philosophical, they do tend to agree that these are in fact the four types of persons who come to spiritual life.
Of course discussing the nature of a transcendental (or perfected) position of spiritual practice might be a bit more tricky (since it is lodged in jargon), but I simply presented it as an example of what it means to be qualitatively perfectional.

BG 18.54: One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me.

basically it describes a person who's attitude to spiritual life (and other living entities) is unaffected by issues of material loss or gain

I've actually been told by Christians that they do not care what I have been through or what I want; the Truth is one and plain for all to see, except for those who do not want to see it. - I mean, sure, they might be right, I cannot prove they are not.
Its not clear how your bit in in italics relates to the rest of the paragraph
(in what ways would you expect/not expect your desires/experiences to be relevant to experiencing an absolute truth?)

Its not clear how your bit in in italics relates to the rest of the paragraph
(in what ways would you expect/not expect your desires/experiences to be relevant to experiencing an absolute truth?

I said earlier - "Granted, these double-bind situations typically apply only in Christianity where a person has nothing to go by but a book and the testimony of others."

Christians typically do not care what a person has been through, what their experiences or desires are; they do not take into consideration that a person's experiences etc. might shape the way they see (or don't see) God.

Christians typically expect that everyone will know God in precisely the same way they, Christians, do - if someone does not speak of God and faith etc. the way Christians do, then one is not speaking of God and faith etc. at all.

They could be right, I cannot prove either way.


Or, to put it within a different discourse: From the perspective of a constructivist, the issue of belief in God looks vastly different than it looks from the perspective of a realist/objectivist.
Typically, someone maintaining a realist/objectivist outlook is inherently unable to view things the way a constructivist would, whereas a constructivist can do otherwise.

Christians are usually realists/objectivists.
Perhaps realism/objectivism is the one and only true and adequate theory of perception. I am too much of a constructivist to not question these things; I also do not see a way out of constructivism (or relativism), other than blind belief, in advance assuming to be true what I have only set out attempting to prove. Perhaps my constructivism is an act of God, who has messed with my mind, and as such my delusion is proof of God's existence ...
I don't know; and where I am, it does not seem like I could know.

I said earlier - "Granted, these double-bind situations typically apply only in Christianity where a person has nothing to go by but a book and the testimony of others."
I think that over simplifies it
At the very least history is decorated with numerous christian saints and philosophers

Christians typically do not care what a person has been through, what their experiences or desires are; they do not take into consideration that a person's experiences etc. might shape the way they see (or don't see) God.
I would have thought that the direct relationship between religious experience and seeing god would be obvious.
In short though, there are some experiences/ desires that are valid and some that are not.
If it wasn't the case, it would be impossible to distinguish between an atheist and a theist, what to speak of an advanced practitioner and a novice

Christians typically expect that everyone will know God in precisely the same way they, Christians, do - if someone does not speak of God and faith etc. the way Christians do, then one is not speaking of God and faith etc. at all.
there's your philosophy

They could be right, I cannot prove either way.
behind every claim there is practice and behind every practice there is theory.
anything less is fanaticism


Or, to put it within a different discourse: From the perspective of a constructivist, the issue of belief in God looks vastly different than it looks from the perspective of a realist/objectivist.
Typically, someone maintaining a realist/objectivist outlook is inherently unable to view things the way a constructivist would, whereas a constructivist can do otherwise.

Christians are usually realists/objectivists.
Perhaps realism/objectivism is the one and only true and adequate theory of perception. I am too much of a constructivist to not question these things; I also do not see a way out of constructivism (or relativism), other than blind belief, in advance assuming to be true what I have only set out attempting to prove. Perhaps my constructivism is an act of God, who has messed with my mind, and as such my delusion is proof of God's existence ...
I don't know; and where I am, it does not seem like I could know.
Even a constructivist has at least one absolute value that they are accepting on faith - "everything is relative"

Not much different to "everything is relative to god"

Even a constructivist has at least one absolute value that they are accepting on faith - "everything is relative"

This is not true for me though. Hence my fears.

This is not true for me though. Hence my fears.

then god bless your weak constructivism
:D

Heh ...
Well, my weak constructivism is both a blessing and a trap.

Depends how you look at it
:D

Why do you want to challenge the religious?

If their religious outlook was theirs and nothing more, that would be fine.

But, as an American, I'm hard-pressed to think of a year among the last, oh, say, seventeen, at least, when religious people weren't screwing with something that affects my life. And before that, hell, one person's religious outlook helped shape a freakin' epidemic in this country.

I remember standing in my living room with my jaw open, staring at the television. I used to have this habit of watching Christian television from time to time, in part because Bob Tilton's program used to run on the regular stations in the Seattle area (KSTW? KTZZ?), but also because Christians had declared war against a number of things I held dear: books, music, enlightenment, &c. And on this occasion, I was literally listening to a man describe his "miraculous" conversion and salvation in Jesus. Apparently, he had been grief-stricken since his son's suicide. And then one day, he saw his son's ghost at a random bus stop in the city. And his son told him to open his heart to Jesus, so he did.

Now, if this had been anything other than Christianity, psychologists would apply one of a few terms to describe the process. The problem, of course, is that Christianity is the dominant religious influence in our society, so all it really takes is one freaky preacher yelling about oppression, and suddenly the culture believes that equality is only fulfilled if Christians are superior. So people don't make the point as strenuously when it's Christianity, but the point still remains: my life is affected by their mental illness. I'm happy to do what I can to help, but I'm not a professional, and I tend to run out of options if I can't inspire these people to look at the world through rational eyes for a few minutes.

So to take a banner issue as an example: If you are a heterosexual Christian, gay marriage isn't going to affect you significantly. Gays getting married has zero effect on the status of het marriage. To the other, I'm not married. And, for the record, I probably won't ever get married. To be honest, I have a very poor view of what marriage is worth. However, if someday someone convinces me otherwise, and that person happens to be a man, I resent the notion that I should have to tell him, "I can't marry you because you're the wrong sex."

Perhaps more poignantly: In 2003, it became no longer acceptable to make illegal certain sexual acts that I had performed with other consenting adults. One cannot claim that Lawrence v. Texas had no effect on heterosexuals: hets, too, can bang a willing partner in the ass or go down without fear of prosecution. They can buy dildos and pocket-pussies without fear of arrest. But in striking down the laws against sodomy, the courts had zero effect on people who don't practice it. In other words, if you're a good heterosexual Christian who has just enough vanilla sex with your spouse to call your relationship "healthy", the Lawrence decision affected you none.

The moralistic prohibitions overturned by Lawrence, however, affected a great many people whose only crime was having good sex with a willing partner. And those prohibitions existed to satisfy the needs of a delusion.

You know, I'll grant people's right to be religious. I'm accustomed to it. Freedom of religion is part of my heritage. But here's an irony: I didn't have it. Big deal, right? What kid really has rights? But it turns out that a legal condition of my upbringing is that I was required to be subject to religious instruction. Don't get me wrong, it's not a general rule that a lot of people are subject to. But, yes, it apparently applied to me. As a result, I'm a confirmed Lutheran. There seemed nothing strange to me about going to a Jesuit school. And it has taken the whole time since to unknit those ideas and come to realize that certain things I knew even then were right really are right. So much conflict, so many lingering resentments. And all so that a delusion could be passed on to the next generation.

People are welcome to their religion. It's no business of mine. Except that certain religious people have made it my business.

Hence my sympathy to Greenberg's question. But I haven't much of an answer. We owe the sick our compassion, our help. But that obligation is demanding. It took me a long time to understand that framework, and I'll never figure entirely the range of implications.

Life goes on. We do our best, hopefully.

...
...
...
how ethical is it to challenge them, be it either psychologically, or religiously/philosophically?
...
...
...


If such people have intention to spread their delusion or make decisions based on the delusion that affect other people then their belief should be exposed for what it is.

If such people have intention to spread their delusion or make decisions based on the delusion that affect other people then their belief should be exposed for what it is.

So for you, it would, in some circumstances, be ethical to ask the religious something like:

Show me that your faith in Jesus is not simply something that you guilt-tripped yourself into believing because you couldn't handle the despair over having been abused as a child/having had an abortion/being an alcoholic/committing a crime/...!

-?

I was being deliberately blunt and personal in formulating this request. Perhaps there are other ways to put it.

I would ask for evidence that the paranormal exists, demonstrate the biological function of delusional belief, and ask questions that show a 1:1 correspondence between the individual's belief and biological function.

But the faithful can say and do whatever they want to?

How can I judge them, there is no way to know if what they claim is true. The appearance of the Earth revolving around the Sun, for example, could be an optical illusion. God could have hidden His actions as natural processes in order to fool the unfaithful- it's a test.

If their religious outlook was theirs and nothing more, that would be fine.

But, as an American, I'm hard-pressed to think of a year among the last, oh, say, seventeen, at least, when religious people weren't screwing with something that affects my life. And before that, hell, one person's religious outlook helped shape a freakin' epidemic in this country.

Would you say that as soon someone puts themselves out into the public, promoting a particular view, they (1) lose the right to say "I'm just stating my opinion, you should respect that", and (2) are to be considered as having agreed to have their statements scrutinized and criticized -?

I would ask for evidence that the paranormal exists, demonstrate the biological function of delusional belief, and ask questions that show a 1:1 correspondence between the individual's belief and biological function.

Delusion is a double bind. A delusional person, per definition, cannot know whether they are delusional or not, or whether others are delusional or not.

To request of someone, whom one suspects to be delusional, to prove that they either are or are not delusional, is nonsensical. It cannot be done.

How can I judge them, there is no way to know if what they claim is true. The appearance of the Earth revolving around the Sun, for example, could be an optical illusion. God could have hidden His actions as natural processes in order to fool the unfaithful- it's a test.

Exactly. But life in the society still needs to be organized and managed somehow, if we are to survive.
And if we are to be unconditionally goodwilled and unconditionally honest (which, among other things, means also that we accept we might be delusional or fooled by God), then the theists will be free to take the upper hand and reign society, no?

I see where you're coming from.

But some adults cleave to their religion 'just because', and that's a different matter.

Delusion is a double bind. A delusional person, per definition, cannot know whether they are delusional or not, or whether others are delusional or not.

To request of someone, whom one suspects to be delusional, to prove that they either are or are not delusional, is nonsensical. It cannot be done.

All people are delusional about something and they have the capability to recognize it. If 'shown' truth that contradicts a delusion but the person rejects the truth then they graduate from delusion to lying.

All people are delusional about something and they have the capability to recognize it.

This is a statement of faith, not of fact.


If 'shown' truth that contradicts a delusion but the person rejects the truth then they graduate from delusion to lying.

I think this is too simplistic to be applicable.
You are arguing along the same lines as many theists do, the agenda behind that line of reasoning being to feel justified to condemn the other party.

This is a statement of faith, not of fact.

At worst, it's a ridiculously well supported theory; however, there aren't any known exceptions. Animorphism and anthropomorphism for example are psychological phenomena existing in all humans that directly lead to delusional belief at one or more points throughout the life of a human.



I think this is too simplistic to be applicable.
You are arguing along the same lines as many theists do, the agenda behind that line of reasoning being to feel justified to condemn the other party.

It's intended to be simplistic and condemning. If someone's delusional about something, doesn't know it, and might negatively impact me because of the delusion then I am going to show the delusion for what it is. If the person continues the behavior then I will condemn them for lying to me. If they change their behavior then they get praise and support.

This has the benefit of reducing the influence that person might have over others and polarizing people against the delusion; thus, making people "on the border" more resistant to it.

Would you say that as soon someone puts themselves out into the public, promoting a particular view, they (1) lose the right to say "I'm just stating my opinion, you should respect that", and (2) are to be considered as having agreed to have their statements scrutinized and criticized -?

Don't mean to appear rude jumping in on a question posed to someone else, but I found it an interesting one that I would like to also answer.

(2) Absolutely.
(1) They do not lose the right to say they're just stating their opinion but.. see (2).

Would you say that as soon someone puts themselves out into the public, promoting a particular view, they (1) lose the right to say "I'm just stating my opinion, you should respect that", and (2) are to be considered as having agreed to have their statements scrutinized and criticized -?

Not automatically. Context and form are important. If someone doesn't want to join me for a drink because their religion says "no alcohol", that's fine. My error; I'll make the note and not invite them out for a drink again. If that person wants to prevent me from having a drink, or give me grief because I consume alcohol, then they've opened themselves up to specific scrutiny and potential criticism.

At worst, it's a ridiculously well supported theory; however, there aren't any known exceptions. Animorphism and anthropomorphism for example are psychological phenomena existing in all humans that directly lead to delusional belief at one or more points throughout the life of a human.

Does everyone have the ability to recognize delusion?
While I might agree that all people are delusional about something, I disagree that all have the ability to recognize delusion - plenty of people die in mental institutions or commit suicide. Perhaps they were unable to recognize delusion?

Moreover, it might take years of intense study and practice to recognize a delusion. If you simply tell someone a "truth" and they don't change their mind immediately, this does not necessarily mean that they are deliberately lying. That would be too simplistic. Some "truths", in order to be recognized as such, need the person to prepare a mental context for it - which can take years.

For example, if you tell me that the half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years - how am I supposed to know whether this is true or not? And if I don't immediately accept it, am I therefore lying?
It might take me years of intense chemistry study to be able to accept this as a truth, or to reject it.


It's intended to be simplistic and condemning. If someone's delusional about something, doesn't know it, and might negatively impact me because of the delusion then I am going to show the delusion for what it is. If the person continues the behavior then I will condemn them for lying to me. If they change their behavior then they get praise and support.

This has the benefit of reducing the influence that person might have over others and polarizing people against the delusion; thus, making people "on the border" more resistant to it.

So you are playing the same card as many Christian proselytizers.

You assume at least this (although for you, they are not assumptions, but indisputable facts): everyone is basically the same with potentially the same abilities; there exists objective reality and it can be humanly known, adequately and accurately.
- I don't share these assumptions, nor do many others.

If their religious outlook was theirs and nothing more, that would be fine.

So people don't make the point as strenuously when it's Christianity, but the point still remains: my life is affected by their mental illness.

Unfortunately for all of us, that would not change if another religion, or no religion, were dominant. One humanist/evolutionary view would locate the source of the problem with species Homo being at once a social/solitary. We want to be with others, and we want to be left alone. Social intercourse neccessarily involves conflict, which requires rules to resolve conflict, a system for creating/modifying those rules, a system for enforcing those rules, and rules to regulate the systems that create/modify/enforce the rules. We call our system democracy. Whether that's an accurate description is another topic.

I resent the notion that I should have to tell him, "I can't marry you because you're the wrong sex."

Perhaps more poignantly: In 2003, it became no longer acceptable to make illegal certain sexual acts that I had performed with other consenting adults. One cannot claim that Lawrence v. Texas had no effect on heterosexuals: hets, too, can bang a willing partner in the ass or go down without fear of prosecution. They can buy dildos and pocket-pussies without fear of arrest. But in striking down the laws against sodomy, the courts had zero effect on people who don't practice it. In other words, if you're a good heterosexual Christian who has just enough vanilla sex with your spouse to call your relationship "healthy", the Lawrence decision affected you none.

In America, in the abstract - when one group thinks something is wrong and another group doesn't, the conflict is worked out in the political arena (often as a zero-sum game). That's the way it is-for better or worse. If the religious people are more effective in that arena right now, it's because they are more effective on the social side of things. In practical terms, 'fusion' of christians and politics seems more like transference/counter-transference between neurotics who want control and neurotics conditioned to cede personal authority while believing they are retaining it.

The moralistic prohibitions overturned by Lawrence, however, affected a great many people whose only crime was having good sex with a willing partner. And those prohibitions existed to satisfy the needs of a delusion.

So they won. Tough. Either live with it or learn how to fight it effectively. But whining about it accomplishes nothing.

You know, I'll grant people's right to be religious. I'm accustomed to it. Freedom of religion is part of my heritage. But here's an irony: I didn't have it. Big deal, right? What kid really has rights? But it turns out that a legal condition of my upbringing is that I was required to be subject to religious instruction. Don't get me wrong, it's not a general rule that a lot of people are subject to. But, yes, it apparently applied to me. As a result, I'm a confirmed Lutheran. There seemed nothing strange to me about going to a Jesuit school. And it has taken the whole time since to unknit those ideas and come to realize that certain things I knew even then were right really are right. So much conflict, so many lingering resentments. And all so that a delusion could be passed on to the next generation.

No more delusional then your potentially drug-induced feeling that the universe created life to experience itself... ( a beautiful post by the way, I'm glad you resurrected it.)

People are welcome to their religion. It's no business of mine. Except that certain religious people have made it my business.

Deal with it, or move to a deserted island.

Hence my sympathy to Greenberg's question. But I haven't much of an answer. We owe the sick our compassion, our help. But that obligation is demanding. It took me a long time to understand that framework, and I'll never figure entirely the range of implications.

I still don't have much of an answer, but I'm leaning toward challenging the neurotic (with passion, compassion, but without 'heat') if they are in your face.

Life goes on. We do our best, hopefully.

Amen, brother!

I still don't have much of an answer, but I'm leaning toward challenging the neurotic (with passion, compassion, but without 'heat') if they are in your face.

Have you ever done that?
What was it like?
Did it help - was the conflict resolved?

Did you feel justified to challenge them? If yes, what was your justification?


I'm asking all this to further the topic.

Does everyone have the ability to recognize delusion?

I would assert that as long as a healthy brain is present then yes. All children in this category for example realize that mommy and daddy still exist when they are out of sight... or that Santa Claus doesn't exist.


While I might agree that all people are delusional about something, I disagree that all have the ability to recognize delusion - plenty of people die in mental institutions or commit suicide. Perhaps they were unable to recognize delusion?

Point taken. Someone who'se brain doesn't function properly might not have the ability to recognize delusion. There are also hard to crack delusions that are bound to a person's identity. For most theists, if you attack 'God' then they feel personally attacked because 'God' is part of their identity. People are willing to kill and die for delusional identity components once they have taken hold and that's why that type of delusion is so dangerous.


Moreover, it might take years of intense study and practice to recognize a delusion. If you simply tell someone a "truth" and they don't change their mind immediately, this does not necessarily mean that they are deliberately lying.

That would be too simplistic. Some "truths", in order to be recognized as such, need the person to prepare a mental context for it - which can take years.

For example, if you tell me that the half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years - how am I supposed to know whether this is true or not? And if I don't immediately accept it, am I therefore lying?
It might take me years of intense chemistry study to be able to accept this as a truth, or to reject it.


It's better to show someone the truth (or bring to focus something that has already been seen). It provides a grounding reference point. If you do show someone the truth and they don't change their mind immediately then that is fine (it's also ok to help them out along the way if they ask), but if they persist in trying to peddle their delusion then they should absolutely be condemned for lying.



So you are playing the same card as many Christian proselytizers.

Not quite, there is no threat of eternal torture, no absolution of bad behavior, and no promise of eternal bliss.


You assume at least this (although for you, they are not assumptions, but indisputable facts): everyone is basically the same with potentially the same abilities;

There are some features that are common to all humans and there are some that are not.


...there exists objective reality and it can be humanly known, adequately and accurately.

Accurately as far as our visibility into it can take us. Adequately is a matter of opinion so there's no sense debating it.


- I don't share these assumptions, nor do many others.


Apparently, I don't share those assumptions either.

On a sidenote greenberg, when delusion isn't challenged this is an all too common result:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187002.php

t's better to show someone the truth (or bring to focus something that has already been seen). It provides a grounding reference point. If you do show someone the truth and they don't change their mind immediately then that is fine (it's also ok to help them out along the way if they ask), but if they persist in trying to peddle their delusion then they should absolutely be condemned for lying.

...

So you are playing the same card as many Christian proselytizers.

Not quite, there is no threat of eternal torture, no absolution of bad behavior, and no promise of eternal bliss.

You are playing the same card as them in that you are very ready and willing to accuse the other party of delusion and of lying, and in that you apriori and assume yourself or your knowledge superior.


Apparently, I don't share those assumptions either.

You do. You said:

everyone is basically the same with potentially the same abilities;

There are some features that are common to all humans and there are some that are not.


On a sidenote greenberg, when delusion isn't challenged this is an all too common result:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187002.php

So? I could say the USA invaded Iraq because the USA's delusion that material wealth is crucial to happiness hasn't been challenged.

You are playing the same card as them in that you are very ready and willing to accuse the other party of delusion and of lying, and in that you apriori and assume yourself or your knowledge superior.


I see, well if I spot a delusion such as:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78127

Then I definately have some superior knowledge as to what exists. Of course, I can demonstrate it whereas a theist cannot so even in this context it's not quite the same as the theists card.



You do. You said:

Just to avoid confusion... YOU SAID: "You assume at least this... everyone is basically the same with potentially the same abilities"

and I SAID: "There are some features that are common to all humans and there are some that are not."

Those are not equivalent statements.



So? I could say the USA invaded Iraq because the USA's delusion that material wealth is crucial to happiness hasn't been challenged.

We invaded Iraq because the president wanted to do so. If Bush was telling the truth in that he believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction then clearly that was a delusional belief (just like Christianity is).

In circumstances like Iraq (or any kind of perceived threat scenario), delusional belief plays an import role in human survival. For example, if Iraq had WMDs then we would have prevented some form of annihilation. When survival is at stake, it is better to err on the side of delusion. That's why delusional belief exists in the first place.

Consider the environment of early humans. A man believes there is a predator behind a bush every day of his life. It turns out there never were any predators; however, if there was he would have a greater chance of survival because of that delusional belief. Now take into consideration that other members of his tribe share his delusional beliefs and share resources / support. They become stronger and that promotes survival even more.

Fast forward to the present and you can see how we ended up a species of delusional beliefs. Our environment is much different now and some of those delusional beliefs no longer help us (but rather do the opposite).

Maybe he is just a liar

It seems that most people who have become religious*as adults, have done so in a time of great personal harsdhip. Such as losing their job, going through a divorce, falling severely ill, losing of a loved one, committing a crime ... - something that the person experienced as great personal hardship.

Psychologically seen, the religiousness or spirituality that such people have developed, could in some cases be explained as a complex interaction of various defense and coping mechanisms. In other words, some people's religiousness or spirituality is not as genuine as they would like others to believe.

For example, a man who has committed a crime feels strong guilt over it. To pacify this guilt, he accepts Jesus as his personal savior and preaches the Gospel to others. While all along, the actual internal conflict that he feels over the committed crime remains unresolved.
However, someone with keen psychological insight could speak to such a man, make him aware of his denial and that his religiousness is actually fake. This could cause this man great distress, make him defend his religion even more fiercely; but it could also make him lash out in violence against self and others.

Considering that many people who have become religious as adults might have such and similar psychological motivations for their preaching of their religion and for defending it,
how ethical is it to challenge them, be it either psychologically, or religiously/philosophically?





* I am using the term "religious" in its broad sense, meaning anything from being a fanatic to occasionally opening the Bible.


i think you're a religious bigot, and that by your own admission, you're acting in response to fear. so why don't you just suck it up and experience god for yourself, and quit judging and analyzing those of us who have done it already?

i think you're a religious bigot, and that by your own admission, you're acting in response to fear. so why don't you just suck it up and experience god for yourself, and quit judging and analyzing those of us who have done it already?

There is an implicit judgement of Greenberg in this and I suspect he felt it earlier in your discussion. You know he could experience God and that it would be the same God that you experience. So he is choosing not to do this. Can you see how this could be seen as judging him?

A parallel situation could be a cool girl in High school talking to an uncool girl:
Like, why don't you stop not being cool, it's making you such a sour puss.

The cool girl is not really getting how her assumptions - and there are several - when they touch the emotions of the uncool girl are like little knives.

A God of Love would certainly challenge that cool girl
to
better be able to empathize with the experience of the 'uncool' girl
and not to make assumptions about what is really going on in that other person.

Another way to put it is, for all you know, Greenberg is going through a dark night of the soul at a far deeper level in relation to God than you have reached. (If you are reading the G, I do not think this is the case.) On some level your inability to understand his despair or 'not feeling like he is making a choice to not experience God' is phobic on your part and certainly not loving.

I mean even Jesus on the cross got freaked out.
As well he should have.

There is an implicit judgement of Greenberg in this and I suspect he felt it earlier in your discussion. You know he could experience God and that it would be the same God that you experience. So he is choosing not to do this. Can you see how this could be seen as judging him?

A parallel situation could be a cool girl in High school talking to an uncool girl:
Like, why don't you stop not being cool, it's making you such a sour puss.

The cool girl is not really getting how her assumptions - and there are several - when they touch the emotions of the uncool girl are like little knives.

A God of Love would certainly challenge that cool girl
to
better be able to empathize with the experience of the 'uncool' girl
and not to make assumptions about what is really going on in that other person.

Another way to put it is, for all you know, Greenberg is going through a dark night of the soul at a far deeper level in relation to God than you have reached. (If you are reading the G, I do not think this is the case.) On some level your inability to understand his despair or 'not feeling like he is making a choice to not experience God' is phobic on your part and certainly not loving.

I mean even Jesus on the cross got freaked out.
As well he should have.


I have been freaked the f&%k out.
And I have read his recent posts and felt the sting of his fear and me no likey.
And I do hope that it is in response to the dark night of a soul that will reach for a dawn. Reaching for the dawn is in my opinion overcoming that fear and making that choice barring all consequences. It seems to me that intellect is a stumbling block in his case, and he's intellectualizing having the relationship.

It seems to me that intellect is a stumbling block in his case, and he's intellectualizing having the relationship.

All else aside for the moment, faith is the sacrifice of the intellect. I believe it was Aquinas who said that faith is the sacrifice in which God most delights.

• • •


Unfortunately for all of us, that would not change if another religion, or no religion, were dominant

This general reality should not blind us to the particular. To use style as an example:

Pretend for a moment that my style was the dominant style in the culture. There would be broad swaths of dark colors and natural patterns. The mottled variations of granite, for instance. Lots of dark greens and blues. There wouldn't be much for pastel colors, and there would be less striping, dotting, &c. I'm something of an essentialist and an impressionist. At least, these are the aesthetics I prefer.

If, however, someone else held stylistic sway, perhaps we would see combinations of colors: a beige offset with black accent, some stripes here and there, and maybe a few cake-frosting decorations on buildings.

Hop onto the next stylistic influence ....

Point being that there will always be a sense of style. There will always be popular color arrangements. There will always be something influencing the expression of these elements of our humanity. The question of which style dominates will have much influence over the outcome.

Likewise with religion. Sure, there may always be a religion or something religious guiding the majority of society, but if the United States was a Wiccan society, for instance? Well, we wouldn't be arguing about homosexuals, evolution in schools, &c. Who knows? Maybe everything would be made of stone so that we could cut down fewer trees, and there would be no plastics. It's hard to project because we're so accustomed to the Judeo-Christian influence.

However, the point is that the manifestation of that religious influence will bring, in different expressions, different outcomes. And here's the thing: if it was Wicca, we wouldn't have door-to-door evangelists, a multibillion-dollar teleministry industry, or a President who invades a country because God told him to. These are fairly big differences.

Additionally, not all religious ideas become so warped as to suggest mental illness. So to say that things "would not change if another religion, or no religion, were dominant" either seeks to excuse the current paradigm or denigrate possible alternatives. Attempting to mitigate perceptions of harm helps nobody except those who do harm.

In America, in the abstract - when one group thinks something is wrong and another group doesn't, the conflict is worked out in the political arena (often as a zero-sum game). That's the way it is-for better or worse. If the religious people are more effective in that arena right now, it's because they are more effective on the social side of things. In practical terms, 'fusion' of christians and politics seems more like transference/counter-transference between neurotics who want control and neurotics conditioned to cede personal authority while believing they are retaining it.

Um ... okay. An interesting issue that I'm having a hard time connecting to what I thought were the themes of the discussion.

So they won. Tough. Either live with it or learn how to fight it effectively. But whining about it accomplishes nothing.

Um ... okay. I am pleased by the Lawrence decision. How about if we come back to this one in a moment?

No more delusional then your potentially drug-induced feeling that the universe created life to experience itself... ( a beautiful post by the way, I'm glad you resurrected it.)

Why thank you; a vital difference worth noting is that, while the Christian delusion tends to hurt a hell of a lot of people, the idea of a self-examining Universe is not going to condemn you to Hell for having good, dirty, fun sex. It has no reason to claim, as Christians in the U.S. have, that equality is oppressive. The notion of such a purpose in life is not remotely as affecting in mundane application as the idea of an invisible, all-powerful God who judges people poorly for being as It created them.

There is a practical difference. The effects of ideas tend to be closer to the heart of the question than the mere fact that an idea exists.

Deal with it, or move to a deserted island.

Uh ... wow. As with your prior point, well, I'm not sure what your point is.

You asked Greenberg, "Why do you want to challenge the religious? Is it an expression of some neurosis you suffer from?"

I responded describing what I consider practical issues, and yet you're snapping back that one should "Deal with it, or move to a deserted island." Well, that's sort of the heart of the question. It's not about neurosis, but dealing with the issues presented by what seems delusional (e.g., religion).

I still don't have much of an answer, but I'm leaning toward challenging the neurotic (with passion, compassion, but without 'heat') if they are in your face.

Our friend PJdude1219 included in the "Political Cartoons (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72997&page=8)" topic a couple of frames that lean toward a relevant point:

http://edkrebs.com/herb/petoons36/078.jpg
http://edkrebs.com/herb/petoons20/bigotry.jpg

As we consider what a compassionate address of the neurotic and delusional might be, we ought to remember that for so many of them right now, equality is considered oppressive; if they cannot be superior, they're being oppressed. Or so they tell us.

In other words, we face the challenge that arises when the sick demand their right to be afflicted. And, frankly, it's hard to argue with that proposition. However, what to do? Well, as you pointed out, you deal with it, or move to a deserted island. You either live with it or learn how to fight it effectively.

So to bring this around in something of a circle, how would doing so be an expression of, say, Greenberg's neurosis?

Anyway, I must be missing something. Let me know.

faith is the sacrifice of the intellect.


Did you make that up? I don't agree with that statement, and it's not a good reiteration of what i meant. From my perspective, faith is trust. And trust of something or someone can be the result of a lot of things, and certainly using your intellect can be one of them. What I am suggesting though is that your faith is not soley placed in your intellect, but rather, in the knowledge of that something or someone that you're examining. What I am suggesting is that a real interaction with that something or someone would prove to be a valuable experience, moreso, or in addition to, any intellectual exercise. I mean, one's intellect is a given. You can't just shut it off. Though I admit it seems to me sometimes that some people try to ignore it or thwart it at every opportunity they're given. I certainly don't think that's true in Greenberg's case, or in yours from what I've read. You both seem extremely intelligent to me. My concern is that Greenberg and many others are trying to intellectualize a belief in god, and from my perspective, that would have to be a dead end. Not a waste of time necessarily, but alone, a dead end. And that is because your intellect is fallable, and your sources of knowledge are fallable. What is the best source of knowledge concerning God? Knowing God. Not knowing about God, but an actual interaction with Him. Could He be lying to you during that interaction, or could He be deceptive in presenting Himself towards you? Yeah, I suppose He could. But why would He be? He's God. And it still seems worth it to me, to experience the interaction, and make a determination based upon it rather than without it. To me it's like the difference between reading a biography or even an autobiography, and having a relationship with the subject of it. The book may have some information in it about the subject that you didn't know, even given your relationship with them. But in the grand scheme of things, in relation to the issue of trust, which of the two would be the better source of knowledge of the subject? I might suggest both, but which would be better?

The problem with what I'm suggesting is that many people want to think that just because they haven't had what I describe as a personal experience with Him as of yet, that what I'm suggesting is impossible, and I'm making it all up.

The problem with what I'm suggesting is that many people want to think that just because they haven't had what I describe as a personal experience with Him as of yet, that what I'm suggesting is impossible, and I'm making it all up.

Or, the fact that you assume you can distinguish between the two.

People hear voices and see things that are not apparent. There are medical reasons for these phenomenon.

And, there is childhood indoctrination, of which you're most likely a successful candidate.

YOU, personally, may not be making it up after all.

Or, the fact that you assume you can distinguish between the two.

People hear voices and see things that are not apparent. There are medical reasons for these phenomenon.

And, there is childhood indoctrination, of which you're most likely a successful candidate.

YOU, personally, may not be making it up after all.

And YOU may be making assumptions for no other reason than it's what YOU want to believe, because they make YOU feel more comfortable about YOUR life. The FACT is that YOU don't know me, and never walk in my shoes, and what YOU think about what I have experienced could very well be incorrect.

And YOU may be making assumptions for no other reason than it's what YOU want to believe, because they make YOU feel more comfortable about YOUR life. The FACT is that YOU don't know me, and never walk in my shoes, and what YOU think about what I have experienced could very well be incorrect.

Just as I don't personally know or have walked in the shoes of the raving lunatic standing on a street corner soapbox, preaching. He is self-evident, as you are.

A rose is a rose... You need not prescribe that the rose is a product of the god you believe to exist based on your so-called 'personal' experiences.

I exist as Godzilla, Mary Antoinette and Napoleon as viewed by the lunatic. He is as adamant to that delusion as you are to your god. And, I am equally confident I am not incorrect in his assessment of me as such.

Just as I don't personally know or have walked in the shoes of the raving lunatic standing on a street corner soapbox, preaching. He is self-evident, as you are.

A rose is a rose... You need not prescribe that the rose is a product of the god you believe to exist based on your so-called 'personal' experiences.

I exist as Godzilla, Mary Antoinette and Napoleon as viewed by the lunatic. He is as adamant to that delusion as you are to your god. And, I am equally confident I am not incorrect in his assessment of me as such.

Yeah, you're a rose alright. And you are right, and I am wrong. And you are sane, and I am insane. And everything you believe is truth, and everything I believe is a lie. It's music to your ears. and doesn't it make you feel..better.

Now go to sleep. *pat pat on the head*

Yeah, you're a rose alright. And you are right, and I am wrong. And you are sane, and I am insane. And everything you believe is truth, and everything I believe is a lie. It's music to your ears. and doesn't it make you feel..better.

You're free of course to assume I'd stoop to your level of a kindergarten version of the 'warm and fuzzies' however most adults have leaped past the simple world of sandcastles and mud pies.

Logic, it ain't, indoctrination and delusion, it is. That shouldn't make you feel good at all, yet it does.

You're free of course to assume I'd stoop to your level of a kindergarten version of the 'warm and fuzzies' however most adults have leaped past the simple world of sandcastles and mud pies.

Logic, it ain't, indoctrination and delusion, it is. That shouldn't make you feel good at all, yet it does.

YES, YES, OH WIZARD, OH MY GOD, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHT, YES!

YES, YES, OH WIZARD, OH MY GOD, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHT, YES!

Well, at least we've determined the title of this thread is correct.

OH WIZARD

And, you see me as a wizard. Fairy tales abound.

Would you understand me better if I recited an incantation for you, or waved my hand to produce pixie dust that I might blow your way?

And, you see me as a wizard. Fairy tales abound.

Would you understand me better if I recited an incantation for you, or waved my hand to produce pixie dust that I might blow your way?

oh i understand you just fine sweetheart. ;) and you think i'm text book huh?

oh i understand you just fine sweetheart.

Understand: Know and comprehend the nature or meaning of.

I don't think so, Lori. This term is obviously quite foreign to you.

Neurotic: Affected with emotional disorder.

There ya go. Bang on.

Understand: Know and comprehend the nature or meaning of.

I don't think so, Lori. This term is obviously quite foreign to you.

Neurotic: Affected with emotional disorder.

There ya go. Bang on.


wow, you're still not done? can you go all night? do it again. insult me and degrade me some more. no, a different way this time. *rolls over ass in air*

I have been freaked the f&%k out.
And I have read his recent posts and felt the sting of his fear and me no likey.
And I do hope that it is in response to the dark night of a soul that will reach for a dawn. Reaching for the dawn is in my opinion overcoming that fear and making that choice barring all consequences. It seems to me that intellect is a stumbling block in his case, and he's intellectualizing having the relationship.
You did it again. You KNOW the root of his problem, without knowing him. This kind of psychic diagnosis is a kind of attack.

Logic, it ain't, indoctrination and delusion, it is. That shouldn't make you feel good at all, yet it does.

Been reading Godless at the workbench again, you naughty boy, you!:mad: :spank:

can you go all night? *rolls over ass in air*

And then some. :D

You did it again. You KNOW the root of his problem, without knowing him. This kind of psychic diagnosis is a kind of attack.

come on...a psychic diagnosis? it's a blatent observation! listen, if he really wants to know god, then he'll quit talking about him, and start talking to him.

it's really elementary. maybe that's why it's not obvious to some intellectuals.

As we consider what a compassionate address of the neurotic and delusional might be, we ought to remember that for so many of them right now, equality is considered oppressive; if they cannot be superior, they're being oppressed. Or so they tell us.

In other words, we face the challenge that arises when the sick demand their right to be afflicted. And, frankly, it's hard to argue with that proposition. However, what to do? Well, as you pointed out, you deal with it, or move to a deserted island. You either live with it or learn how to fight it effectively.


There probably is no easy solution.

It seems that no matter what we would do, some -many even- religious people will find it wrong or offensive.

It seems that there simply can be no harmonious co-existence with some people.

On the person-to-person level, ignoring and distancing oneself from them seems the best way to go. It might take enormous discipline and strong conviction in one's principles as we might not be used to so far.

come on...a psychic diagnosis? it's a blatent observation! listen, if he really wants to know god, then he'll quit talking about him, and start talking to him.

it's really elementary. maybe that's why it's not obvious to some intellectuals.

Talking to gods IS psychotic, elementarily speaking.

Talking to gods IS psychotic, elementarily speaking.

that's your simple and unfounded opinion about something you know nothing about, and you're entitled to it. i wonder though, how many times you will continue to express it in the same exact way, over and over and over again, until even YOU get sick of listening to YOURSELF. we understand it already.

that's your simple and unfounded opinion about something you know nothing about, and you're entitled to it.

It is true I know nothing about your particular neuroses or paranoia, but then no one does, as no one can view or share your personal fantasies and delusions of conversing with imaginary beings.

Of course, you're always free to demonstrate those conversations.

It is true I know nothing about your particular neuroses or paranoia, but then no one does, as no one can view or share your personal fantasies and delusions of conversing with imaginary beings.

Of course, you're always free to demonstrate those conversations.

Is this necessary? You do know, as a rational person, that continuously degrading a person is psychologically abusive?:bugeye:

Is this necessary? You do know, as a rational person, that continuously degrading a person is psychologically abusive?:bugeye:

As an irrational person and a follower of an oppressive cult, you wouldn't see the hypocrisy of your statement?

It is true I know nothing about your particular neuroses or paranoia, but then no one does, as no one can view or share your personal fantasies and delusions of conversing with imaginary beings.

Of course, you're always free to demonstrate those conversations.

that's a very short-sighted proposition you're making. you're shallow minded?

As the joke goes, "When you talk to god, it's prayer. When god talks to you, it's schizophrenia."

that's a very short-sighted proposition you're making. you're shallow minded?

That's a poorly thought-out, limp-wristed response.

So, can you demonstrate those conversations? Or, can we conclude a neurosis?

That's a poorly thought-out, limp-wristed response.

So, can you demonstrate those conversations? Or, can we conclude a neurosis?

well q, how do you suggest that i demonstrate a telepathic communication of which you are not a part of? the fact is that i have been through something, that i asked to be put through, as a response to inquisitions such as these. i believe that these communications have been demonstrated in some fashion, and that fashion was not a written documentation of it in a discussion forum.

well q, how do you suggest that i demonstrate a telepathic communication of which you are not a part of?

Are you now claiming to be telepathic? Please do share with us the functional regions of the brain that facilitate telepathy? Was there a language used? How did you respond and with what faculties?

Inquiring minds want to know.

the fact is that i have been through something, that i asked to be put through, as a response to inquisitions such as these. i believe that these communications have been demonstrated in some fashion, and that fashion was not a written documentation of it in a discussion forum.

That's always convenient, but irrelevant. You may certainly believe that what you experienced was of a divine nature, but it is indistinguishable from the imaginative and the neuroses. That has been demonstrated in the flesh.

This general reality should not blind us to the particular.{....} Sure, there may always be a religion or something religious guiding the majority of society, but if the United States was a Wiccan society, for instance? Well, we wouldn't be arguing about homosexuals, evolution in schools, &c. Who knows?
The flaw in arguing to non-existant particulars is exactly that - 'Who knows?'.
Maybe everything would be made of stone so that we could cut down fewer trees, and there would be no plastics. It's hard to project because we're so accustomed to the Judeo-Christian influence.Or maybe we would have to pray for the blessing of the Goddess before every public meeting. Again, as you say - 'Who knows?'.

However, the point is that the manifestation of that religious influence will bring, in different expressions, different outcomes. And here's the thing: if it was Wicca, we wouldn't have door-to-door evangelists, a multibillion-dollar teleministry industry, or a President who invades a country because God told him to. These are fairly big differences.
You're willing to speculate positively about a non-existent particular, while bypassing negative speculations with the same validity (none). Interesting.

To use style as an example:
Style is about appearances and aesthetic judgements. Religion is about social and cultural affiliations based on beliefs and opinions regarding metaphysical speculations about the emperically unknowable. Style doesn't serve as a useful metaphor because the concept of style is contained within the concept of religion. Religions have different styles of worship. Buildings have different styles of architecture. Concepts, beliefs, ethics, values should reflect something deeper than style. I'll grant that chrisitianity in the U.S. too often identifies with (and is influenced by) culture and style, and not enough by it's own doctrine, which leaves it open to such comparisons. That constitutes a valid criticism, not a particularly useful metaphor. Unless of course, you equate religion with style.

Additionally, not all religious ideas become so warped as to suggest mental illness. So to say that things "would not change if another religion, or no religion, were dominant" either seeks to excuse the current paradigm or denigrate possible alternatives. Attempting to mitigate perceptions of harm helps nobody except those who do harm.
I didn't say 'things' would not change. I repsonded directly to your point - what wouldn't change that your life wouldn't stop being affected by people with mental illness.

Regardless of which religion is culturally dominant or if none were, the underlying human brokeness that Greenberg refers to would seek to bend it, whether for social control, or more to his point, as an excuse for bad acting. That is not an "excuse for the current paradigm". It is, however, a suggestion that alternatives would not address the underlying problem. And it cannot be construed as an attempt to 'mitigate perceptions' or 'facilitate harm'. :(

More simply stated, affiliation with a religion, or the human tendancy to be religious aren't criteria for assessing for neurosis or delusion, even if individuals within a religion are neurotic or delusional.

Um ... okay. An interesting issue that I'm having a hard time connecting to what I thought were the themes of the discussion.

Um ... okay. I am pleased by the Lawrence decision. How about if we come back to this one in a moment?

Uh ... wow. As with your prior point, well, I'm not sure what your point is.

Sorry - I scanned that portion of your post without digesting it. Then I misconstrued your point and flew way far afield. I apologize for that, and I'm sorry about the tone.

Why thank you; a vital difference worth noting is that, while the Christian delusion tends to hurt a hell of a lot of people, the idea of a self-examining Universe is not going to condemn you to Hell for having good, dirty, fun sex.

Neither does christianity condemn you to hell for having good, dirty, fun sex. It does delineate constraints for the believer, but I assert to both christians and non-christians reading this, that if any christian condemns non-christians for anything, they not behaving in accord with the spirit and the teachings of Christ.

It has no reason to claim, as Christians in the U.S. have, that equality is oppressive. The notion of such a purpose in life is not remotely as affecting in mundane application as the idea of an invisible, all-powerful God who judges people poorly for being as It created them.

Equality can be oppressive if it constrains individuality, but that's another thread. Suffice it to say that I don't have much tolerance for christians in America who whine about how bad they have it. And your characterization of the particular brand of theism you caricatured is not an accurate representation of christianity as I understand it.

You asked Greenberg, "Why do you want to challenge the religious? Is it an expression of some neurosis you suffer from?"

I responded describing what I consider practical issues, and yet you're snapping back that one should "Deal with it, or move to a deserted island." Well, that's sort of the heart of the question. It's not about neurosis, but dealing with the issues presented by what seems delusional (e.g., religion).

My point was that your practical issues are, in essence, political/social issues. As I've already stated, belief in religion is not intrinsically delusional. Insofar as non-delusional, non-neurotic people cleave to religious beliefs, and those beliefs inform their opinions, they have a perfect right in a democracy to band together and take political action. Those in opposition neccessarily have a civic obligation to act in opposition, not to just sit on their backsides and complain. And unless some accomodation is reached between those practicing science and those practicing religion, the result is, and always will be zero-sum.

In other words, we face the challenge that arises when the sick demand their right to be afflicted. And, frankly, it's hard to argue with that proposition. However, what to do? Well, as you pointed out, you deal with it, or move to a deserted island. You either live with it or learn how to fight it effectively.

So to bring this around in something of a circle, how would doing so be an expression of, say, Greenberg's neurosis?

Greenberg chose to focus his ethical question solely at adult religious converts. Given the tension between the generalized title of the OP and the actual framing the details, it appeared somewhat trollish. I trolled him back.

The flaw in arguing to non-existant particulars is exactly that - 'Who knows?' ....

.... Or maybe we would have to pray for the blessing of the Goddess before every public meeting. Again, as you say - 'Who knows?'.

I do wonder if you missed the point or dodged it.

You said that an alternative dominant religion or a lack of dominant religion would not change a certain circumstance. I asserted that a different dominant paradigm would bring a different manifestation of that circumstance.

Thus, to put the question specifically: If a paradigm other than the Judeo-Christian dominated our society, would the public discourse be focused on Judeo-Christian moral and ethical arguments?

I didn't say 'things' would not change. I repsonded directly to your point - what wouldn't change that your life wouldn't stop being affected by people with mental illness.

That is an speculation of a certain validity. To borrow a word, "none".

Look, it's true that there will always be some sort of mental illness in my sphere of experience, but I do think you're reaching. There is plenty of mental illness to deal with that isn't specifically wished onto children. There is plenty of mental illness out there that has no lobby working to augment the influence of that malady over the workings of society.

Neither does christianity condemn you to hell for having good, dirty, fun sex.

Yeah, well, says you. Right now there are plenty of Christians in society who would consider me hellbound for the shag I had last night. And that's fine. It's their belief. Whatever. But these people are also fighting to make sure that their neighbors should be subject to bigoted discrimination at the hands of the state for having a good shag like that. In other words, if the state doesn't find some way to punish me or diminish my standing in society for having a good lay, those people feel they're somehow being violated.

... but I assert to both christians and non-christians reading this, that if any christian condemns non-christians for anything, they not behaving in accord with the spirit and the teachings of Christ.

I would not dispute that assertion. There are plenty of Christians who would.

Equality can be oppressive if it constrains individuality, but that's another thread.

I would only note that, in this case, the "oppression" asserted is that one is not equal unless one is superior.

Suffice it to say that I don't have much tolerance for christians in America who whine about how bad they have it. And your characterization of the particular brand of theism you caricatured is not an accurate representation of christianity as I understand it.

Depends on which "Christianity" we refer to. Doctrinal? That's one thing. The institution within society composed of Christians? That's a bit more problematic and, truth told, something of a caricature of its doctrinal foundation.

As a reference point for perspective, I was raised to believe in God. I was eventually confirmed as a Lutheran and chose to attend a parochial school. Nothing specifically pulled me away from the faith; it would be more accurate to say that Christianity pushed me away. And that's fine with me. Unfortunately, it generally isn't fine with them.

My point was that your practical issues are, in essence, political/social issues.

Well, that's the thing, Turduckin. The social and political issues arise because of certain behavior. That behavior is at the heart of why someone should challenge the religious in the first place. If it's simply a matter of what someone believes, that's nobody's business but the believer's. If that believer makes it someone else's business, however, that belief will be scrutinized. In other words, I could give a damn what a Christian believes except that it the belief seems to require that the believer make a social and political issue out of it.

As I've already stated, belief in religion is not intrinsically delusional.

The problem is that such a portion of religious belief is largely irrelevant to the current discussion. It's almost as if you're citing the existence of an infinitesimal minority in order to pretend the description applies to the vast majority.

Insofar as non-delusional, non-neurotic people cleave to religious beliefs, and those beliefs inform their opinions, they have a perfect right in a democracy to band together and take political action. Those in opposition neccessarily have a civic obligation to act in opposition, not to just sit on their backsides and complain. And unless some accomodation is reached between those practicing science and those practicing religion, the result is, and always will be zero-sum.

Where I have a problem with that is the proposition that someone has a perfect right in a democracy to band together and harm other people. And that appears to be the perfect right in a democracy you're defending.

Do you understand that without that assertion of a perfect right in a democracy to band together and harm other people, I have no reason whatsoever to give a damn what any religious person believes?

Greenberg chose to focus his ethical question solely at adult religious converts.

Well, as competent adults, they ought to know better.

Given the tension between the generalized title of the OP and the actual framing the details, it appeared somewhat trollish. I trolled him back.

If you say so.

• • •


Did you make that up?

No. It comes from a few centuries ago. I'm pretty sure it was Aquinas, but I haven't rushed to look it up.

What is the best source of knowledge concerning God? Knowing God. Not knowing about God, but an actual interaction with Him. Could He be lying to you during that interaction, or could He be deceptive in presenting Himself towards you? Yeah, I suppose He could. But why would He be? He's God.

There is nothing intellectually valid about that passage. Perhaps it feels right. But that's a matter of faith.

One of the problems I have with this kind of faith is that it exploits the concept of God to make people feel better about themselves. With the Genesis creation myth, the fall at Eden and Christ's redemption, people get to pretend the Universe is all about them. This is, in fact, a very common aspect of religious belief. No creation story tells of how God created someone else. Even the usurped Genesis myth of the Christians eventually leads to Christianity. Even my own outlook gives humanity a certain "special" place in the Universal arrangement, but we're hardly the center of all creation, hardly unique. The outlook does assign us certain moral obligations, but there is no God to know or have a personal relationship with. And there is nothing that says my outlook is or must be correct. It's a lot more flexible inasmuch as the purpose is to learn what is correct instead of demand that it be so simply because I believe it.

To me it's like the difference between reading a biography or even an autobiography, and having a relationship with the subject of it. The book may have some information in it about the subject that you didn't know, even given your relationship with them. But in the grand scheme of things, in relation to the issue of trust, which of the two would be the better source of knowledge of the subject? I might suggest both, but which would be better?

There is no correct answer at such a general level. Some autobiographies are exercises in egotism. Some biographies are more political than informative.

The problem with what I'm suggesting is that many people want to think that just because they haven't had what I describe as a personal experience with Him as of yet, that what I'm suggesting is impossible, and I'm making it all up.

Well, I won't doubt the notion that you have experienced certain things, but the question remains as to what those certain things are. I could easily say I've been in the presence of Jesus Christ. I could easily say I've been in the presence of the Devil. I could easily say that I've been in the presence of the Goddess in at least two of her forms. But I also think it's important to consider what those experiences were.

In a dream, the Devil made me certain promises in an effort to strike a bargain. In a dream, Jesus Christ explained to me that nobody involved in the great cosmic psychodrama actually remembers why they're fighting. On hallucinogens the Mother welcomed me home to a familiar place I'd never been. And one night, struggling against white-line fever as I drove a relatively short stretch from Eugene to Salem, the Maiden sat beside me and talked to me for a while in order to keep me awake on the road. She flitted away, as near as I can remember, to attend to some people on the side of the road whose Volkswagen microbus was on fire.

All of those events have great significance to me. But they are what they are.

There probably is no easy solution.

It seems that no matter what we would do, some -many even- religious people will find it wrong or offensive.

It seems that there simply can be no harmonious co-existence with some people.

On the person-to-person level, ignoring and distancing oneself from them seems the best way to go. It might take enormous discipline and strong conviction in one's principles as we might not be used to so far.

I'm not a scientist, I am a consumer of science, and all my life I have been saddened to watch a minority of fundamentalists attack scientific ideas because they appear to conflict with personal dogmatic views. I originally was attracted to this site in order to guage what a rational approach toward reconciliation between science and religion might be. Unfortunately, I found not only religious people shouting personal dogma, but so-called rational scientific types shouting personal dogma back.

It's a given that you can't have a harmonious existence with everybody. But you've stepped into a larger issue by trying to find accomodation with religious people. Both sides have declared war, and the moderates voices are being drowned out:

A Moderate viewpoint:
ethics of mixing science and religion. (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/03/ethics-of-mixing-science-and-religion.html)

From a blog response by 'Monkeydoodle':
At a 1941 symposium on the intersection between science, religion, and philosophy, Einstein said, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Although I generally find myself rejecting the concept of religion as the very enemy of science, I have to admit that there's been very little that's propelled me to learn more about science, advance more technologically, or debate more philosophically than the clash between these two behemoths....
......Whether either of the camps like to admit it, they make each other better. They make the arguments more interesting. They make the other review and retool their understanding of their own points.

A more strident view:
Science and Religion don't mix. (http://www.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/14a08801.htm)

Lawrence M. Krauss:
There is a war going on for the hearts and minds of the U.S. public, and science -- the driving force behind the technology that makes the modern world possible -- is losing because scientists often are too timid to attack nonsense whenever and wherever it appears.


May I suggest that the enormous discipline needed may be to not believe everything we think.

It is true I know nothing about your particular neuroses or paranoia, but then no one does, as no one can view or share your personal fantasies and delusions of conversing with imaginary beings.

it's ok to have imaginary friends, many children have them. they're not schizo.

come on...a psychic diagnosis? it's a blatent observation! listen, if he really wants to know god, then he'll quit talking about him, and start talking to him.

it's really elementary. maybe that's why it's not obvious to some intellectuals.

Hey,
I'm a theist. I think it was BS and yes, putting yourself in a position where you think you can diagnosis why he believes what he believes and why he does not believe what he does not believe.

You also seem to know THE route to God. How nice for you. But the routes are obviously diverse. Perhaps, again, a little humility in the face of someone who may be either different from you in fundamental ways or different from what you think a person must be like who does not share your belief.

it's ok to have imaginary friends, many children have them. they're not schizo.

And, then they grow up. :rolleyes:

May I suggest that the enormous discipline needed may be to not believe everything we think.

I do not believe everything I think. In fact, I am willing to rethink and recalibrate my thinking and my beliefs anytime.
Being so "open-minded" is what gets me into all these troubles with many religious.

I do not believe everything I think. In fact, I am willing to rethink and recalibrate my thinking and my beliefs anytime.
Being so "open-minded" is what gets me into all these troubles with many religious.

Its not so easy to dislodge oneself from one's psychological modus operandi - in fact that is basically what it means to come to the transcendental position (beyond the superficial designation of the mind/body etc).

Just as a simple example, one could respond that one thing you are not prepared to change your beliefs on is your belief that you are open minded.

BTW I don't mean that as an insult (ie the typical "Sciforums context") - practically we are all in the same position - reconstructing our faith/belief/values (regardless whether one is an atheist or theist) is not such a straightforward thing since it is virtually identical to what we identify with (our sense of belief is non-different from our "I") in order to begin to make sense of our external world.

Its not so easy to dislodge oneself from one's psychological modus operandi - in fact that is basically what it means to come to the transcendental position (beyond the superficial designation of the mind/body etc).

Just as a simple example, one could respond that one thing you are not prepared to change your beliefs on is your belief that you are open minded.

I take no pride in being open-minded. I actually experience my open-mindedness as a burden, it's almost akin to paranoia.
They say it is possible to be so open-minded that your brain falls out - and I'm afraid I know what this is like.


BTW I don't mean that as an insult (ie the typical "Sciforums context") - practically we are all in the same position - reconstructing our faith/belief/values (regardless whether one is an atheist or theist) is not such a straightforward thing since it is virtually identical to what we identify with (our sense of belief is non-different from our "I") in order to begin to make sense of our external world.

I appreciate your saying this!
It is true for some of us, but not all.

There is plenty of people here who are convinced that they have "arrived", who believe that all they need to do is to persevere with their current beliefs until the day they die, and that if there are going to be any changes in their beliefs, they are going to be only minor ones, but definitely not an overhaul.