The ethics of challenging the religious - given that they might be neurotic etc.

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by greenberg, Mar 9, 2008.

  1. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Turduckin A Fowl Trinity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    Why do you want to challenge the religious? Is it an expression of some neurosis you suffer from?
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    No replies??
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    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.
     
  9. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Many religious people, on the other hand, act the opposite: They consider all people the same, supposedly to fit the same explanatory metaphor.


    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?
     
  10. Turduckin A Fowl Trinity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    I agree with Spidergoat.

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'll have to grant that point.

    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.
     
  11. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    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.
     
  12. Adstar Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,782

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


    All Praise The Ancient Of Days
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    We should never question the claims of the faithful, since it could hurt their feelings.
     
  14. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    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.
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    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)
     
  16. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    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.


    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:

    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.)
     
  17. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    But the faithful can say and do whatever they want to?
     
  18. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    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?
     
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    actually I would argue that the information I provided was non-sectarian and holds as general knowledge for practically all sorts of religious endeavour

    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)?
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2008
  20. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    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.


    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.
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    basically the only religions that are practically bereft of philosophy are animism.
    Polytheism comes in as second

    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)

    sounds like you have philosophical issues



    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

    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?)
     
  22. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    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.
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I think that over simplifies it
    At the very least history is decorated with numerous christian saints and philosophers
    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
    there's your philosophy

    behind every claim there is practice and behind every practice there is theory.
    anything less is fanaticism


    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"
     

Share This Page