mental illness

[Quag]

Just saw this and figured this would spark a lot of debate

Religious fundamentalism could soon be treated as mental illness

Personally I think it goes overboard but understand how some ideologies can be harmfull

 

[Ontologuy]

Just saw this and figured this would spark a lot of debate

Religious fundamentalism could soon be treated as mental illness

Personally I think it goes overboard but understand how some ideologies can be harmfull

Yes, there are a number of aspects of psychopathology that can make religious fundamentalism attractive.

In late 2005, Richard Yao recognized this reality and created Fundamentalists Anonymous, a now-defunct recovery group for ex-fundamentalists: Founder Richard Yao | Ex-Fundamentalists Anonymous -- As Seen on Oprah.

In his writing, he described fundamentalism as "a diseased way of processing reality".

The support group suffered from fundamentalist "bad-mouthing" and threats and eventually succumbed to financial woes, but it helped a number of people, and brought attention to the connection between religious fundamentalism and psychopathology.

 

[lizzie]

I would really hate to see this happen, as religious fundamentalism is essentially the same, in concept, as environmentalism, humanism, and any of a variety of strongly held belief systems regarding what is right vs what is wrong.

 

[Thorgasm]

Mental illness is a myth. :lol:

 

[Paschendale]

I would really hate to see this happen, as religious fundamentalism is essentially the same, in concept, as environmentalism, humanism, and any of a variety of strongly held belief systems regarding what is right vs what is wrong.

That is absolutely not true. There is not an equivalency between well honed notions of what is right and wrong that have evidence to support them and myths based on supernatural beings written by people who knew less than a six year old does today. Trying to paint them as the same does a disservice to the entirety of human knowledge and learning.

 

[Lukas105]

It's hard to compare the thinking from two time periods about 2000 years apart. There was the same intelligence, just not the same knowledge. Now to treat a religious belief as a mental condition, no, that's just going over the deep end and drowning in stupidity.

That is absolutely not true. There is not an equivalency between well honed notions of what is right and wrong that have evidence to support them and myths based on supernatural beings written by people who knew less than a six year old does today. Trying to paint them as the same does a disservice to the entirety of human knowledge and learning.

 

[Paschendale]

It's hard to compare the thinking from two time periods about 2000 years apart. There was the same intelligence, just not the same knowledge. Now to treat a religious belief as a mental condition, no, that's just going over the deep end and drowning in stupidity.

You might notice that I did not say it was a mental illness, and that I was talking about knowledge. Why don't you tell me, though, why a person would compromise their intellect and adhere to beliefs that are demonstrably false? Adherence to any of the major religions requires an astounding amount of cognitive dissonance and doublethink.

 

[lizzie]

That is absolutely not true. There is not an equivalency between well honed notions of what is right and wrong that have evidence to support them and myths based on supernatural beings written by people who knew less than a six year old does today. Trying to paint them as the same does a disservice to the entirety of human knowledge and learning.

It is true. There is equivalency. When it comes to judgements of what is right and what is wrong, it's a subjective process, no matter the source of those beliefs.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

That is absolutely not true. There is not an equivalency between well honed notions of what is right and wrong that have evidence to support them and myths based on supernatural beings written by people who knew less than a six year old does today. Trying to paint them as the same does a disservice to the entirety of human knowledge and learning.

You mean "knowledge" and "learning"

 

[Paschendale]

It is true. There is equivalency. When it comes to judgements of what is right and what is wrong, it's a subjective process, no matter the source of those beliefs.

Slavery is wrong. Plenty of religions think that slavery is right. That's not subjective. Burning people alive is wrong. Gouging out people's eyes is wrong. Beating a woman into being subservient to a man is wrong. Selling a woman into marriage is wrong. These are all things promoted by religions. Not subjective at all.

You say the "process" is subjective. You mean like in deciding whether or not it's okay to lie to spare someone's feelings in a specific social situation? Of course that's subjective. But kindness and generosity are right and selfishness and brutality are wrong. Engaging in brutality because someone else told you to might just be a sign of mental illness. And doing so because you hear voices in your head definitely is.

 

[afr0byte]

Slavery is wrong. Plenty of religions think that slavery is right. That's not subjective. Burning people alive is wrong. Gouging out people's eyes is wrong. Beating a woman into being subservient to a man is wrong. Selling a woman into marriage is wrong. These are all things promoted by religions. Not subjective at all.

You say the "process" is subjective. You mean like in deciding whether or not it's okay to lie to spare someone's feelings in a specific social situation? Of course that's subjective. But kindness and generosity are right and selfishness and brutality are wrong. Engaging in brutality because someone else told you to might just be a sign of mental illness. And doing so because you hear voices in your head definitely is.

I believe she's stating that right and wrong (morally) are subjective. (I happen to agree.)

 

[lizzie]

Slavery is wrong. Plenty of religions think that slavery is right. That's not subjective. Burning people alive is wrong. Gouging out people's eyes is wrong. Beating a woman into being subservient to a man is wrong. Selling a woman into marriage is wrong. These are all things promoted by religions. Not subjective at all.

You say the "process" is subjective. You mean like in deciding whether or not it's okay to lie to spare someone's feelings in a specific social situation? Of course that's subjective. But kindness and generosity are right and selfishness and brutality are wrong. Engaging in brutality because someone else told you to might just be a sign of mental illness. And doing so because you hear voices in your head definitely is.

Yes, the process is subjective. People decide what is right or wrong, based on the lens in which their worldview is looked through. All concepts which are deemed right or wrong are dependent on factors influencing the decisions we make. You may say it is wrong to let someone starve to death, and ordinarily I would agree with you. If the underlying problem is gross overpopulation, and a shortage of resources, then that factor changes the decision.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

It is true. There is equivalency. When it comes to judgements of what is right and what is wrong, it's a subjective process, no matter the source of those beliefs.

If you read the article, it goes into discussing how you react to what you perceive as a wrong. Extreme violence roots from extreme hatred which is cultivated through brainwashing (which they are saying can be a form of mental illness). Anyway, anyone who acts in a violent way because they think it is the "right" thing to do, more than likely has been brainwashed.

 

[lizzie]

If you read the article, it goes into discussing how you react to what you perceive as a wrong. Extreme violence roots from extreme hatred which is cultivated through brainwashing (which they are saying can be a form of mental illness). Anyway, anyone who acts in a violent way because they think it is the "right" thing to do, more than likely has been brainwashed.

On the bolded, I tend to agree with you, and we can see evidence of this among environmentalists as well as religious fanatics. That is one of the reasons I place them under the same umbrella of adherence to an ideology.

Then, on the other hand, I was "brainwashed" as a child with Christianity, but I don't believe in violence as a solution, unless someone commits violence against me first. Where does that leave me? Mentally ill?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I think every culture has a form of brainwashing, otherwise rational thinking people, into killers for a "cause".

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

On the bolded, I tend to agree with you, and we can see evidence of this among environmentalists as well as religious fanatics. That is one of the reasons I place them under the same umbrella of adherence to an ideology.

Okay, I didn't know environmentalist killed people in the name of saving the environment.

 

[lizzie]

Okay, I didn't know environmentalist killed people in the name of saving the environment.

They destroy property with violent means and intent. You don't have to kill someone in order to commit destruction.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

They destroy property with violent means and intent. You don't have to kill someone in order to commit destruction.

Yeah, that does seem rather irrational if they destroy the very environment they proclaim to want to save.

 

[Manc Skipper]

If you read the article, it goes into discussing how you react to what you perceive as a wrong. Extreme violence roots from extreme hatred which is cultivated through brainwashing (which they are saying can be a form of mental illness). Anyway, anyone who acts in a violent way because they think it is the "right" thing to do, more than likely has been brainwashed.

It takes religion to make people fly planes into buildings thinking it's a good idea.

 

[Paschendale]

I believe she's stating that right and wrong (morally) are subjective. (I happen to agree.)

So under what circumstances is it subjectively alright to murder a complete stranger who isn't affecting me at all? Take as long as you want to figure out the answer to this.

Yes, the process is subjective. People decide what is right or wrong, based on the lens in which their worldview is looked through. All concepts which are deemed right or wrong are dependent on factors influencing the decisions we make. You may say it is wrong to let someone starve to death, and ordinarily I would agree with you. If the underlying problem is gross overpopulation, and a shortage of resources, then that factor changes the decision.

So then your real point is that most situations are too complicated to live by a short set of hard and fast rules. Which is what most religions try to do.

Of course, this is very much all digression. No matter how you make your moral decisions, which is more sane, to use reason and empathy, or to submit to the unwavering authority of people who claim to hear voices in their heads?

 

[lizzie]

It takes religion to make people fly planes into buildings thinking it's a good idea.

What does this take?:

During the past two decades, radical environmental and animal rights groups have claimed responsibility for hundreds of crimes and acts of terrorism, including arson, bombings, vandalism and harassment, causing more than $100 million in damage. While some activists have been captured, ecoterror cells - small and loosely affiliated - are extremely difficult to identify and most attacks remain unsolved. Although it has been overshadowed by Islamic terrorist threats since September 11, ecoterrorism remains one of the country's most active terrorist movements

Ecoterrorism: Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

It takes religion to make people fly planes into buildings thinking it's a good idea.

....or other forms of dogma. I don't think it is limited to religion.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I believe extreme nationalism is another good example.

 

[Manc Skipper]

What does this take?:


Ecoterrorism: Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements

some of them are crimes, but by and large they are crimes against property, not people.

 

[afr0byte]

So under what circumstances is it subjectively alright to murder a complete stranger who isn't affecting me at all? Take as long as you want to figure out the answer to this.

Well, that's the point. Someone could decide that it's OK to murder someone if they feel like it. From their moral perspective it might be OK. Clearly we disagree, but I don't see how you can prove one is right or one is wrong, objectively.