Are religions pathological?

[Tahuti]

Schizophrenia is marked by unusual perceptions. Could it be that the great historical prophets such as the Buddha, Moses, Jesus Christ and Muhammad are Schizophrenic or have another mental atypicality which makes them susceptible to psychosis?

Now, to add to the mix, according to Kevin Dutton, clergy positions are highly attractive to Psychopaths. Psychopathy is marked by fearlessness and the ability override affective empathy in relationships.

So, are religions inventions of Schizophrenics, then used as power tools by Psychopaths? Are religions pathological? Or are Schizophrenics perhaps right?

 

[innonimatu]

To call religious pathological would be to endorse the catalog of "mind diseases" we have today. Which is something I will not do.

I do believe that religions are associated with, shall we say, maladjusted or frail states of existence. They arise (and reproduce over time, and expand in space) because they provide their members the comfort of "belonging to a group". There is such a thing as individual religious belief, non-organized, but it is symptomatic that we do not even consider it in normal conversations about religion. Those end up always being about the organized religion kind.

In any society you get all kinds of people. Religious organizations prey on the lonely and unsure to be their members, peons. But so do many other kinds of organizations. And the upper ranks of religious organizations have a relative abundance of ambitious, unscrupulous people - what some call a disease and name "psychopathy". This too happens in other kinds of organizations. So you can say that religion attracts diverse kinds of people. Those who have a more widespread interests and a diverse social network (one comes with the other, generally) care little about membership in some organized religion, even though they may be members of one. Those who have grown to be less social more easily become "prey" caught in a specific organization, which may be a religious one. And odds are they will let themselves be used and abused by the organization - because they find themselves unable to move out.

One more interesting question would be: does the occasion make the psychopath? Do religions become "pathological" (to use your term) when the people caught up in them each individually has (or feels he/she has) no social alternative to being a member?

 

[Tahuti]

One more interesting question would be: does the occasion make the psychopath? Do religions become "pathological" (to use your term) when the people caught up in them each individually has (or feels he/she has) no social alternative to being a member?

Like Autism, Psychopathy is a neurological orientation, you are born as one or not. That being said, Neurotypical people who mimic Psychopaths may be labelled as Sociopaths. Sociopathy is made by averse life circumstances and this may lead people to join cults and religions and aspire to assume positions of authority because of this condition.

However, if it's true that most prophets are Schizophrenic or would fall into another illness by modern psychiatric standards, religions are pathological by their very creation.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, but some people are. Everyone has an unproven belief system. Some people insist that other people accept their belief system, generally out of the need for agreement that arises out of the uncertainty involved in facing the unknown. If that need is taken to extremes and drives anti-social self defeating behaviors then it is a pathology.

For example, you have this beef about religions, and insist that others agree with you. I suspect that someone refusing to provide agreement could drive you to anti-social self defeating behaviors, but I could be proven wrong in that.

 

[Marla_Singer]

By disease, I imagine you refer to a functionnal organic disorder.

There are two very different aspects in religion which should be dissociated: superstition and spirituality. Those may be intertwined but their nature is very different.

Spirituality heavily relies on philosophy and questionning, which in itself is not a disorder, so I put that aspect aside. As for supersititions, those relies on what we call the "herd behaviour". Herd behaviours are social behaviours that we apply without questioning them simply because others apply them as well.

Herd behaviours aren't proper to Human and also apply to animals. They are fully part of the way our brain constructs ourselves so in this aspect they are not a disease. Quite at the opposite, herd behaviours can be an efficient way to ensure survival. A herd behaviour remains nonetheless irrational. Here is a funny video about it:


Link to video.


As for psychopathy, it's totally unrelated to any of both aspects of religion I mentioned. Quite at the opposite, it's related to the fact of not being affected by others behaviours, expressing no empathy towards them, considering them as simple objects or toys. So somehow, we can actually think the lack of empathy from the psychopath will make that individual less sensitive to herd behaviours. This being said, the psychopath will nonetheless notice religion is an efficient instrument to manipulate others (which pyschopaths usually think is a great fun), so psychopaths may enter religion simply for the power it has on others.

 

[BvBPL]

However, if it's true that most prophets are Schizophrenic or would fall into another illness by modern psychiatric standards, religions are pathological by their very creation.

That's not true in the least. The status of the originator of an organization does not create a pathology in the whole organization.

That's like saying that Poe invented The Gothic style. That he was an addict. That addiction is a pathology. Ergo all of gothic writing is a pathology. It is not a valid conclusion to assume the individual traits of one person, even a very important person, upon his subsequent adherents.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's not true in the least. The status of the originator of an organization does not create a pathology in the whole organization.

That's like saying that Poe invented The Gothic style. That he was an addict. That addiction is a pathology. Ergo all of gothic writing is a pathology. It is not a valid conclusion to assume the individual traits of one person, even a very important person, upon his subsequent adherents.

Not to mention that basing a conclusion on a statement that starts out with "If it's true that..." seems to be just an effort towards antagonism, since the subsequent conditional appears to be beyond proving, and no effort is made to support it.

"If it's true that pigs can grow wings, then pigs can fly" is an interesting starting point for a conversation over the eighth drink of the night, but such statements have little other purpose.

 

[BvBPL]

Not to mention that basing a conclusion on a statement that starts out with "If it's true that..." seems to be just an effort towards antagonism, since the subsequent conditional appears to be beyond proving, and no effort is made to support it.

I think there's value in presuming a condition ad argumentum. The problem is not the if statement, but the subsequent conclusion.

If pigs did gave wings then porcine buffalo wings would be the bomb diggity.

 

[Tahuti]

That's not true in the least. The status of the originator of an organization does not create a pathology in the whole organization.

Virtually all religions are also organisations by their very nature. Organisations tend to reflect the values and actions of their founders (and followers) in the name of that organisation. Addictions may influence writers, though those who read it do not necessarily become addicts themselves. Organisations - including and perhaps especially religions - call to their followers to re-enact the actions of their founders.

On the flip-side, one may argue however that psychiatry is wrong and religion is right, assuming the two were incompatible. Many spiritual groups that originated in recent times are described as cults and are often hostile towards psychiatry or vice versa. On the other hand, larger religions may be co-opted by or co-opt psychiatry.

 

[BvBPL]

Virtually all religions are also organisations by their very nature. Organisations tend to reflect the values and actions of their founders (and followers) in the name of that organisations.

Any such tendency becomes increasingly attenuated over the years. The NRA, for example, was founded and operated as a sports men's organization. Now it is more politically focused. That change occurred over less than a hundred years. To presume that similar change in organizational philosophy would not occur over the hundreds of years these religions have existed seems to ignore that organizations do change over time.

Then there's the question of who founded these religions. Did Muhammed found Sunni or Shiaism? Did Buddha develop Mahyana, Theravada, or Zen Buddhism? Did Jesus found Lutheranism or did Luther? These religions have their respective prophets as their sources, but those prophets didn't conceive of the manner in which the subsequent religions have developed.

 

[Tahuti]

Any such tendency becomes increasingly attenuated over the years. The NRA, for example, was founded and operated as a sports men's organization. Now it is more politically focused. That change occurred over less than a hundred years. To presume that similar change in organizational philosophy would not occur over the hundreds of years these religions have existed seems to ignore that organizations do change over time.

Then there's the question of who founded these religions. Did Muhammed found Sunni or Shiaism? Did Buddha develop Mahyana, Theravada, or Zen Buddhism? Did Jesus found Lutheranism or did Luther? These religions have their respective prophets as their sources, but those prophets didn't conceive of the manner in which the subsequent religions have developed.

Organisations that survive to this day are evolutionary by nature: The ones responsive to change survive and like cells, they may branch into different 'organisms'. When I mentioned that "Organisations - including and perhaps especially religions - call to their followers to re-enact the actions of their founders", I realise due to your comments that it makes more sense to say that "organisations call to their followers to re-enact that which is interpreted as the actions of their founders.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Virtually all religions are also organisations by their very nature.

Yet another glaringly wrong statement, demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of what a religion is, and what an organization is, for that matter.

Is "charity" an organization? Obviously, there are charitable organizations. But to call charity an organization would imply some sort of unity across ALL charitable organizations, as well as implying that all who support charity as a virtue are automatically affiliated.

How about "law enforcement"? Is that an organization? Again, there certainly are law enforcement organizations. But if you remind your child not to litter are you thus a member of some overarching structure? Is the Securities and Exchange Commission in the US following the same principles as the Tokyo PD?

To the outside (waaaaaaay outside) view perhaps a religion appears to be some overarching organization. But a religion is just a collection of concepts taken as a framework for perspective. It MAY be agreed upon by members of a religious organization. Such an organization may share some, or most, or even all, of those agreed upon concepts with the religion of other organizations or individuals without those others being part of the organization.

I speculate that the "religion is an organization" concept usually fits in a religion with the "they are out to get me because I don't believe like they do" concept, which is pretty much a core principle with most worshipers of the non-god. Is that what this thread is about?

 

[SLAAKMAN]

Theres nothing pathological about this-

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Galatians 6
6 Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. 2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. 3 If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. 4 Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, 5 for each one should carry their own load. 6 Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.

7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

 

[Bootstoots]

Pathological? Not at all - religion seems to be a fundamental trait of humans. Believing that someone should base their worldview and beliefs around what can be demonstrated with empirical evidence is historically really unusual, and it doesn't come naturally to many (most?) people. Even where old religions fade away, as in much of the modern West, people are naturally drawn to political ideologies, pseudoscience, New Agey stuff, and other things without a firm rational foundation to give them meaning. It seems to me that, for most humans, their 'delusions' are what structures their lives and provides meaning and purpose, and irreligious people have notably higher rates of depression. It takes delusion to keep many people sane.

Using organized religion to control masses of people isn't pathological at all either - systems of social control are ubiquitous and necessary to have a functioning society. That's one of religion's main purposes. Not that I necessarily like that, because I'm a secular Western liberal, but I don't think it makes sense to pathologize something that is perfectly 'normal' in the sense that most human societies do it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Pathological? Not at all - religion seems to be a fundamental trait of humans. Believing that someone should base their worldview and beliefs around what can be demonstrated with empirical evidence is historically really unusual, and it doesn't come naturally to many (most?) people. Even where old religions fade away, as in much of the modern West, people are naturally drawn to political ideologies, pseudoscience, New Agey stuff, and other things without a firm rational foundation to give them meaning. It seems to me that, for most humans, their 'delusions' are what structures their lives and provides meaning and purpose, and irreligious people have notably higher rates of depression. It takes delusion to keep many people sane.

There is an undeniable awareness of "beyond my understanding" in every human, and it has to be dealt with. No human really has any choice in the matter.

 

[Bootstoots]

There is an undeniable awareness of "beyond my understanding" in every human, and it has to be dealt with. No human really has any choice in the matter.

Definitely. I'm as skeptical as they come, but even I get spiritual feelings, senses that things are interconnected on a deep level, and some barely-conscious feeling that there are other realities out there beyond the everyday world. It's just part of who we are, and people like the New Atheists who try to suppress it end up conflicting with reality too.

 

[Funky]

Are religions pathological?

According to DSM 5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) they are:

Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g. persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose).

Religion seems to be a fundamental trait of humans. Believing that someone should base their worldview and beliefs around what can be demonstrated with empirical evidence is historically really unusual, and it doesn't come naturally to many (most?) people. Even where old religions fade away, as in much of the modern West, people are naturally drawn to political ideologies, pseudoscience, New Agey stuff, and other things without a firm rational foundation to give them meaning. It seems to me that, for most humans, their 'delusions' are what structures their lives and provides meaning and purpose, and irreligious people have notably higher rates of depression.

All this is evidence that a predisposition to religious or superstitious beliefs has been drummed into us by evolution. It doesn't say anything about the veracity of such beliefs.

I'm as skeptical as they come, but even I get spiritual feelings, senses that things are interconnected on a deep level, and some barely-conscious feeling that there are other realities out there beyond the everyday world.

Waking up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.

If you are interested in the topic, this is a highly recommendable book.

It's just part of who we are, and people like the New Atheists who try to suppress it end up conflicting with reality too.

Apart from "New Atheists" being a misguided term, how do people who base their views on evidence and try to avoid self-deception conflict with reality? It seems to me the opposite is the case.

 

[Bootstoots]

All this is evidence that a predisposition to religious or superstitious beliefs has been drummed into us by evolution. It doesn't say anything about the veracity of such beliefs.

Of course. Religion, spirituality, and superstitious beliefs are part of how humans evolved, and they are clearly part of 'human nature' to the extent that this is a meaningful term. They serve obvious purposes and seem to be key to the assignment of 'meaning' and 'purpose' for a large fraction of people. But that doesn't mean that anyone's belief systems are actually true. No claims about unfalsifiable things are going to be possible to test scientifically.

Waking up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.

If you are interested in the topic, this is a highly recommendable book.



Apart from "New Atheists" being a misguided term, how do people who base their views on evidence and try to avoid self-deception conflict with reality? It seems to me the opposite is the case.

It's not that - this is fundamentally the way I think too. The sorts of beliefs that I associate with Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al. which I disagree with are that humans will ever reach a point where religion is nonexistent or marginal, or that this is necessarily desirable. On utilitarian grounds, I rather strongly suspect that the loss of religious faith ultimately decreases human happiness, although I have no way to measure this. It's just a conjecture based on how my extreme skepticism affects my own happiness, and on the fact that religious people report higher life satisfaction in surveys.

About that extreme skepticism: I don't think those people are skeptical enough. This is slightly off-topic, but probably the most fundamental disagreement I have with them is my skepticism of the claim (as Harris tried to argue, poorly, in the only book of his I've read) that morality is absolute or that Western liberalism and secular humanism are necessarily the best or most desirable answer. It's not purely relative either, as there are commonalities in moral systems across human cultures and even some things, such as negative reactions to unfair treatment, that occur in animals. This isn't to say I'm against secular humanism or liberalism - I quite like them - but that's just a preference of mine, and many other human moral systems are possible. I guess this would be soft relativism or something like that.

Ultimately all, or nearly all, of my beliefs are subject to change at any time if new evidence mounts against them. I don't get the impression that this is really true for Harris and co. I'm a pretty hard-core agnostic about much more than just God(s). But maybe I've underestimated him, and the book you linked to looks interesting. I may check it out.

 

[BvBPL]

According to DSM 5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) they are:

A religious belief is, for the vast majority of people, not fixed and therefore not a delusion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

According to DSM 5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) they are:

Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

I have a perfect example! Atheists who claim to know there is no god. A fixed belief, definitely. They are not amenable to change despite the fact that there is an endless amount of evidence that they cannot really know. Is suffering from this delusion part of your reasons for participating in this thread with such vehemence?