Are religions pathological?

[duckstab]

I'm a Buddhist and I won't presume to speak to the experiences of the founders of Christianity, Islam, or any other major religion. But in most traditional accounts of the Buddha's enlightenment, there are clearly some extraordinary things going on. I personally don't believe for a second that arrows fired by Mara's demon army at Gautama turned into flowers or that the Buddha caused the earth to shake by touching the ground. The question is, were these extraordinary events something that the Buddha himself claimed to have experienced, or were they a later invention by certain Buddhists?

In the latter case, they are of course easy to dismiss. I think this is actually the most likely explanation. But even if the former were the case, would that matter to me?

I believe that people can enter states of consciousness that are far removed from ordinary reality, and that in and of themselves these states are not necessarily pathological. Those states can arise from any number of causes: fever, intoxication, hypnosis, meditation, whatever.

What counts for me is, what insights arose from those states? In the case of the Buddha, he came up with a diagnosis for the suffering inherent in the human condition and offered a path for escaping that suffering that deeply resonates with me. The exact nature of his experience is not something I can ever know, nor is it particularly important.

 

[Funky]

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.

The development of religious beliefs is most likely due to the evolutionary benefit of assigning agency to unknown causes. The famous example, which you are probably aware of, is that of the caveman sitting under a tree when he hears a rustling in the grass. If he assumes it is the wind and he stays seated, and it turns out to be a tiger, he will get eaten and will not pass on his genes. If he assumes it is a tiger, and he rushes to climb up the tree, he will be able to pass on his genes, even if it was really just the wind. Later, the early humans could cognitively connect the assumption of agency to to other causes, like the movement of the sun or the moon, and later to more sophisticated forms of religion.
That the root of religion served as an evolutionary benefit does not mean that religion and superstition serve a purpose now. In fact, I'd argue that any belief which detaches us from reality is potentially harmful - if not on an individual level, then on a societal level.

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.

Virtually every religious claim that was ever made has been refuted. We may never be able to completely refute the most vague, deistic notion of some kind of creating force, but that is not what religious people tend to believe in anyway.

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.

Individual happiness is a poor indicator for the usefulness (or harmfulness) of religion. To take an extreme example, wiretapings of Muslim suicide bombers have shown that before they blow themselves up they are extremely happy, because they believe that they and their whole families will go to the highest level of heaven. Needless to say, their actions are not conducive to human flourishing, neither for themselves nor for others.

You seem to arguing for a kind of placebo effect of religion. But it seems to me that if the benefits that religion offer are not based in reality, there should be no reason why we can't build a society that offers the same benefits. When it comes to spirituality, religion, by having the monopoly on the spiritual realm, is actually impeding progress which could come from scientific research on what our brain is capable of experiencing. This is a point Harris makes in the book I mentioned.

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.

Harris' main argument is that we can speak about morality in objective terms. He doesn't claim that liberalism and secular humanism is necessarily the best we have, but that they are clearly better than most other moral systems mankind has experienced, since they are most conducive to human flourishing. His metaphor of a moral landscape, which potentially has many peaks (and many valleys), suggests that various different systems could be equally benefical.

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.

Harris and the other individuals you mentioned are more like yourself than you think. By the way, if you don't believe in the existence of God, you are an atheist. Being an atheist just means you haven't been convinced by the evidence for God, not that you can say for certain a God doesn't exist (which nobody really can).

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

If you had read to the end of the sentence, it would have become clear what is meant.

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

 

[BvBPL]

If you had read to the end of the sentence, it would have become clear what is meant.

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

For a belief to be a delusion, it must be fixed. Religious beliefs, generally, are not fixed. Ergo, for most people, they are not delusions.

 

[Bootstoots]

What do you mean by fixed? If it's supposed to mean unchanging in time, then most religions are more fixed than most other delusions. Like a schizophrenic might sometimes believe the CIA put electronic bugs in his brain, and other times MI6 put real bugs in his brain, and other times the FSB put polonium in his brain, and still other times the Mossad is reading his thoughts using an ancient Jewish ritual. Often their beliefs aren't fixed in time at all, but we'd all call them delusions.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What do you mean by fixed? If it's supposed to mean unchanging in time, then most religions are more fixed than most other delusions. Like a schizophrenic might sometimes believe the CIA put electronic bugs in his brain, and other times MI6 put real bugs in his brain, and other times the FSB put polonium in his brain, and still other times the Mossad is reading his thoughts using an ancient Jewish ritual. Often their beliefs aren't fixed in time at all, but we'd all call them delusions.

And isn't that the bottom line...if "we all" agree, and someone else doesn't, they are delusional. Ultimately, reality is just an agreement.

 

[BvBPL]

A delusion is a unchanging conviction held regardless of evidence to the contrary. The subject of a delusion will believe in the delusion regardless of any or all evidence presented to the contrary. A religious belief, for most people, is not unchanging. People experience instances of conversion, crises of faith, assurances of faith, and questioning of their religious beliefs on a regular basis. These instances of changing, modification, weakening, or strengthening of religious belief demonstrate that, for most people, religious belief is not unchanging in the manner that would describe a delusion.

The party in your description is not deluded as to the identity of the intelligence agencies bugging his brain as demonstrated by the changing of what intelligence agencies he believes are bugging his brain. He may be deluded as to the possibility that others are able to read his thoughts however (although I suspect it would be better described as a psychosis rather than more specifically as a delusion).

Certainly delusion is defined more broadly in the vulgate, but if we are talking about specific pathologies and pulling out the diagnostic manual for the same then the more on point and narrow medical definition should rule.

 

[innonimatu]

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?

Am I deluded to claim that there are no flying unicorns, even though there is "evidence" that I cannot really know (in some remote planet such a species might exist)?

Not that I care for people using the DSM to back any claims whatsoever.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Am I deluded to claim that there are no flying unicorns, even though there is "evidence" that I cannot really know (in some remote planet such a species might exist)?

Not that I care for people using the DSM to back any claims whatsoever.

I dunno. Is this "no flying unicorns" claim something that you routinely seek agreement with? Do you leap wildly to the defense of this claim if you hear the words "flying unicorn" as if it were a trigger on your mental state? When you see something you don't understand is your immediate response "well, I know it isn't a flying unicorn"? If you are that fixated on nonexistent flying unicorns I'd be a bit worried for you, yes.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The mind is a pretty mysterious place and its diseases stem from many sources. Some are physical, some learned or inflicted, and some genetic. Religious or spiritual beliefs can arise from any of those, but not all beliefs necessarily do. They might be selected or accepted because no other choice seems reasonable. Experience has the capability of overwhelming the rational mind in ways that are quite astonishing.

One must be careful about assuming that "rational thought" is always superior to the experiential. Both are useful in their own way and we would be all the poorer if we let one rule the other.

 

[duckstab]

One must be careful about assuming that "rational thought" is always superior to the experiential. Both are useful in their own way and we would be all the poorer if we let one rule the other.

Well, and when you put quotes around "rational thought" I think you're also hinting at something more profound: that it isn't as rational as it thinks it is

I find that frequently when people expound ethical, political, or economic theories on the sole basis of rationality, they haven't really freed themselves from their own emotional or cognitive bias. They've merely blinded themselves to it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I put the quotes around it because it was the "topic" or "words under discussion" not because it had some unusual meaning. I should have put "experiential" in quotes too.

 

[Lexicus]

I dunno. Is this "no flying unicorns" claim something that you routinely seek agreement with? Do you leap wildly to the defense of this claim if you hear the words "flying unicorn" as if it were a trigger on your mental state? When you see something you don't understand is your immediate response "well, I know it isn't a flying unicorn"? If you are that fixated on nonexistent flying unicorns I'd be a bit worried for you, yes.

I find this rather silly as no one I know of seriously believes in flying unicorns or takes any actions based on their belief in flying unicorns.

This isn't really true for theists, however. Indeed, that atheism is even defined as a "position" is only because of the historical centricity of religion in human affairs. We don't typically assign a word to people who don't believe in flying unicorns, nor do we say that lack of belief in flying unicorns requires one to positively affirm that there are no flying unicorns.

Atheism encompasses any belief system not including a positive belief in deities of some kind. There is no need for the atheist to say affirmatively that there is no god. It's enough to point out the lack of evidence, or sometimes, basic logical consistency, in most of the pro-god arguments.

Obviously if your deity gets vague enough it gets unfalsifiable and then the question of whether it "exists" becomes meaningless. But one can still understand that and be an atheist- or a theist for that matter.

As to the OP, the answer is obviously no. The reason religions exist is that they clearly provide extremely high levels of social utility. Indeed, religion in a broad sense is separate from the belief in the supernatural: religion should be understood as beliefs about the relationship between man and the cosmos, which may or may not include gods and magic. So defined it's difficult to imagine humans living without religion of some kind.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I find this rather silly as no one I know of seriously believes in flying unicorns or takes any actions based on their belief in flying unicorns.

And yet they were brought up...yet again. It's amazing how something no one believes in gets talked about so much.

This isn't really true for theists, however. Indeed, that atheism is even defined as a "position" is only because of the historical centricity of religion in human affairs. We don't typically assign a word to people who don't believe in flying unicorns, nor do we say that lack of belief in flying unicorns requires one to positively affirm that there are no flying unicorns.

I certainly distinguish between those who do not believe in a god or gods and those who actively believe in the non god. I don't ask, or encourage, anyone to positively affirm their position on god or gods...whatever their position may be. The hard core worshipers of the non god seem to need no encouragement to make their affirmations. As evidence, I submit this thread.

That said, not believing in flying unicorns is an almost universal position, while not believing in god or gods is a minority position. It is no surprise that such positions would be treated differently.

Atheism encompasses any belief system not including a positive belief in deities of some kind. There is no need for the atheist to say affirmatively that there is no god. It's enough to point out the lack of evidence, or sometimes, basic logical consistency, in most of the pro-god arguments.

Obviously if your deity gets vague enough it gets unfalsifiable and then the question of whether it "exists" becomes meaningless. But one can still understand that and be an atheist- or a theist for that matter.

Agreed. I would add that a "deity," by its nature, is not falsifiable. It doesn't have to "get vague enough." It starts there.

As to the OP, the answer is obviously no. The reason religions exist is that they clearly provide extremely high levels of social utility. Indeed, religion in a broad sense is separate from the belief in the supernatural: religion should be understood as beliefs about the relationship between man and the cosmos, which may or may not include gods and magic. So defined it's difficult to imagine humans living without religion of some kind.

Though you didn't ask, I will volunteer my own position. Rather than "between man and the cosmos" I prefer to consider the relationship between man and what is beyond us. As one large group would call it, the "power greater than ourselves." What is critical in that description is the word "greater."

Any religion that is of value, which I have found all of them that I have studied to be in this regard except for the worship of the non god, provides a lesson in humility. There's always an unknown at work. We can comfort ourselves by assigning control of this unknown to a pantheon of gods governed by very human virtues and vices. We can comfort ourselves by calling the unknown god with a capital G and again anthropomorphising the big cloudy man in the sky. We can spend ten thousand words describing the boundary of what we know, or we can use the single word "god" to encompass all that there is beyond that boundary, refusing to embellish on this as if we can make the unknown known through the power of our speculation.

Being thrifty with words, I choose that last one.

 

[Tahuti]

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

I'd argue that we should distinguish 'religion' from a 'belief system', the latter of which does not require any organisation, the former requiring both organisation and a belief system.

For instance, one follows a Buddhist belief system, yet is not affiliated, hence not part of any religion.

Spoiler :

It should be cautioned that the term 'religion' has a Christian bias: Ancient Judaism was once inseperable from the Kingdom of Israel in the same way the Roman Empire was effectively an expression of Roman religion until its adoption of Christianity. What seems to be understood as 'religion' is the dissemination of belief systems through organisational structures that are not necessarily related to the state though may or may not be attached to it.

In most European and Middle-Eastern ethnic religions, the state was the organisation to disseminate ethnic belief systems, hence the rather swift decline of such whenever such states adopted Islam or Christianity. Modern Judaism and Neopaganism are essentially reformations of ethnic religion influenced by Christianity in order survive without states dedicated to enforcing its practice.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

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?

To answer in order: no; no/possibly; no unless perverted; no not really.

Something from a spiritual authority close on the topic:

Hallucination is the term of Science for those irregular glimpses we still have of truths shut out from us by our preoccupation with matter; coincidence for the curious touches of artistry in the work of that supreme & universal Intelligence which in its conscious being as on a canvas has planned & executed the world.

That which men term a hallucination is the reflection in the mind & senses of that which is beyond our ordinary mental & sensory perceptions. Superstition arises from the mind’s wrong understanding of these reflections. There is no other hallucination.

 

[The_J]

In case anyone is interested in reading something biology related here .
"Midichlorians - the biomeme hypothesis: is there a microbial component to religious rituals?" https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-9-14
Attention: While this is a scientific paper, it's pure speculation (but entertaining to read).
In short: There are e.g. parasites for snails, which make the snails crawl up gras more often, so that they can get easier eaten by the birds, in which the parasites reproduce. The authors speculate that this could also be with religion, that religous people have a parasite infestation, which makes them do rituals (e.g. washing yourself in the ganges), which will help the parasite to spread further.
There's no scientific evidence for this (yet?), but the hypothesis itself sounds in some way plausible (in some way not, for sure).

But people also have speculated for SETI for the same thing, that we have some parasite which makes us call the aliens, so that they can spread in them too.

 

[Lexicus]

And yet they were brought up...yet again. It's amazing how something no one believes in gets talked about so much.

Is it? I don't think people spend all that much time talking about them, all things considered. Perhaps relatively rarely in internet discussions about atheism. I prefer to bring up the invisible fairies or leprechauns to make the same point.

That said, not believing in flying unicorns is an almost universal position, while not believing in god or gods is a minority position. It is no surprise that such positions would be treated differently.

Well, that's what I'm saying. There is no logical difference between them, only social/historical difference.

Agreed. I would add that a "deity," by its nature, is not falsifiable. It doesn't have to "get vague enough." It starts there.

I don't think so; deities like the God of the Bible are already falsified. We know there was no global flood and that the Earth wasn't created in six days; we know that Jesus never turned water into wine and that he wasn't resurrected from the dead. We know because these things violate the known laws of physics. From another angle it is pretty easy to show that the Abrahamic god, and all other gods in all religious traditions, are simply human inventions. One can for example trace the names of these gods to their origins, and see how their attributes emerged from the cultures that invented them and so forth. I'll admit this doesn't exactly disprove their existence but it is...shall we say...suspicious.

Now, this is why I say "vague enough", because to sustain the belief in the Abrahamic god (just as an example with which most of us should be familiar) one must hedge the belief and claim that parts of the Bible are meant to be merely metaphorical. That effectively is making god vaguer.

Though you didn't ask, I will volunteer my own position. Rather than "between man and the cosmos" I prefer to consider the relationship between man and what is beyond us. As one large group would call it, the "power greater than ourselves." What is critical in that description is the word "greater."

I would say there is much overlap between this and what I said. The cosmos is after all undeniably greater than ourselves, and encompasses all that one believes exists, whether supernatural or not.

Any religion that is of value, which I have found all of them that I have studied to be in this regard except for the worship of the non god, provides a lesson in humility. There's always an unknown at work. We can comfort ourselves by assigning control of this unknown to a pantheon of gods governed by very human virtues and vices. We can comfort ourselves by calling the unknown god with a capital G and again anthropomorphising the big cloudy man in the sky. We can spend ten thousand words describing the boundary of what we know, or we can use the single word "god" to encompass all that there is beyond that boundary, refusing to embellish on this as if we can make the unknown known through the power of our speculation.

Being thrifty with words, I choose that last one.

Well, wasn't it you who in that other thread just recently said something making fun of the Christians who believe the environment was given to us by god to destroy?
Theologies don't necessarily teach humility. Conversely it's possible to be an atheist, even an outspoken one (worshipper of the non god in your terms?) and yet have a profound sense of spirituality and humility in the face of the universe. Think Carl Sagan (or me for that matter ).

I think by "worshippers of the non god" you mean the people I would call "followers of scientism," who seem to have embraced (their understanding of) "science" as a religion. There are very few actual scientists who are also followers of scientism.

The follower of scientism is characterized by contempt for people who believe in things that he (they are almost always dudes) regards as irrational, and believes that his understanding of science makes him mentally superior to stupid people with faith in gods. He will react extremely defensively when you point out that science itself is based on postulates that must be taken on faith, because he believes that he has superseded such primitive concepts.

I'd argue that we should distinguish 'religion' from a 'belief system', the latter of which does not require any organisation, the former requiring both organisation and a belief system.

Buddhism definitely has all the attributes of religion in the areas where it's "indigenous" (technically only a small part of India, but for this usage including SE Asia, Tibet, China, Japan, etc). Its adherents usually believe in many deities and spirits, there is organization, priests, rituals, etc.

This may be somewhat ironic considering that in Buddhist philosophy belief in gods and spirits is itself a form of attachment which is supposed to be transcended.

It should be cautioned that the term 'religion' has a Christian bias: Ancient Judaism was once inseperable from the Kingdom of Israel in the same way the Roman Empire was effectively an expression of Roman religion until its adoption of Christianity. What seems to be understood as 'religion' is the dissemination of belief systems through organisational structures that are not necessarily related to the state though may or may not be attached to it.

In most European and Middle-Eastern ethnic religions, the state was the organisation to disseminate ethnic belief systems, hence the rather swift decline of such whenever such states adopted Islam or Christianity. Modern Judaism and Neopaganism are essentially reformations of ethnic religion influenced by Christianity in order survive without states dedicated to enforcing its practice.

On a related note it is arguably anachronistic to even use the word "religion" when describing predmodern societies, since religion was not separate from any other part of human activity.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

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.

I am not sure that ability to "override affective empathy in relationships" is particulary useful in clergy positions but carrier in politics or purely manager-like positions could be altogether different matter.

I do believe that religions are associated with, shall we say, maladjusted or frail states of existence.

Are you trying to say here that religions arent perfect? Amen but so is pretty much everything else.

They arise (and reproduce over time, and expand in space) because they provide their members the comfort of "belonging to a group".

That may be the most common reason behind religious expansion but definitely not its most important. In purest sense the goal of any religion isnt its expansion of quantity (even though that too is correct) but of quality through sublimisation and illumination of individual life within the community.

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 fact these go naturaly together and are both a necessity and expression of individual existence within the society. You can suppress the individual or avoid the society but they are naturally interdependent.

 

[Funky]

That may be the most common reason behind religious expansion but definitely not its most important. In purest sense the goal of any religion isnt its expansion of quantity (even though that too is correct) but of quality through sublimisation and illumination of individual life within the community.

In my opinion, the main reason why religions developed and spread in every society that has ever existed, and why they still last today, despite the fact that virtually every religious claim has been refuted by science and logic, is simple: our fear of death. What every religion has in common is some promise of an afterlife, whether it's heaven, Walhalla, reincarnation etc. Even some atheists are convinced that there must be something after death, even though everything we know about the world suggests that this is not the case.
The rational-thinking part of our brain is only responsible for a fraction of our attitides, behaviours and actions. We are driven by instinct and unconscious processes way more than we like to admit. Our instinctive terror that we will eventually cease to exist tends to cloud our ability of rational thought.

This is why I am not all too optimistic that we will overcome religion any time soon. However, some researchers have claimed that the prospect of being able to upload our brains onto a harddrive and essentially be able to live forever is not mere science-fiction, but a very real possibility. Some estimates say that we may acquire the technological understanding for such a procedure in a few short decades. I'm not going to be holding my breath. But if that should one day become possible, it may indeed be the end of religion.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. Religions can indeed be pathological.

But in my opinion, we need (as has been down in this thread already) to distinguish between the outward doctrinal forms of religion and the inner form - which could well, I suppose (though I don't like the term myself), be termed spirituality. Spirituality is rather the reverse of insanity and pathology. It's the world coming into ever closer focus for the individual.

Doctrinal religion is about surrendering one's idea of truth to someone else.

Spirituality is about claiming it for oneself.

Perhaps.

Or, if you like, spirituality is a healthy pathology. But could only be described as pathological by someone in the grip of a societal pathology.

Maybe. Very maybe.

I don't think spirituality is due to our fear of death (necessarily). But our desire to live "better" lives.