And yet you can't tell me what they are ...
Religion question?
- Thread starter squarehead94
- Start date
And yet you can't tell me what they are ...
Good question. It's really just a catch all to rule out the obviously bonkers. You can get religious delusions as I alluded to but they do come across as quite different from the normal standpoint of the religious person. People who have religious delusions tend to be more extreme in their problems. Fundamentally, though the difference is one of effect. The delusional mind will impinge on the health of the body (hence why they interest us) whereas in the main the religious mind will not.
How delusions present (and they often have religious components) is that they tend to be internally targeted and personal. For example, the CIA have bugged my PC or there is someone in my room that watches me if I turn the lights out etc. You can also see how the delusions change over time along this route to become more harmful, personal and obviously incorrect. It is a spectrum thing (say the difference between drinking and alcoholism) - yes there are many similarities - but the key change is one is not causing direct consequence whereas the other is (well short term anyway). Therefore, the subtle difference that is being missed is that you can't have a delusion and remove the social context. When you look at examples that helps us clearly identify what is obviously wrong in the vast majority of cases ie ruling out the obviously bizarre. However, Freud would totally agree with you! But as with most things if you agree with Freud it's time to start panicking.
So going back to the original point there is a difference between the two. To call religion a delusion is wrong. The very definition of a delusion excludes that possibility. It does not however mean that the same mechanics aren't at work. But I expect you would not call everyone who drink alcoholics whilst some of them may be. As to your last part then yes that is very pertinent. You would consider that because then you have some rather strange behaviour being normalised in a small population. However, we would see harmful effects in that population which is something that we do see in cults. They have a tendency to self-immolate rather than hold jumble-sales.
Completely unsubstantiated by research and my own personal belief is:
Religion fulfills a need inside the human body to have events taken out of its control. Most people lack the drive, skills or aptitude to become a leader and most choose to follow. From a evolutionary point of view it would make sense for a social animal to subjugate itself to the will of authority therefore preventing constant competition at the expense of stability that will be required for certain events eg gestation and childbirth. Religion (or rather faith) is a manifestation of that tendency. Another form would be the subjugation to a figure who assumes a Godlike role eg Mao, Hitler or Stalin etc or when presented with strange situations eg Stockholm Syndrome. I also believe that the human body counterbalances this with an innate need to control its own destiny. These two needs clash and a balance ensues for most.
This does not make the claims of religion true but it may mean religion fulfills a basic need humans have. Under normal circumstances this is fine. However, when the balance for this need is out of kilter we move into the pathological and you get manifestations of imagined external control eg delusions. These are harmful and have direct and obvious harmful consequences.
All of our drives, impulses and behaviour are never really exhibited in terms of black and white but rather a mix somewhere in the middle. I just think this is another case. When we are talking about irony I do find it ironical though and this is no sleight at anyone on these forums but society in general (nor have I ever said these are equally weighted as some would suggest I have done) but it makes me laugh how people can automatically lump healthy people with religious beliefs into the pathological category but when they are presented with an obviously overly excited attention deficient young boy they are so reluctant to accept the pathological and will place it down to bad parenting ie they will label the pathological not on the scientific basis and evidence, they claim to love, but on personal prejudice and opinion the very things they castigate religion for. All the while they presume that reality exists according to their perception (a good one imo) but will deny religious people the very same leeway.
I do not believe on the balance of evidence there is a god. But I also realise that such a being would be beyond my comprehension is all likelihood so it is a question that is not really worth my close attention. I am more concerned about the important things like why are bats so friggin' dangerous, is it a coincidence dolph and stockhausen have dropped their post rates at the same time, etc! But I do believe that the severe manifestations of religion, without context or examination, leads to some pretty inhumane acts. Likewise I also believe that science is often guilty of not examining its practice and promoting inhumane things and doing harm when it is pursuing some of its goals. You only have to look at some branches of medicine, and it is being questioned more and more now, to ask yourself - that's great we can do that and push the limits of science but should we, is it right?
Last edited:
Well at least Castiel understood what I was on about.
In fact didn't you say the same to Castiel some time back and challenge him. The when it came out you was only 10-11 stone and about 6 inches shorter than him you backed down like a little female-dog?
Last edited:
Well at least Castiel understood what I was on about.
In fact didn't you say the same to Castiel some time back and challenge him. The when it came out you was only 10-11 stone and about 6 inches shorter than him you backed down like a little female-dog?
I'll stand and bang with anyone dude
"The bigger they are the harder they fall" - Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Oh really. I imagined you more as prepubescent James Thompson.
A legend for lasting 15 secs. I hope you do better than that or your clients must be terribly disappointed.
Incidentally do you have .gifs for every fighter? Maybe you could do something useful and do a best of "TKO by Soccer Kicks".
Science is based on evidence. Anything without evidence is just pencilled in at best. As a result, science leads to reliable, testable, tangible things.
Would you consider praying your posts onto people's screens? Why not, if it's a matter of faith?
It's sophistry to class science as being a faith because of things such as it being based on observed reality and there's a possibility that observations by humans or machines made by humans are wrong.
You're missing the difference between subjective perception and objective reality.
1) Can we measure god? No. Can me measure peoples' perception of a god through their own religious experience? We could try to by measuring physiological markers and a qualitative assessment of the experience. Would people accept this as evidence that the people tested feel religious faith? They do daily.
2) Can we measure pain? No. Can me measure peoples' perception of pain through their own experiences of pain? We could try by measuring physiological markers and a qualitative assessment of the experience. Would people accept this as evidence that the people tested feel pain? They do daily.
3) If a person who felt pain believed that they felt pain because Darth Vader was using The Force on them, would people accept this as evidence that The Force is real, that Darth Vader is real and that Darth Vader is using The Force to cause the pain? No.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 3,443
I can't be bothered reading the thread but you don't prove something doesn't exist, you have to prove it does exist.
/thread.
Its called disproving something.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,323
- Location
- Woking
No it's called the burden of proof; if you claim the existence of something you must be the one to prove it, not the group in opposition.
Well how does a positivist such as yourself demonstrate that there is a universe is not some figment of your imagination?
You can't but I bet I'll see the usual well we have to start somewhere. So now we are saying science gets to bend the rules where it sees fit and no-one else does. You believe the universe is measurable you have no proof of that it is merely a good assumption because otherwise we'd be screwed.
And to the last few posts isn't it:
The best we can say so far is we have done all this and it hasn't shown to be false.
A lovely non-sequitor.
But it is a non-sequitor.
You were comparing an objective thing (the existence of whatever god or gods a person believes in) with a subjective thing (the perception of pain). In more general terms, you were comparing incomparable things. Your conclusion was therefore invalid. The correct analogy was, as I stated, that evidence of a person feeling pain is evidence of them feeling pain and evidence of a person feeling religious belief is evidence of them feeling religious belief. Neither is evidence of a seperate entity. A belief in a god or gods is not evidence that they exist - that is the false conclusion you were making.
As has been pointed out on this forum numerous times, the existence of the bible and the beliefs of ~2 billion Christians are enough to satisfy the burden of proof to the point where disproving is just as important as proving beyond doubt.