5 reasons atheists shouldn’t call religion a mental illness

[cbayer]

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/02/24/5-reasons-atheists-shouldnt-call-religion-mental-illness/

Chris Stedman | Feb 24, 2014
Chris Stedman is the Assistant Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, Coordinator of Humanist Life for the Yale Humanist Community, and author of Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious.

A few days ago, in a post on faith healing, American Atheists president Dave Silverman wrote: “We must recognize religion as brainwashing. We must recognize the (hyper) religious as mentally damaged.”

He’s not the first to equate religion with mental illness or “mental damage.” Bill Maher has called religion “a neurological disorder.” Sam Harris wrote in The End of Faith, “it is difficult to imagine a set of beliefs more suggestive of mental illness than those that lie at the heart of many of our religious traditions.” Facebook groups claiming religion is a “mental disorder” or “mental disease” boast hundreds of members, and a list of “7 reasons why religion is a form of mental illness” has been shared on a number of atheist blogs.

It seems clear to me that religion isn’t a form of mental illness, and that calling it one reflects a shallow understanding of both mental illness and religion—or, worse still, a knowing attempt to use mental illness as an insult.

While this discussion is worthy of lengthy consideration, I consulted with two atheist activists and compiled five reasons atheists should avoid this problematic parallel:

more at link

[unblock]

1. as a jewish atheist, i disagree with their definition. belief in supernatural isn't necessary.

I have a religion, it's judaism. it is a religion of identity, not a religion of faith. belief is not required.

when mrs. unblock converted to judaism, she asked the rabbi is it was a problem that she was an atheist.

the rabbi said, "no! so am i!"

[cbayer]

4. Even if one's religion includes the belief in something supernatural,

that still doesn't meet the definition of a psychiatric disorder.

It's nothing more than a smear when used by most people.

[unblock]

7. i agree it's nothing but insulting. but i don't buy the well-being part of the defense

that if it's a mental disorder, it's a strange kind of disorder because it's usually associated with increased well-being.

my point is that it's not the mythological belief part that's the source of the increased well-being. it's things like belonging to a community, making connections, doing charitable acts, introspection, structure and ritual, etc.

[cbayer]

9. I agree with you unblock.

It will be interested to see studies that look at things like "well being" that begin to define categories as affiliated and not affiliated.

There are growing ranks of unaffiliated believers and, conversely, affiliated non-believers.

I tend to agree that it is being part of a community that plays a role in things like "well being". And perhaps whether there is religion attached to that or not is not a significant factor.

[randr]

2. At the least it is a puzzling mental condition

Humans the world over seem to have an inherent need for answers to the unknown.

[cbayer]

3. I think "mental condition" could be interpreted as "disorder".

I would prefer to use much more neutral terms to describe what you accurately describe as "an inherent need for answers to the unknown".

It is this same need that drives science and many other human endeavors, including religious quests.

[gwheezie]

5. In many ways religion and science

attempt to answer similar questions, my position as an atheist is religion lacks imagination by attempting to force the answers into a context that is very limiting, a man-like being who makes stuff and then controls it. I don't think it's a mental illness though, religion just seems primitive to me.

[cbayer]

6. The lack of imagination is an interesting quandary.

While I agree that trying to force the answers into some anthropomorphized concept of god is primitive, there is the other side of the coin which encompasses inspiration and has led to great works of art, music, architecture, etc.

So while parts may be primitive, other parts seem highly evolved.

[Brettongarcia]

60. Even the most highly-evolved religion seems all too primitive: spirituality=belief in spirits

Ghosts, spirits, voices, visions.

In biblical language: illusions, delusions, false dreams, enchantments, sorcery, magic, false beliefs.

(See Eliade, "From Primitives to Zen: A Thematic Sourcebook on the History of Religions." Especially Chapter 5: "Specialists of the Sacred: From Medicine Men to Mystics and Founders of Religion.&quot

[cbayer]

63. You could call that primitive or you could call that enlightened.

All depends on your perspective.

Some of the best stories, particularly those that are allegorical, depend on all those things. They can be a source of deep inspiration.

It is all too easy to dismiss them as something worthless, but more difficult to be enchanted.

[Goblinmonger]

64. Allegorical stories

do not require "Ghosts, spirits, voices, visions." Unless you mean "illusions, delusions, false dreams, enchantments, sorcery, magic, false beliefs." And then those are required for an allegory and those that may be in allegories have nothing to do with religion.

[Brettongarcia]

69. Allegories do not all require "spirits," or ghosts, etc. But Biblical allegories often have these.

Some might assert these mentions of "spirits" are not primitive. But we know that the ancients originated the ideas. So certainly their origin goes back to cultures many might call primitive.

Are these ancient ideas, spirits, still good?

Surprisingly, the Bible itself warned that many spirits are "false spirits." And if many are "enchanted" by them? The Bible itself condemned many "enchanters." And related "sorcerers," "necromancers," "witches," "magicians."

Enchantment specifically often meant in effect, teaching people false dreams, illusions, delusions. By various techniques similar to hypnotism and propagandization. Especially involving repetition.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Would you accept 'socially transmitted disease'?

[rug]

16. Would you accept that is an ignorant statement?

[cbayer]

17. I guess that you don't agree with the author of this article, then.

Would you accept atheism as a "socially transmitted disease"? If not, what would make it any different?

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Well, not having an imaginary friend is actually the default position.

I certainly don't believe that 'believers' are mentally deficient.

But ideas do transmit and evolve much like viruses. It's not limited to religion in any way. The field is called Memetics.


(And yes, my previous post was intentionally bombastic/inflammatory.)

[cbayer]

22. Again you make statements which are both inflammatory and not supported by any data.

Since most people believe in a deity, I don't think you have any support for your claim of a default position.

Ideas do not transmit and evolve like viruses. Memetics is a concept invented by Dawkins. It is a theory without any scientific data to back it up. In that way, it's not much different than a religious concept.

If you wish to be bombastic and inflammatory, you are likely to be very successful at accomplishing that goal. It's purpose escapes me, but you are indeed good at it.

[Goblinmonger]

24. If people are born with a belief in a diety

Why do they magically believe in the same deity as their parents? Why wouldn't someone in Ancient Greece be born with a belief in Hindu gods?

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Oh, so people are born with an idea of a deity?

Please cite your data.

That most adults do believe in a deity does not suggest we are born with such a belief.

You will not find a Shinto in the middle east, that did not move there, or acquire some idea of Shinto from a source like a book, or another person. These are socially transmitted ideas. You are not born with them.

You may well be born with an innate predilection to look for such a concept or predilection to accept such an idea, but that's not the same thing as being born with a wholly-formed idea in mind.

Memetics itself may only be a philosophical tool at this point (there are some published papers on it, but yes, it's a developing idea itself), but ideas do transmit and evolve like viruses. Dawkins came up with the term meme, but as you were referenced by another poster upthread, AND YOU RESPONDED POSITIVELY TO IT, Dennett is the prime mover in that field of understanding why/how religion gets around and why people seem to like it, and yes there is scientific data to support it. He's got a couple books out on it, if you'd like to read them, I can link you.

If you have access to a higher bandwidth connection these days, there are plenty of lectures online with him talking about it.

[cbayer]

30. So people are born without any concept of a deity?

Please cite your data.

Having adopted a specific flavor of religion is certainly due in large part to the environment in which one is raised or experiences at some point. But that is not really relevant to a general belief in a deity.

I would agree that a wholly formed idea is highly unlikely, as it is for pretty much everything at birth. But you can not claim that the concept is absent or that atheism is the default position. It's convenient, but not based on anything reliable.

Likening something as complex as ideas to viruses is primitive at best. I have no problem with exploring philosophical ideas and hypotheses, just to stating them as some kind of verifiable fact. It's not science and should not be claimed as such.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. I cannot find a single person who was born believing in

Jesus, Allah, Zeus, etc.

Can you?

[cbayer]

34. How exactly would you ask that question?

I can't find a single person who was born believing in gravity or that they have a father or whether there is a difference between plants and animals.

I also can't find a single person who was born believing that there is no deity.

What's your point?

[AtheistCrusader]

41. I didn't say believing there is no deity is the default.

Again, I can't tell if you are simply unable to grasp it, or if you are being intentionally deceptive.

Believing there is no deity is a positive claim that proceeds from recognizing the possibility there might be a deity. The default position is actually what you just described WRT to gravity; not having a concept of the idea at all. Not knowing about, or conceptualizing gravity is not the same thing as ACTIVELY BELIVING GRAVITY ISN'T A THING. Conceptualizing gravity as an idea or a mathematical construct is actually ALSO a socially transmitted idea. So is the Arabic number zero. A highly successful 'virus'/idea.

Here's what I actually said:

"Well, not having an imaginary friend is actually the default position."

Language is important. I choose my words carefully.
Not having one is not the same as ACTIVELY BELIEVING THAT NO SUPERNATURAL BEINGS EXIST.


Either you don't understand what I am saying, or you are intentionally trying to twist my words into something I didn't say.

Which is it?

[cbayer]

44. I am neither unable to grasp what you are saying or intentionally deceptive.

You might consider that the problem lies on your end.

Until we can reasonable evaluate what a newborn or even an infant knows or doesn't know, there is no standing for a claim of a default position. It fits your narrative, but it is said without basis.

Children will readily accept ideas of imaginary friends and often invent them all on their own, even though they have had no exposure to the concept at all. Hmmm…….. does that lend credence to the idea that belief is the default position?

Yes you do choose your words carefully and you sometimes choose words that are meant to intentionally ridicule, dismiss or denigrate religious believers (like imaginary friend).

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Then what you just said about Gravity is equally without basis.

"Children will readily accept ideas of imaginary friends and often invent them all on their own, even though they have had no exposure to the concept at all. Hmmm…….. does that lend credence to the idea that belief is the default position? "

I ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS.

"You may well be born with an innate predilection to look for such a concept or predilection to accept such an idea, but that's not the same thing as being born with a wholly-formed idea in mind."

Yes, indeed, I'm sure the problem is on my end, that's why I have to keep repeating the SAME FUCKING THING OVER AND OVER FOR YOU.

You even keep SUPPORTING my point. "readily accept ideas of imaginary friends and often invent them all on their own"

When a child comes up with an imaginary friend (not all kids do), all on his or her own that is Jesus or Allah, or whatever, then you might have a point. Otherwise, your own examples match precisely what I said, ESPECIALLY your point about READILY ACCPETING IDEAS. That's like, almost precisely what I said. YOU JUST MADE MY POINT.

My initial claim stands. Your own point about gravity actually reinforces it. Thanks for that.

[cbayer]

47. My goodness. Caps, profanity and bolding? You are getting pretty worked up here.

I think it is probably time to step back. See you next time.

Don't take it personally, i really do have to go now.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. I get pretty annoyed when people twist my words, and repeat the same thing over and over.

Net result, you actually advocated for the same thing I claimed. Good job.

[trotsky]

84. That's as close as you will get to her admitting defeat.

Personal attacks, and storming off. Well done.

[Brettongarcia]

58. To some extent, culture - and as my old buddy Burroughs used to say, language - IS like a "virus"

Anthropology tells us that cultures develop - and then spread - their culture, their tribal knowledge. Among their own people, but then to some extent among other peoples too. (When spread to other peoples, it is called "cultural diffusion). When they do this some good ideas, but also some bad ones, get transmitted.

This process is to some extent deliberate and conscious; to some extent rather automatic.

"Virus" is actually a pretty good metaphor. And if this conveys negative connotations? Then after all, many of the things that cultures teach do seem dysfunctional to many scientists today.

[trotsky]

8. A quote

“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

I do not think that being religious is necessarily a mental illness, but there are connections that we shouldn't just ignore or pretend don't exist.

[hrmjustin]

35. What connections?

[trotsky]

38. What difference does the hair dryer make? n/t

[hrmjustin]

39. Pardon?

[trotsky]

42. Read the quote in my post that you initially replied to. n/t

[hrmjustin]

43. Saying one is in dialog eith God does not mean that there is a booming voice from the sky.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. That would really help the credibility along though.

But I agree, such a scenario is not common belief.

[hrmjustin]

48. Personally when I pray I feel close to God and I feel in dialog with God.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. That is, in my experience the more common claim.

In the bible, booming voice thing doesn't even happen at Mt. Sinai. Moses has to hike up the mountain and get a personal interview, away from the rest of the people.

There is very little 'booming voice from the sky', even though it is often used as shorthand for a concept ascribed to believers.

[trotsky]

50. Says you. Other people believe differently.

Are the people who disagree with you mentally ill?

What difference does the hair dryer make?

[hrmjustin]

51. People who disagree with me are not mentally ill.

If you hear an actual voice my reaction is to seek help from a doctor.

[trotsky]

53. Why would they need help from a doctor?

What's wrong with someone who hears an actual voice when god speaks to them?

[hrmjustin]

54. Hearing voices is usually not a good sign.

[trotsky]

55. Not a good sign of what? n/t

[hrmjustin]

56. Unsually a mental issue. When believers say they hear the voice of God most don't

claim to aactually physically hear it.

[trotsky]

82. But some do claim that.

And so what you are saying is that any believer who does claim to hear the voice of god, probably has a mental issue.

[hrmjustin]

87. God does not physically talk to people. my reaction would be go see a doctor.

[trotsky]

89. Okey doke.

Thanks for confirming. You are lucky though - if an atheist made the equivalent statement, cbayer would lash out and attack. For you, it's OK.

[hrmjustin]

90. I am not getting involved with your war with her.

[trotsky]

92. As I have told you before, I have no war with her.

What I have a war with is hypocrisy.

Thank you for helping illustrate why I fight it.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. I'm curious how you know that.

Certainly, it is within the realm of possibility/capability for a omnipotent being to do so.

How do you know your god never speaks to people, or to them through a medium?

[hrmjustin]

93. I take ut this way. if there is a God or Gods and they choose to communicate

with us then why don't He/She/They communicate with more people.

To me it just is not likely.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Fair enough.

Usually this is presented to me by believers as evidence that god does not want to remove free will by making direct contact, and removing the faith element of belief.

I tend to reject that due to claimed historical precedent in the bible, but I find it fascinating that you are the first believer I have ever 'met' that feels the way you do, for that particular reason you cited.

Not a good/bad dichotomy, just a fascinating observation.


That's really why I like this forum. I do love to argue and stuff, but I also love having my preconceptions challenged when I meet new people that interpret things differently than the 'norm', or the 'norm' as I have assumed/observed it.

Thank you.

[hrmjustin]

99. Your welcome.

[el_bryanto]

109. You might be getting tripped up on the word physical

Many Christians might not believe themselves to have literally heard the physical voice of God while still believing to be lead by the spirit, or that by praying they are seeking communion with God.

While it might be more crazy to believe that God shows up in your living room and gives you instructions, i'm pretty sure that those who believe religion to be akin to a delusion /mental disorder would also believe having spiritual communion with God is it's own type of delusion. Perhaps not as bad as hearing God's physical voice, but still bad.

It depends on whether you believe communion with God to be strictly metaphorical, or if you believe that there is a God and that you can communicate with him. Or, to put it another way, is there anybody on the other side of the line? If you believe there is, than for our anti-theist friends, you are experiencing a state not dissimilar to mental illness.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

110. Interesting points

I believe that people can talk to God and that we can try to listen to where the spirit leads us.

But if your actually hearing voices that is not a good sign but that does not mean people who feel the spirit or divinity are leading them to something.

[longship]

10. I think that it's pretty damned clear that it isn't a mental disorder.

Not that it isn't connected to brain function, but even that hypothesis treads into evolutionary psychology which is not a very rigorous science, if it is science at all.

This is one of the questions that Daniel Dennett wants to answer, exactly what is religion with respect to human behavior? He goes through several possible hypotheses in Breaking the Spell, which is my favorite book from the four horsemen of the counter apocalypse (Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens) because his argument is that we should study religion to understand it better.

I am for that.

[cbayer]

12. The counter apocalypse! I like that.

Did you design that term yourself?

I absolutely agree about studying religion. It has been, is and probably always will be too important to ignore.

And those that think it can be eliminated are dreamers (perhaps even delusional, lol <this is a joke).

[AtheistCrusader]

14. No, it's a long running gag between the four of them.

Well, three now.

[longship]

19. Not my terminology.

Not sure who coined it. It has been going around the Net since Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens published their books. It kind of went along with the four horsemen meme.

I like it, too. It perfectly fits, albeit in a snarky, self-effacing kind of a way. All four of them embraced the description, with a wink and a smile.

Hope you are well. Thermometer is plunging here again. Going to hit -10F this week.

The warmth of DU is all I've got.

[cbayer]

23. Self-effacing is not a term I would generally associate with this group, lol.

Doing well. It has been quite hot, but today is overcast and nicely cool.

I can't even imagine -10. No. thank. you!

Glad that the fires of DU are able to keep you warm.

[cheyanne]

11. If we look at religion through an evolutionary lens, we can understand why it's still around.

So if religion hasn't died out, what keeps it going?

Religion filled a need in early societies. By centering a group's identity around certain beliefs and rituals, it was a force for strengthening social ties and mores and providing an explanation of the world. This was done through ritual, art, belief systems that explained the world and gave them a moral code.

A more cohesive society was able to work communally than less cohesive societies. Those societies prospered, and passed on the ability to work communally.

Now we are in a very different society, but people still have the need for solidarity, explanations of the world and a sense of transcendence. And religions fill those needs.

The only one of these needs that science fills is explanations of the physical world.

Theoretically, as science provides these explanations, religious explanations should fall aside.

But due to the cohesiveness of religion beliefs, some religions have not accepted these explanations

So while now we look at the world and see only the bad things that religion can promote in its need for cohesiveness. But that is not the whole story . . .

I think in the end the world religions will understand that they do not have to provide a special world view that conflicts with science.
The Dalai Lama has said something like, if a religious belief is proved wrong, then Bhuddism should change to accept it.

Faith is belief in something we cannot prove; science is the belief in what we can prove.

[cbayer]

15. Welcome to the religion group, cheyanne.

Nice synopsis. I hope you are correct about the direction we are heading.

[cheyanne]

36. Thank you.

I am glad to hear people discussing religion.

Ever hopeful, even to believing that the world is getting better. sigh , , ,

[cbayer]

40. While religion has always played a critical role in politics,

it seems particularly important to pay attention to it at this time.

As always, it has the potential for good and bad and the better we understand it, the more likely we are to be able to use it for good, imo.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. That's consistent with Buddhism as a non-theistic 'religion'.

I put religion in single quotes, because, technically, or rather by the same standards most religious entities recognize each other, Buddhism isn't really a religion. (I personally think it qualifies, but it certainly blurs the lines between philosophy and religion)

"Now we are in a very different society, but people still have the need for solidarity, explanations of the world and a sense of transcendence. And religions fill those needs."

Some people. Not all.

I have no need for a 'explanation of the world' beyond the natural world. I might ask 'why did the earth form', but not 'why' in the philosophical purpose-driven sense.

And I have no need of a sense of transcendence or a place to transcend to...

I see them as begged questions, when people ask 'why are we here', I ask 'why do you need a 'why' at all?'.

[cheyanne]

33. As to why these needs have lasted:

they are built into our DNA, like the mothering instinct. Traits like that do not disappear when they are not needed, they hang on. See http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/projecting-human-evolution-5-traits-we-might-possess-in. I'm assuming, of course, that social needs are built into us.

Transcendence: By this I meant experiences of trance, speaking in tongues, imperviousness to pain, esstacy experienced by some, not all, people. I think that it was a experience that had been co-opted by religions since it provided a verifying experience for them.

The why question I consider to be deeply human response to the universe, definitely a survival trait. You never can tell what experience will bring up the why to someone's mind. Telling people that there is a reason for their existence is a very cohesive belief.

Music, art, dance, ritual, transcendence are all traits that were co-opted by religion to increase the survival of the group. Transcendence does not have to be tied to "a place to transcend to".

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Ah, I was using the supernatural transcendence meaning.

I do wonder, if these things are truly instincts, or just socially reinforced byproducts of our human brain's predilection to see patterns in random noise.

My son is not asking such questions, granted, he's only 5. But he has no concept of a god or 'faith' and he doesn't ask metaphysical-driven 'why are we here' sort of questions, likely because my wife and I do not recognize such questions as valid.

That may change as he gets older, but for now, he seems quite satisfied with the world of wonderment as it is, not as we might hope it to be/see beyond what it is. There doesn't seem to be an unfulfilled need there.

[cheyanne]

62. Yeah, transcendence has come down in the world, now it only

means religious experience. (joke!) I think it includes the wonderment of a child experienced as an adult.

I think that as man has reached this level of complexity, where we know future, past, have emotions, make languages etc., we begin to use what we have for all sorts of things from multi-use systems like the frontal lobe. So I think that though these experiences are real, the sense you make of it is totally formed by culture.

[longship]

21. Definitely a good synopsis.

Have you read Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell?

He delves fairly deeply into the topics.

(I promote that book quite often here. )

[trotsky]

25. "if a religious belief is proved wrong, then (religion) should change to accept it."

I agree with this. But many (most?) believers do not, and in fact there even a couple of non-believers on DU who insist that we have no right to say religious beliefs are wrong - and in fact, that science must bend and accommodate those beliefs rather than the other way around.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. That's a big part of why Buddhism as a Religion is a grey area.

Siddhãrtha Gautama (Buddha):


"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."


Buddhism has neither faith, nor worship. The only way in which it touches on anything resembling Religion is in the idea of 'Transcendence'.

(Well, there's a tiny sect of it that does have faith and worship, but one small sect only)

[trotsky]

29. Agreed.

"after observation and analysis"

Well, you know, depending on how I choose to define "observation" and "analysis," that could open up a whole bunch of stuff...

[cheyanne]

68. Yes, I think religion still uses cohesiveness, using hate and fear

to keep the group together. These traits comes out especially strongly when a group feels threatened by others, that's called fundamentalism because they want to cling to the fundamental beliefs of their religion.

Still I think that is wrong to disparage others' beliefs, by which I mean ideas unprovable in the material world, but we should condemn their actions conflict with others' actions, such as coercing behavior be congruent with their beliefs.(because human rights) US is a democracy, though they would like it to be a theocracy.

So what accommodations should science make?

Science is built on the revolutionary idea that the world can be understood. It is internally consistent. It cannot be bent but it does change (to always include more of the universe).

Every religion starts from a basic idea, god affects our lives, god can change the world for individual, god judges our behavior. It is internally consistent. So a religion cannot be bent but can change.

[trotsky]

83. If someone believes that homosexuality is sinful, you bet I'm going to disparage that belief.

I can't force them to believe differently, but I can (and will) speak out against that belief. Sorry.

[cheyanne]

94. no, not sorry, please

it's a complex moral world we live in. I probably would speak out, too, if i felt that my remarks would lead to either a discourse into what these beliefs mean, or that i would learn more about their belief system.

[trotsky]

96. But you just said we shouldn't disparage anyone else's beliefs.

I agree that it's a complex moral world - which is why making a blanket statement like yours is problematic.

Beliefs should be challenged. That's how we can keep the good ones and discard the bad ones. One should not be able to simply claim that someone else is "disparaging" their beliefs and then be able to expect special treatment for them.

[pinto]

26. I like the overall common sense approach of this.

And the caveat that blanket, derogatory characterizations anywhere along the spectrum are a problem.

[cbayer]

32. I agree. It's really a weak argument whenever it is made and similar, imo,

to saying things like "That's so gay" or accusing republican opponents of being closeted.

Wrong on so many levels.

[Brettongarcia]

57. The author Chris Steadman apparently calls himself a "faithiest"; likely he is not an atheist

So I'm not sure Steadman fairly presents the Atheist point of view; even when quoting other alleged atheists. When he asserts that we should not call religion a mental illness. Moreover though, his main reason is not just that 1) religion, he asserts, is adaptive; makes us feel better. But also that 2) no one should insult mentally ill persons.

What does the medical profession currently say on this subject? The current "official" line in the AMA seems to be, at present, that mainstream religion at least, is not cultic, or is not mental illness. However? Many of us now believe that 1) traditional medicine and 2) psychiatry was to some extent bullied by believers in the past, from accurately assessing Religion. While 3) current research in Psychology is definitely moving in the direction of linking the experience of "spirits," "demons," "miracles," and so forth, as harking back to ancient confusions. And to 4) "illusions"; even mental disorders, magical thinking. [Useful first authors to consult here, that we've noted here earlier, would be say Festinger. Or more normatively, Eliade: "From Primitives to Zen; A thematic Sourcebook on the History of Religions. And then countless other newer texts; which view the confessional as psychological counseling/bullying, etc.]

What is the medical profession saying? Our present DU medical representative, Ms. Baker - who appears to have had a career in the medical profession - often follows current standard medical practice. And regards at least mainstream (if not cultic) religion as normative. However, much current research is beginning to confirm that 1) much religion is really from outdated, magical, illusionistic, confused thinking. And 2) in many ways, is dysfunctional.

When whole continents go to war with each other, and kill hundreds of millions of people on partially religious grounds, based on spirits that talk to them, this does not seem entirely functional.

And 3) though we do not generally want to insult people with mental illnesses, it helps mentally disabled people to hear, and know, that they have a problem. There is at least one true thing in the old notion of the efficacy of "confession": until we confess we have a sin, we cannot see it clearly. And we cannot fix it. 4) While even religion, even Jesus, often asserts the importance of rather directly confronting people with false religion; and ridding them of their illusions.

In the present case, we need believers to learn to see problems in traditional, mainstream religion, Christianity. And then to follow the phrase that even the RCC began to use, just a decade ago: to begin "confessing the sins of the Church."

[cbayer]

65. He is a faitheist like a man can be a feminist.

That doesn't make that man less of a man and you have no standing to say whether this person is an atheist or not.

What i clear is that he is not an anti-atheist, and I respect him for that. There is no "atheist point of view". Atheism means only one simple thing and there are as many POV's as there are atheists.

You may need to do some further research on the AMA and APA stance on religion is because your assumptions have no connection to the reality. What is this psychological research that you speak of?

Ms. Baker? Not even close.

What you know about what helps "mentally disabled people" is sheer fabrication on your part. For someone who prides themselves on rationality, you have belief systems which you have apparently fashioned out of whole cloth.

[Jim__]

59. Great article!

It seems clear to me that religion isn’t a form of mental illness, and that calling it one reflects a shallow understanding of both mental illness and religion—or, worse still, a knowing attempt to use mental illness as an insult.

I have to agree with that.

[cbayer]

66. Agree. I have been making this point for awhile, but he did it so much better than

I have been able to.

And I am not surprised that it is met with resistance that those who prefer the simplistic approach of just calling people of faith mentally ill. Very lame.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. of course that is your rewording of the claim made here that some religious beliefs are delusional.

it is you who interpret "delusional belief" as mental illness. For you to then turn around and accuse others of making that claim is simply dishonest, and you know that.

[rock]

61. It's true the religious are not necessarily mentally ill

Merely foolish. There's no reason to get outlandish hyperbolic.

[cbayer]

67. So, it's your position that all people of faith are fools?

How very liberal/progressive of you.

Do you have any other groups that paint with such a broad brush?

[Brettongarcia]

70. The Bible told us that one "day," we will find that our highest holy men, noble people, were "fools"

Isa. 32.5. Hos. 9.7. Prov. 14.8. Mat. 16.23. Et alia. "All have sinned"; "no one is good but God."

Did the Bible make a mistake?

[cbayer]

71. The bible makes lots of mistakes.

But it never said that all people of faith are fools, no matter how many completely out of context citations you make.

[Brettongarcia]

74. Those who "walk by faith" are "far" or "away from God" (2 Corin. 5.7)

"Certain persons ... made shipwreck of faith" (1 Tim. 1.19).

"Faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (James 2.17-26).

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit" (1 John 4.1). But since many are false, therefore "test the spirits."

Jesus told us not to have even too much "belief" or faith even in he himself. Not until we see his goodness proved by works: "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me" (John 10.37).

Most important? The earlier quotes about many being deceived, eventually fit the larger pattern of the End, Judgement Day. When God suddenly shows everyone that the whole world (Rev. 13.8-9), and many who thought they were following "Christ," were deceived. By a false idea of Christ; false spirits.

Paul calls himself a "fool."

Many parts of religion suggest that knowing that we ourselves might be foolish at times, is the beginning of wisdom.

[cbayer]

78. Knowing that one might be foolish at times is a very positive trait, but not at all

the same thing a calling all religious people foolish.

That's just a broad brush smear.

[Brettongarcia]

97. Or: "All have sinned" (Rom. 3.23?) probably implied that all of us have foolish delusions

Likewise the Bible suggests that in the end, many who thought they were "wise" prove to have been fools.

I guess you could say God uses a broad brush. And tars everyone.

[cbayer]

98. You are equating having sinned with a foolish delusion?

Again, this is not the same as saying all religious people are fools, the comment to which I was responding.

[Brettongarcia]

108. Some preachers say those who sin, do so partly out of confusion; delusions.

They just can't see what is right.

So in a sense, many and arguably all sinners are fools. They just didn't see or understand what was good. If they had understood, they would not have followed the false path.

Who deliberately sets his foot, knowingly, on the wrong path?

[cbayer]

114. Who says that?

You may be right, but I've never seen that said before. Do you have a link or is this just another factoid that you have made up?

This whole equating sinning with being a fool is silly and really makes no sense.

Can one be a fool and not a sinner?

[trotsky]

85. No, what it does say though is that all people who don't believe in god are fools.

I guess that broad brush is just fine with you.

[hrmjustin]

73. The bible has errors in it.

We are not fools.

[Brettongarcia]

75. If you know that, possibly not.

[hrmjustin]

72. We are fools?

[tridim]

76. Religion is just FUD for profit.

FUD works.

[cbayer]

79. Oh, malarkey. Making broad brush statements about a vastly diverse think

like religion is FUD based on prejudice.

But you are right, it sometimes works.

[tridim]

80. Thanks for your opinion on the matter.

My opinion is as stated.

[mike_c]

77. as you well know, I agree that religious belief is delusional....

Oddly, you've accused me of advocating an "extreme" position, as though it was some sort of fringe idea. It would appear that my "extreme" thinking is more in line with mainstream atheism than you've been willing to acknowledge if it's shared by the likes of David Silverman, Bill Maher, and Sam Harris. And some FB support groups to join, too!

Further, there isn't a compelling argument to the contrary in that whole article. There are numerous assertions that religion is not a form of mental illness, but not a single one that actually addresses pathology. I don't think religious faith is philosophical illness-- I think it is pathological, and any refutation of that assertion must, at minimum, examine the pathology of self-delusion. I'll let philosophers and (as in this case) clergy debate in circles about philosophical arguments.

[cbayer]

81. And as you know, I think you are completely wrong,

as does the author of this OP and pretty much most thinking people.

What is mainline atheism? Does the author not represent some types of atheists?

While he is directing his comments at you and people like you, he (nor you) offer no evidence that this is a position held by "mainstream atheism".

FB support groups???? and the anti-theists you list? Now there is some good company.

You are not compelled, I am sure, but his arguments are good, make a lot of sense and are probably compelling to those who are open-minded.

You have yet to provide one scintilla of evidence that religiosity is a form of mental illness. Not a scintilla.

But hey, maybe you could convince the good professionals at the APA of your theory. However, t may be you that is self-deluded (what ever that is), so you may want to shield yourselves from them.

[trotsky]

86. Nice insults, cbayer.

"Most thinking people" disagree with someone else simply because you disagree with that person too?

How rude. How decidedly uncivil. No wonder you struggle to be taken seriously, when you behave like that. Tone down the viciousness and attacks and maybe people will want to discuss things with you more.

[skepticscott]

88. You'd almost think she was

channeling someone who didn't even make a pretense of civility.

[Brettongarcia]

101. Another academic source, on correlating religion and mental health/illness

Handbook on Religion and Mental Health, 1998, Koenig ed.. Seems to find some correlation between religion and health; but p. 35 ff. notes severe methodological problems with earlier articles that tried to suggest religion was tied to mental health.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=504GYYj1O3kC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Religion+as+mental+Illness&ots=ZUbsPw2taj&sig=ZUHUxNb_fw_mlJe47SwtYzWydlw#v=onepage&q=Religion%20as%20mental%20Illness&f=false

[Brettongarcia]

100. Doing a quick search: here's a first article that might link religion with mental illness

Tepper, Leslie, et al. "The prevalence of religious coping among persons with persistent mental illness." Psychiatric Services 52.5 (2001): 660-665.

.... Searching for more ....

Currently ....Googling "Religion and Mental Illness" on Google Scholar..... Medline would probably even be better....

[cbayer]

113. It doesn't say anything like that at all.

[Brettongarcia]

102. Here's a bunch of articles that seem to say religion causes mental illness?

Research on religion and serious mental illness
HG Koenig, DB Larson… - New Directions for Mental …, 1998 - Wiley Online Library
For many years, religion has been considered by some mental health profes- sionals to be a
strong contributor to mental illness (Freud, 119271 1962; Ellis, 1980; Watters, 1992). Thus, any
positive role that religion might play in the treatment of serious mental illness received ...

[cbayer]

112. It doesn't say anything like that at all.

[Brettongarcia]

103. This study apparently suggests WOMEN profit from Religion - but not MEN, in mental health

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MENTAL HEALTH/DISTRESS.

Source: Review of Religious Research . Sep89, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p16. 7p.
Author(s): Crawford, Mark E.; Handal, Paul J.; Wiener, Richard L.
Subject Terms: *MENTAL health *RELIGION & justice *HAPPINESS *PSYCHIATRY *MEDICINE *MEDICINE & psychology

Abstract: This study examined the relationship between religion and mental health/distress. Data analyzed for the total sample (n = 226) indicated that high religious subjects were significantly less distressed and manifested better psychological adjustment than medium and low religious subjects. Data analyzed for female subjects (n = 136) showed that not only were high religious subjects statistically less distressed and better adjusted psychologically than medium and low religious subjects, the results were clinically meaningful as well. Data analyzed for male subjects found no significant relationship between subjects' degree of religion and mental health/distress.

[cbayer]

111. I really question your ability to evaluate data at this point.

Did you just google religion/mental health and put up whatever you could find?

Do you even realize that this one shows exactly the opposite of what was claimed by the person I was responding to?

[Gothmog]

104. Interesting Article

As a believer in G-d, I agree that it is wrong to equate faith and insanity. I found the article to be well reasoned

[MellowDem]

105. It would be considered a mental disorder...

to believe the things religion says to believe if it wasn't socially normative. As it becomes less socially normative in certain societies, unsurprisingly, it is seen more as a mental disorder.

Most religions have completely delusional beliefs at the heart of them as well. But again, if it's socially normative, it's not recognized for what it is.

I'll address the author's points below:

1. Religion isn't a mental illness because it isn't maladaptive.

I think this is clearly false. Religion is incredibly maladaptive in the modern world, so much so that religions have had to adapt themselves to survive and most religious people don't subscribe to their own belief system most of the time or have made it so vague as to be meaningless, precisely because the beliefs, if taken honestly, would make it hard to function in modern society or be sustainable. In fact, societies that are incredibly religious exhibit quite a lot of maladaptive traits for the modern world. Governments have had to shed religion completely in order to be societies with lots of well-being.

2. Don't use mental illness as an insult

This actually has nothing to do with what the author is supposedly addressing, so this point doesn't actually make a point. I agree it shouldn't be used as an insult.

3. Religion is associated with well-being in the US

And? So what? Does religion actually bring well-being? Describing perceptions isn't a strong argument for anything. Citing one study certainly isn't enough. Which is why the author only says people perceive it that way. It's perceived that way because it's socially normative, at least here. It's also a perception that changes based on which religion you bring up, which I think gets to the heart of this perception/privilege/bias.

4. It distracts us from studying or learning about religion

How? Mental illnesses are studied all the time, labeling something a mental illness will be cause for more critical study, instead of the privileged pass religion generally gets now as being merely socially normative.

Or, certain minority religions get lots of critical study as cults while large, established, socially normative religions don't get a second glance.

5. Irrational thinking isn't a mental illness

Who said it was? Is it strawman time already? There's plenty of good reasons to think of believing religious beliefs as a form of mental illness without looking solely at how it is irrational.

[Brettongarcia]

107. Excellent point. Religions encourage group coherence - but often around false ideas.

I've been noting the value of social unity. Which religion encourages, to a point. But to be sure, it's time to qualify that.

Social unity, having everyone march to the beat of the same drummer, is a mixed blessing. People feel comfortable, reassured, when many around them have the same beliefs. But 1) what happens when the unified many, after all, are wrong? Like the Nazis?

Or 2) what happens when your own socially coherent and self-satisfied, comfortable group or church ... suddenly runs into another large but different group? When Christians suddenly run into Muslims, say? Both are comfortable within their own borders. But when they move outside them? War often results.

So the sense of belonging, social unity, that one gets from following the prevailing religion, going to the same church, is a mixed and often limited blessing; a double-edged sword. And indeed, much of fairly recent scholarship - a basic bibliography for which I just cited above - is now suggesting that the older scholarship, which stressed the feeling of social unity that people get from having a common religion, is not quite right.

[A minor disagreement though: while the excerpt above does not mention it, the linked, full article DOES assert we should not criticize those with mental illness. Though I've argued that even that point is not true: certainly psychologists and even everyday people - even Jesus - confront those who seem gripped by false religious ideas. Confronting them even with insults. (Jesus called Pharisees "hypocrites," and so forth).

So finally, the kind of "belonging" that people feel in a church, is a double-edged sword. We should not try to "get along" TOO much. Sometimes you just have to note that the comfortable herd is simply ... wrong. And fated to conflict uncomfortably with other, different herds after all.

Following this and other points, much of modern psychiatric and behavioral science scholarship is beginning to note indeed, many psychological and social problems seem tied to religion. While we're now adding here on Democratic Underground that even mainstream, unified religion, presents a very serious problem too. It's very unity causes problems.

(Not to mention its frequent exclusion of minorities, etc.).