Atheism

Originally posted by Quark_666
Amazing book.

It's probably my favorite New Atheism book. Most of the others feel like pop-sci books that have been dumbed down for the everyman, the kind that you would read in the waiting room of a dentist's office or while sitting on the toilet. But GING is a good way to kill an afternoon; not a boring book at all.

I kind of happened upon this idea the other day when I was thinking about my own life and what I want to accomplish. If I had free reign over my life, I'd do a whole hell of a lot to better myself, travel, create unique experiences, etc. (this gets to religion eventually, btw). The biggest thing preventing this is money. I work 40 hours barely making living wage, and get by only because I can still live with my folks, and still mostly just try to stave off debt. My situation is not unique, and in fact my whole family is in a similar boat.

My mother gets through this via religion. She's a good Catholic, believes in life everlasting, and all the other platitudes we might think of. Her life is content, I suppose, but not a blissful one.

Now, take religion away from her. What then? This is actually one of the reasons for religion being a good and necessary thing for many, since not everyone can be happy as a secular atheist or even agnostic.

But consider the position of an actual atheist in the same position. There is no afterlife to look forward to, no promise beyond what they have in this life. How would that change the person's behavior? Even at an early age, becoming an atheist has instilled a greater urgency in me to actually live and love life, because I consider it the only thing I have. I can't make sacrifices and endure hardships knowing that God is watching, which on the one hand sucks, but on the other hand gives me less reason to endure them and more incentive to overcome them.

Now imagine the collective shift in behavior if no one had religion. If life wasn't preparing us for the 'next' life but was all we had. Now, to be clear, I have previously stated that I do not believe there would be any more or less "evil" in the world with or without religion. I don't think we'd be more or less moral, since from a non-religious perspective religious good and evil is simply human good and evil. But I do believe this would change us dramatically on a societal level.

Take Egypt or Libya, for an extreme example. How much quicker would we rebel against perceived oppression if an oppressed life was all we had to look forward to, and didn't come with the promise of a beyond? How much more vehemently would we rail against the rich and powerful? How much more would we seek out experiences to enrich our lives somehow?

I think, in this form, religion is a level of control (albeit an unintentional one, since I don't perceive a primary influencer behind it that specifically uses religion for societal control). Those utilizing religion on a grand scale are, likely, doing it for the "right" reasons (with obvious exceptions who use it to exploit the gullible and desperate, but that is true of any enterprise). But that doesn't mean that, collectively, it can't be stifling to us as a culture.

Discuss, please. This isn't a new idea in my head, but neither is it fully refined. I enjoy hearing others weigh in.

Originally posted by Digi
Discuss, please. This isn't a new idea in my head, but neither is it fully refined. I enjoy hearing others weigh in.

This is something I've always wondered about as it pertains to politics and stuff like that. And I mean totally in the way you described, not just in terms of trying to religify policy.

As an atheist, I don't think things get better than they are here on Earth, thus, any betterment of the human condition has to come by changing the system as it exists, not through prayer and not through personal religious commitment.

Like, when we have looming political issues, I wonder how the mindset of "this life is everything we have" changes how you respond to them versus people who think a better thing comes after. The cynic in me wants to say that atheists would be more motivated to act to change the system, whereas the religious would be more motivated to comply with religious doctrine to save themselves, but I dont know if that holds up even based on historical observation (religion has often served as an avenue for political revolution).

I suppose the most likely thing is that religion plays little role in people's motivations this way, or even in terms of how you describe it. While I'm sure we can point to people who use myth as a way to deal with tragedy, I image we would find similar things in atheist populations if we equated things like nationalism, patriotism, group affiliation, etc, to religiosity. I think we might be talking about a tendency in humans to find cognitively satisfactory solutions to problems, that may have no real world consequences, but settle whatever dissonance events make us feel...

I was just talking about this with someone last week.

There was a woman, my step-mother, who was living in a very unbearable marriage and since she didn't believe in divorce and was very religious, she, trying to save herself from a nervous breakdown, leaned totally on the church, or more so on Jesus. She became totally immersed in Him with pictures on everything, and she changed her dress, and make-up and loved everybody to the point of nauseating This wasn't really her at at. lol The worst it got the more she would lean on Jesus. It became so transparent that she was heading for a nervous breakdown. She was looking for a miracle to save her sanity. That was her out/crutch, so I guess it worked for her. Some people need that, I guess.

But now that I think about it, what if you put your faith in something that wasn't really excepted by society to save your sanity like a certain stuffed animal, a yellow ball, a voice in your head, or something really eccentric? Is that wrong? Maybe we should re-think some of the people who are diagnosied with a mental disorder then.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
But now that I think about it, what if you put your faith in something that wasn't really excepted by society to save your sanity like a certain stuffed animal, a yellow ball, a voice in your head, or something really eccentric? Is that wrong? Maybe we should re-think some of the people who are diagnosied with a mental disorder then.

I tend to look at it the other way

a lot of psychologists (at least in the research side of things, I can't speak to the applied/clinical setting) totally agree with you, that eccentricities in people aren't mental disorders (most people tend to self diagnose and get their physician to prescribe them something)

however, religious belief acts as a shield for mental diagnosis. What would be clearly abnormal behaviour is, by definition in fact, excused if it is religiously motivated. So, no, I don't think prayer is the same as "talking to yourself", but being encouraged to experience physical sensation or auditory signals from the "lord" can actually produce highly problematic cognitive states

even with the woman you described, if she had gone to a therapist, her change in behaviour and increased religiosity is not suppose to be taken as abnormal, though, any therapist worth their salt would be able to see they were in an unstable state.

Originally posted by inimalist
I tend to look at it the other way

a lot of psychologists (at least in the research side of things, I can't speak to the applied/clinical setting) totally agree with you, that eccentricities in people aren't mental disorders (most people tend to self diagnose and get their physician to prescribe them something)

however, religious belief acts as a shield for mental diagnosis. What would be clearly abnormal behaviour is, by definition in fact, excused if it is religiously motivated. So, no, I don't think prayer is the same as "talking to yourself", but being encouraged to experience physical sensation or auditory signals from the "lord" can actually produce highly problematic cognitive states

even with the woman you described, if she had gone to a therapist, her change in behaviour and increased religiosity is not suppose to be taken as abnormal, though, any therapist worth their salt would be able to see they were in an unstable state.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I guess if it weren't for accepted religious beliefs, as Digi states, she would have been talking to an invisible friend. Telling it/him how much she trusted and loved it so that it would give her peace. So, why not non-accepted beliefs?

well, she wouldn't have had the certainty that religion can bring, but that type of behaviour can express itself in many ways

she could have become ultra-patriotic, joined some type of identity group, etc. This type of "unstable" mental state produces all types of this "commiting" oneself to causes or groups.

for instance, even just using words that make people think about death causes them to be more patriotic

That makes you wonder how many extremists, whether joining UFO, Militia groups and evangelists...etc, really have some predisposition to a mental illness. Also, the role of stress and mental illness, the very religious and mental illness. (Heck the church is full of them.lol)

Oooo, I think this is going in dangerous waters. lol

[edit] Seems to me that there are acceptable forms of mental illness then. You just have to slap a religious tag on it. If I have to hear one more time, "Oh, she's okay, she's just a little religious." I'm going to crap.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
That makes you wonder how many extremists, whether joining UFO, Militia groups and evangelists...etc, really have some predisposition to a mental illness. Also, the role of stress and mental illness, the very religious and mental illness. (Heck the church is full of them.lol)

Oooo, I think this is going in dangerous waters. lol

i don't know if I would call it mental illness, so much as a typical human response to stress. but yes, if there is one thing I've learned through my undergrad, it is that this type of extremism in any way is probably a result of the same mechanism in all people's brains, just expressed differently for the individual

the role of stress in mental illness is well studied and works exactly as you would expect. However, this is something that the real world sort of ignores. society thinks daily stresses of 9-5 work and all that are "normal" and "good", when they really are the things that kill people. I'm not exaggerating.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
[edit] Seems to me that there are acceptable forms of mental illness then. You just have to slap a religious tag on it. If I have to hear one more time, "Oh, she's okay, she's just a little religious." I'm going to crap.

I wrote a paper on the issue when I was in an intro abnormal class. the big problem is that people are very sensitive about calling the very religious "ill". The reason being, to a religious person, the extremely religious are generally thought to be paradigms of how "good" a person could be. To think that this might reflect a stress-reaction almost undermines what they hope to become through religion.

also, its still not ok to approach science as if we can pretty much assume god doesn't exist and religious people are wrong. This is only problematic in some cases, but in terms of the psychology of religion, it is a very big issue. When I can't say someone who literally is experiencing auditory hallucinations of the "lord" needs to get an fMRI to check for a tumor, because it is insensitive, there is a problem. I don't mean this to say, as a philosophy, science can disprove god, but when you have to walk on eggshells when assessing behaviour, because you never know, this person might actually be talking to God, or their behaviour is actually not problematic because it is God and not an alien they hear, it is not helpful.

I actually think this raises a more interesting question from a sociological point of view: Mental illness and mental health can be perceived as socially negotiated constructs rather than as objective states. Being mad or merely unbalanced would, therefore, be a as much a matter of the context in which a person manifesting unusual neurological functioning is immersed in, as of her neural functions themselves. Besides, the suffering caused by mental illness is in great part a product of the social response to an individual's behavior and perception of reality, and this can be entirely absent in an accepting or encouraging cultural environment. the idea that such individuals require treatment to normalize their functionign itself would pose another set of problems then.

Originally posted by 753
I actually think this raises a more interesting question from a sociological point of view: Mental illness and mental health can be perceived as socially negotiated constructs rather than as objective states. Being mad or merely unbalanced would, therefore, be a as much a matter of the context in which a person manifesting unusual neurological functioning is immersed in, as of her neural functions themselves.

In terms of the academic study of mental health, yes, and this is in fact the dominant perspective I've encountered. In terms of applied or clinical fields, it is important, and environment and context are primary concerns in treatment, but since the fields look more to efficacy of treatment rather than philosophical ideas of what treatment actually is, it is much less important unless such changes in environment are going to produce the desired change.

I'd suspect in most of the problems everyone faces day to day (I'd argue the vast majority of people would qualify as having some type of anxiety/mood/personality disorder, though not in a debilitating way) could be very effectively addressed by environmental and contextual issues. Someone who, for instance, has a lesion causing ataxia, or has a legitimate seretonin issue in their thalamo-cortical tracts, is going to be much less responsive to context. It will be critically important, just not nearly as much as the actual physical problems might be.

As a conceptual approach, however, you are bang on.

Originally posted by 753
Besides, the suffering caused by mental illness is in great part a product of the social response to an individual's behavior and perception of reality, and this can be entirely absent in an accepting or encouraging cultural environment.

again, I totally agree with you in terms of a conceptual framework, or in terms of people with the same types of psychological issues faced by the majority of society, but I wouldn't overstate the role of other's "acceptance" in major psychological disorder, unless we are talking specifically about quality of life issues. Accepting or not, someone who faces the positive symptoms of schizophrenia (a serious case, not just borderline schizotypes who might get paranoid delusions... acceptance actually would play a huge role there, especially in terms of whether the person ever seeks help) is not going to be "normal" in any social situation, simply because their brain causes them to experience reality in a way that is both incongruent with how normally functioning brains work and incongruent with objective reality itself.

obviously, as a human, they deserve respect, right, care, love, support, etc, and this will have a clear role in their quality of life, but I wouldn't suggest that major psychological issues are merely a product of the fact that we don't accept delusional people as normal.

Originally posted by 753
the idea that such individuals require treatment to normalize their functionign itself would pose another set of problems then.

Diagnosis (i mean real diagnosis by trained professionals, not just getting a script from a GP) of most psychological issues requires that the illness actually cause persistent issues in the sufferers every day life. So, someone who has anxiety about public places, but still has a strong social network, can still go out in public, etc, probably wouldn't deserve the label of "mentally ill" (though, I think this is different from saying they shouldn't try to overcome their anxiety issues). I extend this a little further than what I've seen in the literature, as I don't think any behaviours should be described as a mental "illness" unless they cause these problems, but I am in the minority on this (for instance, one can still be considered to suffer from drug dependence even if they have a full time job, no criminal record, a vibrant and healthy social life, so long as they meet a set of criteria, which imho, are almost entirely unrelated to the social issues that are related to drug use).

of course social context plays a huge role in this, as in the addiction example, one of the qualifiers is whether or not one gets into trouble with the authorities over their substance use. Well, that presents a huge bias toward dependence being diagnosed for illegal substance vs legal ones, simply because their use in a non-dependent way can meet this criteria. One could have never consumed a substance, and get in trouble for its possession, yet I can't think of a way one might get into legal trouble for their caffeine or nicotine dependence. Though, again, while there will always be cases that are not clear cut, there are obvious situations where someone's behaviour will always be considered abnormal, regardless of how accepting of that behaviour society is.

Originally posted by inimalist
In terms of the academic study of mental health, yes, and this is in fact the dominant perspective I've encountered. In terms of applied or clinical fields, it is important, and environment and context are primary concerns in treatment, but since the fields look more to efficacy of treatment rather than philosophical ideas of what treatment actually is, it is much less important unless such changes in environment are going to produce the desired change.

I'd suspect in most of the problems everyone faces day to day (I'd argue the vast majority of people would qualify as having some type of anxiety/mood/personality disorder, though not in a debilitating way) could be very effectively addressed by environmental and contextual issues. Someone who, for instance, has a lesion causing ataxia, or has a legitimate seretonin issue in their thalamo-cortical tracts, is going to be much less responsive to context. It will be critically important, just not nearly as much as the actual physical problems might be.

As a conceptual approach, however, you are bang on.

again, I totally agree with you in terms of a conceptual framework, or in terms of people with the same types of psychological issues faced by the majority of society, but I wouldn't overstate the role of other's "acceptance" in major psychological disorder, unless we are talking specifically about quality of life issues. Accepting or not, someone who faces the positive symptoms of schizophrenia (a serious case, not just borderline schizotypes who might get paranoid delusions... acceptance actually would play a huge role there, especially in terms of whether the person ever seeks help) is not going to be "normal" in any social situation, simply because their brain causes them to experience reality in a way that is both incongruent with how normally functioning brains work and incongruent with objective reality itself.

obviously, as a human, they deserve respect, right, care, love, support, etc, and this will have a clear role in their quality of life, but I wouldn't suggest that major psychological issues are merely a product of the fact that we don't accept delusional people as normal.

Diagnosis (i mean real diagnosis by trained professionals, not just getting a script from a GP) of most psychological issues requires that the illness actually cause persistent issues in the sufferers every day life. So, someone who has anxiety about public places, but still has a strong social network, can still go out in public, etc, probably wouldn't deserve the label of "mentally ill" (though, I think this is different from saying they shouldn't try to overcome their anxiety issues). I extend this a little further than what I've seen in the literature, as I don't think [b]any behaviours should be described as a mental "illness" unless they cause these problems, but I am in the minority on this (for instance, one can still be considered to suffer from drug dependence even if they have a full time job, no criminal record, a vibrant and healthy social life, so long as they meet a set of criteria, which imho, are almost entirely unrelated to the social issues that are related to drug use).

of course social context plays a huge role in this, as in the addiction example, one of the qualifiers is whether or not one gets into trouble with the authorities over their substance use. Well, that presents a huge bias toward dependence being diagnosed for illegal substance vs legal ones, simply because their use in a non-dependent way can meet this criteria. One could have never consumed a substance, and get in trouble for its possession, yet I can't think of a way one might get into legal trouble for their caffeine or nicotine dependence. Though, again, while there will always be cases that are not clear cut, there are obvious situations where someone's behaviour will always be considered abnormal, regardless of how accepting of that behaviour society is. [/B]

But the theoretical exploration I was getting at is that people presenting conditions (be them permanent or transient) that would be considered utterly dellusional and dangerous among us would be completely accepted in some contexts and even revered in others.

within a culture whose worldview is based on myths, people spontaneously hallucinating messages from the gods and glimpses of the future, even those violently cut off from reality, can fit into a socially accepted niche. some examples of this still survive into contemporary industrial civilizations. for instance, here in Brazil, kardecist spiritists are one of the largest religious groups arround (albeit very small compared to catholics and evangelical protestants) and they routinely claim to actually see and talk to dead people, they also psychograph books. this is completely accepted within their midst and while some are likely faking it, a lot of them are probably experiencing what they claim. outside such a context, in an atheist household for instance, even if an individual shows no antissocial tendencies, he would likely be considered crazy and suffer a stigma for making such claims. the secrets of fatima are another example of hallucinations finding overhelming acceptance among a huge population across modern societies.

I think the number of people among oracles, encarnate deities, prophets and shamans (not including the religious use of narcotics to reach trance) that could meet our definitions of bipolars or schizophrenics would be quite high. even people displaying extreme anti-social and unjustified violent tendencies might find a socially accepted niche (in our contemporary western society too, miltary and even police forces often welcome and reward abusive personalities)

anyway, just tripping on how fluid culturally fluid human definitions of sanity and normality are.

Bah. Well, it inspired discussion, just not one I can easily jump into. Cheers.

Anyway in, your point about religion often inciting social change or revolution is a good one. I don't know that it conters my point though, since social change can come about in a variety of different settings, but I think stagnation and indifference to change/hardship/etc. is harder from a secular viewpoint.

Because, much like I trumpeted good and bad acts as human acts, not religious ones, we can say the same of change, complancency, etc. I'm sure that line of thinking could be used to attempt to undermine my original point. However, at some point we are at least partially a part of the culture in which we are placed, and influenced by it. So massive changes to that environment would produce, at the least, noticable changes in human behavior. And while I think removing religion wouldn't demonstrably affect the morality of humanity, I do think it would demonstrably affect our threshhold for initiating social action, and lessen our tolerance of poverty, inequality, and iniquity.

Originally posted by Digi
Now, take religion away from her. What then? This is actually one of the reasons for religion being a good and necessary thing for many, since not everyone can be happy as a secular atheist or even agnostic.

But consider the position of an actual atheist in the same position. There is no afterlife to look forward to, no promise beyond what they have in this life. How would that change the person's behavior? Even at an early age, becoming an atheist has instilled a greater urgency in me to actually live and love life, because I consider it the only thing I have. I can't make sacrifices and endure hardships knowing that God is watching, which on the one hand sucks, but on the other hand gives me less reason to endure them and more incentive to overcome them.

Now imagine the collective shift in behavior if no one had religion. If life wasn't preparing us for the 'next' life but was all we had. Now, to be clear, I have previously stated that I do not believe there would be any more or less "evil" in the world with or without religion. I don't think we'd be more or less moral, since from a non-religious perspective religious good and evil is simply human good and evil. But I do believe this would change us dramatically on a societal level.

Take Egypt or Libya, for an extreme example. How much quicker would we rebel against perceived oppression if an oppressed life was all we had to look forward to, and didn't come with the promise of a beyond? How much more vehemently would we rail against the rich and powerful? How much more would we seek out experiences to enrich our lives somehow?

I think, in this form, religion is a level of control (albeit an unintentional one, since I don't perceive a primary influencer behind it that specifically uses religion for societal control). Those utilizing religion on a grand scale are, likely, doing it for the "right" reasons (with obvious exceptions who use it to exploit the gullible and desperate, but that is true of any enterprise). But that doesn't mean that, collectively, it can't be stifling to us as a culture.

That being said: what I see as stifling is the abuse of religion, usually for purposes of control, for inflating the ego, as license to treat others as inferiors or damned, etc. This I call religionism, and historically, collectively, it likely is the most destructive agenda ever implemented by human beings. Even on an individual basis, one can use religion to avoid responsibility, abandon common sense (as well as common courtesy), and generally, just lose touch with life as is. (Btw, in my religious upbringing, there was no discussion of 'sinning' per se, of eternal damnation. Basically it was, revere God and think of others before yourself. What we have here and now is not 'prep' for an afterlife. It's a gift, a blessing, and we are to make the most of it in a manner which respects others as well as ourselves).

'Genuine' religion, as I see it, is a vehicle through which people confront big questions and experience profound feelings. It connects them to something much bigger than themselves, and again, historically, this has proven to be a source of tremendous strength and durability, not only to individuals but to whole demographics.

Originally posted by Digi
Bah. Well, it inspired discussion, just not one I can easily jump into. Cheers.

Anyway in, your point about religion often inciting social change or revolution is a good one. I don't know that it conters my point though, since social change can come about in a variety of different settings, but I think stagnation and indifference to change/hardship/etc. is harder from a secular viewpoint.

Because, much like I trumpeted good and bad acts as human acts, not religious ones, we can say the same of change, complancency, etc. I'm sure that line of thinking could be used to attempt to undermine my original point. However, at some point we are at least partially a part of the culture in which we are placed, and influenced by it. So massive changes to that environment would produce, at the least, noticable changes in human behavior. And while I think removing religion wouldn't demonstrably affect the morality of humanity, I do think it would demonstrably affect our threshhold for initiating social action, and lessen our tolerance of poverty, inequality, and iniquity.

Indeed, even seemlingly contentment preaching faiths like christianity and buddhism have inspired violent rebellion (including crazy ones like Aum Shirinkio). A current example of a social movement born from and guided by an interpretation of christian doctrine is theology of the liberation. The resistence against chinese ocuupation in Tibet is almost entirely immersed within buddhism.

Originally posted by Mindship
It is an interesting thought experiment to suppose some (if any) collective shift in behavior if no one had religion (do you mean it's suddenly removed, or it never developed?). The problem with it, of course, is that it doesn't have a neutral stance: the position/beliefs of the thought-experimenter are inherent and influence any experimental "outcome."

That being said: what I see as stifling is the abuse of religion, usually for purposes of control, for inflating the ego, as license to treat others as inferiors or damned, etc. This I call religionism, and historically, collectively, it likely is the most destructive agenda ever implemented by human beings. Even on an individual basis, one can use religion to avoid responsibility, abandon common sense (as well as common courtesy), and generally, just lose touch with life as is. (Btw, in my religious upbringing, there was no discussion of 'sinning' per se, of eternal damnation. Basically it was, revere God and think of others before yourself. What we have here and now is not 'prep' for an afterlife. It's a gift, a blessing, and we are to make the most of it in a manner which respects others as well as ourselves).

'Genuine' religion, as I see it, is a vehicle through which people confront big questions and experience profound feelings. It connects them to something much bigger than themselves, and again, historically, this has proven to be a source of tremendous strength and durability, not only to individuals but to whole demographics.

Fair enough, and agreed, but I'm much more interested in sociological implications of religion instead of ideas of what true or genuine religion is or isn't. As such, my thought experiment (if we're calling it that) is mored geared toward what would happen is modern society gradually but noticably lost religion until non-religion was the dominant zeitgeist. I'm not interested in constructing hypothetical past earths where religion never existed, for example.

753, I responded at length then my computer hated me and destroyed it. I'll respond eventually.

Really the laws of the land in time turned into Religions

I'm not in the military, but I have an atheist friend that is (well, he was was,) and stuff like this:

http://rockbeyondbelief.com/2011/03/07/demand-equal-treatment-for-the-armys-non-religious-soldiers/

While, certainly nothing new, is pretty shitty, all things considered. A shitton of money gets shelled out for evangelical causes, but when those evil unbelievers try and host a similar event, it gets shot down.

Originally posted by 753
Well, I do agree with everything you posted and, evidently, it is neither possible nor desirable to completely accept every possible form of cognition and ensuing behavior in our social context (or any other for that matter) as they may be harmfull to the individual and others in ways that cannot be solved through a more accepting environment. I also agree that modulating a person's context to lessen her suffering is an excellent way to promote quality of life.

fair enough, I must have forgotten I was speaking with a rational person. If you read through people even like Foucout and most other arts stuff, you can get the impression that mental illness is a construct of society, etc. They did live in a time where women who had sexual urges were considered deviant, so maybe they could be cut some slack for missing the nuance modern science gives us.

Originally posted by 753
But the theoretical exploration I was getting at is that people presenting conditions (be them permanent or transient) that would be considered utterly dellusional and dangerous among us would be completely accepted in some contexts and even revered in others.

I think I get what you are trying to say, but I don't know if I agree with you entirely...

I think you might be confusing the popular conception of "crazy" with what would be defined as a clinical mental disorder. The people you describe, imho, wouldn't qualify for most DSM classifications, especially if there is a cultural context. In fact, the way you can tell the truly mentally ill from those who are not, is they would be the ones whose "craziness" wasn't following the cultural norm. I guess people with slight developmental delays might be an exception here, but like, for a schizophrenic or a paranoid delusional person, they wont be crazy in the same way society provokes other people to be. Adopting the craziness of one's society is probably the most human part of being human...

Originally posted by 753
within a culture whose worldview is based on myths, people spontaneously hallucinating messages from the gods and glimpses of the future, even those violently cut off from reality, can fit into a socially accepted niche. some examples of this still survive into contemporary industrial civilizations. for instance, here in Brazil, kardecist spiritists are one of the largest religious groups arround (albeit very small compared to catholics and evangelical protestants) and they routinely claim to actually see and talk to dead people, they also psychograph books. this is completely accepted within their midst and while some are likely faking it, a lot of them are probably experiencing what they claim. outside such a context, in an atheist household for instance, even if an individual shows no antissocial tendencies, he would likely be considered crazy and suffer a stigma for making such claims. the secrets of fatima are another example of hallucinations finding overhelming acceptance among a huge population across modern societies.

though, there is a difference between someone being called "crazy" and being diagnosed with a mental illness.

Like, lets take Charlie Sheen as a topical example. There was a good deal of talk about how Charlie Sheen was bi-polar and "crazy". However, look at it this way, Charlie Sheen is hugely successful, moderately intelligent, pays his bills, had employment until just recently, etc. Having a self destructive episode or tendencies doesn't make someone "mentally ill", and in fact, if we continue saying people who are slightly less stable than the rest of us, though generally able to exist in society, are mentally ill, we essentially make the term meaningless. Sheen has "a cold" in terms of his cognitive state (I mean in terms of how much of an "illness" it should be thought of, not to imply Sheen's problems are temporary in any way).

The same would be, in my opinion at least, and I'm pretty sure in that of a good number of research psychologists, of these people you describe. Sure, popular culture is going to mock them and call them insane, but from a clinical perspective, as long as these people are able to maintain successful lives, they really don't have a problem. If one were hearing voices they didn't want to hear, sure, maybe there would be issues that need to be worked out there, but spiritual connections shouldn't be used as a diognostic symptom unless they interfere with the person's day to day living

Originally posted by 753
I think the number of people among oracles, encarnate deities, prophets and shamans (not including the religious use of narcotics to reach trance) that could meet our definitions of bipolars or schizophrenics would be quite high. even people displaying extreme anti-social and unjustified violent tendencies might find a socially accepted niche (in our contemporary western society too, miltary and even police forces often welcome and reward abusive personalities)

anyway, just tripping on how fluid culturally fluid human definitions of sanity and normality are.

true, you might find doctors who would diagnose and prescribe an oracle from the past, but again, in terms of how these things are generally thought of from a research side (at least, in my experience, not my field or anything like that), someone who is a reveared member of society, who has gainful employment, and isn't seeking help isn't really mentally ill. sure, it leaves a lot of room for this sort of grey zone where it is completely ambiguous as to whether someone is ill or just at the extreme of normal human variance, but given what is known about the mind, we wouldn't expect there to be a sharp distinction.

I think maybe I'm taking too much umbridge with your point... I do agree, society as a whole, as their conceptualize mental handicap, totally I agree with you. Society has no conception of mental illness, and if that was more what you were getting at, we totally agree. The people doing the research though, they are aware of this stuff, afaik.

I think the short point here would be: we agree entirely if we are speaking about a small population of people who exist in an ambiguous region between typical human behaviour and experience and those whose differences cause consistent problems in day to day living. This later group, the truly mentally ill, suffer from things that the culture and society play little role in, outside of quality of life (not to say those aren't important)

Originally posted by Digi
Anyway in, your point about religion often inciting social change or revolution is a good one. I don't know that it conters my point though, since social change can come about in a variety of different settings, but I think stagnation and indifference to change/hardship/etc. is harder from a secular viewpoint.

so like, in undergrad, I sort of realized that most of the movements against colonial powers, at least that I knew of, came from highly religious stances. Like, sure, radical Islam is one of the clearest examples, but even something like the religion of the slaves in North America. They adopted religious metaphores for freedom and emancipation... I can't think of them off the top of my head... shit, ok, ya, like Koresh too I think was one of my examples... it was a phase, lol

Talking about it with some profs, the sort of conclusion I came to was that religions ask specific questions that are unquestionably political. How people should be treated, what is the purpose of man. Further, religion has always had an ability to encourage dialogue on these issues, and allowed a place for people to vent frustrations. Hell, it was one of the few social institutions people were allowed to have.

I'm not saying secular groups can't do this, Communism being the obvious example, but there is something inherently existential about religions that one has to seek out in a secular perspective. Sure, there are sheep everywhere, but secular sheep have less exposure to ideas that might question their indifference to human suffering