Can Religion Still Be Useful?

[AthenaAwakened]

otherwise, we talk past each other.

Well, isn't that the nature of religion?

My church is cool people, your church hates (_____)s.
My god is loving, your god puts innocents in hell.
I know what religion REALLY is, you're just too attached to your myopic misunderstanding of the true nature of God.
Religion causes jihad/witchhunts/crusades/suicide... NO, that's people fucking up a beautiful thing that has nothing to do with murder in God's name....
God's word is clear.... Dude, you're quoting Dante's Inferno, not scripture.

depends on what you mean by religion.

 

[bilby]

Obviously the question depends on what we mean by 'religion'; but any definition broad enough to encompass things that are genuinely useful to people and their societies is broad enough to encompass things that are not normally considered to be religion at all - hobbies, sports fandom, enjoyment of fiction, etc.

If the only benefits from reading scripture are the same as the benefits from reading Game of Thrones; and the only benefits from going to church are the same as the benefits from attending a football match, then it makes no sense to ascribe those benefits to 'religion', rather than to 'fantasy' or 'socializing' or 'tribalism'.

 

[abaddon]

Believe and mimic these fundy-esque, totalizing beliefs to make sure the discussion about religion never rises above the level of ideology-informed bullshit:

• Religion is just all bad. Anything good in it can be stripped out and secularized. They’ve got no claim on anything that’s good, that's impossible because religion's just all bad. If you describe religion as anything else other than how my ideology wants it presented, then you’re talking something too uncommon to be bothered with, and anyway whatever you're saying is good must be innately secular because that's the only way it can be good.
• All religion is fundy Christianity*, and if it’s from another part of the world and has a different name then all my criticisms still apply because it’s all christianesque supernaturalist shit in the middle, and foreign words are easy to sift through my eurocentrism-filter in such ways to make my stance seem true. Liberal religion's bad because we'd have an easier time getting rid of fundies if the liberal 'revisionists' weren't around.
• Religion is theism* and theism is an old white-bearded man. It’s always that stupid-simple, and the ones for whom this is not true are rare enough to discount (and they’re still stupid and/or harmful anyway).
• Religion is superstition only and that’s all*.
• Religion is entirely about holding and spreading beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality* and therefore is contending against science’s descriptions [of some aspects of nature].

And on and on, just sophistic bullshit from a set of postchristian believers that want to redefine the terms to come out seeming like they’ve got the only right way to understand how things are and other sorts of believers are a variety of heretic lost in hokum. No reference to scholarly studies needed, the demand for intellectual rigor matters only if science is the topic. Religion's a topic where people may project freely.

---------

*Except when it isn't.

 

[bilby]

Believe and mimic these fundy-esque, totalizing beliefs to make sure the discussion about religion never rises above the level of ideology-informed bullshit:

• Religion is just all bad. Anything good in it can be stripped out and secularized. They’ve got no claim on anything that’s good, that's impossible because religion's just all bad. If you describe religion as anything else other than how my ideology wants it presented, then you’re talking something too uncommon to be bothered with, and anyway whatever you're saying is good must be innately secular because that's the only way it can be good.
• All religion is fundy Christianity*, and if it’s from another part of the world and has a different name then all my criticisms still apply because it’s all christianesque supernaturalist shit in the middle, and foreign words are easy to sift through my eurocentrism-filter in such ways to make my stance seem true. Liberal religion's bad because we'd have an easier time getting rid of fundies if the liberal 'revisionists' weren't around.
• Religion is theism* and theism is an old white-bearded man. It’s always that stupid-simple, and the ones for whom this is not true are rare enough to discount (and they’re still stupid and/or harmful anyway).
• Religion is superstition only and that’s all*.
• Religion is entirely about holding and spreading beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality* and therefore is contending against science’s descriptions [of some aspects of nature].

And on and on, just sophistic bullshit from a set of postchristian believers that want to redefine the terms to come out seeming like they’ve got the only right way to understand how things are and other sorts of believers are a variety of heretic lost in hokum. No reference to scholarly studies needed, the demand for intellectual rigor matters only if science is the topic. Religion's a topic where people may project freely.

---------

*Except when it isn't.

The Rants thread is over there.

If you want to add some intellectual rigor to this thread, then nothing stands in your way. If you disagree with what people have said, then nothing prevents you from providing a specific and detailed response to any or all of their posts. But presenting a generalized rant that mis-characterizes the 40+ arguments so far presented as generally conforming to one or more of a list of "fundy-esque, totalizing beliefs" is nothing but an exercise in irony.

 

[abaddon]

The Rants thread is over there.

If you want to add some intellectual rigor to this thread, then nothing stands in your way. If you disagree with what people have said, then nothing prevents you from providing a specific and detailed response to any or all of their posts. But presenting a generalized rant that mis-characterizes the 40+ arguments so far presented as generally conforming to one or more of a list of "fundy-esque, totalizing beliefs" is nothing but an exercise in irony.

No, I wanted to make a general description of some antitheist rhetorical tricks and did. It's always a neat trick when someone responds that no one example exactly fits the bill though. Most usually it's a "you didn't describe ME accurately so you're wrong" type post, so yours at least is a bit of a variant.

How can a general description of common flaws in critiques of religion be fundy-esque and totalizing? “Religion is just so” pronouncements accompanied by dismissals of any possible counter-examples as wrongheaded or insignificant fit the description. So does answering all questions about “religion” with just examples of fundy christians.

Athena’s OP had no chance of being discussed without people “talking past each other”, not because religious people stymie discussion but secularists do too. It's a rigged game and that's a barrier to discussion. If you're a fan of it then someone pointing it out will look like he's not playing the game the right way and so he should shut up or go elsewhere.

 

[bilby]

The Rants thread is over there.

If you want to add some intellectual rigor to this thread, then nothing stands in your way. If you disagree with what people have said, then nothing prevents you from providing a specific and detailed response to any or all of their posts. But presenting a generalized rant that mis-characterizes the 40+ arguments so far presented as generally conforming to one or more of a list of "fundy-esque, totalizing beliefs" is nothing but an exercise in irony.

No, I wanted to make a general description of some antitheist rhetorical tricks and did. It's always a neat trick when someone responds that no one example exactly fits the bill though. Most usually it's a "you didn't describe ME accurately so you're wrong" type post, so yours at least is a bit of a variant.

How can a general description of common flaws in critiques of religion be fundy-esque and totalizing? “Religion is just so” pronouncements accompanied by dismissals of any possible counter-examples as wrongheaded or insignificant fit the description. So does answering all questions about “religion” with just examples of fundy christians.

Athena’s OP had no chance of being discussed without people “talking past each other”, not because religious people stymie discussion but secularists do too. It's a rigged game and that's a barrier to discussion. If you're a fan of it then someone pointing it out will look like he's not playing the game the right way and so he should shut up or go elsewhere.

Fair enough - but you seem to be complaining about something that isn't in evidence.

Nobody is suggesting that religious people stymie discussion, while secularists do not; And it seems to me that both groups are quite capable of so doing. However the main objection to the discussion so far is that it is ill-defined, so nobody (theist or secularist) can discuss it, unless or until they define their terms.

I had a crack at sketching the broad boundaries of the definitions in common use, because there seem to be so many different definitions of the word 'religion' that there is no one definition; And as I said, the narrow definitions define religion as something that is of little value, and the broader definitions, which define religion so as to include those things that are valuable about it, are so broad as to encompass activities that are generally not considered to be religion at all - such as fantasy, sports fandom, etc.

That there are some theists and some anti-theists who use silly rhetorical tricks to denigrate their opponents is not in dispute; But equally it doesn't seem to be relevant to the current discussion to point that out.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I once defined religion as superstition practiced at the group level.

Anyone disagree?

 

[abaddon]

That there are some theists and some anti-theists who use silly rhetorical tricks to denigrate their opponents is not in dispute; But equally it doesn't seem to be relevant to the current discussion to point that out.

Unless they're doing it. Not denigrating opponents but more denigrating the subject.

------------------

As for definitions, there are a great number of phenomena and grouping them under “Religion” is like lumping all animal species together as “Animal” and saying “let’s describe the thing that is ’Animal’.” In this sense, there is no "Religion" to succinctly define.

The OP has presented how some among the religious urge progress away from magical thinking but a lot of focus in responses went to pinning it down to what it’s been historically: It’s been magical thinking so that is the nature of it that can never change. It’s been superstition, it’s been anti-science, it’s been unthinking acceptance of beliefs pushed by hucksters, it’s been weak people running away in imagination. It’s defined to pin it down in negative terms so that any change in it must look like what secularists want, a change to the secular: ’it’s either magical thinking or else it’s philosophy or psychology, so there, we’ve made all good into our domain’.

How does one get out of that impasse, assuming they have the will to and see what religion might offer?

To say the bathwater has been sifted and no baby was found is to restate the hardline “it’s all bad” stance. And that’s values-talk, it’s not a fact: ‘I, and those who value things much as I do, don’t value it so there’s no baby’. So maybe we can borrow other values for just a bit and apply the  principle of charity?

There are religious atheists. There are religious naturalists. They’re not half-secular folk pining for the magical imaginary things they’ve lost and trying to add it back in (as if nature's not in a sense sacred and miraculous). They're thinkers and they’ve wondered “Is this religion or ‘just philosophy’?” and decided it’s their religion because philosophy isn’t a life-practice, it’s rather some burdensome and droll mentation that too much of it will suck the life out of life. Some religions will go beyond only obsessing over "What are the true beliefs we must hold?", and some even advocate dropping beliefs as entirely as a person can because, for them, conceptions are blinders to how reality is. That's weird to many Europeans and Americans because their culture assumes it's by description that we know how reality is. Daoism and Zen are two examples of religions that view words as just getting in the way; they offer beliefs and rituals as “skillful means”, a prod in the direction of being more directly in relation with reality (or, being it directly) rather than having it mediated to one's self via conceptions. And it’s similar in some sorts of Sufism and Christian mysticism (when that word is taken to mean, not mystification, but rather an attempt at non-mediated “pure” experience).

The point of all that being how "it's all just bad stuff" is a values statement, not a fact-based description. Also, that the exceptions wreck any attempt to lump all religions as "basically this" or "basically that"; if they're dismissed as not characteristic then that rather illustrates why it looks like the bathwater has no baby in it to some people. Another point being to toss in some more about what I find promising of progress in religions. That religion can be a path to get more "connected" with nonverbal reality is not new, it’s been there a very long time, but there’s a chance it can become more well-known now… except for the ranting about the hoped-for demise of all religion “cuz fundies”. The so-called “liberal religionists” are told “you enable fundies so in a way you’re more reprehensible than they are” and the right response from them might very well be “No we, maybe more than you, are the cure”.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So what did the original framers of the U.S. constitution mean when they said that government won't make laws establishing a practice of religion but won't prohibit the free exercise thereof?

 

[abaddon]

So what did the original framers of the U.S. constitution mean when they said that government won't make laws establishing a practice of religion but won't prohibit the free exercise thereof?

… the [U.S. Supreme Court] must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

~from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion

 

[DBT]

It's not that every aspect of religion is bad, a religion may have many admirable features, providing charity and care, fellowship, community, promoting fairness and goodwill (but not necessarily practicing these things diligently), yet the central reason for its very existence, the objective reality its God or gods, is unproven and given the nature of the supernatural claims, most likely false.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It's not that every aspect of religion is bad, a religion may have many admirable features, providing charity and care, fellowship, community, promoting fairness and goodwill (but not necessarily practicing these things diligently), yet the central reason for its very existence, the objective reality its God or gods, is unproven and given the nature of the supernatural claims, most likely false.

So you cannot have religion without deities?

 

[DBT]

It's not that every aspect of religion is bad, a religion may have many admirable features, providing charity and care, fellowship, community, promoting fairness and goodwill (but not necessarily practicing these things diligently), yet the central reason for its very existence, the objective reality its God or gods, is unproven and given the nature of the supernatural claims, most likely false.

So you cannot have religion without deities?

Not necessarily. Depends on the given definition of 'religion' and the nature and content of the beliefs being held.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

I totally agree with regard to organized religion. But is that really "religion" or is it more accurately described as "politics", whereby the former has been hijacked by the latter? If you mean to say that we should absolutely discard the irrational then from a psychodynamics / psychological perspective I would disagree. As individuals we lead a subjective, largely instinct-driven existence and to ignore that and pretend that we can live solely by our rational function is naive. We need to extract what might useful from religious or superstitious practices (in a way that is at least largely harmonious with rational thinking).

Next time you have to deal with a small child who is afraid of the dark try the following:

1) Try to reason with them that there is nothing to fear.

2) Let them sleep in their favourite superhero outfit ("magical robes"). Give them a toy version of the superhero's main weapon to put next to the bed (a "magical talisman"). Tell them to use certain words to call their superhero during a nightmare to defeat the "monsters" (a "magical spell") and so on...

Guess which one will be more effective?

Which one will be more effective when the kid is 19 and knows that superheroes aren't real? Maybe he'll move on to a plastic jesus on the dresser. What's the difference?

The kid who feels safe around his superheroes or with his security blanket, or embraces his jesus statue is merely using the knowledge and experience at his disposal to problem solve and survive. People move on from evil spirits to germ theory too. But some people continue to do both and some people die because they still practice evil spirit belief to the exclusion of germ theory.

Religion is okay if you know it's phony and not real but you still use it to self medicate and be comforted. It's no different than going to a movie or reading a novel or catching a play or an opera. It's the human ability to pretend and can be extremely restorative, and religion can fit that category. There are certain behaviors I engage in daily that are comforting rituals which therein lie their survival value. But none of them I associate with religion.

The words you're looking for are along the lines of emotional comfort and we all practice that. But it's not religion though many would disagree and therein lies a problem for many people such as those who see a flower, feel good, and start telling you about a magic spaceman who made it. If they were highly skeptical about magic space creatures they'd be a lot better off, and so would the rest of society. They might begin to appreciate how human behavior evolves and how it is connected to the flower and the environment as a whole and how some behaviors are selected for over others. But it's much easier to just believe in magic, and much more dangerous too.

hmmm....no, I'm not talking about emotional comfort. Psychologically that's a form of suppression / repression and I would agree here that this "feature" of religious practice should be abandoned. I'm talking about the efficacy of engaging with the irrational parts of the human psyche on it's own terms - ie: dealing with the irrational function at the level of "irrational" engagement. So for example, one has a "wounded child complex" or "inferiority complex". One engages imaginatively and creatively with that - perhaps one draws a picture of it, asks it what it's name is, engages in a process of self reflection whereby the irrational function of the brain is engaged not at the rational "tool-making" level but at the level of social engagement. One extracts a part of the psyche and treats it as "other". This is precisely what magical / shamanic practice endevours to do. Part of the psyche is externalized as an "evil spirit" or as a "demon" in the magical mirror and this is engaged with as "other", after which it becomes re-internalized at the end of the ritual / ceremony. What does the complex ("spirit") want? Oh it wants to feel safe. How can I make it feel safe? Etc etc. Then one puts this insight into practice and observes any changes in one's psychological well-being....and the process continues. One doesn't need to believe in gods or ethics or charity, it's simply an empirical method of working with one's own irrational function.

I'm talking about re-defining magical thinking and seeing it as a useful tool. Quite the opposite of what the video in the OP states, I think it's magical thinking that we actually need, but without the requirement of a literal belief - because it's the literal belief and the externalization thereof onto a "literal other" that causes the problems we see in religion.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

It's not that every aspect of religion is bad, a religion may have many admirable features, providing charity and care, fellowship, community, promoting fairness and goodwill (but not necessarily practicing these things diligently), yet the central reason for its very existence, the objective reality its God or gods, is unproven and given the nature of the supernatural claims, most likely false.

My view is completely the opposite. I think these "political" aspects of organized religion are inherently the biggest problem. I would argue that the usefulness is in engaging in magical / superstitious practice simply as a psychological tool. No literal externalized belief necessary. The only belief that is necessary is the idea that there are irrational aspects to the psyche, which I think is reasonably self-evident (and Dawkins bases many of his argument on the very idea). It's then an empirical matter (albeit a subjective one) whether engaging with one's own psyche at the irrational level produces any results of psychological well being.

 

[DBT]

It's not that every aspect of religion is bad, a religion may have many admirable features, providing charity and care, fellowship, community, promoting fairness and goodwill (but not necessarily practicing these things diligently), yet the central reason for its very existence, the objective reality its God or gods, is unproven and given the nature of the supernatural claims, most likely false.

My view is completely the opposite. I think these "political" aspects of organized religion are inherently the biggest problem.

Not opposite, I don't exclude what you say. Then, that is a part and parcel of most organizations.

I would argue that the usefulness is in engaging in magical / superstitious practice simply as a psychological tool.

The promise of eternal life, reunion with loved ones after death, ultimate justice, including protection or favour being offered by a supreme Being in this life may appear to be attractive selling points for some folk.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

My view is completely the opposite. I think these "political" aspects of organized religion are inherently the biggest problem.

Not opposite, I don't exclude what you say. Then, that is a part and parcel of most organizations.

In the absence of "soul" (and I mean that metaphorically), we need systems of morality, politics, charity and so forth, but those structures are precisely what self-perpetuates the very absence of "soul". People live on the outer rim of their emotional self, almost everything in our modern culture is designed to numb our sensitivity. Charity for example takes away our despair, gives us a quick little spike of endophins so we don't have to stare the terrible harsh reality of human existence and suffering in the face. It's a lovely "quick fix" that prevents us from fulling entering into our humanity and a true level of compassion.

I would argue that the usefulness is in engaging in magical / superstitious practice simply as a psychological tool.

The promise of eternal life, reunion with loved ones after death, ultimate justice, including protection or favour being offered by a supreme Being in this life may appear to be attractive selling points for some folk.

I'm not so sure. To some degree perhaps but the nature of belief is from a psychological standpoint largely compensatory in nature. The actions and behaviour of "the Christian world" exposes their real (largely unconscious) materialist belief. It's about money, dominion etc. If I can spend an hour on Sunday mornings "being a good Christian" then I have permission to be downright materialistic. I't like the way the New Age movement can re-label "greed" by using the word "abundance". Language is exceedingly powerful, it paints the subjective world that we live in. This is precisely why we need to cultivate "irrational intelligence" so that we can see through the bullshit.

 

[Juma]

Not opposite, I don't exclude what you say. Then, that is a part and parcel of most organizations.

In the absence of "soul" (and I mean that metaphorically), we need systems of morality, politics, charity and so forth, but those structures are precisely what self-perpetuates the very absence of "soul". People live on the outer rim of their emotional self, almost everything in our modern culture is designed to numb our sensitivity. Charity for example takes away our despair, gives us a quick little spike of endophins so we don't have to stare the terrible harsh reality of human existence and suffering in the face. It's a lovely "quick fix" that prevents us from fulling entering into our humanity and a true level of compassion.

I would argue that the usefulness is in engaging in magical / superstitious practice simply as a psychological tool.

The promise of eternal life, reunion with loved ones after death, ultimate justice, including protection or favour being offered by a supreme Being in this life may appear to be attractive selling points for some folk.

I'm not so sure. To some degree perhaps but the nature of belief is from a psychological standpoint largely compensatory in nature. The actions and behaviour of "the Christian world" exposes their real (largely unconscious) materialist belief. It's about money, dominion etc. If I can spend an hour on Sunday mornings "being a good Christian" then I have permission to be downright materialistic. I't like the way the New Age movement can re-label "greed" by using the word "abundance". Language is exceedingly powerful, it paints the subjective world that we live in. This is precisely why we need to cultivate "irrational intelligence" so that we can see through the bullshit.

Yes. But dont call that "religion".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Which one will be more effective when the kid is 19 and knows that superheroes aren't real? Maybe he'll move on to a plastic jesus on the dresser. What's the difference?

The kid who feels safe around his superheroes or with his security blanket, or embraces his jesus statue is merely using the knowledge and experience at his disposal to problem solve and survive. People move on from evil spirits to germ theory too. But some people continue to do both and some people die because they still practice evil spirit belief to the exclusion of germ theory.

Religion is okay if you know it's phony and not real but you still use it to self medicate and be comforted. It's no different than going to a movie or reading a novel or catching a play or an opera. It's the human ability to pretend and can be extremely restorative, and religion can fit that category. There are certain behaviors I engage in daily that are comforting rituals which therein lie their survival value. But none of them I associate with religion.

The words you're looking for are along the lines of emotional comfort and we all practice that. But it's not religion though many would disagree and therein lies a problem for many people such as those who see a flower, feel good, and start telling you about a magic spaceman who made it. If they were highly skeptical about magic space creatures they'd be a lot better off, and so would the rest of society. They might begin to appreciate how human behavior evolves and how it is connected to the flower and the environment as a whole and how some behaviors are selected for over others. But it's much easier to just believe in magic, and much more dangerous too.

hmmm....no, I'm not talking about emotional comfort. Psychologically that's a form of suppression / repression and I would agree here that this "feature" of religious practice should be abandoned. I'm talking about the efficacy of engaging with the irrational parts of the human psyche on it's own terms - ie: dealing with the irrational function at the level of "irrational" engagement. So for example, one has a "wounded child complex" or "inferiority complex". One engages imaginatively and creatively with that - perhaps one draws a picture of it, asks it what it's name is, engages in a process of self reflection whereby the irrational function of the brain is engaged not at the rational "tool-making" level but at the level of social engagement. One extracts a part of the psyche and treats it as "other". This is precisely what magical / shamanic practice endevours to do. Part of the psyche is externalized as an "evil spirit" or as a "demon" in the magical mirror and this is engaged with as "other", after which it becomes re-internalized at the end of the ritual / ceremony. What does the complex ("spirit") want? Oh it wants to feel safe. How can I make it feel safe? Etc etc. Then one puts this insight into practice and observes any changes in one's psychological well-being....and the process continues. One doesn't need to believe in gods or ethics or charity, it's simply an empirical method of working with one's own irrational function.

I'm talking about re-defining magical thinking and seeing it as a useful tool. Quite the opposite of what the video in the OP states, I think it's magical thinking that we actually need, but without the requirement of a literal belief - because it's the literal belief and the externalization thereof onto a "literal other" that causes the problems we see in religion.

Well then we're not really in disagreement. I do things that are comforting. That's rational to do. But those things I do make no rational sense in and of themselves. A religious person who behaves as if there really is a magic spaceman interested in his or her sex organs is not the same thing. That is more like mental illness.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

hmmm....no, I'm not talking about emotional comfort. Psychologically that's a form of suppression / repression and I would agree here that this "feature" of religious practice should be abandoned. I'm talking about the efficacy of engaging with the irrational parts of the human psyche on it's own terms - ie: dealing with the irrational function at the level of "irrational" engagement. So for example, one has a "wounded child complex" or "inferiority complex". One engages imaginatively and creatively with that - perhaps one draws a picture of it, asks it what it's name is, engages in a process of self reflection whereby the irrational function of the brain is engaged not at the rational "tool-making" level but at the level of social engagement. One extracts a part of the psyche and treats it as "other". This is precisely what magical / shamanic practice endevours to do. Part of the psyche is externalized as an "evil spirit" or as a "demon" in the magical mirror and this is engaged with as "other", after which it becomes re-internalized at the end of the ritual / ceremony. What does the complex ("spirit") want? Oh it wants to feel safe. How can I make it feel safe? Etc etc. Then one puts this insight into practice and observes any changes in one's psychological well-being....and the process continues. One doesn't need to believe in gods or ethics or charity, it's simply an empirical method of working with one's own irrational function.

I'm talking about re-defining magical thinking and seeing it as a useful tool. Quite the opposite of what the video in the OP states, I think it's magical thinking that we actually need, but without the requirement of a literal belief - because it's the literal belief and the externalization thereof onto a "literal other" that causes the problems we see in religion.

Well then we're not really in disagreement. I do things that are comforting. That's rational to do. But those things I do make no rational sense in and of themselves. A religious person who behaves as if there really is a magic spaceman interested in his or her sex organs is not the same thing. That is more like mental illness.

I think that's a bit of a dangerous position. There is such a thing as "psychic reality" (psychic in the original sense as meaning pertaining to the psyche), at least at the subjective level. Someone can be afraid of the dark despite all manner of reason that it's irrational. We don't say they are mentally ill. So if someone sees and interacts with "spirits" but this does not manifest as a psychological pathology (in other words they are able to have fairly normal social interaction) do we call this mental illness? For that matter, someone who believes spacemen are interested in their sex organs could well be experiencing a paranoid fantasy symbolizing a childhood trauma related to sexual molestation, where the actual memory is too painful to be brought to consciousness, in which case do we label that as a mental illness? Where and how do you draw the line?