Can Religion Still Be Useful?

[bilby]

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?

All of these things you describe are mental illnesses. Some are more debilitating than others, but that's not a barrier to their being mental illnesses - some physiological illnesses are more debilitating than others too. A mild head cold is still an illness, even if it doesn't prevent you from doing all the things you normally do; Likewise, phobias are illnesses, even if you are able to overcome them and live an outwardly normal life.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

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?

All of these things you describe are mental illnesses. Some are more debilitating than others, but that's not a barrier to their being mental illnesses - some physiological illnesses are more debilitating than others too. A mild head cold is still an illness, even if it doesn't prevent you from doing all the things you normally do; Likewise, phobias are illnesses, even if you are able to overcome them and live an outwardly normal life.

How do you qualify something as an illness then? Is Synesthesia an illness? The fact that someone has the ability to see smells for example or smell sounds - are those illnesses or simply a novel and different form of perception? If I am for example able to view the contents of my psyche in some mythological form - let's say I can experience my unconscious complexes as "entities", is that an illness or a novel form of perception? What distinguishes it?

 

[Lion IRC]

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...

Very admirable.

...the central reason for its very existence, the objective reality its God or gods, is unproven...

It's proven to the satisfaction of those who think it is true.
If you want to see God in a test tube or a magnifying glass that's your problem.

 

[DBT]

It's proven to the satisfaction of those who think it is true.

It's the standard 'proof' being used that is questionable....including all the contradictory beliefs on display.

They cannot all be right. Allah is not the same god as Brahma, etc. Either one is right and all the rest wrong, or all are wrong.

 

[Lion IRC]

Nope. It's AvT pal.

Not Islam versus Christianity versus Judaism - all of which agree there's only One God. (The same One who created Adam and Eve. The same One who spoke to Moses. The same One who caused the Noachian Flood.)

I don't need to debunk every other religion on Earth. (That's your job)

When Hindus say Shiva, I know who they mean just as I know who the Greco-Romans were talking about when they referred to Zeus or Apollo. And polytheists/pantheists are at least trying to grasp the ultimate Truth.

 

[DBT]

Nope. It's AvT pal.

Not Islam versus Christianity versus Judaism - all of which agree there's only One God. (The same One who created Adam and Eve. The same One who spoke to Moses. The same One who caused the Noachian Flood.)

I don't need to debunk every other religion on Earth. (That's your job)

When Hindus say Shiva, I know who they mean just as I know who the Greco-Romans were talking about when they referred to Zeus or Apollo. And polytheists/pantheists are at least trying to grasp the ultimate Truth.

Pal? Ultimate truth? You miss the point. If a Muslim claims that Allah is the one true god, but a Hindu says 'no, Brahma is the highest state of being' -that the concept of Brahma is not compatible with the concept of Allah, both beliefs cannot be true. One or the other must be false, or both are false. Both cannot be true.

 

[Draconis]

Well it's good for boring the pants off young children...

 

[Lion IRC]

Pal?

Oops. I thought we were pals from another forum. Sorry.

...Ultimate truth? You miss the point. If a Muslim claims that Allah is the one true god, but a Hindu says 'no, Brahma is the highest state of being' -that the concept of Brahma is not compatible with the concept of Allah, both beliefs cannot be true. One or the other must be false, or both are false. Both cannot be true.

Both can be partially true.

 

[DBT]

Both can be partially true.

Partially? How so? I don't mean the obvious, that there probably was a historical figure called Mohammed, a self styled prophet or the existence of other historical persons or places, Siddhartha Gautama or whatever, but claims in relation to the nature and attributes of their respective God or gods, angels, creation and so on.