God as Psychosis

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Children mostly believe what they're told when it comes to magical beings. Eventually they meet people, mostly peers, who don't think these things are real, and they come to recognize that the adults who taught them about these beings were just pretending. As adults, the kids generally do the same thing with their own and other children. That's normal cognitive development everyone would agree.

All adults also meet peers or know of other adults who don't think their version of a magical being is real but still cling to their version. In the most extreme cases these same adults make themselves ill and even cause the death of their children and others because of their adult belief in a magical being. Doesn't this qualify as psychosis?

If someone tells me that something was said by their magical being and that it's not up for discussion, in my experience this is the same as having a discussion with a psychotic individual, an exercise in futility for those who have had the same experience.

So when I'm talking to people about their gods, is it okay for me to take that same posture? Will the conversation be more productive and perhaps satisfying if I treat it as a psychosis and simply attempt to carry on?

 

[rousseau]

As always it depends on how you define psychosis, but generally speaking I wouldn't define belief in God as psychotic.

Psychosis is a mental situation where someone loses complete touch with external reality to the extent that they can no longer function in the world. Belief in God just represents a minor misunderstanding about objective reality while the believer still functions, because most of their awareness is still intact.

In effect, religious beliefs seem important, but they're actually the least important beliefs we hold. What's more important is believing that if we eat food we're not going to die, if we have sex we're going to have children, etc and so on. In that way religious people are usually grounded in reality, they just don't know why they exist, which isn't particularly important to day to day survival.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, religion is sort of like alcohol. For the most part, it's a harmless social activity but there are some people who just can't handle it and go over the edge and end up harming themselves or others. It's an explanation for the universe and our place in it and being right or wrong on the topic isn't an important enough factor in people's lives for them to put much thought or effort into it.

When they start driving drunk or covering up systemic child abuse then it's time to step in. However, if they're just out having a beer with friends or spending Sunday mornings hearing about how a fluffy sky fairy wants to give them a hug then there's no issue with it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

As always it depends on how you define psychosis, but generally speaking I wouldn't define belief in God as psychotic.

Psychosis is a mental situation where someone loses complete touch with external reality to the extent that they can no longer function in the world. Belief in God just represents a minor misunderstanding about objective reality while the believer still functions, because most of their awareness is still intact.

In effect, religious beliefs seem important, but they're actually the least important beliefs we hold. What's more important is believing that if we eat food we're not going to die, if we have sex we're going to have children, etc and so on. In that way religious people are usually grounded in reality, they just don't know why they exist, which isn't particularly important to day to day survival.

In fact, it seems to me that most believers live most of their lives as if their god didn't exist.

 

[Syed]

Children mostly believe what they're told when it comes to magical beings. Eventually they meet people, mostly peers, who don't think these things are real, and they come to recognize that the adults who taught them about these beings were just pretending. As adults, the kids generally do the same thing with their own and other children. That's normal cognitive development everyone would agree.

All adults also meet peers or know of other adults who don't think their version of a magical being is real but still cling to their version. In the most extreme cases these same adults make themselves ill and even cause the death of their children and others because of their adult belief in a magical being. Doesn't this qualify as psychosis?

If someone tells me that something was said by their magical being and that it's not up for discussion, in my experience this is the same as having a discussion with a psychotic individual, an exercise in futility for those who have had the same experience.

So when I'm talking to people about their gods, is it okay for me to take that same posture? Will the conversation be more productive and perhaps satisfying if I treat it as a psychosis and simply attempt to carry on?

this is what god think of atheists

Quran
Asad :And so, the parable of those who are bent on denying the truth is that of the beast which hears the shepherd's cry, and hears in it nothing but the sound of a voice and a call. 138 Deaf are they, and dumb, and blind: for they do not use their reason.

Malik : The parable of those who reject faith is like the cattle which, call out to them as one may, hear nothing but a shout and a cry since they are unable to understand; they are deaf, dumb and blind, and understand nothing.

Yusuf Ali : The parable of those who reject faith is as if one were to shout like a goat-herd to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries; deaf dumb and blind they are void of wisdom.

 

[Keith&Co.]

this is what god think of atheists

This bit where you read scripture to people who do not believe in what you're talking about OR that you know what you're talking about? That's not exactly a rebuttal of joedad's OP.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As always it depends on how you define psychosis, but generally speaking I wouldn't define belief in God as psychotic.

Psychosis is a mental situation where someone loses complete touch with external reality to the extent that they can no longer function in the world. Belief in God just represents a minor misunderstanding about objective reality while the believer still functions, because most of their awareness is still intact.

In effect, religious beliefs seem important, but they're actually the least important beliefs we hold. What's more important is believing that if we eat food we're not going to die, if we have sex we're going to have children, etc and so on. In that way religious people are usually grounded in reality, they just don't know why they exist, which isn't particularly important to day to day survival.

Today, the severely psychotic tend to die or be locked away. But if one has a mild psychosis it is entirely possible for that person to operate. Have you ever known anyone like this?

How do you square rational behavior with also believing, as an adult, in these invisible religious creatures, no different than Tooth Fairies as a kid? With christians specifically, how do you square an invisible creature making a baby with a woman and that eventually flies away into the sky? How do you square singing songs to the magical baby?

I'm just thinking that if I treat these claims as mild psychoses I'll get further along in conversations. Does that make sense? Why should I expect a person with a broken leg to jog alongside me?

 

[rousseau]

As always it depends on how you define psychosis, but generally speaking I wouldn't define belief in God as psychotic.

Psychosis is a mental situation where someone loses complete touch with external reality to the extent that they can no longer function in the world. Belief in God just represents a minor misunderstanding about objective reality while the believer still functions, because most of their awareness is still intact.

In effect, religious beliefs seem important, but they're actually the least important beliefs we hold. What's more important is believing that if we eat food we're not going to die, if we have sex we're going to have children, etc and so on. In that way religious people are usually grounded in reality, they just don't know why they exist, which isn't particularly important to day to day survival.

Today, the severely psychotic tend to die or be locked away. But if one has a mild psychosis it is entirely possible for that person to operate. Have you ever known anyone like this?

How do you square rational behavior with also believing, as an adult, in these invisible religious creatures, no different than Tooth Fairies as a kid? With christians specifically, how do you square an invisible creature making a baby with a woman and that eventually flies away into the sky? How do you square singing songs to the magical baby?

I'm just thinking that if I treat these claims as mild psychoses I'll get further along in conversations. Does that make sense? Why should I expect a person with a broken leg to jog alongside me?

To be honest I'm not sure what one would mean by mild psychosis. I get the sense of what you're saying but I think calling religious belief psychosis is a misrepresentation of the term, and a misunderstanding of what psychosis is.

Psychosis happens when people's brains become so physiologically out of balance that they lose total control over themselves, it's a real condition that only happens under very specific circumstances. Religious belief just means a person is either dumb or ignorant.

Maybe you'd be better served by assuming religious people aren't psychotic, but instead regular people who happen to be misinformed and ignorant about a particular thing. The only real difference from any other misunderstanding, is that their particular logic error has been reinforced for their entire lives, and is pretty fundamental to their belief systems.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Today, the severely psychotic tend to die or be locked away. But if one has a mild psychosis it is entirely possible for that person to operate. Have you ever known anyone like this?

How do you square rational behavior with also believing, as an adult, in these invisible religious creatures, no different than Tooth Fairies as a kid? With christians specifically, how do you square an invisible creature making a baby with a woman and that eventually flies away into the sky? How do you square singing songs to the magical baby?

I'm just thinking that if I treat these claims as mild psychoses I'll get further along in conversations. Does that make sense? Why should I expect a person with a broken leg to jog alongside me?

To be honest I'm not sure what one would mean by mild psychosis. I get the sense of what you're saying but I think calling religious belief psychosis is a misrepresentation of the term, and a misunderstanding of what psychosis is.

Psychosis happens when people's brains become so physiologically out of balance that they lose total control over themselves, it's a real condition that only happens under very specific circumstances. Religious belief just means a person is either dumb or ignorant.

Maybe you'd be better served by assuming religious people aren't psychotic, but instead regular people who happen to be misinformed and ignorant about a particular thing. The only real difference from any other misunderstanding, is that their particular logic error has been reinforced for their entire lives, and is pretty fundamental to their belief systems.

On type of psychotic disorder is called delusional disorder, which causes a person to strongly believe in things that are not real. You don't think that belief in a woman giving birth to a baby spaceman that dies, comes back to life and then flies away into the sky is a delusional disorder? You think such a person is just dumb or ignorant?

Religious language dresses it all up with different words from the koolaid dictionary to make it seem less bizarre but that is in fact what it is.

 

[rousseau]

To be honest I'm not sure what one would mean by mild psychosis. I get the sense of what you're saying but I think calling religious belief psychosis is a misrepresentation of the term, and a misunderstanding of what psychosis is.

Psychosis happens when people's brains become so physiologically out of balance that they lose total control over themselves, it's a real condition that only happens under very specific circumstances. Religious belief just means a person is either dumb or ignorant.

Maybe you'd be better served by assuming religious people aren't psychotic, but instead regular people who happen to be misinformed and ignorant about a particular thing. The only real difference from any other misunderstanding, is that their particular logic error has been reinforced for their entire lives, and is pretty fundamental to their belief systems.

On type of psychotic disorder is called delusional disorder, which causes a person to strongly believe in things that are not real. You don't think that belief in a woman giving birth to a baby spaceman that dies, comes back to life and then flies away into the sky is a delusional disorder? You think such a person is just dumb or ignorant?

Religious language dresses it all up with different words from the koolaid dictionary to make it seem less bizarre but that is in fact what it is.

Yep, they're just dumb and ignorant.

The difference between any arbitrary delusion, and believing in Christianity, is that Christianity is actually socially plausible given it's history and pervasiveness across the world. If we define believing in Christianity as a psychotic disorder, then we need to categorize almost every human being throughout the entirety of history as psychotic.

That just doesn't make sense. In reality what's off here is our definition and impression of what humans are really like. We're assuming that they should be rational and without delusion, when historically that's almost never been the case. You'd almost have to be delusional to believe that was the case, though, wouldn't you

 

[ideologyhunter]

The TRUE believers are scary. I've known some, met some briefly, heard some ranting on TV, etc. Vast hordes of the "Beloved Community" are not core believers at all. I've met many more social Christians than dogmatic, zealous Christians. I've known social Christians who make statements like, "Enjoy your life, there's no pie in the sky later", which is the absolute repudiation of Christian belief. I've known "Christians" whose top comments about church affiliation are such references as the speaking ability of the minister or the beautifully dressed close-knit families, the 'good folks', they know at church. Look at the outward signs of weak affiliation in the social Christians:
> How many of them have actually read the Bible, all 1000 pages of "the most perfect book in the world" that is supposed to be their deity's message to them?
> How many of them take Jesus's messages on divorce and fornication as binding? Actually, the word fornication is an anachronism anymore, because it's just behavior we see all over, in every social class.
> How many of them support a social mission for our government or society? How many of them embrace in any way Jesus' often-stated teachings against bondage to material possessions? (When you get to the religious right on these issues, ye gods and li'l fishes.)

 

[Atheos]

This is, of course, why we have different terms to refer to different levels of detachment with reality. And even the phrase "detachment with reality" carries more weight than should be used here.

The human brain gathers information about the world (and about oneself) in a variety of different ways. These include sensations, observations, trial and error, and of course communication with others. That list is not meant to be all-inclusive, just a few things I could think of off the top of my head.

Cause/effect relationships are particularly strong but often misfire. Misfires often cause superstitions (such as "bad luck to open an umbrella in the house"). Such a misfire becomes misinformation about the world and how it operates, but it does not mean the individual is psychotic. Wood nymphs, volcano gods and blood-sacrifice gods (which by the way includes the christian god) are what result when people begin making things up to explain these poorly formed cause/effect relationships. If the made-up things are unfalsifiable and there is at least some anecdotal evidence to support it then at least some folks are probably going to buy it.

This is a natural part of how our brains function. It's not perfect but it's the hand evolution dealt us. Evolution wasn't trying to create perfect brains, it was only rewarding traits that resulted in little babies being born and making it long enough to make more little babies.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is, of course, why we have different terms to refer to different levels of detachment with reality. And even the phrase "detachment with reality" carries more weight than should be used here.

The human brain gathers information about the world (and about oneself) in a variety of different ways. These include sensations, observations, trial and error, and of course communication with others. That list is not meant to be all-inclusive, just a few things I could think of off the top of my head.

Cause/effect relationships are particularly strong but often misfire. Misfires often cause superstitions (such as "bad luck to open an umbrella in the house"). Such a misfire becomes misinformation about the world and how it operates, but it does not mean the individual is psychotic. Wood nymphs, volcano gods and blood-sacrifice gods (which by the way includes the christian god) are what result when people begin making things up to explain these poorly formed cause/effect relationships. If the made-up things are unfalsifiable and there is at least some anecdotal evidence to support it then at least some folks are probably going to buy it.

This is a natural part of how our brains function. It's not perfect but it's the hand evolution dealt us. Evolution wasn't trying to create perfect brains, it was only rewarding traits that resulted in little babies being born and making it long enough to make more little babies.

I'm not arguing that psychoses can't have survival value and be selected for. Morality and intellect and right/wrong are all concepts that derive from what has already been selected for, with nature continuously serving up new recipes for survival.

But because a behavior or condition has been selected for does not change the fact that it is a psychosis. People with the Jesus psychosis can obviously still have offspring and continue to survive. But a psychosis is still a psychosis unless there really was a baby spaceman born to a Hebrew girl 2000 years ago, died, came back to life, flew away into the sky to be with his spaceman daddy, and that is going to judge us - after we're dead - and maybe send us to live with a different spaceman than himself where thing won't be so nice.

It's still a psychosis imho because from a rational, scientific perspective it is off-the-wall bizarro stuff.

 

[abaddon]

All adults also meet peers or know of other adults who don't think their version of a magical being is real but still cling to their version. In the most extreme cases these same adults make themselves ill and even cause the death of their children and others because of their adult belief in a magical being. Doesn't this qualify as psychosis?

No. It's a subculture managing reality its own way. An overemphasis on the harm to a few individuals will cause you to miss the cultural aspect of it. If dismissing modern medicine helps sustain a culture, if it prevents it being absorbed into another culture, then the culture's done what it exists to do: sustain itself. I think the notion of "memes" has merit, and we see it when a cultural story harms individuals but helps the larger organism, the community, cohere in spite of not being optimally efficient about it.

If someone tells me that something was said by their magical being and that it's not up for discussion, in my experience this is the same as having a discussion with a psychotic individual, an exercise in futility for those who have had the same experience.

The difference would be a believer believes and a psychotic experiences. The believer's taking part in a story made for making a culture cohere, but the psychotic's lost in his own isolated, and isolating, world of disordered experiences that result in the precise opposite of what the believer's beliefs do for him. In several ways they're opposites. You're thinking "they're both whacked" and therefore making an equivalence between them from just your impression of how strange they both seem to you.

If a schizophrenic hallucinates voices, that's not a belief. Because a voice HAS in fact talked to him.

Christian believers merely have the belief. When a theist claims a voice has spoken to him, it's an example of the theist habit of misdescribing everything. They talked to themselves in the way everyone does, but get hyperbolic in their description of it.

Christian believers participate in an anachronistic cultural story because it includes them into a community of like-minded folk and they can all get along for thinking much the same. The immense ignorance of their story means that troubles are dealt with stupidly, and sometimes individuals get hurt. But, those troubles are dealt with all the same and so their culture coheres and sustains itself.

But psychosis isolates the sufferer, he can't deal with problems in a communally stupid manner because there's nothing communal about what he's suffering. He can't relate to himself or others, and little if anything about his illness comforts him. And it only goes from terrible to worse, and is a nightmarish torment that renders him dysfunctional in any setting. Not because of unscientific weird beliefs but because of the incapacity to organize his weird experiences.

Psychosis does not have survival value. Again, I think you're making a weak connection between psychosis and some religious beliefs just from how strange they both seem to you. Two foods can taste very badly, it doesn't mean there's a connection beyond they both taste badly.