Hi watisit, thanks for your lengthy reply although I mightn't answer everything here for brevity sake. U may however insists where need be. You have pre-empted intended edits to my previous post so I shall clarify here. For the avoidance of doubt, the definitions of 'religion' and 'mental-illness' are listed in my first post in this thread at [link] which the reader is well advised to peruse prior.
[bold emphasis applied in quoted text is mine]
As mentioned, TS argument is simply untenable as it suffers from the fallacy of 'Hasty Generalization' [wiki] "A person travels through a town for the first time. He sees 10 people, all of them children. The person then concludes that there are no adult residents in the town.". Just because some folks professing to be religious happen to have views that lack scientific proof (or that oneself disagrees with) does not warrant one to define them all in the category of those who are "mentally ill".
Granted, this isn't a simple topic to answer since in most societies in the world (with the exception of N.Korea(DPRK) and Maoist China), a vast if not simple majority of the world population professes to conform to religious practice to the extent that the line between culture and religion is sometimes indistinguishable.
The grave danger in the TS's contention is that beyond culture, the label of 'religion' being an 'illness' (impairment) is a gross insult to the sensibilities of the professors of such religion- but which is not to say that the current practice of religion in its traditional sense is always theologically correct. (See Martin Luther's 'Ninety Five theses' [wiki] in contention with the then practices of the Catholic Church (1517AD)).
As the YouTube video 'The Blind Men and the Elephant' by John G. Saxe (poetry reading) [link] rightly described, different (blind) men form as many unique beliefs as they have unique experiences with the same elephant. The nature or accuracy of such belief defined by BOTH the individual's cognitive capability (or lack of) as well as the particular experience which in the case of the said poem, illustrated the possibility of 6 differing descriptions being made by 6 blind men through each's meeting with the same particular elephant- with the paradoxical conclusion "each of them being right", "yet all of them were wrong". Their fatal mistake being arrogance and the consequent conflict in their exploration into the construct of an elephant; (they could have cooperated, discussed with each other their experiences, reconciled their differences and then come to a scholarly conclusion- but they just quarreled and so, but for their arrogance, could have had a much more fulfilling wildlife experience).
Likewise, the term 'God' is as 'infinite' an attempt to describe as the 'elephant' is to the 6 arrogant blind men (St Anselm described Him as "greater than the greatest being imaginable" [Ontological Argument] as I believe). Man can describe God (or His absence) only to the extent of his imagination based upon personal experience; but ALWAYS with caveat that one's own experience (/belief) could possibly be mistaken in so far that there exists multiple physical/ intellectual limitations interfering with any such declaration.
A non-Muslim's interpretation of some aspects of the 'Shariah Law' might view it to be draconian, male-chauvinistic or even cruel, but a poorly substantiated denigration of an established culture is bound to breed conflict regardless of whether such practices are race, religion or location based, or even a seamless mix of all ('mental impairment' is not a trivial allegation that one makes). Technology has narrowed borders and whether it can narrow divides (read: scholarly discussion/ interpretation) or widen them (read: military conflict, terrorism, spying, sabotage) will be determined by the gumption of world citizens to resolve such ethical dilemmas peacefully and amicably. But where interactions between societies remain as querulous as between the 6 blind men, each arrogant about the superiority of his own intellect, then conflicts will forever abound.
Many citizens of the freedom loving continental world consider Singapore a police state as characterized by capital punishment for drug trafficking, the government's ban upon the import of chewing gum and the GRC system of elections. Still, 60.1% of Singaporean's voted for the PAP in 2011- it would be illogical if not extreme to then label Singapore society as being mentally ill sadomasochist whose default choice is pain rather than pleasure.
My dictionary's definition of 'science' is "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences." [defn]- thus illustrates the inherent inability of using science to either prove or disprove religious belief since by definition, one's facts must first be "systematically arranged"- a competence I believe not many humans excel well in seeing the state of world governance today (pollution, global-warming, wars, disease, poverty, corruption, authoritarianism).
In regard of tools, I think that religion is like nuclear technology: a 'gift' that can never be eradicated but is best put to good and prudent use by the trained. Put to good use, it might solve the problem of global warming but in unskilled hands, produces nothing but the increased incidence of cancer and death over miles of polluted radioactive wasteland (read: dirty-bomb/ Fukushima, Nagasaki, Hiroshima).
Like nuclear technology, religious text, used off context or deviously misrepresented by extremist cells to their illiterate or ignorant members by their faith leaders, themselves under the influence of criminal intent, gross ignorance- diffuse or or otherwise, can have devastating consequences (read: suicide-bombings: 9/11, Mumbai Massacre, Bali disco bombing, London city bombing). From what I understand all religion is legally BANNED in N.Korea (DPRK)- this might be a politically convenient way of preventing false religious teachings being abused as a political implement or preventing the populace from the broadening of its intellectual horizons, but the wholesale ban on religions in N.Korea I doubt has done the society there much good as the populace there struggles perpetually with both depression as well as hunger- even ex-MM Lee agrees that N.Korea is very much a one man comic show. For the rest of the democratic free world, perhaps a high standard of moral interest and literacy if not responsible religious scholarship would easily give extremist religious ideologues a good run for their money- as educated, committed and informed citizens periodically point out periodically and publically the errors in the religious practice by various ill-trained and self-proclaimed religious teachers. Only through transparent scholarship in religious textual interpretation, a genuine effort to eradicate dire poverty and injustice, and the freedom of information and discovery about the correct practice of religion- rather than a general prejudice against the religion, can governments expect to yield result in reducing the prevalence of conflict and terrorism within mainstream religion and as a consequence of deviant offshoots of any particular religion being used for political or other material gain.
We could ban the use of all motor vehicles due to the problem of deaths arising from their misuse: but wouldn't that be like throwing the baby out with the bath water [defn] too?
Haha, a dispute about the source of "love thy neighbor rule". To me, its more important to keep to the rule- if religion helps one to do so, then good. enuff said.
According to Jesus Christ Himself, "The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these."[Mark12:31 (NIV)] (The first is: "...The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." [Mark12:29-30 (NIV)])
You said "That 'love thy neighbor rule' exist in cultures everywhere... it comes from the tribes which humans lived as millions of years ago. The first humans learned to care for their fellows to work together. It is an instinct built up through generations of breeding.."
The first rule as appended is a teaching of Christian fact (statement of faith), the second is our mutually accepted (golden) rule "love thy neighbor rule". These are the core rules of Christianity, the 2nd of even you good-self so proudly esteem. So in the context of scholarly Bible interpretation, the relevance remains reflection of how pomp and pomposity still plagues much of Christianity "..for extended periods of time,... some of the more extreme rules... , is an example of an 'impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning ...". Based upon straight-forward Biblical interpretation of what Jesus said and recorded almost verbatim in the Holy Bible (Mark12:29-31), despite being described in sequence, both laws are probably of similar importance if not concurrent importance. It is thus sad and unfortunate that your experience about the practice of Christianity has led you to link the illogicality of some religious practices to the symptoms of insanity. A deeper theological study should assist you in clarifying these observations which I agree are not quite as theologically sound practices despite their widespread occurrence possibly (i.e. the excessive emphasis on ceremony, pomp and pomposity).
Was it not as recent as 1517 that Martin Luther, in his criticism of false teachings of the Catholic Church pasted his 'Ninety Five theses' [wiki] on the doors of the Church in protest of the deviancy and corruption linked to the collection of 'indulgences' as authorized by the Pope- thus spurring the Protestant reformation and the subsequent condemnation of the collection of indulgences by the Catholic Church which had seen the error in its ways. There is no reason why theologically unsound Church practices shouldn't be corrected as and when the opportunity should arise.
You said: "Nobody knows, nor can know what god is like." but I elaborate: "Nobody knows, nor can know what god is really like." Within his own shallow limits, each blind man described correctly what they each encountered , but together they were all wrong in assuming that their narrow discoveries were representative of what a whole elephant was really like.
I believe that the true Christian (or most other mainstream religion's) belief in God is of a good Being which hates sin and strives achieve for all the souls of His created beings (e.g. humans etc): the best possible life (in this life or the next regardless)- depending upon what the subject is deserving of. And it is in this context that the 6 blind men will all eventually regret their 'sin' of arrogance; but for this recurrent indiscretion, their lives and relationships would have been so much better, and they would have 'seen' so much more of life and creation. But for their arrogance, such state joy and awareness, they would most earliest have easily found.
Rgds
B.C.
[bold emphasis applied in quoted text is mine]
Quote:
| Originally Posted by watisit (26Mar2012)  Thread topic: Is religion a mental illness? The TS is grouping mental illness and religion together because for some people, religion (social factor) screws up their "cognitive, emotional and behavioral functioning" as can be seen by the extreme examples of shariah law in countries where islam reigns supreme or by the creationist and/or anti-others culture held by most of the conservative states. Great comfort and consolation? Yeah, by forcing everyone they can to follow their rules and way of thinking, they gain solace in that since everyone they know is following their way of thinking, therefore it is right and they are right. And regarding your example of tools. Yes, tools can be good or bad depending on the user. However weapons are weapons. Even if they bring happiness/good to the user, they do so by harming other people. This is what christianity and islam are like, by forcing itself on other people, they make their own people happy. It is good for the religion but bad for those outside. Overall is it a good thing? I don't think so. Science can't answer all the questions, but that doesn't mean you can throw in your own way of thinking and force everyone to follow it. Especially when there is no way to prove your claims. Also, when we consider the basis your arguments are based upon... What was it again? Anything that cannot be explained by science does not have a natural origin and must therefore be created by god? Feel free to correct me here. |
Granted, this isn't a simple topic to answer since in most societies in the world (with the exception of N.Korea(DPRK) and Maoist China), a vast if not simple majority of the world population professes to conform to religious practice to the extent that the line between culture and religion is sometimes indistinguishable.
The grave danger in the TS's contention is that beyond culture, the label of 'religion' being an 'illness' (impairment) is a gross insult to the sensibilities of the professors of such religion- but which is not to say that the current practice of religion in its traditional sense is always theologically correct. (See Martin Luther's 'Ninety Five theses' [wiki] in contention with the then practices of the Catholic Church (1517AD)).
As the YouTube video 'The Blind Men and the Elephant' by John G. Saxe (poetry reading) [link] rightly described, different (blind) men form as many unique beliefs as they have unique experiences with the same elephant. The nature or accuracy of such belief defined by BOTH the individual's cognitive capability (or lack of) as well as the particular experience which in the case of the said poem, illustrated the possibility of 6 differing descriptions being made by 6 blind men through each's meeting with the same particular elephant- with the paradoxical conclusion "each of them being right", "yet all of them were wrong". Their fatal mistake being arrogance and the consequent conflict in their exploration into the construct of an elephant; (they could have cooperated, discussed with each other their experiences, reconciled their differences and then come to a scholarly conclusion- but they just quarreled and so, but for their arrogance, could have had a much more fulfilling wildlife experience).
Likewise, the term 'God' is as 'infinite' an attempt to describe as the 'elephant' is to the 6 arrogant blind men (St Anselm described Him as "greater than the greatest being imaginable" [Ontological Argument] as I believe). Man can describe God (or His absence) only to the extent of his imagination based upon personal experience; but ALWAYS with caveat that one's own experience (/belief) could possibly be mistaken in so far that there exists multiple physical/ intellectual limitations interfering with any such declaration.
A non-Muslim's interpretation of some aspects of the 'Shariah Law' might view it to be draconian, male-chauvinistic or even cruel, but a poorly substantiated denigration of an established culture is bound to breed conflict regardless of whether such practices are race, religion or location based, or even a seamless mix of all ('mental impairment' is not a trivial allegation that one makes). Technology has narrowed borders and whether it can narrow divides (read: scholarly discussion/ interpretation) or widen them (read: military conflict, terrorism, spying, sabotage) will be determined by the gumption of world citizens to resolve such ethical dilemmas peacefully and amicably. But where interactions between societies remain as querulous as between the 6 blind men, each arrogant about the superiority of his own intellect, then conflicts will forever abound.
Many citizens of the freedom loving continental world consider Singapore a police state as characterized by capital punishment for drug trafficking, the government's ban upon the import of chewing gum and the GRC system of elections. Still, 60.1% of Singaporean's voted for the PAP in 2011- it would be illogical if not extreme to then label Singapore society as being mentally ill sadomasochist whose default choice is pain rather than pleasure.
My dictionary's definition of 'science' is "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences." [defn]- thus illustrates the inherent inability of using science to either prove or disprove religious belief since by definition, one's facts must first be "systematically arranged"- a competence I believe not many humans excel well in seeing the state of world governance today (pollution, global-warming, wars, disease, poverty, corruption, authoritarianism).
In regard of tools, I think that religion is like nuclear technology: a 'gift' that can never be eradicated but is best put to good and prudent use by the trained. Put to good use, it might solve the problem of global warming but in unskilled hands, produces nothing but the increased incidence of cancer and death over miles of polluted radioactive wasteland (read: dirty-bomb/ Fukushima, Nagasaki, Hiroshima).
Like nuclear technology, religious text, used off context or deviously misrepresented by extremist cells to their illiterate or ignorant members by their faith leaders, themselves under the influence of criminal intent, gross ignorance- diffuse or or otherwise, can have devastating consequences (read: suicide-bombings: 9/11, Mumbai Massacre, Bali disco bombing, London city bombing). From what I understand all religion is legally BANNED in N.Korea (DPRK)- this might be a politically convenient way of preventing false religious teachings being abused as a political implement or preventing the populace from the broadening of its intellectual horizons, but the wholesale ban on religions in N.Korea I doubt has done the society there much good as the populace there struggles perpetually with both depression as well as hunger- even ex-MM Lee agrees that N.Korea is very much a one man comic show. For the rest of the democratic free world, perhaps a high standard of moral interest and literacy if not responsible religious scholarship would easily give extremist religious ideologues a good run for their money- as educated, committed and informed citizens periodically point out periodically and publically the errors in the religious practice by various ill-trained and self-proclaimed religious teachers. Only through transparent scholarship in religious textual interpretation, a genuine effort to eradicate dire poverty and injustice, and the freedom of information and discovery about the correct practice of religion- rather than a general prejudice against the religion, can governments expect to yield result in reducing the prevalence of conflict and terrorism within mainstream religion and as a consequence of deviant offshoots of any particular religion being used for political or other material gain.
We could ban the use of all motor vehicles due to the problem of deaths arising from their misuse: but wouldn't that be like throwing the baby out with the bath water [defn] too?
Quote:
| That "love thy neighbor rule" exist in cultures everywhere. C.S. Lewis and you reach the conclusion that this proves it comes from god/religion. I claim that it comes from the tribes which humans lived as millions of years ago. The first humans learned to care for their fellows to work together. It is an instinct built up through generations of breeding, not something given. True, i don't believe that simply being a christian for a short while should be labelled as mentally ill. It isn't wrong for people to stumble or to come into a period of weakness and vulnerability. But to keep it up for extended periods of time, or to follow some of the more extreme rules, is an example of an "impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning caused by social... factors" |
According to Jesus Christ Himself, "The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these."[Mark12:31 (NIV)] (The first is: "...The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." [Mark12:29-30 (NIV)])
You said "That 'love thy neighbor rule' exist in cultures everywhere... it comes from the tribes which humans lived as millions of years ago. The first humans learned to care for their fellows to work together. It is an instinct built up through generations of breeding.."
The first rule as appended is a teaching of Christian fact (statement of faith), the second is our mutually accepted (golden) rule "love thy neighbor rule". These are the core rules of Christianity, the 2nd of even you good-self so proudly esteem. So in the context of scholarly Bible interpretation, the relevance remains reflection of how pomp and pomposity still plagues much of Christianity "..for extended periods of time,... some of the more extreme rules... , is an example of an 'impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning ...". Based upon straight-forward Biblical interpretation of what Jesus said and recorded almost verbatim in the Holy Bible (Mark12:29-31), despite being described in sequence, both laws are probably of similar importance if not concurrent importance. It is thus sad and unfortunate that your experience about the practice of Christianity has led you to link the illogicality of some religious practices to the symptoms of insanity. A deeper theological study should assist you in clarifying these observations which I agree are not quite as theologically sound practices despite their widespread occurrence possibly (i.e. the excessive emphasis on ceremony, pomp and pomposity).
Was it not as recent as 1517 that Martin Luther, in his criticism of false teachings of the Catholic Church pasted his 'Ninety Five theses' [wiki] on the doors of the Church in protest of the deviancy and corruption linked to the collection of 'indulgences' as authorized by the Pope- thus spurring the Protestant reformation and the subsequent condemnation of the collection of indulgences by the Catholic Church which had seen the error in its ways. There is no reason why theologically unsound Church practices shouldn't be corrected as and when the opportunity should arise.
Quote:
| And the bible... I have heard the word context said before, but i haven't seen any examples. Could you please show me an example of a verse/chapter where if read alone sounds violent/horrible or in any way bad, but then in the correct context, it is actually good? My conclusion from my understanding of the bible is that god destroys his enemies, sooner or later. And that everyone is either for him or against him. The only way out is to submit to him, to stop thinking and to subject yourself to the will of him and his chosen, pretty much the same as any other cult. I think following this philosophy seriously qualifies one for impairment of cognitive abilities. That is another way of saying that everyone who does good is a true christian, all those who did not are not true christians. A very nice and convenient way of shedding all of the sins accrued in christianity's name throughout its history and is continuing to accumulate now. Regarding that video. I agree that it is pointless for humans to try and describe god, which is why i think that all religions are simply lies to enforce obedience to the people at the top. Nobody knows, nor can know what god is like. Thus whenever religion speaks about god, they are simply using his name to enforce their own personal morals. |
I believe that the true Christian (or most other mainstream religion's) belief in God is of a good Being which hates sin and strives achieve for all the souls of His created beings (e.g. humans etc): the best possible life (in this life or the next regardless)- depending upon what the subject is deserving of. And it is in this context that the 6 blind men will all eventually regret their 'sin' of arrogance; but for this recurrent indiscretion, their lives and relationships would have been so much better, and they would have 'seen' so much more of life and creation. But for their arrogance, such state joy and awareness, they would most earliest have easily found.
Rgds
B.C.
=================
At:
SGC:
No comments:
Post a Comment