Religion as a mental disorder

[Lisbeth]

GID is a delusion. I changed my body because I did not like the factory model. I do not think there are gender identities only the ones we are taught. Some day everyone will be able to just be themselves without cultural demands.

I guess it's good to know that you believe you have Delusional Disorder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

[lady amarant]

When does real become real? When can we all agree that something is real? The sight you see is not the same thing I see...the angle is different, the light took longer to reach my eyes, etc. We cannot even agree on the time...your clock runs at a different rate than mine. So what does logic say about what time it is? If logic is purely in the eye of the beholder, it is no longer logic. Only what's relative.

We can't. Descartes proved positively his own existence, as we each can prove our own, with "I think, therefore I am", but by doing that he made the proving the existence of everything else impossible - so far anyway, it's still one of the fundamental "questions that need answering" in western philosophy. So with that in mind, religion and belief in god are just an extension of the problem of somehow proving that everything we experience is not just a delusion. We choose to what extent we want to believe external stimuli, from the actual nerve impulses we get from our senses, further out to peak experiences and the like, based on our belief systems. We could all be in the matrix. You all could be a figment of my deranged mind as I lie in a coma somewhere. But on the other hand you could all be as real as I am. I have no way of proving or disproving either supposition. The same is true of spiritual experiences, and ultimately of god or gods.

I agree with Rebis though: The delusion (and danger) comes when you choose either supposition purely through assumption, since neither can be proved, and then start to force that choice on others. I mean, either all of the rest of what I experience is a delusion or it isn't. Lets say I choose the former, and take the position that none of you are real, that all of this is in my head. I can then do whatever I want to other people - I can be cruel and sadistic, violent and murderous even - it doesn't matter, 'cause everything is just a movie in my head anyway. You'd all have me locked away so fast it would make my head spin. But extend that same reasoning to fundamentalist religion, which also cannot be proved or disproved either way, and it becomes "manifest destiny" and "biblical inerrancy" and all sorts of things.

Belief in god is not a delusion - I choose to believe that my body and experiences are real. By the same token one might choose to believe that whatever supernatural experiences you have are real. But belief that you are correct in that belief, that everybody is incorrect in their beliefs is delusional, or at the least it is profoundly unsound reasoning.

~Simone.

[Aurelius]

Good point Simone. I need to read Descartes, but he's still too far down the reading list, so many books, so little time

Absolute certainty is a danger in any way shape, or form is a dangerous world view to oneself or others. But being pretty sure is a sane way to go without driving yourself crazy whether God is really spelled Dog, which is what it sometimes boils down to. That's why I lean more towards the empirical nowadays, sometimes expressed as common sense. Logic can often be too...unlogical, and a path that goes in circles, or has no end.

That's my story n' I'm stickin' to it!

Chris

[lady amarant]

Aurelius:

... which is a completely logical and valid response.



Posted on: 09 November 2008, 05:27:36So if you go with the empirical, meaning external, observable data, how can you determine whether any of that data is "real" or "true"? You can't be sure that some agent isn't interfering with the transmission of the information as it makes its way from wherever it originated to where the essential "you" who experiences it are. For that matter, you can never be sure that your memories of past data have not been altered in some way, so even comparing and updating "knowledge" becomes problematic. Relying on "facts" is not nearly as solid as we think it is.

~Simone.

[lisagurl]

GID is a delusion. I changed my body because I did not like the factory model. I do not think there are gender identities only the ones we are taught. Some day everyone will be able to just be themselves without cultural demands.

I guess it's good to know that you believe you have Delusional Disorder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

delusion  (dĭ-lū'zhən)

n.

The act or process of deluding.
The state of being deluded.
A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
[Middle English delusioun, from Latin dēlūsiō, dēlūsiōn-, from dēlūsus, past participle of dēlūdere, to delude. See delude.]

delusional de·lu'sion·al adj.

I did not say Delusional Disorder I said delusional.  The physical fact is our body. A mental feeling has no proof. In the physical world a mental belief that is false is a delusion. In my case I did not like my body. I have no feelings of gender either way. Culture is what defines gender behavior not inborn instructions.  Many that transition feel that they prefer to live in the culture as a certain identity. As for me I do not like the binary culture and avoid situations that demand gender behavior. I prefer a less aggressive approach as I have little use for most people and their identity.

[Kendall]

That would be funny if they added religion to the DSM.

[lisagurl]

How does a random number generator generate anything besides a random number?

Technical flaws, but you understood my point.

My question still stands, shaking feet or nail clippings, it is all sensory perception no matter what medium. When does real become real? When can we all agree that something is real? The sight you see is not the same thing I see...the angle is different, the light took longer to reach my eyes, etc. We cannot even agree on the time...your clock runs at a different rate than mine. So what does logic say about what time it is? If logic is purely in the eye of the beholder, it is no longer logic. Only what's relative.

A number generator can randomly pick anything out of a memory just as abstract thought uses the memory to put things together.

When does real become real?

I consider my senses a test of the real Physical world. Not my imagination.  I know I have faulty senses and they do not sense all that there is. However they have a higher probability giving information that is consistence with logic, reason and experience. With those I have control of some of the physical world as with my imagination I do not.

[Aurelius]

Whiich is precisely why I covered my flanks on this argument:

A) I am not certain, only pretty sure...both empirical and logical wind up going in circles.
B) I lean towards empirical to live daily life and in dealing with daily situations ie; common sense.
C) Logic is cool, but I won't follow it when it jumps off the bridge. Pure logic IS relativity. Logically, I should have killed myself. But I didn't.
D) I do believe in Truth, but that is a matter of faith. Everything else is relative. That Truth is an abstract idea, with no proof empirical or logical... has nothing to do with personal morals, values, etc or judging others. It only has to do with my place in the universe.

Which brings me to a point. No, I am not trying to pick on Lisagurl, with her view, but after arguing with her I have come up with this conclusion why I disagree; the reason I have to live part of my life in the abstract ie believe in God.

When people are put to the test, an extreme example would be the holocaust, the very few not being gassed outright and in concetration camp noticed something. People who believed in SOMETHING were the ones who tended to do better, and maybe survive longer. Not give up as easily. This is because they believed not just in God, but that there was a Supreme Good at work in the universe, and that no matter what happened to them that everything would be for that good. There was a spiritual bond that transcended them through adversity, and made it easier to bear. The ones who had weak belief or believed in nothing did not have this, and their minds and bodies, on average, gave up much sooner. "Give-up-itis" in the parliance of Vietnam POW's. No, this is not a 100% argument, only a broad one. Nor am I saying that non-believers are incapable of such strength. I am only illustrating a positive to belief v. non-belief in general terms, in which there is evidence.

Yes, I know this is an argument on Purpose. Some say there is purpose because we humans make up purpose. It cannot be proven one way or another. Belief that there is something better in the "heavens" does NOT mean we shouldn't work hard to make this world better (once again covering a flank), but if you ever read CS Lewis's argument for his belief, in the paraphrased words of dour Puddleglum under enchantment from an evil witch, trying to trick him (through relative logic) into believing his homeland was a delusion:

"I can't say if Narnia is real, no I can't, but it is sure alot better than this horrible place. I'd rather live in that wonderful, happy delusion and know there is something better and good to look forward to than just this unhappy kingdom."

I may not be right, there may be no God; but I stand with Puddleglum

Chris

[lisagurl]

I do believe in Truth, but that is a matter of faith

Mathematically there are no absolutes. Abstract thought based on some evidence tells us the possibility of 10 or 11 dimensions. I know there are things I do not know from the evidence of making mistakes.  I can only experiment and use past success to control my environment. Beliefs and faith are just entertainments and sure it helps people live. That does not make it real in the physical world.

[Rachael]

If religion is a mental disorder, the world is frakking mad....

I'm jewish, its a core part of my identity and social self. I'm proud of this,and while i accept others can choose not to belive in god in a his various forms, i dont quite agree...

[Aurelius]

I do believe in Truth, but that is a matter of faith

Mathematically there are no absolutes. Abstract thought based on some evidence tells us the possibility of 10 or 11 dimensions. I know there are things I do not know from the evidence of making mistakes.  I can only experiment and use past success to control my environment. Beliefs and faith are just entertainments and sure it helps people live. That does not make it real in the physical world.

"I believe in God, just in case"-->Einstein

[lisagurl]

"I believe in God, just in case"-->Einstein

I have read many books about Einstein and his definition of God is the same as mine. That is very different than your belief. You left out the whole paragraph that the quote is taken from.

[Aurelius]

"I believe in God, just in case"-->Einstein

I have read many books about Einstein and his definition of God is the same as mine. That is very different than your belief. You left out the whole paragraph that the quote is taken from.

I don't even know what the paragraph said, only the quote I used to shoot from the hip. You usually have that advantage on me, I am only using my own education and my own thoughts. If it is faulty, then I recant. I can't argue that. But I still disagree.

The whole problem I have with this definition is the very logic. Using pure logic, I can say that the person sitting in the room with me may not exist. It is only my perception via my senses. My brain may be faulty, but that makes the physical world faulty as there are no alternatives. The same perception applied to the other person on the other end of your computer, the logic only spirals down into relativity progressively. The physical world in this logic cannot be the only answer to our existence. The logic that makes the metaphysical faulty is the same logic that makes the physical faulty.



Posted on: November 09, 2008, 12:56:48 pmLisagurl by the way, I am only pressing this issue because A) I don't understand (your view) and B) I am learning from you. If you want to drop it I understand. I don't grab onto you like a pitbull, only ideas I struggle to understand. We are probably not ever going to agree, but I still get to look at things (or at least try) from your point of view. That's how I learn.

Chris

[Lisbeth]

How does a random number generator generate anything besides a random number?

Random number generators generate "pseudo-random numbers." That is, given the same starting parameters, they always produce the same number. In order to produce something that looks like a random number, they are always seeded with a parameter that the user doesn't know the value of, like the time of day in milliseconds or with whatever junk is present in a spot of computer memory.

[lisagurl]

It is only my perception via my senses.

Yes that is probably the best answer. Your senses view the empirical world. There has been many studies, experiments, history, experiences and information about the physical empirical world. Using that information we can control and predict the probability of events. Yes events can only be observed through our senses and perception. Some times their are facts and things not observed or things happen  that are not accounted for. However we can use the probability odds to our advantage.

Now the more removed you are from the observation the less the odds of it being successful. If I have a friend in 3D and observe all my senses can I can tell a lot about them without a word spoken.  Add words and the fact that they are physically there, adds more responsibility to my ability to control and predict what is happening is much greater than looking at a screen of symbols with no proof that a person is really there or that if it is a person that anything the screen words say have any kind of verification.  The probability is much less that the person is in physical reality and if they are it is not my physical reality so it is more ghost like and not worthy of my full attention or for me to risk anything.

Posted on: November 09, 2008, 03:14:16 pm

whatever junk is present in a spot of computer memory

Such is abstract thought. Then you apply logic to those junks throw out the things that make no reason and put the rest together to create an abstract thought. All that can be done with artificial intelligences. MIT is on the cutting edge.

[Aurelius]

How does a random number generator generate anything besides a random number?

Random number generators generate "pseudo-random numbers." That is, given the same starting parameters, they always produce the same number. In order to produce something that looks like a random number, they are always seeded with a parameter that the user doesn't know the value of, like the time of day in milliseconds or with whatever junk is present in a spot of computer memory.

Thanks Lisbeth, for spoiling my oh-so clever use of nomenclature .

Posted on: November 09, 2008, 04:01:13 pm"However we can use the probability odds to our advantage."

Sounds like quantum physics.

I agree, we all have to cultivate our own garden as we percieve it, and grow what happiness we can.

[RebeccaFog]

That would be funny if they added religion to the DSM.

This is the best thing I've read all day.         Thanks

Posted on: November 09, 2008, 07:33:55 pm

"I can't say if Narnia is real, no I can't, but it is sure alot better than this horrible place. I'd rather live in that wonderful, happy delusion and know there is something better and good to look forward to than just this unhappy kingdom."

I may not be right, there may be no God; but I stand with Puddleglum

Chris

I believe the planets of the apes is real. Not in a make believe way.  Sometimes when it comes up in conversation, people get all weirded out by the way I don't think of it as fiction.

[Aurelius]

"Get yer stinkin paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"

I can see that. But you mean real as a possibility, as a metaphor for real events, or that apes are really running the show? Or something else?

[RebeccaFog]

I believe that it all happened exactly as it did in the original movies.   I don't know how to get there, though. It could be in our distant past and humans regained the upper hand, or it could be in the distant future. 

Since the planet exploded in the 2nd movie, maybe there's a possibility that the solar system was reset and we're on our way back to the future where the planet will explode again just because stupid human taylor decides no one deserves to live. Taylor is rude. They should have sewn his mouth shut.

I almost forgot, I identify with the apes.

[Aurelius]

I believe that it all happened exactly as it did in the original movies.   I don't know how to get there, though. It could be in our distant past and humans regained the upper hand, or it could be in the distant future. 

Since the planet exploded in the 2nd movie, maybe there's a possibility that the solar system was reset and we're on our way back to the future where the planet will explode again just because stupid human taylor decides no one deserves to live. Taylor is rude. They should have sewn his mouth shut.

I almost forgot, I identify with the apes.

You're right, I can see why that would weird people out.