My view is that religion sometimes causes mental illness and can exasperate mental illness in people that are prone to it.
OK. If religion sometimes causes or exacerbates mental illness, then we would expect the incidence of mental illness to be higher in a religious versus a non-religious population – all other factors being equal.
Do you agree with that statement?
Logically, if mental illness of the same kinds and with the same severity occurs at the same rates in both religious and non-religious populations, then that would prove (or at least strongly indicate) that religion does not cause or exacerbate mental illness.
Do you agree with that?
I’m not aware of any scientific study that shows a higher incidence of mental illness among religious versus non-religious people. Are you? But I assume scientists have studied this question. My working assumption is that studies exist and have not shown a causal connection between Religion and Mental Illness. If you can cite evidence, then I’m certainly willing to consider that hypothesis.
If the studies DON’T show a causal connection between Religion and Mental Illness, then how would you interpret that? I can see a few options:
(A) Conclude that the hypothesis – that Religion sometimes causes or exacerbates mental illness – is actually untrue.
(B) Consider a second hypothesis – that Religion has simultaneous negative and positive effects that cancel each other out. Perhaps your original hypothesis (that Religion sometimes causes or exacerbates mental illness) is true, but at the same time perhaps Religion prevents or alleviates mental illness. Perhaps what is poison for some people is medicine for others.
(C) Allege that scientists are biased towards Religion. This could be an instance of scientists giving religion a “free pass” and declining to diagnose mental illness as mental illness when the patient is overtly religious. I personally find this unlikely. Scientists and doctors tend to be more objective than that. In any case, their bias is likely NOT in favor of religion.
Assuming you aren’t (for the time being at least) able to cite a scientific study showing a causal connection between Religion and Mental Illness, if we end up with no study that supports your hypothesis (that Religion sometimes causes / exacerbates Mental Illness), how would you interpret the inconclusive or contradictory results?
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D) Some other interpretation?
Like you, I know people who have suffered from shame or guilt in connection with Religion. I also know people who have suffered from depression, drug abuse, panic attacks, etc. without religion – either in a period of “withdrawal” following a loss of faith or in a period of drifting unanchored prior to “finding God”. Since anecdotal evidence exists to support both the Religion = Poison and Religion = Medicine position, I think we need scientific, statistical evidence. We can’t rely on anecdotes because we can cherry pick anecdotes in support of each of 2 contradictory ideas.
Equally, whilst I maintain religion is bad for society, I've never said that religion can't bring some benefits to an individual.
Well, I’m glad you acknowledge that Religion can be beneficial to an individual. Based on some of your prior comments, going back to page 61, it seemed like you saw Religion as 100% detrimental and without any benefit or necessity whatsoever:
Religion is a poison, to both the individual mind and humanity.
Religion has throughout human history been a hinderence to creativity, discovery and rational thought.
Religion, is a danger to society, very much throughout history
If someone you knew had an infectious disease (which religion is) would you kill them or try and cure them?
But I have no wish to hold you to a bad opinion – such as Religion is 100% detrimental and has no benefit – if you say you don’t believe that. Either I misinterpreted your opinion, or else you changed your mind. Either way, the end result is a more reasonable viewpoint, which is what I’ve been hoping for.
Since you believe that Religion can be good for 1 person, do you see any reason why Religion couldn’t be good for multiple people? Perhaps scattered individuals in a big diverse society? Or perhaps a cluster of individuals within a unified tribe? In other words, can religion benefit society too?
It seems to me that if religion can benefit 1 person, we should expect that religion can also benefit a small unified tribe or perhaps a big diverse society.
But I do still believe that the combined impact of religion is awful.
That’s fine, but it depends on HOW you believe it. Would you say that you believe this dogmatically, in such a way that no counterarguments and evidence will convince you otherwise? Or are you prepared to admit that you might be wrong and to follow wherever reasoning and empirical evidence may lead?
For my part, I’m willing to believe whatever the facts show. And in the absence of conclusive evidence, I would refrain from making broad generalizations one way or the other – neither Religion = Poison nor Religion = Medicine.
I’ve said that Religion is a mixed bag, since I see both its negative and its positive effects. Unless I see conclusive evidence, I don’t pretend to know which effect, if any, preponderates.
Moreover, it may not be as simple as looking at a net effect of benefits minus harms. Some medicines benefit 1 class of patients but poison others. Theoretically, at least, it may be that Religion is beneficial for some people and harmful for others.
Or – even more plausibly, it seems to me – it may be that Religion of a certain kind was beneficial for societies at some point in the past and may be less beneficial today. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis, if you allow for the fact that some religious beliefs are better or worse than others. Or if you allow for the cohesive effects of a worldview (any worldview) to bind people together in (first) a tribe and (later) a concept of humanity that transcends ethnicity, language, and borders such as “christendom” or “Islam” or "people of the book" (Jews + Christians + Muslims).
That is more or less my hunch. I suspect that religion is both helpful and harmful, depending on the person, the society, the historical circumstances – and depending on the particular belief.
Insane is too much of an emotionally charged term, so not.
I would say religious people hold illogical views that can make them act in illogical ways. But that doesn't mean non-religious people don't also have the ability to act illogically.
Personally, I’ve seen plenty of religious people act based on faith and dogma and not rationally. But I’ve also seen plenty of religious people act rationally. And I’ve seen plenty of non-religious people act based on dogma and faith.
“Illogical” is probably not the right word, since logic refers to a reasoning process. A view, by itself, can’t be logical. Only an inference between ideas can be logical or illogical.
So I would restate what you said by substituting the word “untrue” or “unreasonable” for “illogical” – as follows:
“religious people hold untrue views that can make them act in unreasonable ways.”
But the way the person acts is reasonable IF you accept their views as true. Their actions are only unreasonable to an outside observer who regards the religious person’s views as false. So maybe it would be better to replace “unreasonable” with “bad”:
“religious people hold untrue views that can make them act in bad ways.”
Does that seem like a fair way to modify your statement, without sacrificing the meaning of your opinion?
From my vantage point, I would regard the modified statement as true. Yet, at the same time, I acknowledge that a religious person would apply exactly the same statement to me. They regard my atheism as untrue. And they regard the way I act as “bad”.
So aren’t we really looking at the perfectly ordinary case of human disagreement? Group 1 regards the beliefs of Group 2 as false and the actions of Group 2 as bad. Meanwhile, Group 2 regards the beliefs of Group 1 as false and the actions of Group 2 as bad.
I see nothing special about Religion. It’s just another case of people believing untrue things and sometimes acting badly. I see exactly the same problems – untrue beliefs and bad behavior – to the same degree with non-religious people and non-religious societies.
So it seems you don’t regard religion itself as a mental illness. But you do believe – either as dogma or as a hypothesis, I’m not sure – that Religion sometimes causes / exacerbates Mental Illness. That can be decided based on the evidence, one way or another.
At this point, we have no evidence. Maybe you can cite a scientific study.
Do you believe Rob "acts insane"? Yes / No
I'd say Rob does not act based on evidence and conducts himself in a manner that is abhorrent to most people. Closest to your wording I can get would be "Rob acts in an appalling manner and exhibits behaviour that any civilised society should be worried about. To me he appears paranoid, obsessed with patterns and symbology and generally shows signs of someone that is mentally unwell". I wouldn't use the word insane myself, as it implies a lack of control, and I think he still has that.
It seems to me that what you really believe about Rob is this:
“He holds untrue views that can make someone act in bad ways.”
Or would you prefer to make a more extreme statement? You say that he’s not insane. So your present assessment is a lot milder than what you had said before:
Look at what religion has done to Rob's mind. And you see no issue with this?
Replace God with any other entity and people would consider him seriously mentally ill.
But I’m not going to criticize you for toning that down or walking it back. After all, that’s what I’ve been hoping for. Kudos for doing it:
But that is of course my unprofessional opinion and I can't say how much of this is caused by his religion or his political leanings.
In other words, some of Rob’s statements and behavior – which struck you as bordering on mental illness – might come from Religion, and some might come from political leanings. It sounds like you’re also saying this:
“Politics sometimes causes or exacerbates mental illness.”
So it’s not just Religion. Any strong opinion or dogmatic ideology can have the same effect – whether religious or non-religious.
Would you agree?