At what point will Science recognize Religion as a mental disease?

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

When?

[59Fiat600 Rossa]

When?

WTM has failed to consider what science is and what a mental disease is. Science is our attempt to understand what we know about reality as we are able to perceive it. Reality appears to be a deductive system, which would account for the fact that the various fields of science are in logical agreement with one another. The field of medicine includes attempts to understand the functioning of the human brain and the functioning of the human mind.

In fact, the term 'mental disease' is no longer used in medicine; 'mental disorder' is used instead. A physical disease in the brain may cause mental disorders when the brain ceases to function normally. I am not aware of any evidence that religious thought is caused by a physical disease of the brain.

Mental processes are the conscious functioning of the brain, which is the organ of memory. Mental processes are called thinking, which is emotional in nature. Thinking seeks to avoid unpleasant experiences and seek pleasant experiences, relying on memories of previous experiences that were pleasant or unpleasant. Humans can also think rationally in order to support their emotional objectives. A mental disorder, such as a phobia, may develop when the mind learns to misinterpret a benign situation as a dangerous one.

At the very most, a religious conviction might be considered to be a learned pattern of emotional thinking that is not tempered by rational thinking. On the other hand, many systems of religious thought are supported by rational thought in the form of theologies. Atheism, incidentally, might be considered to be a learned pattern of emotional thinking that is not tempered by rational thinking.

I am not aware of any evidence that religion is a mental disorder, in which case religious thinking would never be a legitimate concern of medical science.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by 59Fiat600 Rossa

When?

WTM has failed to consider what science is and what a mental disease is. Science is our attempt to understand what we know about reality as we are able to perceive it. Reality appears to be a deductive system, which would account for the fact that the various fields of science are in logical agreement with one another. The field of medicine includes attempts to understand the functioning of the human brain and the functioning of the human mind.
In fact, the term 'mental disease' is no longer used in medicine; 'mental disorder' is used instead. A physical disease in the brain may cause mental disorders when the brain ceases to function normally. I am not aware of any evidence that religious thought is caused by a physical disease of the brain.
Mental processes are the conscious functioning of the brain, which is the organ of memory. Mental processes are called thinking, which is emotional in nature. Thinking seeks to avoid unpleasant experiences and seek pleasant experiences, relying on memories of previous experiences that were pleasant or unpleasant. Humans can also think rationally in order to support their emotional objectives. A mental disorder, such as a phobia, may develop when the mind learns to misinterpret a benign situation as a dangerous one.
At the very most, a religious conviction might be considered to be a learned pattern of emotional thinking that is not tempered by rational thinking. On the other hand, many systems of religious thought are supported by rational thought in the form of theologies. Atheism, incidentally, might be considered to be a learned pattern of emotional thinking that is not tempered by rational thinking.
I am not aware of any evidence that religion is a mental disorder, in which case religious thinking would never be a legitimate concern of medical science.

It's very telling that few scientists believe in God, let alone finding scientists that claim that God had a hand in the creation of the Universe. That scientist would be considered "nuts."

[59Fiat600 Rossa]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
It's very telling that few scientists believe in God, let alone finding scientists that claim that God had a hand in the creation of the Universe. That scientist would be considered "nuts."

I worked with a physicist who believed in astrology. He decided to quit work and go back to school to get a Ph.D. in astronomy. I thought it was hilarious, but I warned him to keep his mouth shut about astrology until after he had his Ph.D.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by 59Fiat600 Rossa

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
It's very telling that few scientists believe in God, let alone finding scientists that claim that God had a hand in the creation of the Universe. That scientist would be considered "nuts."

I worked with a physicist who believed in astrology. He decided to quit work and go back to school to get a Ph.D. in astronomy. I thought it was hilarious, but I warned him to keep his mouth shut about astrology until after he had his Ph.D.

Good advise. Imagine a physicist claiming the law of gravity are ruled by God. That would be equally laughable.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Fri, 29 May 2015 13:20:42 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most

On Fri, 29 May 2015 06:45:55 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most

- hide quoted text -

When?

Never.
Actually it's not a "mental disease" ... it's a "mass delusion"
or, more generically, a "meme" - where fellow deludees help
reinforce the error.
Humans seem "wired" for "magical thinking", so this sort of
meme spreads quickly and easily and is almost impossible
to remove.
You'll have to wait for space aliens or something similarly
compelling to dislodge people from religion ...

Yep, but the silence of the scientists doesn't help dislodge
the myths. And yet they are hated anyway.

Science is hardly "silent" ... but scientists do realize that
they're surrounded by theists and thus tend to walk softly.
Also, well, that whole "free country" thing ... theists have
a perfect right to be theists, to promote their agendas and
views, to spread their propaganda and gather recruits.
The best antidote for error is truth, the best defense against
bad speech is better speech. Science has made tremendous
headway over the past couple of centuries. The world, well
lots of it, is no longer as demon-haunted as it had been for
countless millena before. In most western countries (and India
and China) they teach science to the kiddies and very little
religion. Science & technology will make you richer, more
powerful, more relevant, more in-control ... religion just
makes you pound your head against the ground five times
a day.
It's hardly relevant to complain about religious 'contamination'
in the sci-tech countries. 1.5 billion in greater China, 1 billion
in India, 400,000,000 in the USA/Canada, 500,000,000 in
the EU, 25,000,000 in Australia, 150,000,000 in Russia,
130,000,000 in Japan, 52,000,000 in S.Korea ... getting
close to half the worlds population. That ain't bad.
Now compared to the OTHER half of the world, where the
demons are still strong and plentiful and heads roll on a
regular basis, religion is NO PROBLEM in the sci-tech
countries. We have it GOOD. Sure, the theists still make
a fuss once in a while, maybe even gain some ground
for a generation, but it's all extremely MILD ... mere
annoyance. Their 'religion' isn't terribly strong or offensive
or dangerous to any noteworthy degree. No pogroms,
no witch-hunts, no burnings, no 'cleansings'.
So, I discourage the belief that any religion is too much
religion. There are definite degrees involved here. Over
time, 'religiousity' has done nothing but dwindle in the
sci-tech countries. It'll never go away, but it'll be an
ever-decreasing issue. If anything, we're SO
un-religious that we have a hard time even grasping
the mindset and motivations of groups like ISIL,
Hamas and al-Qaida ... and that's led us into a lot
of deadly mistakes.

You see the glass half full. On the other hand, it may be said that religion in "free societies" commands control over the free spirits by the power of the vote. They vote for war and stay away from the constructive issues, such as engaging poverty or climate change. In other words, we are doomed because of them.

They claim scientists are behind a climate conspiracy. Funny thing, they call environmental concern a "religion." If you follow their twisted logic, the scientists are evil.

So their soft power is real power over the world. And they believe in Armageddon, a sort of grand finale with nukes. I know we live in dysfunctional communities where one can not walk or ride a bike. They win.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

IMHO, with all the current pressure from Islamist
groups, there IS a danger of Jeezus-nuts having
increased appeal as leaders - a presumed counter-
balance to the Islamists. Extremist -vs- Extremist
is a "gut" reaction, SEEMS right ... but it really isn't.
If anything you need more cool-headed moderates
when facing extremists. Crusaders just exacerbate
the problems.

I strongly agree with the last part, but it did play a big role in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which, in turn, fed more radicalism.

Who's first, the chicken or the egg? We could have chosen to remain cool after 9/11 and go strictly after OBL. How effective was the GW Bush/Christian partnership? Very effective indeed.

Now we are facing chaos.