Fundamentalist religious beliefs are not mental disorders

They may present all sorts of social problems. They may be the source of hatred and violence for some. They may be at the heart of centuries old conflicts. But they are within the boundaries of normal mental behaviour of human beings.

We can be upset and fret about the rise of fundamentalists. We can percieve the threat the represent to free and open society. But declaring such beliefs to be the result of neurological disfunction completely undermines our cause.

Throughout history religious belief has risen and fallen. There have been tremendous crimes against humanity committed in religions name (as well as many socio/political dogmatic systems as well). It is not the result of deficient brains that this results from.

The human mind learns by copying and learning from that which goes on around it and from parents and teachers. Belief systems gain entry in this way to minds primarily via parents. A belief system that cannot find a foot hold in a healthy mind is not going to be very effective at propogating and thus will quickly die out.

Religious beliefs (be they based on truth or delusion) require this method of propogation to survive. Some become very very good at propogating. Because of how they gain a hold on a believers mind they form the foundation of how they view the world around them. Thus they exist in the person's mind as the defining manner in which to judge all new information.

Just because a person with a strong religious conviction does not accept the reasoned explanations of someone that disagrees with them does not mean they are insane. The words of a skeptic do not counteract a life time of reinforcement of a belief. There is an entire social structure behind most people's beliefs. No matter how much sense and reason you think you have crammed into a statement it is not going to override their sense of truth concerning their beliefs. Its simply not how minds work.

We can differ with people of belief. We can state quite openly that we think they are wrong. We can question their tactics. We can challenge their ideas. But when we resort to calling them insane or delusional we have abandoned the very thing we claim they do not grasp. When we call people names we have abandoned reason.

I personally am very concerned about the course the religious right would set us on. I believe it leads to social upheaval and a personal direct threat to myself and others that lack belief in god such as I do. But it serves me in no way to simply dismiss the religious right as a group of loonies. They happen to be a group of individuals that are very very organized and are very determined to get their way in this nation. And unless we really address the problems they are creating and give up on soothing ourselves by dismissing them as nutz they are simply going to overwhelm us as we sit here pointing fingers at them.

In dismissing people simply because of their beliefs we fail to realise we are also scaring away people of belief that are sympathetic to our causes. There are countless individuals that consider themself fundamentalists that also happen to understand the necessity of seperation of church and state. We can fuss and argue with them about our beliefs. But if we lump them together with the religious right as a bunch of loones we are going to lose them. They will either go silent or move to the right.

Calling people names does us no good. If we are going to fight something then fight it honestly. Fight the things that matter. We don't need to sooth our egoes by proclaiming the enemy to be stupid or mentally deficient. We need to win by doing the right thing.

Good point Az!

100% true and the word of God is not exactly sane.


As just one example of what there is in the Bible. Do the Fudies believe the following? Should Amerika be forced to change it's laws to comply with the bible?

Old Testament


Slave Quotes

Psalm 123:2
As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

just lumping them together in one big group.

Look, some religious beliefs lead to notions that others consider very antisocial. It does not mean they are insane. Dangerous perhaps. But that is the nature of the human psyche.

... seemingly obsessed with the private sexual behavior of people they'll never meet... at some point does it become appropriate to generalize?

I'm not trying to defend Bill Maher's comments, which seem to be the basis for this thread.

But at some point, it's hard to differentiate between symptoms of mental illness and actual mental illness itself.


(edited punctuation)

Fundie Church/Cult follower anti choice protestor

"4,000 MURDERS A DAY" "GOD, FAMILY, NATION"

Miss Thing Fetus Worshiper couldn't even hold it together long enough to print out "American" in magic marker.

We shouldn't be lumping people together based solely on their religious beliefs. I have a hunch that when some people talk about fundamentalists here they are actually referring to the religious right. I'm sure there are some fundamentalists that aren't politically active.

Excellent book by Susan Blackmore


We look at religions from a meme's eye view we can understand why they have been so successful. These religious memes did not set out with an intention to succeed. They were just behaviours, ideas and stories that were copied from one person to another in the long history of human attempts to understand the world. They were successful because they happened to come together into mutually supportive gangs that included all the right tricks to keep them safely stored in millions of brains, books and buildings, and repeatedly passed on to more. They evoked strong emotions and strange experiences. They provided myths to answer real questions and the myths were protected by untestability, threats, and promises. They created and then reduced fear to create compliance, and they used the beauty, truth and altruism tricks to help their spread. (page 192)

More:
http://www.2think.org/mememachine.shtml

Thank you.

to dominate everyone including the unbelievers then it needs to be examined under a microscope and if it's malignant, it needs to be challenged.

How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science

by Michael Shermer

W.H. Freeman and Company, 1999

302 pages, hardcover

Review by Jim Walker

Michael Shermer has presented us with a new perspective on the study of God belief by using scientific methods of data gathering through polls, statistics and historical records. Why do so many believe in the existence of something where no evidence exists, or especially when direct evidence contradicts the belief? Shermer suggests that as evolutionary pattern-seeking animals we find patterns where none exist which can lead to errors of thinking. Type 1 errors result in believing a falsehood and Type 2 errors lead to rejecting truths.

Shermer also provides a critical examination of millennial beliefs and claimed "proofs" for God and brilliantly shows the flaws in each argument without ridiculing believers. In spite of its skeptical thrust, this book should appeal to both believers and disbelievers; how could a religionist not feel intrigued by the religious look of the cover or a search for God in an age of science? If you've looked for a way to present a non-deriding argument to your religious friends or family members (who never seem to tire of giving you their religious perspective), then I cannot think of a better way than to give them this book as a gift. Shermer does not aim to dissuade believers, only to provide answers of how and why people believe. It probably won't convert them, but at the very least it will give them an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.

<snip>

If my hypothesis is correct-- that humans evolved a Belief Engine whose function is to seek patterns and find causal relationships, and in the process makes mistakes in thinking-- then we should find evidence for this engine in our ancestors as well as ourselves. ...about one-half of the differences among people in their religious attitudes, interests, and values is accounted for by their genes.

<snip>

Specifically, what Ramachandran said was that an individual's religiosity may depend on how enhanced a part of the brain's electrical circuitry becomes: "If these preliminary results hold up, they may indicate that the neural substrate for religion and belief in God may partially involve circuity in the temporal lobes, which is enhanced in some patients."

More:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/howwebelieve.htm

I don't know if it's specifically related to what Ramachandran stated, but I've seen research that seems to indicate that at least some people who claim religious visions, dreams, and messengers (such as "hearing" angels) share neural pathways and traits similar to those of epilepsy.

This doesn't make fundamentalism a "mental illness" any more than have an appendix is a "birth defect."

Seizures and the Sight of God
Isabella Eguae-Obazee

Researchers interested in the connection of the brain and religion have examined the experiences of people suffering from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Apparently the increased electrical activity in the brain resulting from seizure activity (abnormal electrical activity within localized portions of the brain), makes sufferers more susceptible to having religious experiences including visions of supernatural beings and near death experiences (NDEs) (9). Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE) sufferers also may become increasingly obsessed with religion, the study and practice of it (1). Why is it that this form of epilepsy results in religious experiences among the other supernatural experiences possible? Can people who have never studied or practiced religion be susceptible to these same religious experiences? Why do some interested researchers claim that such notable figures as Paul on the road to Damascus, Joan of Arc, Ellen White of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and other persons suffered from TLE because of their range of reported experiences with God, angels, and demons (1,3)? In my first paper, I highlighted the connection scientists have made between religious experience and the brain. In this paper, I intend to focus on Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, as one of those connections, specifically the symptom of hyperreligiousity.

In 1997 Vilayanur Ramachandran and his colleagues from the University of California at San Diego headed a research study. The team studied patients of temporal lobe epilepsy measuring galvanic skin response on the left hands of the patients (11). This measurement allowed the research team to monitor arousal (specific autonomic nervous system response) and indirectly surmise the communication between the inferior temporal lobe and the amygdala, both important in response related to fear and arousal (9). In addition to two control groups a religious control group and a non-religious control group, each group was shown forty words, including violent words, sexual words, and simple words (like "wheel"), and finally, religious-related words. The results of the study showed a greater arousal in the temporal lobe epilepsy sufferers to religious words in comparison to the non-religious, whom were aroused by sexual words, and religious control groups, whom were aroused by religious and sexual words (10).

More:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Eguae.html



See also:
God and the Brain
Is Belief a Psychological Condition?
A collection of grest articles on the subject.
http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/main.html

This doesn't make fundamentalism a "mental illness" - didn't say it did. :)

Thanks for the links, they look to be interesting.

Of such religious experience found in epileptics. In fact a good deal of research has lead to the understanding of the so called "God" part of the brain. Studies at UCLA San Diego for examnple have been able to isolate portions of the brain that when shorted out by magnetic pulse leave the mind functional but unable to identify self. In this state ideas and thoughts that occurr within the mind are assoctiated with external sources typically attributed by the mind to whatever culturally learned source may be capable of such a feet.

"but unable to identify self" - that's new to me, I'd never read that. It's not surprising, though.

Do you know of any of the studies or links to articles about them? Consciousness and how it functions is intriguing...

On Edit: Nevermind about the articles, IanDB1 provided some. :)

"blue neen, Do you have a "God" part in your brain?"

"No, sometimes I feel like I have marshmallow circus peanuts in my brain, but never God. I am also NOT a fundamentalist Christian. I am a card-carrying liberal and Democrat and very proud of it. I would think that people who have challenges like epilepsy would tend to be more liberal in their thinking because they have the compassion it takes to be open-minded."

to differing experiences. Not all experience the same affects during or after siezures. Some have tremendous shifts in mental states. Others experience different effects.

the result of neurological dysfunction completely undermines our cause."

Okay. Then don't blame Fundamentalism on epilepsy. If you don't want to blame it on mental disorders, then don't blame it on other neurological disorders.

i.e., able to say the chair is not part of the petunia, or the toilet is not part of the frying pan.

It stops working, and you're no longer separate from the rest of the universal, you see yourself as an integral part of all things. You're not "one with the universe" in a figurative sense, and don't metaphorically see the "connections between all things", you quite literally don't see where you end and everything else picks up.

There was some Science News article about this maybe 3-4 years ago.

Children are like that: the claim is that kids just a few months old don't realize they're separate from, oh, say, their diaper or the shoulder they just spit up on.

I wish more people understood this. As well intentioned as people may be, name calling (also within "boundaries of normal mental behaviour of human beings", for better or worse) immediately drains integrity and force from comments, speeches, or what have you. It's all too easy to divide into us and them, and all too easy to then villify them...

I'm not really OK with them at all, regardless of their religion, and I don't really want anything to do with them. I'm OK with not associating with them, as I'm not OK with associating with child molesters. If people get scared off because I feel that way, I'm OK with that, too. Of course, I don't speak for everyone, but I think my position is valid.

:D

:shrug: What can I say?

addictive personalities. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else. No name calling, just the observation that extremism can manifest itself in many ways - for some, religious fervor.

They can't afford to doubt or question; it would be catastrophic to them. It would destroy a carefully-constructed self-protection mechanism.

Very interesting idea.

Edit: Mind that I am a Christian, albeit one with many doubts and questions about my belief.

I actively avoid anything smacking of fundamentalism. The notion of UNQUESTIONING belief is terribly frightening to me for the reasons outlined above. I don't want to become dependent on my faith anymore than I would want to depend on painkillers or booze.

Are you saying that fundamentalist religious beliefs are not mental disorders because they are learned bahaviors? Doesn't that mean that mental disorders with psychodynamic etiologies aren't really mental disorders either?

Results in an individual losing functionality within the society. As these individuals clearly function within society and in many cases are overwhelming society it defies classification as a disorder. Dangerous to our way of thinking certainly. But not a classic definition of disorder.

I think the recent political ascendancy of religious fundamentalists is due, at least in part, to the inequities built into this country's system of government - proportionally higher representation in less populated states, for instance, where fundamentalist beliefs are more common. That no more demonstrates the adaptiveness of religious fundamentalism than affirmative action demonstrates the adaptiveness of being a minority.

As to whether or not fundamentalists "function within society"... well, so do people with legitimate mental disorders. Their functioning may be impaired, of course, but they still function. And so it might be that the functioning of religious fundamentalists is likewise impaired, without relegating them all to the margins of society. I don't have any statistics on hand at the moment, but the fact that most religious fundamentalists are seen as "normal" members of society doesn't show that fundamentalism isn't maladaptive.

of functionality? I'm interested in your source.

Sociopaths and psychopaths, to name but two disorders are extremely functional which is why these disorders are often seen within the higher levels of corporate management.


And what about Narcissism? Narcissists are in abundance. Nothing dysfunctional about narcissists and it is a well-documented disorder being "one of a "family" of personality disorders (formerly known as "Cluster B")."


As stated below narcissists are "Firmly convinced that they are unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions."


Do you think that fundamentalists might share this trait? I do.


"Symptoms of Narcissism


An all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria must be met:

Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequaled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion

Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions)

Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation - or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply)

Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her expectations

Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends

Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others

Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her

Arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted

Some of the language in the criteria above is based on or summarized from:

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, Text Revision (DSM IV-TR). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.




http://www.toddlertime.com/narcissism/what-is-npd.htm

I never asserted that those that have fundamentalist beliefs cannot become mentally ill. Their beleifs can even be entwined in their disorders. The contention is simply that a fundamentalist belief on its own is not a sign of insanity.

We are getting bogged down in semantics here. The point has been all along that religious belief is transmitted to normal minds. It is accepted by normal minds. And normal minds can form extremely dangerous notions if they believe certain things to be true.

As insanity is a legal term and not a psychiatric term, I agree with your statement that fundamentalist belief is not a sign of insanity but I would love to know what is a normal mind.

You seem to be arguing that fundamentalists should be regarded as just regular folks. Are you therefore saying that members of the Taliban are regular folks with with "normal minds"? Or does your defense of fundamentalists cover Islamic fundamentalists, as well as, Christian fundamentalists?

Are you telling me that men who demand that women be covered head to toe have "normal minds"?

Are you telling me that fundamentalist a**-wipes (you know where I stand) from all creeds who react with unrestrained hostility toward any expression of female sexuality or demands of full equality between the sexes have normal minds?:grr:

If you were born to the family in a social group that embraced hostility towards the expression of female sexuality do you suppose you would some how magically develop a developed sense of how this was wrong.

Our sense of right and wrong comes from our internalization of the lessons and experiences our social surroundings present us with. Thus we have learned that oppression of women and their sexuality is wrong. In fact we see such behaviour as reprehensible. To those raised in our society that do not embrace such notions we feel a sense of revulsion towards. We consider their state of mind to be disordered.

But to someone raised in such a community it is not so clear. Such positions do not exist in a vacuum. There are rationals and explanations contained within the society to defend such positions. They may make no sense to us but they appeal to those that grew up within societies created by them. Thus a mind that holds to such a belief is in fact sound even if we consider the positions to be horrendous. To their point of view someone within their society that rejects their teachings is the one with the disordered mind.

In Islam many truely believe that if they die as martyrs that they will get 113 Virgins. Maybe I am off on the exact number. In Christianity Fundies believe that the world will end and 144K will ascend to heaven. People that believe this stuff are not sane.

It may be ridiculous to believe - but is it lack of sanity, or lack of reason? The two are often twisted together, perhaps for good reason, but ignorance or failure to think or apply reason are more likely the cause in most cases.

Either that, or mental disorders (if insanity counts) are the norm. I prefer to think that ignorance is the norm - that can be fixed, if only slightly easier than disfunction of the brain...

For Germany, the criticism of religion has been largely completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis , ("speech for the altars and hearths") has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a supernatural being, will no longer be tempted to find the mere appearance of himself, a non-human being <"Unmensch">, where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed man's self-consciousness and self-awareness so long as he has not found himself or has already lost himself again. But, man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man -- state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, it enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Contribution to the Critique
of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
by Karl Marx

Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher
February, 1844

http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/Marx_Opium.html

A 'disorder' is something that bears little resemblance to the inherent makeup and base predilections.

It is our most simple instinct for self-preservation that lends us to these beliefs.

We have come to understnd that death is inexorable.
This directly conflicts with our Hardwired instinct for survival.

The desperate 'leap' to believe in the possibility of avoiding physical death is a perfect example of humans in 'working order'.

The acquiescence to this primal drive may seem wrong, but it's like not wanting sex... ever.
Just ask Bill O'Reilly.

We can all admit that the idea of 'being taken up in the air' and avoiding physical death is attractive.

You can't fault them for that.

I believe, but not enough to want the world to die so I don't have to.

I am not a Christian and quite frankly a great deal of what constitutes the Christian faith baffles me, however I respect the freedom to choose of those who hold Christianity as their belief system and refuse to lump together such an enormous collection of people into one classification (bad) as some on the Left seem to have an affinity toward doing.

There will always be an ignorant, mean-spirited, misguided minority among those who call themselves Christian, but I won't allow that minority to define the entire Religion (and it's believers) as evil or as having nothing to offer the world.

The demonization of Christianity on the Left and especially here on DU is a real shame, and makes those who denigrate it seem to be more small-minded and ignorant than those whom they seek to diminish.

... not liberal christians, not about ALL christians.

:hi:

but the ripping of Christianity (or any religion for that matter) that takes place on DU is rarely limited to just the fundamentalist segment when it's placed in the cross-hairs.

Just wait 'till the Pope dies; prejudice and ignorance shall abound.

... when the pope dies. I'm in the camp that feels great anger toward him for his oppression of gays and lesbians. I'd argue that my feelings toward him are not bigotry at all, but entirely justified anger at the bigotry the pope himself has long displayed.

I have no plans to shout "Catholics suck!" or something similarly eloquent and inspiring. But I will feel free to note that a great deal of this man's legacy will be the sorrow, heartache, and smothering pain he went out of his way to inflict on good and decent people for no other reason than "my religion says so."

What sorrow, heartache and smothering pain did he inflict, and how did he inflict it?

I am not trying to be a dick, I honestly want to know.

... wrenched with spasms, gasping for breath when the shear anguish of being HATED just becomes too much to bear?

I'm talking about deep emotional wounds, of the sort that may heal but will certainly leave scars, leave the victims a little bit less alive inside.

Here in Massachusetts, the catholic church has led one assault after another to strip gays and lesbians of the dignity and opportunity they deserve.

This shit HURTS. It HURTS people. And this is just one small sample of the many, many lives put through the meat grinder by this pope and his policies.

Look, it's getting late here on the East Coast, and I'm beginning to fade, so let me just copy-and-paste something I wrote on another thread:



I'm just not able to overlook or forgive this pope for what he has done to create suffering in the world, needless suffering, for so many people who just wanted a shot at a little bit of happiness, like anyone else.

Many Catholics seethe about the legacy of PJPII. My best friend went to a parish where a convicted child molestor was the priest. She blames the church leadership and is terrbly angry, but she still holds her faith dear to her.

As long as one makes the distinction, as you appear to have, between the ACTS of the misguided and the beliefs of most who don't choose to act with malice, you have a damn good grasp on how many of us are feeling in this day and age.

There is still a very vocal, but very, very tiny segment of DU that clings to the belief that believers of all stripes are of one mindset.

Had this thread been started before the primary wars, blood would have been spitting from your keyboard.

Gotta give it to DUers; most have a remarkable ability to keep their minds open.

I just can't see a reasonable, mature person believing in this stuff as literal. It's too ridiculous.

We do not all arrive at the same place in understanding life at the same time if at all. Each person's life winds along a different path and introduces them to different concepts and ideas. These ideas build up in ways that define their views. What may seem childish and naive to you may be overwhelming and life defining to another.

It's an argument that offends many, but I think we can discuss it here simply as a frank analogy meant to foster debate.

What do we say of the grown man who believes -- truly believes -- in Santa Claus?

His internal reasons for belief may be every bit as sound as those of the fundamentalist who believes god is manifested profoundly in every aspect of his or her life.

Which one's crazy? Both? Neither? How can we objectively decide?

I don't propose to have a simple answer. Lacking that, I suppose there might be a practical strategy: avoid shooting one's mouth off at least until the subject in question has made it clear his or her behavior rises to the level of mental illness symptomatology.

:)

But it is my observation that the fundy types have either been brainwashed from birth to believe this crap or are ex-junkies or drunks who have latched on to a new crutch. I'm sorry but if you think the Earth is only 5000 years old, was created by some man in the sky in 7 days, that dinosaurs didn't exsist, that some dude built a big boat and had 2 of each animal on it and that there is a "devil" trying to make you do bad things you are either dangerously naive or mentally disturbed. Believing such patently false and ridiculous things does not demonstrate critical thinking or a mature mindset. How can you deny this?

You and I may look at such notions and reject them with barely a second thought. But the simple fact is many continue to believe this and their numbers are expanding.

These people want to take us back into the dark ages. Something must be done. What that something might be, I have no idea.

To stop dismissing their positions as the result of a deficient mind. They happen to be beating us. This is indicitive of at least some mental accuity. Its work to understand what they are about but if we want to stand up against such groups we really have to understand them.

I think the neo-cons use the gullibility of these people against us. Fundies don't think, they walk in lockstep and like to be told what to do. We have to figure out how to use their gullibility for our purposes. Our purposes ultimately benefit them, they just don't know it.

and that is the only reason.

I think you need to make a distinction between embarking on a spiritual quest and becoming a member of a religious cult.

Religious fundamentalism, of any kind, is the cowards way out. They are too weak and fearful to do the hard work on themselves that is necessary for spritual progress, therefore they find strength in numbers and in the demonization of others who are not like them.

doubt it becomes dangerous, and any threat to its survival is catastrophic.

If one has assumed one will make mistakes along the way, a setback or doubt slows one down, but comes nowhere near being destructive.

Fundamentalist families place a stronger emphasis on their childrens religious indoctrination. Thus the generations become more fixated on the belief system as time goes by. Its not a question of spiritual journey. Most have never considered leaving the fold. Such a thought would be tramatic in and of itself.

young, increase your numbers, build an army, etc.

True faith doesn't need reinforcements.

"Religious fundamentalists are united by fear. Whether they are Christian, Muslim, or Jew, fear is the common denominator. They fear change, modernization and loss of influence. They fear that the young will abandon the churches, mosques and synagogues for physical and material gratification. They fear the influence of mass media and its ability to subvert the young with song, dance, fashion, alcohol, drugs, sex and freedom. They especially fear education if it undermines the teachings of their religion. They fear a future they can’t control, or even comprehend."

http://www.flashpoints.info/FlashPoints_home.html

Does require reinforcements. Faith does not come from one's own invention. It comes from lessons from those around you. It comes from parents and teachers and from institutions perpetuating a belief.

The things we come to believe we call belief. Faith is what we believe we are supposed to believe.

Where would the teachings of Jesus be if it wasn't for the propogation of his followers. Would people spontaneously quote Muhhamed if his teachings were not taught to children and in mosques? Moses' words would have died 1000s of years ago if they were not perpetuated. Faith comes from others not from within. Faith needs to be taught or it dies in a generation.

.

These fairy tale believers cannot.

They can produce facts.



(Where's that rolling around laughing hysterically smiley when you need it?)

Right back at you.

Cool.

Not to threadjack or anything.






I can't find the one with the guy banging on the floor though.

:D

-- alone is one of smug, unexamined hatred and focused persecution, sometimes physical, of women, gays, lesbians, witches, "liberals," and other free thinkers.

Fundamentalists are fueled by the very opposite worldview you advocate, Az. Patting them on the head and hoping they behave like sentient beings is to acquiesce to their cult-like moralism.

We are to subtract from our reason to accomodate their absence of reason? No sale.

They are a threat. We have to fight them. But assuming they are crazy or foolish is self destructive. They have proven themself to be very effective at gaining what they want.

Counter them. Argue with them. Do not give ground on issues we believe in. Recognise the threat they represent. Fight. But fight smart.

What do you mean by we "lose" them? Speaking strictly for myself, I'm by no means attempting to "retain" them.

What is the intent of your post, Az? It's polished but what is it saying? You want us to soft-peddle fundamenatlists because their worldview is externally realized? I disagree that any worldview or ability to discern one thing from another is (entirely) external, or learned, from parents/teachers/etc.

A pianist who learns how to read music and masters the instrument and then becomes Artur Rubenstein is driven by very unnamable internal mysteries -- a talent, a gift, but in any case NOT the result of external learning. Worldviews may in fact exactly parallel that model. Which means that cult-like adherence to very unscientific worldviews and beliefs is, by definition, disordered.

The evidence FOR evolution is overwhelming, no matter what a fundamentalist "believes" as a result of what he or she is told by a parent or teacher or pastor.

If we simply dismiss strong fundamentalist beliefs as the results of insanity then we give up looking for an understanding of how these conditions came about. It simply presumes that there is no rational explanation for why they believe the things they do. But the truth is that they arrive at their beliefs in a very definable way. And their rejection of what we see as reason can be understood as well.

Simply calling them insane is lazy and misses the point. It fails to understand their tactics and motivations. We fail to recognise these at our own peril. We don't have to molly coddle them. We need to stand up against them. Declaring them bafoons underestimates them. And we really can't afford to do that.

I do not feel that retrograde fundamentalism is something to which I owe a moment's attention.

We've DONE retrograde fundamentalism -- with Jefferson. Please consider the virulent CRAP he had to put with from people just like Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell and this moron Jim Dobson from Colorado.

He went right ahead with the Bill of Rights and I prefer Jefferson's contribution to any of his detractors' objections to it.

Currently the descendants of Jefferson's virulent distractors are warning parents that a cartoon figure is homosexual. So far as I know, SpongeBob doesn't even have a wiener. Tell me again that no mental disorder is at play -- not by the Dobsonites instigating the crisis but by the people writing in to Keith Olberman who plainly believe it's true. I'll send you the webclip if you want me to.

Same for today. I'll let the mental health community deal with WHY they are hateful moralists trying to erase civil liberties from the rest of us.

----
edit: sp.

I am maintaining that it unfortunately is within the natural range of human psyche. Society ebbs and flows. Cutting edge progressives look at the holdovers of older positions with disdain. The holdouts struggle to defend the values they think are still valid.

I say we call it what it is and kick a few butts along the way.

The assault on the Constitution alone by focused bigotry of the Christian Right should be more than enough motivation to oppose them.

As you say, most eras are plagued with this retro mentality. But history does not honor the Savonarolas; it honors the Michelangelos who resisted them.

We don't let them get away with abuse simply because they believe otherwise. But we don't chalk it up to such lazy notions and they are nutz. If someone promotes hatred call them on it.

-- observer of western debaucheries of his personal relgious traditions as opposed to a psychotic murderer?

Psychotic? Well thats the problem isn't it. By definition he's not psychotic. He has a system of values. It just doesn't correspond to ours. He is a threat to us and we have every right in the world to defend ourselves from him and others like him. But to simply say he's crazy.... well then we are going to see a lot more crazies because we can't figure out how to deal with them.

-- murder almost 4,000 people in twenty minutes, as those 4 pilots did on 9/11.

I've posted toward the end of the thread excerpts from one of about a 47,000-entry pull-up on the keywords "mental disorders, religious fundamentalism."

Many of the psychiatrists who draw a strong connction between the two did not come by their medical or psychiatric credentials through "laziness."

I think you have placed the guilt on the wrong doorstep.

My contention is that fundamentalist belief systems in and of themself are not the result of insanity. The set proposed by my statement can include insane people. But the belief set thrives and is dispersed within the community without a need for insanity.

In the hands of someone with an actual neurological disorder an extreme belief can be quite dangerous. Some forms of insanity can convince followers that the individual is in touch with the divine. But the common follower of such a belief system need not be stark raving bonkers.

My contention is simply that belief systems evolve naturally to fit functional minds. They may pose a problem to our society in how they form but this is the problem we need to address. Not dismissing them for their insanity. If we pursue the issue as a case of neurological disorder we would presume that it remains isolated to the individual with the particular miswiring in the brain. And yet the belief system is contagious to anyone. The resistances and weaknesses to the system are not dependent on neurological failures. They are developmental in nature.

The way a person was raised and the things they experience are what leave them open to different belief systems. Your family provides the foundation of your belief system. Some reject this foundation but most, the vast majority, accept the teachings of their family and follow in their footsteps. Even if they are a fanatically zealous set of footsteps.

This is natural. It is not a disorder. It is how our minds function. It can lead to problems. It can lead to conflicts. It can lead to war. We need to examine the issues as they are and how they come about. If we wish to stand up and fight against this we are going to have to understand its nature.

I use the word lazy because simply dismissing them as sick completely misses how such things come about. There is a very real and natural path by which such beliefs come about. Knowing what these paths are gives us a chance to block them before the more dangerous beliefs can take hold.

Yes some believers are insane. Dangerously so. But insanity is not necissary to believe. Some belief systems can become so seperated from our world view that they may seem insane to us. But it is still the product of a normally functioning brain. It is not a neurological disorder. The Amish are not a community of mentally impaired. Even though their ways seem quite bizzare to us.

-- that belief does not equal insanity. No one claims that connection.

The connection claimed instead is that adherence to supernatural, magical, only-I-can-see-it constructs is arguably insane. Certainly it is dysfunctional.

Return to the witch-burners of Europe. In the name of their God they torched human beings. Their "belief" is not a sane construct. It is an unstable and paranoid construct.

You argue that not all believers are insane, but that's a statistical baked potato. You could just as easily argue that not all auto mechanics are honest or that not all cellists have a sense of humor.

Insanity: 1 a : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) and usually excluding such states as mental retardation, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders b : a mental disorder
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable

Disorder: 3 : an abnormal physical or mental condition

Abnormal: deviating from the normal or average


Sure some fundamentalists are insane by the first defintion. But there are many more that are simply not insane by this notion and still adhere to their extreme beliefs.

Current law seems to favor devotion over skepticism. By this definition it could be argued that skeptics and nonbelievers are so far outside the mainstream of our society that they are denied certain rights. The argument has been made by more than one individual.

Of the definition of insanity only number three seems to fit the bulk of fundamental beliefs. But that is only our opinion. Its not a medical diagnosis. I certainly think some beliefs seem insane. But within their community the tables are turned.

Witch burnings? Hindsight is nice. But it is often colored by our different values. We have different prioroties and we have additional knowledge. From our perspective we can see that their actions and descisions were clearly the wrong ones. But from within their position and beliefs they were contrained to the course they took. Declaring them insane misses the point. Horrible, disasterous, misguided, and foolish. But all within the realm of sanity. Its horribly bad thinking but it is produced by a sound mind filled with very poor social guidelines.

We either learn from how these things arise or we are doomed to repeat them. My entire point is that these are themes in society that rise time and again. If we want to be effective at heading them off before they become total disasters we need to recognise how they work. It doesn't take a neurological breakdown to create such belief. It happens entirely within social functions and via actual social pressures. There are factors within our societies that can shape minds into these forms. If we fail to recognise this and simply toss it off as a bunch of nutz they are going to overwhelm us.

Fanatical religious belief is a real social force. It can take our children as easily as it takes the children of fundimentalists. It does not depend on disorders of the mind. It is evolved for the nature of our minds.

The computer/software scenario mentioned elsewhere in this thread may provide a good example. Claiming such beliefs to be the result of insanity is akin to saying the wiring in the computer is bad. But its not the wiring. Its the software. Or more accurately its the OS. Religious fundamentalism gets its strength from taking over (or actually being) the OS. In this way it can reject anything that might be loaded by the system that would challenge it's hold.

This structure can create very deadly situations. And it may be happening. If we don't address the social causes of it and keep insisting that its a particular failure of individuals we will be swept away. Its not about individuals being nutz. Its about a social force that is growing and means to dominate the world if it can.

-- does in fact mollycoddle extreme behavior. Your original post and subsequent defense of it is an apology for that extreme behavior. I do not understand why you want these people protected. They are the ones with the fireballs and the absolute dictums. They are the ones pushing against public education in favor of their private and unscientific worldviews.. They are the ones who want control over women's uteruses. They are the ones up nights in cold sweats over same-sex marriage.

You in with these folks or are you with science and progressive politics, and I ask because of thoughts such as this one:

"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing the ground." -- Frederick Douglass
(DUer baldguy has this quote on his signature line)

"Only I can see Jesus." "Jesus is my PERSONAL savior." "The Easter Bunny will bring me chocolate in a pretty basket." I really don't see the Easter Bunny and I really don't see Jesus. And moreover, I don't see any difference between the psychology that insists they're both real.

Are you denying the strong evidence that fundamentalist religious constructs have a very discernible component of mental illness? You'd have to get around Jim Jones to persuade me that it isn't there.

Good grief if thats the impression you are taking from my writing then I have failed.

I am arguing that they represent a greater threat than a mere collection of mentally deficient individuals would represent. They are the way they are because of social forces. Social forces that can take hold of any mind regardless of whether it is damaged or not. I am talking full on social conflict. It has to be stopped. We fail to stop it at our peril. But to stop it we have to understand it. And calling them insane completely misses how such things arise.

Its a question of whether the flaw comes from bad wiring in the brain or bad software in the mind. My contention is that fanatical religious belief is not the result of bad wiring. And this makes it more dangerous. It can be found in a perfectly sound mind. It can make perfect sense to someone that is in its grasp.

Religious fanaticism is comletely at home in our minds because it has evolved to fit there. But the fact that it has evolved to fit our minds does not mean it cannot run us off a cliff. Evolution is blind. It leads to functional constructs but it also can lead to extinction. Religious fanacticism appears to our perpective to be a very destructive and ultimately terminal social evolution of religious belief. We should probably try to stop it.

-- doing now, which is to align ourselves with the progressive agenda on the notion that it is there that the future should reside?

I respectfully disagree that the capacity for extreme or fundamental worldviews is not indication of mental illness. Other posters have provided scientific analysis of this and again, I see the chocolate, the pretty basket, and the accountants raking in bucks, but no sign of the Easter Bunny himself.

I also disagree that the question of whether it's normal human behavioral range is pertinent. We know that all kinds of weird crap goes on but "normal" is not the word I would use to describe those behaviors. "Hateful," "Bigoted," "Exclusional," "Self-Aggrandizing," and "Desperate" come much closer, and those are in fact components of specific behavioral disorders.

There are people who believe god speaks to them, and even people who believe they are Abraham Lincoln. My own brother believes he is a Republican senator from Utah when in fact he is not. He is mentally ill. So are these others who want their grubby hands on women's bodies, who want their Jesus teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. "The Rapture is imminent," they yelp. Folks have been waiting for THAT bus for a long, long time.

Science matters. It evolves, but it's the keenest tool we have to gauge our experience. I hold the fundies to that fire and I will call them crazy if they debase and launch assaults of any kind against progressives. I say we stand with the Galileos and against his detractors.

What does proclaiming them crazy gain you? It teaches them nothing. Those that are in the least sympathetic to their cause will distance themself from you.

If you find fault with a position then challenge that position. Show its errors. If the individual you are pointing this out to cannot grasp it then make sure those around them hear it. You are not going to be able to reach everyone. But if you have reason on your side continue to present it and let people grasp it as they will.

But as soon as you descend to proclaiming a person insane because they do not accept your notion of reason you lose the fight. Particularly against religion.

Religion has evolved and adapted over millenia. It makes use of every tool in the shead. Emotions, rationalization, peer pressure, authoratative proclomations, offers of immortality, plays off of our own internal psyche. We only have reason. If we abandon that in favor of simply defaming them with appelations of insanity then we fall to their game. And they are much much better at name calling than we are.

Be a champion of reason. Present it to those who can grasp it. As soon as you descend to the shouting match level of trading disparaging comments you are in their grasp. The threat of the reason you present loses its cohesion and reason's critics can turn to your comments and dismantle your very cause.

Telling a person they are deluded and insane is not going to wake them up. Its not going to be the blow that shatters their chains of belief. If you do not take the time and effort to percieve how they came to be what they are then you will never be able to untie the knot they have themself in.

Fanatical belief cannot simply be dismissed as insanity. It has been with us for far too long. It is part of our vast social makeup. If we as champions of reason see certain fanatical positions as threatening to society then we have to act to defend society using the tools we have at our disposal. And as we do not have thousands of years of social evolution creating a template for us to advance our cause we are going to have to make the effect of reason count in every blow we land. We cannot afford to drop our guard. We cannot afford to turn our backs on them simply because we dismiss their claims.

It's not my job, either.

The psychiatric studies provided have supported the contention that mental illness and behavioral disorders are in fact components of extreme worldviews.

The burden of transforming those who hold those views is not mine. I plan to continue my activism and my reading and my support of independent and Democratic policies and candidates.

I don't give a damn if the fundies like it or not and I don't have much faith at all that they are likely to change their minds.

Finally, I don't need scolding for calling assholes assholes. if fundamentalists do not wish to be considered assholes, I would suggest that they stop acting like assholes.

An asshole is an asshole. As I said to another that suggested the same thing its a very honest approach. I recommend it.

As to changing them again no need. But if you want to work to make the world more like how you wish it to be then you are going to have to contend with them. They have tactics and plans. They are organized. They will make the world over given the chance.

The facts are that fundamentalism is a spreading condition. If you are threatened in any way then it may be advisable to take action.

Look, all the semantics aside we are clearly fighting the same battle here. Neither one of us see advantage to trying to directly change their world view. I am merely trying to call attention to the fact that their spread works on normally functioning minds. Their beliefs may twist those minds into something we percieve as threatening. But its still a normal process readily accessible to any around us.

I am not scolding you for calling an asshole and asshole. Far from it. I am challenging you to see that we have to percieve the threat they represent and defend ourselves as best we can with the tools we do have.

And cult followers are often Conservative/authoritarian personality types. This has been well established by psychologists and sociologists.

Fundies are not just religious, they are fanatics indulging in dangerous cult behaviors that parallel activities of the KKK: KILLING abortion doctors, spreading myths that create social violence against Gays and minorities, and Non Christians.

I do not think groups like this should be kid gloved. They are dangerous, destructive forces in our society. Furthermore, there is a link between extreme conservative religiosity and mental illness. I'd have to pull some articles on this to show the research, but it is out there. Consider people like: David Koresh, Andrea Yates, Bush...

I don't have their training, but my intuition is with you, too, ultraist.

The extent to which a Christian fundamentalist would seek to persecute a "witch" and then subsequently burn her at the stake suggests to me a paranoid disorder of the first magnitude.

How secure can someone be said to be if he seeks to burn a human being alive?

The verbal persecutions of minorities generally and sexual minorities particularly suggest the same impulse, lessened only by legal impediment. Fred Phelps' words are metaphorical matches, and their intent is to burn the witches that threaten him.

There can be insane people that find a cohesion with belief in their insanity. There can be individuals whose insanity can be mistaken by others for enlightenment. The point of all this is that fundamentalism in and of itself is not the result of insanity.

Luther saw in the dark ink silhouette of his room the face of Satan.

A scientific rationalist might say it was ink. What prompts Luther to declare it Satan? Not science. Not "sanity." Abject fear? Extraordinary guilt or projection? Delusional perception? The list could go on, but "sanity" and "science" are not on that list.

The behavior and beliefs of fundamentalists are not scientific and they are not therefore sane. You can argue that sentence from more than just your side, Az. You can argue that fundamentalism is the 'noun' of its 'adjective' symptoms.

Jim Jones. Psychotic? Fundamentalist? And his followers who gulped the Koolaid, tipping the little cups into their children's mouths.

The case for mental disorders is compelling.

----
edit: typos

That's just a fact. Excessive, overly exuberant and irrational religiousity is a common symptom of many recognized psychiatric disorders.

Moreover, whether you like it or not- and whether or not it offends your sensibilities- fundamentalism as practiced in many American Christian churches can itself induce A FORM OF MENTAL ILLNESS- although it's more on the lines of a personality disorder.

The psychology of dysfuntional attitude and belief systems among cults- which is what many fundamentalists are, when you look at the parameters that are used to define cults, has been studied rather extensively- and there are well recognized, common principles that apply. If you look at the scientific research for yourself, it's pretty difficult not to come to the conclusion that many if not most fundies ARE mentally ill, and would benefit from treatment (like deprogramming, for example).

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00002752.html
With the arrest this week of a couple who allegedly believe God told them to abduct Elizabeth Smart, many Utahns are wondering again what moves people of seemingly deep religious faith into fanaticism.

Proclaiming himself a prophet chosen by God may not have been Brian David Mitchell's first act of delusion, but it was likely among those that set the stage for the increasingly bizarre behavior that would follow. Such grandiose notions of "chosen-ness" — while not unique to Utah's own brand of religious fundamentalists — are symptomatic of the slide from deep religious devotion into delusion and even dementia, according to experts who deal with the aftermath.

Victor Cline, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Utah, said such people often have emotional disorders or mental illness that "may not be enough to hospitalize them but still enough for them to be out of contact with reality or create their own reality." The fanaticism is part of their illness, and when religious faith has been a part of their lives, they "use whatever (religious upbringing) they've had in previous experience to manifest the symptoms of their illness." Marc Galanter, professor of psychiatry at New York University and author of "Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion," agrees. "I think people go crazy relative to the subculture they're in," he said. So the fact that Mitchell and other infamous Utahns who have morphed their former membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into their fanaticism isn't necessarily unusual, he said. In other Christian contexts, they often "think they are in communication with Jesus." Because Mitchell was born and raised in Utah's LDS subculture, "his delusions just as likely pick up on that religious background."

While the state has its own laundry list of bizarre figures who base their actions in part on religious beliefs, "I don't think it represents an unusual phenomenon, but more the culture of which they are a part," Galanter said. Notions and paranoia: Religious delusions usually take one of two forms, Galanter said. Either the person has grandiose notions of importance, like Mitchell, or takes on a "persecutory" persona, thinking that "people are trying to poison them with gas" or something equally paranoid. Whatever their religious background, Cline said, such people "take elements of their faith and twist it in ways that don't represent the norm of their religion, often doing things that are terribly evil or out of contact with any kind of common sense or good judgment or values."

While Mitchell and Wanda Barzee's alleged involvement in the Smart kidnapping has brought their behavior under scrutiny, Cline said he sees patients who come under the influence of some religious figure who is "very charismatic and persuasive and proposing some things that are very unhealthy or really will not stand the test of time as far as relationships go." Such people are "able to persuade others, and there are always some people that are vulnerable that way. I've seen it with all kinds of sects and groups in the U.S."
Some followers are attracted by "living a higher order, or living closer to God" than the mainstream, but come to a point where they realize "they're going up a blind alley. They come to their senses, come out of it and leave."

Thanks.

You may have heard of this organization, too:

http://www.factnet.org/index.html?FACTNet

Currently they are featuring Psychiatry Professor Robert Jay Lifton in a special section on the dangers of relgious fundamentalist cults in government.

They also have an excellent retropective on the late psychologist Margaret Singer, who was one of the foremost experts on cults and their destructive influences on people's psyches.

http://www.factnet.org/Margaret_Thaler_Singer/Margaret_Singer.html?FACTNet#In%20Memorium

Somehow, the Scientologists have been able to stay somewhat under the public's radar whereas the Fundies are very public and openly political. I suppose we could say the same about the Moonies.

I lived in Clearwater years ago where the Scientologists have a HUGE HQs. The local horror stories about that cult are frightening.

I have a major beef with them. It's personal- and it's not just because I miss my friend- but because they have the potential to do a great deal of harm to an extraodinary (yet vulnerable) group of people who I work with and on behalf of everyday.

It also amazes me that the Moonies have managed to buy themselves so much political power and media aceptance. A group that should be ostracized from rational public debate is now in a position to frame issues and hold their coronations in the halls of Congress!

i have often wondered whether it's possible for a large portion of society to go collectively insane- in a clinical sense- and the more I see of Republican America, the more I think thats not only possible, but given the right conditions, probable.

-- and say thanks, depakid.

http://www.rickross.com/

There's accurate information here and an excellent database on destructive cults, "religions" and controversial movements.

The sections on getting help and considering interventions are also quite good.

Thanks, depkid. Much appreciated.

There can be insane people within a belief system. In fact it may be very appealing to them. But there is a difference between a serious mental breakdown induced by a neurological disfunction and someone caught up in a fanatical religious sect.

What you are refering to are social disorders. A social disorder can set a group of people at odds with the rest of society in a quite disasterous mode. Deprogramming may be necissary to alleviate the conflict. But it is not insanity. It is competing social structures. When fanaticism controls society they seek out their own means of purging less committed individuals. It doesn't mean that everyone has developed a neurological malfunction. They are operating within the construct of the society in dominance at the time.

As a Christian, I often identify myself as such before going into how angry these fundies make me. Actually, I usually call them fundamentalist fruitcakes, which I know is name calling, but I just can't help myself. I feel qualified to speak against the behavior of my own because they embaress me.

However, I often find myself being told to do something about the "Bush Christians." Well, there isn't much us porgressive and liberal Christians can do. We are shouted down by hatred and fear.

It's nice to get a thread going with a real look at the issue. Thanks!

-- lesbians and gays, for example, as "sinners," those who are "fallen." Those who have "disobeyed the tenets of the covenant with God." Etc. And the terms and phrases I've listed are MILD compared to the hellfire rhetoric or most pulpits of fundamentalist churches. Very damned mild.

If you are standing against name-calling, I think you might want to confront the fundamentalists who claim special status with their God against us sinful heathens out here.

Az: I appreciate the spirit of your OP, the kindness and tolerance that you are exhibiting. But I respectfully disagree that there is not a mental illness component here that is relevant.

I'm not suggesting that all fundies are mentally ill, but conservative religious fanaticism is not healthy.

This is one of several websites dedicated to the strong link between religious fundamentalism and mental disorders:

http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/biblical_brainwash.html

And below are a few highlights to gnaw on for the time being:

...

Moreover, the effect of fundamentalism on society is as detrimental as the effect of fundamentalism on believers. Fundamentalists are the ones who fly planes into skyscrapers and murder doctors that perform abortions. They are the ones who deny the existence of proven physical phenomena while rabidly insisting on the existence of clearly unsubstantiated marvels.

...

They are also incapable of recognizing that they have a problem, and are often amongst the most intolerant people on this planet, commonly referring to non-believers as pagans, heathens, or infidels.
...

The differentiating factor must be this: A belief system is a mental disorder when it causes believers to deny the observations of empirical methodologies. With fundamentalists, this involves denying the nature of the physical world as it is being presented in favour of archaic and unyielding irrational orthodoxies; their brains have been infected and debilitated with unsubstantiated nonsense.

...

Fundamentalists have been mobilized by an unconscious meme that seeks to protect and propagate itself at all costs, even at the expense of a host's mental well-being. Viruses do exactly the same thing, often killing a host as they seek out transmission vectors.

___________

Fundamentalists are the ones who fly planes into skyscrapers and murder doctors that perform abortions. They are the ones who deny the existence of proven physical phenomena while rabidly insisting on the existence of clearly unsubstantiated marvels.

...

They are also incapable of recognizing that they have a problem, and are often amongst the most intolerant people on this planet, commonly referring to non-believers as pagans, heathens, or infidels.

And we are seeing more and more of this. I cannot remember a time where I heard the words, evil and sinner, so often, nor do I recall hearing them in the MSM the way we do. People like Falwell were not given platforms on mainstream "news" stations. They were on late night local cable shows. It's getting scary.

-- book BUDDHA right now. Wow. I am learning that not all religions have a fanatically violent heritage!

It's an eye-opener for me, and a VERY pleasant and calming one at that.

Shame on me for ignoring it so long.

There is a higher ratio of schitzophrenia amongst the clergy. But by the same token there are sane members of the clergy. The point is that religious belief. Strong religious belief can occur in healthy minds. Its a belief system that can pry its way into such minds. In fact that is exactly what makes it a dangerous social situation. That it can take hold of strong sound minds.

Do not think that by denying the claim of insanity we are dismissing the issues it creates. They are very real and will have to be dealt with. But deal with the problems that really exist.

-- insanity, and in fact I ASSERT it.

I do so energetically. I'm not sure where you pulled "lazy" up from. Jefferson was lazy?

It could be your argument regarding name-calling should be directed to the folks who are hurling fiery dictums out of their weekly sermons. "Sinner." "Blaspheme." "Pervert." "Abominator."

DU isn't vandalizing anybody's church. It's THOSE folks pickin' the fight.

I'll agree it's not a cognitive hardware problem, generally. Though I wouldn't vouch for the soundness of even the average fundie.

But there's definitely a software problem. You know, input some complicated data and rather than interesting output you get a crash and automatic reboot from the hard disk.

If you are not a writer, you should be.

The hardware problem is the personality type and/or mental condition that predisposes these individuals to fanaticism and dementia.

Normal people do not join the KKK or the whacked out Fundie churches.

To base your life on mythology is not necessarily a mental disorder, simply ignorance.
One can accept the moral teachings of Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha without buying into the supernatural bullshit. Atheists do it all the time.

Yes, these teachers have value to mankind. This topic was about Fundie, a whole other matter. When relgious zealots go to demanding that all others conform to their agenda a problem arises.

but Religious Fundamentalism is a symptom of developmental problems.
The following are age appropriate for Middle Childhood (6-12 years old).

1) Rigid Rules

2) Black & White Thinking

3) External Conscience (Someone else deciding right and wrong)

4) Need for STRONG Paternalistic Image as rule maker.

5) My rule maker can beat up any other rule makers. (group supremacy)

6) Magical Thinking

7) Strong peer group, dress and language codes. Those who don't fit are banished or killed.

It is an issue of development. It is a social function rather than a neurological one. They simply are on a different social development path. One that is at conflict with other social paths.

I'll add to your excellent list:

1. Compliance to authority out of fear of punishment
2. Egocentric viewpoint of the world

fooled me. lol

.. had psychological issues BEFORE becoming addicted to religion. It's an addiction for many people. First they try drugs, then alcohol, then exercise, then diet, then wierd sex, then religion. I've seen it over and over. It's a way out of what they like to think of as "DEMONS", and that's why so many of them fall so spectucularly in moral disgrace. They are trying to use an addicting theology to make changes from the outside, rather than from the inside. There are many lovely fundamentalists or born agains out there... I'm sure. BUT.. there are many more people with psychological or addictive disorders that try to use it as a way to absolve themselves of having to do the hard work of change or therapy. I mean.. why the hell not? You pour your whole life into religion, your demons stay.. you screw up.. you say.. 'oh, I'm a sinner', and you repent, then you do it again. Nice gig for some people.. It's easier than personal responsibility or therapy.

For the people who don't use it as moral crutch, or some sort of demon-be-gone program, then I have the utmost respect for them and their beliefs. The others, need therapy.

You know--that part of your brain responsible for processing questions like "How would you like it if someone did that to you?"

The belief system has replaced the sense of self preservation and conern for others preservation with the notion of protecting a soul. Its a form of hijacking our survival instinct. By creating the notion that we have souls the belief disconnects the identity from our brains and seats in in a construct of its own imagining. Thus what people struggle to save is not their bodies. Instead it becomes this imaginary construct and the doctrine behind it.

Thus while they believe they are doing good by trying to save souls we experience their seeming lack of empathy to our lives and actual issues.

I can't even count how many people I've met in my life who have stopped addictions to alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, you name it. Any number of destructive behaviors, all thrown away and replaced with a new "drug": Jesus!

You've seen 'em, "Praise GAWD" this, and "Bless his wonderful Name" that. cars covered with "Abortion is MURDER" and "In case of Rapture..." bumper stickers, 20 bibles on the back shelf, bundles of tracts in the back seat, And now, instead of the local liqour store getting all their money, Jerry Falwell gets it.

I don't consider that normal, balanced behavior, either.

Normal is defined by whatever is dominant in society at the time. Balanced? From their point of view we are unbalanced. We each form our world view over time and from our unique perspectives. Your experiences lead you to accept evolution and science as a means of determining the truth. Their life experiences place more emphasis on their doctrine and religious community. Science and reason simply cannot penetrate this on their own. There needs to be doubt in their mind for these tools to find a foothold.

Frustrating? Yes. Insane? No.

If everyone is running in their own "reality"...Who are we to say that people who vomit on command or cut parts of their bodies off are abnormal, right?

What I find disturbing is that "Normal is defined by whatever is dominant in society at the time.". I reluctantly agree with that statement.

I see Religious Fundamentalism becoming dominant in this society. That disturbs me greatly. Rough waters ahead for all of us, IMO.

Some are dangerous to themself. These are the cases where institutions step in to restrain such individuals.

And yes there are rough waters ahead. But its the result of social functions rather than individual disorders. Personally I find the notion of social movements to be much more threatening than worrying about a few individuals with mental disorders.

Delusional is a psychotic disorder

Don't forget, "The Lord will Provide"

I agree, fundism creates very unhealthy behaviors.

... but IMHO, a very high number of fundies are in fact mentally ill. Certainly much higher than the population at large.

And as for parents passing down their "values" - check this.

Have you ever known the sons or daughters of preachers/pastors/clergy.

I and a good friend noticed a pattern, those kids were ALWAYS a mess. Guess listening to Daddy say one thing on Sunday and real life are not that compatible.

including the "mainstream" (Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian etc) or the obviously delusional and often harmful sects (Heaven's Gate).

Let us take, for instance, another organisation--the KKK, which also hooks itself up with a religious belief in the Christian god. It has many members, although not as powerful as it once was, but the idiology remains the same as far as I can tell.

Because they fully and sincerely believe in their ideology, much the same as any one religion does, do we refrain from calling them "nuts"? Do we reason that, "some" of them are really nice people who do good things and try to excuse those on the grounds that they are at heart "nice"? Or do we take membership is such an organisation as the primary defining identity and call them all "nuts"? They have the membership after all, first of all.

I realize this may be an apples and oranges equivocation, however, I think it lines up pretty well with the various sects of the more fanatical Christians also, such as the Rev. Phelps group, who seek to annhiliate certain groups.

I think that opposition to these faith based groups needs to couched in words that convey exactly how nuts they are. I think pointing to the facts that indentify their delusions should follow an accusation of "whacko" and for that, some knowledge or some research of psychiatry and psychology is necessary.

That may be a slippery slope also, for some of the beliefs of the "mainstream" may be also identified as such, although not to the same outrageous degree as Heaven's Gate, and they are followed by the majority and likely to be defended with vigor--those defenders believing they have the "right" god .

--beliefs and faith should not be argued--the passion and unshakeable belief in any theology, and I mean ANY, not just the more seeming far out ones, will amount to much the same defensive convictions , defended with much the same passion, no matter that reason is absent in ALL of them.

neenerneener

No, seriously, I agree with the poster who says that there is a mental component to a literal belief in the Bible against all rational, scientific, and historical evidence to the contrary.

For example, promoting creationism at the expense of the scientific theory of evolution has nothing to do with either religion or science and everything to do with the politics and economics of government and social control of young people in order to turn them into wageslaves or military fodder.

In order to get young people to become good, hardworking slaves of the corporo-fascist system or the military complex, there has to be an institutionalized form of anti-intellectualism and a policy of enforced non-critical thinking and propagandistic education. And that is exactly what we have in most of the schools and communities in the red states... for which corporations, their media shills, and paid government officials are most thankful.

Sue

For example, promoting creationism at the expense of the scientific theory of evolution has nothing to do with either religion or science and everything to do with the politics and economics of government and social control of young people in order to turn them into wageslaves or military fodder.

I agree. But wonder what came first--the chicken or the egg? A system of religious beliefs, unless supported or woven into other key factors in society, will fail or die off and become insignificant. Intelligent people can figure out that an ancient book, written two or more thousand years ago, contains many flaws and inconsistencies and therefore cannot be read as the literal word of a god who is omnificient and perfect. So, if that religion intuits and fears it's demise, it's reaction in it's fear, is to change society,by force if necessary, no matter if one needs to destroy it or cause society to stop advancing, which never works and never has, historically. This is where the "nutso" or "whacko" comes in to play, and is, I think, a normal and understandable human response to the indignation of being pushed around and having their own lives be affected by this.

Did Capitalism, or corporatism arise out of Puritan theology, or did Puritan theology die or change, here on these shores, to support the corporate economic system? It certainly, in it's initial form, did die out and rather quickly as religions go. Most of the time, I think that religious beliefs or theology, basically weaken, and then are altered over time to adjust to current societal, scientific discoveries and economic factors. It is imperative they change, or the bulk of society will simply abandon it's worn out religious dogma in order to survive, or for it's own comfort. It's interesting.

...a majority of Americans claim affiliation with religion. I worry that the left paints all of the faithful with the same brush as the "Sponge Bob and Buster Bunny" fearing crowd. Pointing out the stupidity of fundie comments is not the same as belittling religion; I fear we sometimes forget this.

My rambling point is that the left has a lot in common with many religious beliefs, the strong beliefs in social and environmental justice and responsibility to name a few. The left needs to remind the faithful of these commonalities and invite them in---------Don't worry, the fundies won't come.

History proves you correct but that sure as hell is not reassuring. More and more it seems apparent that we are a maladapted species, an evolutionary dead end. Religion is but one aspect of maladaptation, a continued reliance upon hierarchal social organization is another. Any study of history shows numerous cases of the hierarchy using religion as a tool to maintain dominance. Potentially dangerous tools, but let's not confuse dog with tail.

You are also correct that it is futile and counterproductive to bait them, much better to ignore the bs and rather fight the substantive fights. Problem is, this is a sideshow, but one aspect of the battle fought by the hierarchy to preserve dominance. That which they oppose, Reason, a preference for solidarity and cooperation, true democracy, make one step forward, two steps back. I fear that our primitive proclivities will be the end of us, and much of Nature.

IMHO we fucked up when we took up the plow.

And they hit dead ends. Some go extinct. Others become better at propogating their line of thinking. The trouble with evolution is you never know when a particular branch is going to hit a dead end. The hope is that the dead end that fundamentalism takes doesn't take the rest of us with it.

;)

There are many "high functioning" people with mental illness. Everything from mild depression and anxiety is considered "normal" human behavior, it's still classified as mental illness, however.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

Uncertainty avoidance

Need for cognitive closure

Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.

Full analysis here:

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf

... and telling him whom to attack... isn't that a loss of contact with reality... or some form of psychosis?

Most people have an internal dialog going on within their mind. Some learn to designate some of these threads of thought as external sources. Many religious sects believe they can commune with god. Until such a time as we can clearly demonstrate to these people that the voice in their head is just their own thoughts being worked out its really a matter of belief. And not a particular psychosis.

False, enthusiastic beliefs can be very dangerous. We all have them to some degree. It is not the words but the psychological and practical uses they become allied with that are the problems. If a "Love" camp is a Death Camp one indeed can take extra issue with the visitor sign. It is an extra layer of insulting deception and irritation not THE problem.

The real issue is NOT the branding. Only Madison Avenue professionals make reality out of that fantasy. It is in people and actions, the manifestations of moral character and naked truth.

If a someone with childish fantasy beliefs is nonetheless filled with compassion and an active champion for justice you can set aside the foolery or mistakes(Jesus did). Far far worse are those who seem to hold to the truth with a vengeance yet offer nothing but evil in both aspect and action. It usually boils down to old vice like money and sexual gratification of power more than ANY creed. Obviously whatever is most vulnerable to trickery and popularity is a better tool. That is why enshrined ignorance is always dangerous before the fact. But since we all have delusions by definition of our type of "intelligence" we can't conduct a purge at that conceptual root. Intelligence arises mainly from a sea of emotions. It is the heart that must be healed.

sitting in church and thinking, what if all those priests made all this stuff up so they could collect all that money that is being put in the collection plate?

My brother on the other hand will believe anything he claims makes sense, "wheat grass must be consumed by those who want to be healthy" "raw food has enzymes that are necessary for digestion" and his latest $8000 for a colon hydrotherapy machine.

An example of something that made sense not borne out by evidence was hormone replacement therapy. It made sense that HRT would reduce the risk of heart disease, except it didn't.

the absence of reason.

Anytime a person becomes obsessed with something (religion, alcohol, drugs) and ignores hard cold facts which contradict their behavior or beliefs, I think we are dealing with a mental illness of some sort.

People have a couple of fairly basic needs: they need to belong to some group; they need to maintain their self-esteem and self-respect. They're reducible to one need, in many ways.

If you don't belong to a church or other religious group, you belong to a profession, a family or clan, a club, a political party, or a blog ;-) You need social interaction. Most churches are social clubs.

Nobody wants to feel inferior (ok, very few want to feel inferior; more about those, later). So you seek out a group to tell you how unique and special you are, if you have doubts about that. You're not a "sinner" or "fundie", a "fag" or "breeder", a "dim" or "repuke", you're a member of the group that you think is superior and which tells you you're superior. Put those possessed of tin-foil hats, painted-on cross or not, in this group.

And, if you feel inferior, you have to suffer to legimitize that sense of inferiority. Nothing like drinking parsley juice or waking up at 4:30 for 2 hours of prayer on bent knees and Bible study for that. Many ex-addicts have problems with this; failures in live. They seek penance.

Most of this doesn't rise to the level of mental illness. Some people are just trained into their group--parents with 6 year old kids wanting to be baptised into Christ, or whip themselves on Ashura, or whatever. Most choose it, clearly having the opportunity to leave, at least in the US.

A virus is something that is not necessarily alive that enters a host, and uses it for the purposes of its own reproduction.

You describe religion in much the same way.
The human mind learns by copying and learning from that which goes on around it and from parents and teachers. Belief systems gain entry in this way to minds primarily via parents. A belief system that cannot find a foot hold in a healthy mind is not going to be very effective at propogating and thus will quickly die out.Religious beliefs (be they based on truth or delusion) require this method of propogation to survive. Some become very very good at propogating.

Since ideas are essentially mental virii, it stands to reason that religion is in fact a mental illness.

QED. :)

Not mental. And yes I am using memetic notions. A belief system can create dangerous or destructive social forces. We may discern this as a disorder of society. But the actual belief system is built upon from social forces and not a malfunction of the brain.

If I ran around preaching that I had found ultimate truth in a random book written by people who thought the sun orbited the Earth, would you think I was sane? Didn't think so.

Insisting that reality is a certain way simply because you believe it to be so is not sane.

I would agree. If you suddenly started spouting off that you alone knew the truth there may be some merrit the claim that you were insane.

But religion does not come forth from an individuals mind on its own. It is placed there by the social structure surrounding the person. It is reinforced on a daily basis. It starts from the moment we are born. And yes it can override reason.

There are people that believe god will save them from disease and thus they refuse treatment for themself and for their children. There are people that believe injesting poison and handling snakes is safe for them because they believe. There are people that believe the can fly if they concentrate hard enough.

There are all sorts of things the human mind can come to believe because social constructs around them teach them so. The constructs that are unsuccesful at conveying their notions die out. The ones that are succesful get better at it.

It is not the creation of an insane mind that gives rise to these notions. It is the creative process of social evolution that create these seemingly absurd notions.

in the courts very few people are ever deemed to be insane. A person or group of people doesn't have to be insane to be irrational that is governed by something other than reason.

Christian fundamentalism is premised on the Protestant belief that believers do not need an educated priesthood with a nuanced understanding of theology. Christian fundamentalism like any extreme forms of Protestantism is at its core anti-intellectual meaning that critical reasoning is the stuff of Satan.


The notions you speak are not the result of the creative process of social evolution they are the result of a determined and influential school of thought that has consistently over time derided critical reasoning.

We are taught all sorts of myths as children, but those of us who live in REALITY come to understand FACT FROM FICTION.

Disturbed minds cling to the myths and are unable to discern fantasy from reality.

Psychotic disorders are characterized by profoundly distorted thoughts, perceptions, and moods.
DSM IV

http://allpsych.com/disorders/disorders_alpha.html
DSM IV
Delusional Disorder
Category
Psychotic Disorders
Etiology

The cause of delusional disorder is not known. Some studies suggest a biological component due to increased prevalence in first degree relatives of individuals with the disorder.

Symptoms
Non-bizarre delusions including feelings of being followed, poisoned, infected, deceived or conspired against, or loved at a distance. Non-bizarre referred to real life situations which could be true, but are not or are greatly exaggerated. Bizarre delusions, which would rule out this disorder, are those such as believing that your stomach is missing or that aliens are seeking you out to be their leader. Delusional disorder can be subtyped into the following categories: erotomanic, grandiose, jealous, persecutory (most common), somatic, and mixed.