Is belief in spiritual or supernatural entities a sign of mental weakness or illness?

[alreadyGone]

@Johnny,

 

When adults claim to have invisible friends or to see ghosts, their mental stability is usually questioned.

Yet Christian believers claim to have a "personal relationship" with a non-corporal invisible being named, variously, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, or Holy Spirit.

 

No one has ever actually seen any of these supposed invisible supernatural beings, nor spoken directly to or with them, have they?

 

Have you ever seen such a supernatural being? Have you ever heard the voice of such a supernatural being?

Are you aware of any objective repeatable evidence that such a spiritual being exists?

 

Are such people mentally challenged or delusional?

 

[TABA]

As members of this community, we all once had some kind of personal relationship with a supernatural being. The emphasis being on the word “had”.  Were we mentally challenged or delusional?  I think people believe in deities for two reasons.  Either they were raised in an environment where such belief was taken for granted and they never subsequently questioned it, or they did question it but concluded they’d rather believe anyway in spite of the evidence to the contrary, because of the comfort and maybe hope that belief provides.  I don’t think either type of person would be considered delusional.  Incurious maybe, or perhaps guilty of wishful thinking.  
 

Obviously we in this community did question at some point and we sooner or later rejected our previous beliefs.  Socrates supposedly said that the unexplained life is not worth living, and I hold that the unexamined belief is not worth holding.  The value of this particular community is that besides not believing, we KNOW why we don’t believe. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

17 minutes ago, TABA said:

Socrates supposedly said that the unexplained life is not worth living, and I hold that the unexamined belief is not worth holding.  

I have often said that faith that cannot be tested is faith that cannot be trusted.  In my christian days, I would say it in response to having my prayers go unanswered, or to comfort another who was experiencing a crisis of faith.  It was a handy catch-phrase to keep my cognitive dissonance engaged.  Tested faith becomes stronger.  But I see it differently now.  My was tested to such an extreme that if it were true, there could have been no doubt and it would have held.  But it collapsed, crumpled under the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary.  As I've mentioned before, the questioning, examining, and researching didn't come for me until after the destruction of my faith. 

 

[midniterider]

If you pray to God, but in reality God is just your mind in disguise ....and you get an answer you agree with...which is common...then you may be delusional, but is it a pathological condition?

 

If you blow up an abortion clinic because God led you...then belief is bad. 

 

Someone can have an enjoyable time with alcohol...or they can overdose.

 

Too much religion can lead to gullibility...too much evidence based thought can lead to pseudoskepticism. 

 

I have never seen a spirit. 

 

But I find it useful to believe in one, at least for a few minutes, at times. If I can improve my mood by deploying a delusion, then I will. It's like using botox. It's poison if you use too much or in the wrong way...but it can also be helpful. 

[freshstart]

What a great question.. . . with no clear answers. Most believers who are otherwise mentally healthy never literally hear the voice of god speaking to them, yet they are fickle about when to proclaim such an event as mental instability. I know a woman imprisoned in a forensic mental health facility for killing her 3 children in a most gruesome way after she stopped taking her medication and believed god commanded her to kill them. Most believers understand this is a case of  mental illness and of course god wasn't speaking to this woman. However, had the same woman instead proclaimed that  god told her to home school her kids or bring them to a dangerous part of the world as part of a missionary endeavor, no believer would insinuate that such a commandment was an auditory hallucination.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

I generally think that without the reinforcement of other believers, most wouldn't stick around in the faith. That social element can make it seem more real. Then again, the behavior of church people can also cause us to question. Some of us are also more prone to living in our own imagination, and that can easily be interpreted as god communicating. I've spent years unpacking all of the childhood fears I treated as real because I have a vivid imagination. There is an aspect of mental illness to that, but most humans are not schooled from an early age to separate the imaginary from testable reality, so in some ways it is just childish thinking. 

 

Then there were the few times I actually did hear a voice, and it was accurate or kept me from being an asshole to someone. There was also the physical holy-roller shaking that came upon me once. In retrospect as an unbeliever, I still don't know what it was. But when believers get into a certain mode, there is (speculating here) some kind of energy that results. It seems to cross religions and even some secular gatherings. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

A good question and some good replies.  I believe most people have religious ideas because that is what most people around them believe.  They grow up thinking it is true.  They are "programmed" to think that way, and some programming is stronger than others.  In mental health circles, religious beliefs theselves are not generally considered an abnormality, if it is a common belief of those in the person's "community". 

 

But if a person starts to obsess about beliefs and try to force feed it to others, it can be a sign of a "mental" condition.  I think that is the problem with seveal apologist that come here and rant and rave.  A normal person would come here and lay out their belief, and when it was obviously rejected over and over, would say a prayer for us and leave.  I believe they are the ones where we might have sown a seed. That happened with me.

 

The ones that stay around and get nasty obviously have at least an attitude or "personality" problem, which is probably just the way they are.  In general, the madder they get, the more rigid they are. They likely will ignore some questions, and some of their arguments will not quite make sense, but they think they do.  They likely are angry people looking for stupid people they can be angry at, and in their mind maintain their superiority.  Their rigidity likely reduces the chance of any change.

[freshstart]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

They likely are angry people looking for stupid people they can be angry at, and in their mind maintain their superiority.  Their rigidity likely reduces the chance of any change.

And then there are people like my mom. She's  not angry. Shes a  sweet, generous, loving martyr type, but still very rigid in her thinking deeply brainwashed and heavily influenced by her very small congregation of True Believers. She believes every single biblical story to be absolutely literally true and every horor in the bible to be absolutely necessary. She is completely comfortable with the concept of hell, and looks forward to the end of the world. She sees no problem with god murdering babies in the OT, yet insists that abortion is an abomination.  She's in her 80s and so I really need to stop bantering with her. In the end, her life has been a fascinating example of how the bible brainwashing can go so deep that it actually erases all cognitive dissonance. Isn't that what happened with German citizens in WWII? Stepford Wives for Jesus is scary to me and seems like bordering on the edge of mental illness.

[Astreja]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

The ones that stay around and get nasty obviously have at least an attitude or "personality" problem, which is probably just the way they are.

 

Perhaps they see their religion as a means to achieve power over others, rather than a way to enrich their inner lives.  This would explain a number of things, including their fury when they encounter people who don't believe them, won't agree with them and can't be cowed into submission with threats of hell.

[Edgarcito]

9 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

 

The ones that stay around and get nasty obviously have at least an attitude or "personality" problem, which is probably just the way they are.  In general, the madder they get, the more rigid they are. They likely will ignore some questions, and some of their arguments will not quite make sense, but they think they do.  They likely are angry people looking for stupid people they can be angry at, and in their mind maintain their superiority.  Their rigidity likely reduces the chance of any change.

What a stupid comment Wheezy....like you know anyone's background and pass judgement.  How about we beat you on a daily basis and see if you don't develop a personality disorder....dick.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

7 hours ago, freshstart said:

And then there are people like my mom. She's  not angry. Shes a  sweet, generous, loving martyr type, but still very rigid in her thinking deeply brainwashed and heavily influenced by her very small congregation of True Believers. She believes every single biblical story to be absolutely literally true and every horor in the bible to be absolutely necessary. She is completely comfortable with the concept of hell, and looks forward to the end of the world. She sees no problem with god murdering babies in the OT, yet insists that abortion is an abomination.  She's in her 80s and so I really need to stop bantering with her. In the end, her life has been a fascinating example of how the bible brainwashing can go so deep that it actually erases all cognitive dissonance. Isn't that what happened with German citizens in WWII? Stepford Wives for Jesus is scary to me and seems like bordering on the edge of mental illness.

 

7 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

Perhaps they see their religion as a means to achieve power over others, rather than a way to enrich their inner lives.  This would explain a number of things, including their fury when they encounter people who don't believe them, won't agree with them and can't be cowed into submission with threats of hell.

 

Excelent responses.  I have used all my "likes" and cant click on the icon.  I should have added that, Yes there is a degree of delusion in religious belief, but where do you draw the line on it being an "illness"?  By the way, that is not a good description of what is going on.  In these cases it is more of a "condition".  Perhaps a form of cognitive dissodence or denial.  It is irrational thinking.  But as long as it does not interfere with daily living, it is not considered as an illness.  Like freshstart's mom, my dad overall was a fairly normal functioning person, and would listen to reason if it was about how to do a job on the farm, but when it came to religion he was like a different person.  And to outsiders he was a very kind, gentle person, but when it was just family, and when he got mad his face would turn red and he could become dangerously abusive.  And when he entered the church building, or started to talk about religion, you could see the change in him.  He even took on a different tone of voice.  Once when he and I talked about religion, he started off calm and seemingly loving.  Concerned for my soul.  But when he failed to change my mind he got angry and red in the face.  I thought he was going to hit me, but he yelled, "there is no more hope for you", and walked away.  I see that happening with some of the apologist who come here.

 

All these "conditions" come in different degrees, and you can not always put them in a distinct pigeon hole.  And most of us have some area of life where we aren't always 100% rational.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

What a stupid comment Wheezy....like you know anyone's background and pass judgement.  How about we beat you on a daily basis and see if you don't develop a personality disorder....dick.

I didn't say they are all like that.  Perhaps I should have said "some" of them are looking for stupid people so they can feel superior, like Donald Trump.  

 

See the comment I just posted above.  You "hit the nail on it's head".  My father was beat by his father if he made a mistake.  It was extremely important for him to please his heavenly father, so he wouldn't be punished forever after death.  Most outsiders did not see how insecure my father was.  With what he thought was an inerrant bible, which he thought had black and white rules, he felt he had the answers to life and was in control of something.  He was filled with fear, but when he felt out of control, like his father, the anger would come through.  He wasn't narcissistic like Trump and felt powerful when he found what he considered a stupid person, but was very threatened if his source of "power", or security was questioned.  I contend that is the case with many who come here defending religion.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

By the way, I also contend most of us have a degree of a "personality" quirk.

[RankStranger]

On 7/7/2022 at 7:55 AM, alreadyGone said:

@Johnny,

 

When adults claim to have invisible friends or to see ghosts, their mental stability is usually questioned.

Yet Christian believers claim to have a "personal relationship" with a non-corporal invisible being named, variously, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, or Holy Spirit.

 

No one has ever actually seen any of these supposed invisible supernatural beings, nor spoken directly to or with them, have they?

 

Have you ever seen such a supernatural being? Have you ever heard the voice of such a supernatural being?

Are you aware of any objective repeatable evidence that such a spiritual being exists?

 

Are such people mentally challenged or delusional?

 

 

I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

 

Belief in the supernatural isn't a human universal, but it's overwhelmingly the norm.  IMO our brains are just wired for supernatural beliefs, probably for a variety of reasons.  Tribal bonding, social cooperation, family cohesion, a shared value system.  Christians talk about the God-shaped hole in the human heart... and I don't think they're entirely wrong. 

 

None of this IMO suggests that said supernatural beliefs are 'real' in any material sense.  Those beliefs wouldn't be supernatural if that was the case.  I'm just saying that even if those beliefs aren't provably, materially true... they are a very common and very normal mental/social functions that have evolved for... reasons

 

I think a case could be made that we non-believers are the ones whose monkey-brains aren't functioning 'correctly'.  Which again doesn't say that we're wrong... we're just deviating from normal function.

[pantheory]

On 7/8/2022 at 6:41 AM, Edgarcito said:

What a stupid comment Wheezy....like you know anyone's background and pass judgement.  How about we beat you on a daily basis and see if you don't develop a personality disorder....dick.

 

Hi Edgar, Nice to talk to you again. Habla espanol vd. o sus padres hablan?

 

Anyway Edgar, we are interested in Johnny or anyone who has something of interest to offer. Johnny is a unique Christian  in that he will not talk about God, Christ, or religion, Only his "God-did-it" answer, but the only things he wants to talk about is what he perceives to be the errors of science. That's fine but the problem is that he doesn't understand science much, and the parts he wants to discuss in particular he doesn't understand. He probably got his "information" from a Christian website.

 

I tried to explain to him the things he's talking about in the simplest ways, but he doesn't seem to understand what I'm saying. Most of my postings were trying to explain definitions of science to him. So I'll try to explain it to you and see if you understand it. 

 

The first thing that I agreed with him was that everything perceived to be scientific is not science. If a so-called "theory" of science is not testable and falsifiable it's not really a theory  or science, it's just speculation.

 

He came up with the proposal of the Law of Biogenesis. I tried to explain to him that the meaning of word Law in science does not require certainty (quote below). I gave him an example concerning Newton's law of gravity.  We use it all the time in science technology and NASA because of its simplicity. We rarely use Einstein gravity for technology because of its complications . So a Law in physics is something that seems to always work but there can be exceptions such as Newton's law of gravity.

 

I showed Johnny the definition of a scientific Law and apparently he didn't understand it. I don't think he is trying to avoid anything, he simply does not understand what is being said. Johnny was once an Engineer so I think he could understand science if he really tried. Here is the definition of a "Law" in science that I gave him defined by Wikipedia.

 

"....As with other kinds of scientific knowledge, scientific laws do not express absolute certainty, as (do) mathematical theorems or identities do. A scientific law may be contradicted, restricted, or extended by future observations...."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

 (paragraph 2)

 

It seems that Johnny simply cannot understand that there can be exceptions to Scientific Laws. This is our major frustration with him that ha can't seem to understand aspects of science or even definitions. He applies his belief in religion to the Law of Biogenesis, without the understanding that Laws can have exceptions to them, Newton's Law of gravity being a prime example. The so-called Law of Biogenesis says that only the life that we know of came from other life. True of course. But the question is, are there any exceptions? None that we know of now but there are a great many hypotheses in science called abiogenesis, that of  life coming from non-life. None are theory yet,  all are still speculations, most involving life to have developed here on Earth first. If any of these or other future abiogenesis hypotheses are proven eventually, then the Law of Biogenesis would have at least one known exception to it. Johnny has never acknowledged his understanding that Scientific Laws can have exceptions to them.

 

Then of course Johnny throws our the God-did-answer concerning the beginnings of life. I gave him a link to read concerning the book of Genesis likely being a book of fables and myth, But he never responded. He will not discuss religion. Here is the Wikipedia link I gave him. His inability to understand major points of discussion make him particularly frustrating concerning his particular arguments  he's interested in IMO.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis

 

Johnny is unique in that he is a Christian who would rather point out what he perceives to be the errors of science rather than ideas concerning the validity of Christianity.

 

Another misunderstanding Johnny has concerns the Laws of thermodynamics which were developed during the discovery and development of the steam engine. Again Johnny is hung up on the meaning of the words Scientific Law. There can be exceptions to them that do not take away from the general Law of it. If one does not know the definitions of the words being used such a Scientific Law, how can they understand the conversation and what the other person is saying? That's our frustration with him.

 

Religion is not bad IMO, but for discussions, one must try to understand what the other person is trying  to say if you're interested. It appears that Johnny can't understand what others are saying concerning ideas of science. Sorry to only talk about what I perceive to be Johnny's failings and misunderstandings.

 

Anyway Edgarcito, as I mentioned above, do you have Hispanic origins, based on your name?

 

btw Edgarcito, I don't particularly like to argue about anything   How's it going with you? hopefully the end of COVID  and all, right?

[pantheory]

On 7/8/2022 at 6:41 AM, Edgarcito said:

What a stupid comment Wheezy....like you know anyone's background and pass judgement.  How about we beat you on a daily basis and see if you don't develop a personality disorder....dick.

 

Edgar, Wheezy is a cool guy. His specialty and profession before retirement relates to psychological of sociological problems and maladies that people might have. Maybe sometimes pointing out such possible problems to them might help, even though such speculations and explanations could also sometimes appear to be insulting.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 7/11/2022 at 2:20 PM, pantheory said:

 

Edgar, Wheezy is a cool guy. His specialty and profession before retirement relates to psychological of sociological problems and maladies that people might have. Maybe sometimes pointing out such possible problems to them might help, even though such speculations and explanations could also sometimes appear to be insulting.

Thanks for the compliment.  I will admit to occasionally being a little bit sarcastic or "snippy".  That is a no-no in my profession and I really had to bite my tongue at times.  Also, at 81 years of age I sometimes have trouble organizing my thoughts, so at times you may need to "read between the lines" to understand what I wrote.  Or feel free to ask me to explain further.  I have good intentions, but may fall short at times.

[Edgarcito]

13 hours ago, Weezer said:

Thanks for the compliment.  I will admit to occasionally being a little bit sarcastic or "snippy".  That is a no-no in my profession and I really had to bite my tongue at times.  Also, at 81 years of age I sometimes have trouble organizing my thoughts, so at times you may need to "read between the lines" to understand what I wrote.  Or feel free to ask me to explain further.  I have good intentions, but may fall short at times.

Look, I'm not trained by any means in that field, but it's starting to appear that people's solutions over time become their go-to truths.  I.e., if I am hurt by Christianity, then science becomes my solution, my truth.  If I am hurt by my father, then a heavenly father becomes the truth.  Pushing back against their truths pushes them back towards hurt and fear, etc.....non-belonging.  The case I just made presents both sides of the fence.  Your statement sir, was rather one-sided and obtuse to boot.  I apologize for disrespecting your age and wisdom and effort.

 

Thanks.

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Look, I'm not trained by any means in that field, but it's starting to appear that people's solutions over time become their go-to truths.  I.e., if I am hurt by Christianity, then science becomes my solution, my truth.  If I am hurt by my father, then a heavenly father becomes the truth.  Pushing back against their truths pushes them back towards hurt and fear, etc.....non-belonging.  The case I just made presents both sides of the fence.  Your statement sir, was rather one-sided and obtuse to boot.  I apologize for disrespecting your age and wisdom and effort.

 

Thanks.

 

That's interesting, Ed.

 

You now seem to be saying that truth is relative and not absolute.

 

Or are you implying that that there are different kinds of truth - a personal one and another kind?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

That's interesting, Ed.

 

You now seem to be saying that truth is relative and not absolute.

 

Or are you implying that that there are different kinds of truth - a personal one and another kind?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

I'm just asking questions.  The difference between me and Johnny is I'm at a point where I'm content with my understanding to a point of not being threatened by the hard questions.  I don't care about going back to the pain anymore, it's meaningless.  I gather to some, it's still very real and produces reactionary responses.  

 

But you are right, the question that I was pondering and wanting to ask is: Is the solution the truth, and work backwards from the solution and see if it yields "truth" rather than looking at the perceived solutions from the subjective standpoint.  .....if this makes sense.  

 

Yes, the implication is there are personal and other kinds.  Thinking even the Bible talks about being deceived...

[◊ Krowb ◊]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm just asking questions.  The difference between me and Johnny is I'm at a point where I'm content with my understanding to a point of not being threatened by the hard questions.  I don't care about going back to the pain anymore, it's meaningless.  I gather to some, it's still very real and produces reactionary responses.  

 

But you are right, the question that I was pondering and wanting to ask is: Is the solution the truth, and work backwards from the solution and see if it yields "truth" rather than looking at the perceived solutions from the subjective standpoint.  .....if this makes sense.  

 

Yes, the implication is there are personal and other kinds.  Thinking even the Bible talks about being deceived...

 

Ed,

 

You're working your way towards a major juncture in epistemology:  foundationalism versus reliabilism (also known as coherentism).  To my knowledge, there is not currently a resolution and there are other less developed theories regarding "truth" and "knowledge".

[Edgarcito]

And I'm not sure it has totally to do with our experiences only.  The contentment I feel is not just a solution for my personal truths, but on a different level of belonging, regardless.  Obviously, to me and others, my personal solutions are in error.  And I don't see it as some make believe cognition I have with myself, but rather the comfort of something divine that knows what we traverse, experience as we walk in these bodies.  Not sure how else to describe that.  Just that I don't believe I'm making up a comforting relationship.

 

So yes, again, it seems there are truths per our humanly perspective as we walk, and some potential truth.

 

I think we are making an error in treating each other by not recognizing none of us hold the absolute truth....even if we commune wholeheartedly in science or religion.

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, Krowb said:

 

Ed,

 

You're working your way towards a major juncture in epistemology:  foundationalism versus reliabilism (also known as coherentism).  To my knowledge, there is not currently a resolution and there are other less developed theories regarding "truth" and "knowledge".

Thanks.  Even a redneck finds an acorn occasionally....lol.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Thanks.  Even a redneck finds an acorn occasionally....lol.

Speak for yourself, amigo.

[Edgarcito]

21 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Speak for yourself, amigo.

Different species out west here.....