Into That Darkness...The Mind Of The 'True Believer'

[Glaswegian]

To understand the true believer of religion in more than a superficial way - that is, to know what he is at bottom - one must possess huge, powerful lungs in order to dive down to the psychological depths where the more complex truths about him are to be found. No sooner has one done this, no sooner has one penetrated into the very 'soul' of the true believer, than one begins to feel that one has entered a fetid chamber of dripping anxiety in which obscene and detestable impulses abound. Here, at the innermost core of the true believer's being where the light never reaches, one has a palpable sense of dangerous, gelatinous things quivering and throbbing shamelessly in the darkness.

The secret, raving violence of the true believer's 'soul' is, to a considerable degree, rooted in his ontological insecurity. When I say that the true believer is ontologically insecure, I mean that he experiences his very being-in-the-world as precarious. This individual's sense of personal identity and cohesion is felt to be under continual threat from existence itself. Thus, the mere fact that he is alive is enough to fill the true believer with anxiety and dread because, in his eyes, 'the world is liable at any moment to crash in and obliterate his tenuous sense of self as a gas will rush in and obliterate a vacuum.' (Laing, 1990)

The true believer is only too aware that his ontological insecurity renders him unfit for life - as Nietzsche would say, 'he is simply not up to it' - and this knowledge naturally arouses feelings of self-loathing. The hatred which the true believer feels towards his own weakness and inadequacy is something which must be urgently got rid of: and so, instead of being directed against himself, it is turned outwards on the world. But it is not enough for the true believer just to hate the world. No. Because the world is felt by the true believer to be inimical to his being - because everything about it threatens him with non-being - he must also revenge himself upon it. And fundamentalist religion provides a perfect vehicle for his hatred and revenge because of its intolerant and bellicose character.

As well as supplying the true believer with the means of re-directing the enmity he feels towards himself on to the external world, fundamentalist religion allows him to anchor his weak and beleaguered self in something putatively absolute and infallible that transcends the vicissitudes of human existence: viz. an omnipotent, omniscient and eternal Deity. The true believer, then, is driven to embrace his religion fervently because the preservation of his being depends upon it.

The true believer's ontological insecurity also accounts for his tendency to think in terms of polarities. As was noted above, the true believer experiences existence as posing a perpetual danger to his fragile sense of self. This means that he is always in a condition of high alert with regard to everything for even the most ordinary circumstances of life have the potential to overwhelm and engulf him. Thus, every single thing must be quickly and correctly ascertained as to whether or not it threatens the true believer with complete loss of being: ambiguities are wholly intolerable to him, there can be no grey areas in his experience at all, no sources of doubt. This schizoid orientation to life causes the true believer to interpret his experience in a 'black and white' manner: that is, people, objects and events are perceived as either utterly dangerous or utterly innocuous, utterly good or utterly bad, utterly right or utterly wrong, utterly redeemed or utterly damned, and so on...until the entire universe and all it contains are bifurcated in his mind into a cosmic conflict between the forces of Good and the forces of Evil.

The true believer's attempt to compensate for the weakness and insecurity of his self by anchoring it in the 'eternal verities' of fundamentalist religion is doomed from the outset. This is because he knows in his heart of hearts that his fundamentalist faith is as shaky as the self which pains him. Although the true believer maintains his faith through various defence mechanisms - for example, by not attending to criticisms of it, by not weighing its pros and cons, by refusing to test it in the crucible of reality - he is under continual accusation from within. 'A voice from the depths charges him with evading the truth' (Bergsten, 1951). For fundamentalist religion requires him to believe in things for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and no person can do this without affronting their sense of intellectual honesty.

The struggle between faith and doubt in the true believer is unrelenting his whole life long. And this is why the rational individual should always be careful as he contemplates the true believer from his hammock of sanity. For the tension produced in the true believer by gnawing religious doubt which never goes away has a tendency to eventually discharge itself in unspeakable acts of violence as is evidenced by the Inquisition, the Crusades, the 'Witch' Holocaust in Europe, the Russian pogroms, the extermination of the Cathars by the Catholic Church, the World Trade Center massacre, the Bali bombings, the murder of abortion workers in America, Hamas suicide missions, Baruch Goldstein's slaughter of Muslim worshippers in Hebron, etc., etc., etc.

References:

Bergsten, G. (1951) Pastoral Psychology, London: Allen and Unwin

Laing, R. D. (1990) The Divided Self, Harmondsworth: Penguin

[K.Snyder]

Or the "true believer" could merely be identical to yourself as well as I and just simply claim to be religious.

This "true believer" just spends his/her time differently obviously.

I've yet to know why so many Scots I've encountered are so blatantly riled about religion. There is a truth to that.

Perhaps the sourest of tastes left in their mouth after the middle evil religious escapades...

[koan]

Ebert thought True Believer was rather clever, if only because of Woods' performance.

The characters in these movies are not all the same man, although they all share some of Woods' high-energy restlessness. The highflier in "The Boost," for example, is not nearly as intelligent as Eddie Dodd, the fast-talking lawyer in "True Believer." And yet all three characters are hypnotically watchable, because Woods talks fast and is always thinking, and his performances assume that the audience can listen and think as quickly as he can.

full review

I'm not a big Woods fan, myself.

[AussiePam]

Koan, I wonder how Glaswegian would answer in your Comparison thread. ??? That might be interesting.

[koan]

I suspect it is a control freak that only likes to stay in threads of its own creation.

[AussiePam]

koan;1302551 wrote: I suspect it is a control freak that only likes to stay in threads of its own creation.


I suspect you might well be right.

:yh_rotfl

[LarsMac]

Being a "True Believer" is not necessarily limited to religion.

And you left out the McCarthy witch-hunts, among other fine examples.

Anyone here ever read Hoffer?

[Ahso!]

Good post, Glaswegian. That was interesting reading and I think I agree.

Its true most if not all true believers seem to exhibit stronger schizophrenic behaviors, but then I think we're all schizophrenic to some degree. Its part of our evolution - a survival tool. I believe though that schizophrenia is just one aspect of Autism - which is what I think you're actually describing.

It takes an Autistic mind to believe in God and religion, IMO, but fundamentalists are just higher on the spectrum which is evidenced by the stronger mental and emotional poles.

Whats also interesting is that Autistic tendencies are not exclusive to the religious community. Strong views, an appetite for knowledge, lack of empathy which you describe so well, and obsessive behaviors to various degrees are all telltale signs of Autism. Again, its merely a matter of degree. And make no mistake about it being part of the evolution of not only our species, but many.

Most of us are highly functioning autistics. We maintain our wellbeing and everyday existence.



Think about it. What is the difference between obsessing over the existence of a God and the need for eternal life as opposed to spending hours, days, weeks, years learning to swing a golf club, or make money, or build an empire, read, watch television or even argue on internet forums? They all require a high degree of focus, which is what the autistic mind does. Sometimes though it is funny and entertaining to observe.

We're all on the spectrum somewhere!

Each day I'm more amazed by this!

[Glaswegian]

LarsMac;1302554 wrote: Being a "True Believer" is not necessarily limited to religion.
You're quite right, LarsMac. You can get 'true believers' in anything - for example, those who truly believe Hibernian Football Club, broccoli and crotchless bicycle shorts are wondrous beyond words.

However, if you look around you will see that you are in the General Religious Discussions forum. And this is why the first sentence of the OP went explicitly thus:

'To understand the true believer of religion...'

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1302580 wrote: Good post, Glaswegian. That was interesting reading and I think I agree.

Its true most if not all true believers seem to exhibit stronger schizophrenic behaviors, but then I think we're all schizophrenic to some degree. Its part of our evolution - a survival tool. I believe though that schizophrenia is just one aspect of Autism - which is what I think you're actually describing.

It takes an Autistic mind to believe in God and religion, IMO, but fundamentalists are just higher on the spectrum which is evidenced by the stronger mental and emotional poles.

Whats also interesting is that Autistic tendencies are not exclusive to the religious community. Strong views, an appetite for knowledge, lack of empathy which you describe so well, and obsessive behaviors to various degrees are all telltale signs of Autism. Again, its merely a matter of degree. And make no mistake about it being part of the evolution of not only our species, but many.

Most of us are highly functioning autistics. We maintain our wellbeing and everyday existence.



Think about it. What is the difference between obsessing over the existence of a God and the need for eternal life as opposed to spending hours, days, weeks, years learning to swing a golf club, or make money, or build an empire, read, watch television or even argue on internet forums? They all require a high degree of focus, which is what the autistic mind does. Sometimes though it is funny and entertaining to observe.

We're all on the spectrum somewhere!

Each day I'm more amazed by this!
You've made a number of points which I look forward to discussing with you, Ahso! For the moment though let me say just this. Religion and psychopathology go hand in hand. A mere glance at the history of religion makes that very clear. Religious belief and religious behaviour encompass a wide range of mental disorders - from mild autism right through to extreme psychosis. This will become clear as the thread progresses.

[Glaswegian]

K.Snyder;1302540 wrote: I've yet to know why so many Scots I've encountered are so blatantly riled about religion.
Speaking for myself, it's because I'm keenly aware of religion's pathological nature, K.

Riled, alarmed, saddened - I imagine these are the emotions typically felt by every good public health official confronted with a plague.

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1302625 wrote: You've made a number of points which I look forward to discussing with you, Ahso! For the moment though let me say just this. Religion and psychopathology go hand in hand. A mere glance at the history of religion makes that very clear. Religious belief and religious behaviour encompass a wide range of mental disorders - from mild autism right through to extreme psychosis. This will become clear as the thread progresses.Mental disorders? As compared to? As an evolutionist, the word 'disorder' is not in my vocabulary regarding people and their conditions.

[Snowfire]

K.Snyder;1302540 wrote:

I've yet to know why so many Scots I've encountered are so blatantly riled about religion. There is a truth to that.




Maybe a reason, if there is one, is the history of religious sectarianism that rips communities and families apart. gmc has posted many times of the excesses of religious fervour and Glaswegian will be very familiar with the hatred and narrow-minded bigotry. Your either one side of the fence or the other with very little room in the middle. Many choose not to be either side of that particular divide. Myself included. I witnessed first hand such division and violence in N.I.

[LarsMac]

Glaswegian;1302594 wrote: You're quite right, LarsMac. You can get 'true believers' in anything - for example, those who truly believe Hibernian Football Club, broccoli and crotchless bicycle shorts are wondrous beyond words.

However, if you look around you will see that you are in the General Religious Discussions forum. And this is why the first sentence of the OP went explicitly thus:

'To understand the true believer of religion...'


Actually, that is what incited my response.

True believers are used by any number of manipulators and rabble-rousers. The flaw is not so much with religion, as it is in the character of the TB as a whole.

Of course I see now this is just another petard upon which you hoist your pet straw dog.

[koan]

otoh, to understand the Angry Atheist check here

Angry atheism is a type of diabetes that is on the rise since those smart-ass Chinese, I mean, normal Chinese have been taking over the world. Angry atheists are often very abusive to crosses, rosaries, Buddha statues, Hindu avatars, Jesus, Mohammad, Muslims, Christians, and whatever the hell ever that has to do with religion. Sometimes babies and butterflies, too, when they feel like it.

imo, that article is just as well thought out as the OP

[Ahso!]

Whats wrong with having this discussion? If people don't like the subject or the tone of it - opt out - thats all!

The subject of religion may be a difficult one for some but that doesn't mean people should not talk about it.

Glaswegian's posts may offend you but those are the consequences of difficult subject matter. He has not personally attacked anyone in this forum and has a strong opinion about the subject. He presents his case very clearly and intelligently and has taken mocking and criticism as well as anyone. He is tough to argue with, I'll grant you that. However, that doesn't mean posters should resort to baiting.

Stay away if the subject matter is too difficult for you. IMO - thats a shame because I thought there would be intelligent dialogue coming from all sides of this issue. Was I wrong?

[LarsMac]

koan;1302742 wrote: otoh, to understand the Angry Atheist check here

Angry atheism is a type of diabetes that is on the rise since those smart-ass Chinese, I mean, normal Chinese have been taking over the world. Angry atheists are often very abusive to crosses, rosaries, Buddha statues, Hindu avatars, Jesus, Mohammad, Muslims, Christians, and whatever the hell ever that has to do with religion. Sometimes babies and butterflies, too, when they feel like it.

imo, that article is just as well thought out as the OP
That's rich!! :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:wah:

[koan]

Ahso!;1302752 wrote: Whats wrong with having this discussion? If people don't like the subject or the tone of it - opt out - thats all!

The subject of religion may be a difficult one for some but that doesn't mean people should not talk about it.

Glaswegian's posts may offend you but those are the consequences of difficult subject matter. He has not personally attacked anyone in this forum and has a strong opinion about the subject. He presents his case very clearly and intelligently and has taken mocking and criticism as well as anyone. He is tough to argue with, I'll grant you that. However, that doesn't mean posters should resort to baiting.

Stay away if the subject matter is too difficult for you. IMO - thats a shame because I thought there would be intelligent dialogue coming from all sides of this issue. Was I wrong?


I consider my last post a legitimate reply, in keeping with the tone of the OP. I am extremely curious as to why he doesn't see the vehemence of his disgust with Christians as harmful as the belief system he is denegrating.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1302753 wrote: That's rich!! :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:wah:Who are you, and how did you hijack LarsMac's account?

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1302755 wrote: Who are you, and how did you hijack LarsMac's account?


Sorry. Timing is everything, sometimes.

I edited my post to show what I found humorous.

[Ahso!]

koan;1302754 wrote: I consider my last post a legitimate reply, in keeping with the tone of the OP. I am extremely curious as to why he doesn't see the vehemence of his disgust with Christians as harmful as the belief system he is denegrating.Perhaps he does see what he needs to see, though I'd not describe it as harshly as you have, but you may very well be correct. However, this thread is not about him. Perhaps a new thread would be in order if you so desire.

Hes not necessarily denigrating anything as much as taking a very critical view of religion and the reasons people respond to it.

We don't burn the books of those who criticize religion, so why try to virtually do the same thing in this thread. Stay on subject or don't participate. Thats what I'd imagine you saying.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1302757 wrote: Sorry. Timing is everything, sometimes.

I edited my post to show what I found humorous.I knew what you were responding to, but it just does not sound like you. I could see certain others on this forum giving such a rah-rah response instead of taking on the subject, but not you.

[LarsMac]

You get no argument from me on the notion that Scots, Irish, and many others have suffered at the hands of religious extremists over the centuries. My family history is full of such examples.

Scots, Irish, Huguenots, to name a few.

But religion is only one of the tools used by the powerful to control/incite the masses.

Why pick on only the religious? They can actually be rather docile if given the right leaders.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1302761 wrote: I knew what you were responding to, but it just does not sound like you. I could see certain others on this forum giving such a rah-rah response instead of taking on the subject, but not you.


The article just tickled my funnybone, is all.

[koan]

Ahso!;1302759 wrote: Perhaps he does see what he needs to see, though I'd not describe it as harshly as you have, but you may very well be correct. However, this thread is not about him. Perhaps a new thread would be in order if you so desire.

Hes not necessarily denigrating anything as much as taking a very critical view of religion and the reasons people respond to it.

We don't burn the books of those who criticize religion, so why try to virtually do the same thing in this thread. Stay on subject or don't participate. Thats what I'd imagine you saying.


It is entirely relevent to this thread. It's a matter of what he hopes to accomplish. There's so much smug in these threads the only people he's going to honestly engage are those who share the same views.

In contrast, as the Friendly Atheist says:

I can’t believe I have to defend myself for not acting like a douchebag.

Not every discussion with religious people needs to be about how ignorant and wrong they are.

I certainly don’t believe in God and I do think those who believe in God are wrong in their thinking, but the best way to convince the majority of people that living without religion is even possible is to show them that atheists are kind, happy, and approachable– we’re not the bogeymen we’ve been made out to be for so long. If that happens, the logical reasoning behind atheism will follow.

[gmc]

K.Snyder;1302540 wrote: Or the "true believer" could merely be identical to yourself as well as I and just simply claim to be religious.

This "true believer" just spends his/her time differently obviously.

I've yet to know why so many Scots I've encountered are so blatantly riled about religion. There is a truth to that.

Perhaps the sourest of tastes left in their mouth after the middle evil religious escapades...


There are many reasons but i think there are two main ones.

1) It gets drummed in to you at an early age when you realise your friends are going to a different school because they are catholic or protestant. A primary school you are not really able to appreciate the subtle differences that make Catholics idolaters and protestants godless wanderers from the true path you just learn there is a difference.

2) don't be fooled by the Brigadoon and kilt wearing shortbread eating whisky drinker image so beloved of Hollywood, scotland was one of the first to industrialise and is still one of the most industrialised nations on the planet, also with one of the best education systems in the world. It's had the latter for centuries, the literacy rate in scotland at the time of Robert Burns for instance was over 90%. If you have a look at the number of scots scientists and philosophers that have helped shape the modern world it is way beyond what you would expect from a country with our population, and it wasn't because we are cleverer than everybody else. It's also one of the most politicised populations-people tend to be fairly left wing in their political views. If you think about it most educated people end up with left wing liberal attitudes. For instance if you compare your blue states with red states the compare how industrialised/educated I bet you get a corollary. I bet you get the same relationship between the bible thumping states and the more secular. It's education and how travelled people are. Course that could be a load of rubbish because I've never looked at it seriously. But in think it a truism that sometimes you have to leave home to leave behind your bigotry and prejudice.

Most can't be bothered by sectarianism but there is a minority that take it very seriously indeed and the establishment tend to pander to them. Take separate schools for instance, they're divisive and perpetuate sectarian violence but we can't get rid of them. I posted one link somewhere about a proposed joint school but it's not going ahead because they can;t agree over whether catholic and protestant should go in by the same door. You couldn't make it up it's so ludicrous. I live in an area where they have orange walks. I'm not particularly religious-well not at all actually but as a ratepayer I have to help fund a new catholic high school nearby while local kids get bussed to another high school because they can't attend the catholic one.

So yes most scots do get riled about religion and with good reason. Basically most scots know about religion- not just their own- but also have a secular education. So we get riled at religious bigotry and have a low tolerance of fundamentalism and the unco guid bleating for special treatment really pisses us off.



Mind you so does the hectoring atheist

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1302769 wrote: You get no argument from me on the notion that Scots, Irish, and many others have suffered at the hands of religious extremists over the centuries. My family history is full of such examples.

Scots, Irish, Huguenots, to name a few.

But religion is only one of the tools used by the powerful to control/incite the masses.

Why pick on only the religious? They can actually be rather docile if given the right leaders.I don't hear Glaswegian making that claim really. what I'm getting from the OP is that what draws people into religion is a weak mental state, labeled as 'disorders'.

My point is that I'll agree to what is said but without the suggestions that such mental states are weak or 'disorders' and are in fact a result of evolution. Thus arguing that multi level group selection, which is what religion is IMO, is naturally Darwinian.

[Ahso!]

koan;1302773 wrote: It is entirely relevent to this thread. It's a matter of what he hopes to accomplish. There's so much smug in these threads the only people he's going to honestly engage are those who share the same views.

In contrast, as the Friendly Atheist says:

I can’t believe I have to defend myself for not acting like a douchebag.

Not every discussion with religious people needs to be about how ignorant and wrong they are.

I certainly don’t believe in God and I do think those who believe in God are wrong in their thinking, but the best way to convince the majority of people that living without religion is even possible is to show them that atheists are kind, happy, and approachable– we’re not the bogeymen we’ve been made out to be for so long. If that happens, the logical reasoning behind atheism will follow.You're stretching in my view, but so be it. I can see theres no convincing you otherwise. Too bad you're choosing to take this approach rather than rely on your intellect though.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1302777 wrote: I don't hear Glaswegian making that claim really. what I'm getting from the OP is that what draws people into religion is a weak mental state, labeled as 'disorders'.

My point is that I'll agree to what is said but without the suggestions that such mental states are weak or 'disorders' and are in fact a result of evolution. Thus arguing that multi level group selection, which is what religion is IMO, is naturally Darwinian.


You could remove the "religion" references from the OP, and have a viable document.

The association made in the OP to religion is not incorrect, bit not specific to the character type.



And many of the events listed in the final paragraph only have a thread of a link to religion, itself. Many of them were specifically driven by power plays.

The objection the powerful have to religion is that religious people will but the object of their faith ahead of the leadership in power.

The Cathars in France were not respectful of the power held by the King of France, or of the Papal authority. It really had little to do with the religion.

The Pogroms in Russia, like the Nazi Cleansings, were on the surface, religious in nature, but a close examination will show that there were more than Jews caught up in the sweeps.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1302798 wrote: You could remove the "religion" references from the OP, and have a viable document.As I see you've begun to argue. But Glaswegian's argument specifies religion. Religion possibly being an obsession of his, though it may also be true thats hes just searching for a place to prove or disprove his opinion.

LarsMac;1302798 wrote: The association made in the OP to religion is not incorrect, bit not specific to the character type.



And many of the events listed in the final paragraph only have a thread of a link to religion, itself. Many of them were specifically driven by power plays.

The objection the powerful have to religion is that religious people will but the object of their faith ahead of the leadership in power.

The Cathars in France were not respectful of the power held by the King of France, or of the Papal authority. It really had little to do with the religion.

The Pogroms in Russia, like the Nazi Cleansings, were on the surface, religious in nature, but a close examination will show that there were more than Jews caught up in the sweeps.Then make that argument. It is the case I'm making as well, only from a different angle.

I think we can isolate any group of people or even any individual and attribute at least some of the conditions if not all listed in the OP to them. As I said in my initial response: these conditions are not exclusive to religious people or groups.

I think Glaswegian is relying on conventional psychology in his argument while mine is based on evolutionary psychology, which i admit is not nearly as recognized or established as of yet by the majority in the psychological community, but it is currently gaining ground rather swiftly.

I am assuming though that Glaswegian is an evolutionist too since he is atheist. Otherwise we'll have to go through that whole; where did life begin, and I'm not sure I'm up for that one again.

[koan]

Probably a last comment here; I just plain don't see the difference between the vehemence with which some people foist their religion upon others and the vehemence with which Glaswegian foists his atheism upon others.

It's about the human dilemma. How one answers it is almost irrelevant.

If you do a search for threads started by Glaswegian it is overwhelmingly a spittoon of anti-religious residue and I find myself reflecting on what separates victims from survivors. Survivors do not let their antagonists affect the rest of their lives. It is my heartfelt plea to Glaswegian that he release himself from this vendetta in order to triumph over his former oppressors.

I tried to have a discussion in his last thread and was told that my dictionary was insufficient so I don't see where intellect is the dominant trait here. My definition of all answers to the "human condition" fulfilling religious needs was rejected so that leaves nothing intellectual to debate except what point the anger stops being productive and starts being detrimental to one's mental health.

[AussiePam]

Thanks, Koan for saying that all so well.



If it's enlightenment we are all striving for, I don't believe it lies in fanaticism, bitter anger or hatred.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1302806 wrote: I think Glaswegian is relying on conventional psychology in his argument while mine is based on evolutionary psychology, which i admit is not nearly as recognized or established as of yet by the majority in the psychological community, but it is currently gaining ground rather swiftly.
What would happen to a man whose religious belief system drove him to kill a child because he believed it was a witch, Ahso? If that man was tried for the child's murder by any criminal justice system in the Western world today then he would be required to undergo psychiatric assessment as part of his trial. I think you would agree that this is the case.

Let me ask you to consider the following phenomenon.

THE KILLING OF CHILD-WITCHES IN AFRICA

Independent World Report by Leo Igwe


'For those in the Western world, witch-hunting is a thing of the past. Sorcerers are no longer burnt at the stake. The last witch-trial in Europe took place centuries ago. But, in Africa, this is not the case - witch-trials are still going on. Frenzy and hysteria about witches still grip the African mind. In the twenty-first century, those who are condemned as witches are persecuted and executed in Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia, the Congo, South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Malawi and Gambia.

Witch-hunting rages on in Africa because the belief in witchcraft is still very strong. The imagined influence of witchcraft in people's lives is overwhelming. Africans attribute any form of misfortune - accidents, deaths, diseases, infertility or child-birth difficulties, business failures - to the machinations of witches...[In Nigeria] many children who were accused of witchcraft never lived to tell their stories. They were tortured to death, bathed with acid, abandoned to die by the roadside, or in the bush. Hundreds of children in the Akwa Ibom camp carry the scars of the witch-hunting campaigns which have been going on across Nigeria and many other parts of Africa.'

~o0o~


At this very moment there is a child somewhere in Africa who is in terror for its life because the charge of witchcraft has been levelled against it. Count on it. And it faces the possibility of being tortured and killed by the community of 'adults' which is supposed to protect it.

The supernatural belief system of African witch-hunters is, of course, just one amongst many which engender acts of cruelty and horror. For example, the supernatural belief system which holds sway in our culture - Christianity - also enjoined the torture and murder of child-witches a few centruries ago, but on a much more colossal scale than the African one.

I am interested to know how you would interpret the African child-witch killings from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, Ahso? Specifically, what evolutionary advantage does such behaviour bestow on our species?

[Ahso!]

Where in any of my posts, or words I have uttered - ever - have I condoned, excused or attempted to justify any such act based not only on evolutionary psychology but any reasoning whatsoever?

You claimed in your OP that people who believe in religion or participate in its benign rituals and observances do so because they lack adequate mental capacity. You also claimed that as the thread progressed you would demonstrate how mental illness and other mental 'disorders' contributed. Why then have you taken the thread here?

My question to you is: Given your position, how do you qualify mental disorders? For you to do so, you need to present either 1) a finished product as a person or 2) a purpose for which people are designed.

Neither one of those options are evolutionary and since you don't believe in a creator, where does that leave you? I'm curious.

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1302870 wrote: At this very moment there is a child somewhere in Africa who is in terror for its life because the charge of witchcraft has been levelled against it. Count on it. And it faces the possibility of being tortured and killed by the community of 'adults' which is supposed to protect it.
'AFRICAN CHURCHES DENOUNCE CHILDREN AS WITCHES'

Associated Press News Report


'Jane's mother tried to saw off the top of her daughter's skull after a pastor denounced the girl as a witch.' Eket, Nigeria (18th August 2009)

~o0o~


'The 9 year old boy lay on a bloodstained hospital sheet crawling with ants, staring blindly at the wall. His family pastor had accused him of being a witch, and then his father had tried to force acid down his throat as an exorcism. It spilled as he struggled, burning away his face and eyes. The emaciated boy barely had strength left to whisper the name of the church which had denounced him - Mount Zion Lighthouse. A month later he died.' Eket, Nigeria (17th October 2009)

~o0o~

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1302903 wrote: Why then have you taken the thread here?
Because the torture and murder of children as 'witches' is an example of religiously-inspired psychotic behaviour.

Wouldn't you say so?

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1302908 wrote: Because the torture and murder of children as 'witches' is an example of religiously-inspired psychotic behaviour.

Wouldn't you say so?No! From my dictionary; 2. (Med.) A disease of the mind; especially, a functional

mental disorder, that is, one unattended with evident

organic changes.

[1913 Webster] How can this 'disease' be religiously inspired? The problem psychology has always had is a standard.

Your mission Glaswegian, should you decide to accept it, is to present such a standard in either bodily form or at least design. As always, should any member of your team be captured or killed, we will disavow any association. Good luck, Glaswegian.

(This tape will self destruct in 15 seconds.)

[Bevdee]

Ahso, I happen to agree that we should not use the word "disorder" when talking about mental states, but that's common usage. And there are some conditions that are harmful to the individual, if not others. That's what I picked up on in the first few posts. I ignore the rest. Believe me, it happens on other sites. It happens in real life (Art imitating life or life imitating art, I don't know which) You will not be able to have a topic such as this stay on topic, because they just can't help it. I have found if you let it distract you, you gain nothing. If you respond, what are you gaining? It's a pattern.

The conditions I have studied are the following, for personal reasons.

BPD - Borderline Personality Disorder is characterized by black and white thinking.

How much of Xtian, and other religions, has this *us right/them wrong* type of thinking?

The whole concept of heaven and hell seems Bipolar to me.

There's bullying, which you can see in regular conversations about ways of thinking other than Xtianity, or other monotheistic systems. There are actually all kinds of conversational terrorism that I have observed when discussions about religion come up.

Codependency - Now, i know that Codependency is not a medical diagnosis and that the common usage has probably bastardized the original concept. But, as I examined my upbringing to the alcoholism and mental conditions in my family, I began to think of how religion has influenced what society taught families and individuals.

Imagine if I came on a dating site and announced -

Hey all, I have started seeing this guy, man I really worship him!! He is everything to me. He's a little distant, and I hardly ever see him but he says he hears me talking to him even when he's not there.

There are all these things I have to do to be worthy of his love. At least that is what he tells me.

I have to obey him. If I disobey him, there will be punishment or penance. If he really gets mad, he will send me away- like to this place called Purgatory which is like no place in particular, or Hell. He might set me on fire.

So I am working on getting myself subservient to his will, so I will be worthy of his love. But he and his son tell me I will never be entirely worthy of his love, but to strive all my life. He says he will love me anyway.

He tells me that without him in my life, I am nothing.

He thinks women are secondary to men. Basically he thinks they are put here to be a helper to men, and have kids.

He's jealous. He says I am not to put anyone or anything else before him.

He gave me this book to read. Tiny print. I'm supposed to read it and know how to live my life the way he wants me to, but it's long and kind of unclear, and it is hard to get the gist of what the guy wants to say because it's contradictory. I've asked other people what they think of it, but no one can seem to agree on anything in that book.

I have to give him my money, but he says it will come back to me, eventually. People swear by it, they say it always comes back to them. Kinda like the lotto. It's a tenth of my earnings, do you think that is enough to give him? I'm supposed to donate my time to charities and stuff, but he wants all the credit. He wants the credit for my accomplishments, too.

He's got this son that never got married and hangs out with a bunch of guys all the time. I'm not sure what they do, but they get in trouble with the authorities sometimes. He wants me to follow his son's teachings. He thinks his kid is some sort of martyr.



I can never question him.



I only hope someday I can be worthy of his love - if I am, he says I will get to go with him to this great place called Heaven. I just hope there is a jacuzzi and a masseuse, cause he's wearing me out.





I wonder what people would tell me about my new guy?

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1302903 wrote: Where in any of my posts, or words I have uttered - ever - have I condoned, excused or attempted to justify any such act based not only on evolutionary psychology but any reasoning whatsoever?
I expected you to approach this matter with a cool head, Ahso! - and not like a religionist. I think we should make 'chill' our watchword from now on.

Glaswegian wrote: I am interested to know how you would interpret the African child-witch killings from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, Ahso? Specifically, what evolutionary advantage does such behaviour bestow on our species?
That is an invitation - not an accusation.

What I am inviting you to do here is this: Employ evolutionary psychology as a tool with which to make sense of the child-witch killings. Can this academic discipline throw any light on them? Has it anything to say about them at all? Or can it only stare at them with the same incomprehension as a dog at a Shakespeare play - say, Macbeth?

In the meantime I'm going to try to respond to some of the other comments you made earlier. Catch you later.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso! wrote: You claimed in your OP that people who believe in religion or participate in its benign rituals and observances do so because they lack adequate mental capacity. You also claimed that as the thread progressed you would demonstrate how mental illness and other mental disorders contributed.
Glaswegian;1302625 wrote: Religion and psychopathology go hand in hand. A mere glance at the history of religion makes that very clear. Religious belief and religious behaviour encompass a wide range of mental disorders - from mild autism right through to extreme psychosis.
What I am saying here is this. I see religious beliefs and religious behaviour as exemplifying varying degrees of psychopathology in individuals. This psychopathology can assume very mild forms and extremely severe forms. I'll provide examples of different kinds of religious psychopathology shortly.

I use 'mental disorders' as an umbrella term for a wide range of mental states which come under the remit of psychopathology. Do you find this term excessive when applied to the mental states of religious believers? Is it too politically incorrect for you? Well, what term would you prefer I use? 'Psychopathological states', 'mental diseases', 'abnormal disturbances of the mind', 'dysfunctional beliefs'...? Tell me.

Here are two views of religion which will hopefully make my position a little clearer, and which I certainly go along with:

'Religion and individual religiosity are symptomatic of a universal obsessional neurosis.' Freud

'Idiosyncratic belief systems which are shared by only a few adherents are likely to be regarded as delusional. Belief systems which may be just as irrational but which are shared by millions are called world religions.' Anthony Storr, English psychiatrist

[Glaswegian]

Bevdee;1302952 wrote: Ahso, I happen to agree that we should not use the word "disorder" when talking about mental states, but that's common usage. And there are some conditions that are harmful to the individual, if not others. That's what I picked up on in the first few posts. I ignore the rest. Believe me, it happens on other sites. It happens in real life (Art imitating life or life imitating art, I don't know which) You will not be able to have a topic such as this stay on topic, because they just can't help it. I have found if you let it distract you, you gain nothing. If you respond, what are you gaining? It's a pattern.

The conditions I have studied are the following, for personal reasons.

BPD - Borderline Personality Disorder is characterized by black and white thinking.

How much of Xtian, and other religions, has this *us right/them wrong* type of thinking?

The whole concept of heaven and hell seems Bipolar to me.

There's bullying, which you can see in regular conversations about ways of thinking other than Xtianity, or other monotheistic systems. There are actually all kinds of conversational terrorism that I have observed when discussions about religion come up.

Codependency - Now, i know that Codependency is not a medical diagnosis and that the common usage has probably bastardized the original concept. But, as I examined my upbringing to the alcoholism and mental conditions in my family, I began to think of how religion has influenced what society taught families and individuals.

Imagine if I came on a dating site and announced -

Hey all, I have started seeing this guy, man I really worship him!! He is everything to me. He's a little distant, and I hardly ever see him but he says he hears me talking to him even when he's not there.

There are all these things I have to do to be worthy of his love. At least that is what he tells me.

I have to obey him. If I disobey him, there will be punishment or penance. If he really gets mad, he will send me away- like to this place called Purgatory which is like no place in particular, or Hell. He might set me on fire.

So I am working on getting myself subservient to his will, so I will be worthy of his love. But he and his son tell me I will never be entirely worthy of his love, but to strive all my life. He says he will love me anyway.

He tells me that without him in my life, I am nothing.

He thinks women are secondary to men. Basically he thinks they are put here to be a helper to men, and have kids.

He's jealous. He says I am not to put anyone or anything else before him.

He gave me this book to read. Tiny print. I'm supposed to read it and know how to live my life the way he wants me to, but it's long and kind of unclear, and it is hard to get the gist of what the guy wants to say because it's contradictory. I've asked other people what they think of it, but no one can seem to agree on anything in that book.

I have to give him my money, but he says it will come back to me, eventually. People swear by it, they say it always comes back to them. Kinda like the lotto. It's a tenth of my earnings, do you think that is enough to give him? I'm supposed to donate my time to charities and stuff, but he wants all the credit. He wants the credit for my accomplishments, too.

He's got this son that never got married and hangs out with a bunch of guys all the time. I'm not sure what they do, but they get in trouble with the authorities sometimes. He wants me to follow his son's teachings. He thinks his kid is some sort of martyr.



I can never question him.



I only hope someday I can be worthy of his love - if I am, he says I will get to go with him to this great place called Heaven. I just hope there is a jacuzzi and a masseuse, cause he's wearing me out.





I wonder what people would tell me about my new guy?
Snap out of him.

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1302978 wrote: What I am saying here is this. I see religious beliefs and religious behaviour as exemplifying varying degrees of psychopathology in individuals. This psychopathology can assume very mild forms and extremely severe forms. I'll provide examples of different kinds of religious psychopathology shortly.

I use 'mental disorders' as an umbrella term for a wide range of mental states which come under the remit of psychopathology. Do you find this term excessive when applied to the mental states of religious believers? Is it too politically incorrect for you? Well, what term would you prefer I use? 'Psychopathological states', 'mental diseases', 'abnormal disturbances of the mind', 'dysfunctional beliefs'...? Tell me.

Here are two views of religion which will hopefully make my position a little clearer, and which I certainly go along with:

'Religion and individual religiosity are symptomatic of a universal obsessional neurosis.' Freud

'Idiosyncratic belief systems which are shared by only a few adherents are likely to be regarded as delusional. Belief systems which may be just as irrational but which are shared by millions are called world religions.' Anthony Storr, English psychiatrist


One of the problems people have in accepting mental illness as being real is that at the heart of it is the concept that people behave in a certain way because of what has happened to them when their brain was developing or there is a chemical imbalance somewhere causing the behaviour. It suggests that ultimately we are not actually in control the way we think we are, our sense of self, our soul if you like, is not real. Yet we can accept as fact that our mental states can be altered by things we take in to our bodies. probably we have all sat there and watched somebody drinking alcohol and gradually turning in to a violent individual completely different from the personality they used to have, we know it is a mind altering drug and use it consciously. Indoctrinating children is much the same but there are double standards always applied, Pakistani madrassa bad catholic school good. Mind you even americans were shocked by jesus camp.

YouTube - Brain Washing ( Jesus Camp ''Highlights'' )

Just be glad you live in a country where you can laugh at the religion with impunity.

I'd agree with you that religious belief is irrational, and there is perhaps merit in the notion that in extremes it may be a mental illness though it's not one that can be cured by the use of drugs such as used with schizophrenics. Counselling might help but I don't think dismissing vast sections of the population as being insane is a particularly useful approach.

You come across as a bible thumping atheist preaching to the converted. I don't think you will get very far getting "converts" if you start out telling them they are insane as an opening gambit.

From one of your earlier posts

For those in the Western world, witch-hunting is a thing of the past. Sorcerers are no longer burnt at the stake. The last witch-trial in Europe took place centuries ago.




That is inaccurate

EXCLUSIVE: BRITAIN'S LAST WITCH TRIAL - mirror.co.uk

In 1944, medium Helen Duncan became the last woman in Britain to be convicted of witchcraft when one of her seances exposed a government attempt to cover up the deaths of 861 sailors. Now, campaigners aim to clear her name


More interesting would be how did she know, was she really speaking to the dead?

Have you ever thrown pennies in a fountain?

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1302775 wrote: So yes most scots do get riled about religion and with good reason. Basically most scots know about religion- not just their own- but also have a secular education. So we get riled at religious bigotry and have a low tolerance of fundamentalism and the unco guid bleating for special treatment really pisses us off.



Mind you so does the hectoring atheist
The power of the Christian religion to do harm has been curbed somewhat over the last couple of centuries because of the rise of the secular state. And the latter owes its existence in no small part to hectoring atheists (e.g., the French philosophes). So be thankful for hectoring atheists, gmc, because if it wasn't for them you'd be wilting under a theocracy right now. Yes, I can just see you prostrate in some temple, grovelling before your 'Lord and Master' and beseeching him to save your miserable 'soul'.

Have you no shame?

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1303009 wrote: Have you ever thrown pennies in a fountain?
One time I tried throwing some pennies into a fountain in Glasgow. But someone stole them before they hit the water.

[fuzzywuzzy]

[QUOTE=Glaswegian;1302594]You're quite right, LarsMac. You can get 'true believers' in anything - for example, those who truly believe Hibernian Football Club, broccoli and crotchless bicycle shorts are wondrous beyond words.



your point being?

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1303013 wrote: The power of the Christian religion to do harm has been curbed somewhat over the last couple of centuries because of the rise of the secular state. And the latter owes its existence in no small part to hectoring atheists (e.g., the French philosophes). So be thankful for hectoring atheists, gmc, because if it wasn't for them you'd be wilting under a theocracy right now. Yes, I can just see you prostrate in some temple, grovelling before your 'Lord and Master' and beseeching him to save your miserable 'soul'.

Have you no shame?


I would dispute that, the reformation certainly and the notion that all should be able to read the bible for themselves, the defeat of catholicism and the the notion of divine right of kings and by implication right of ruling classes to rule, and the age of enlightenment and the gradual erosion of the power of the church as a means of social control but hectoring atheists? Although they did play a part I would dispute that they were any more than one of the factors in the growth of a secular society.

You are religious therefore you are insane.

You are protestant therefore you are going to hell.

You are catholic therefore you are an idolater and are going straight to hell.

I am jewish you are all wrong.

I am muslim I will send you to hell.

None of them are really good ways to start a dialogue.

Blessed is the atheist for he knows he's clever and has all the answers. Pass the whisky and I shall seek the answer in the bottom of a glass - I may not find it but who cares when you are under the table.

Joking aside, the lady in Jesus camp. If she is insane is it her fault or god's will?

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1302594 wrote: You're quite right, LarsMac. You can get 'true believers' in anything - for example, those who truly believe Hibernian Football Club, broccoli and crotchless bicycle shorts are wondrous beyond words.
fuzzywuzzy wrote: your point being?
My point is that I think it's more appropriate for true believers in Hibernian Football Club, broccoli and crotchless bicycle shorts to discuss these things in the Wide World of Sports, Kitchen and Needlecrafts forums respectively, and not in this one.

For example, I'm a true believer in the Tango, fuzzywuzzy. But I wouldn't dream of discussing my craze for it here. This is the General Religious Discussions forum.

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1303116 wrote: My point is that I think it's more appropriate for true believers in Hibernian Football Club, broccoli and crotchless bicycle shorts to discuss these things in the Wide World of Sports, Kitchen and Needlecrafts forums respectively, and not in this one.

For example, I'm a true believer in the Tango, fuzzywuzzy. But I wouldn't dream of discussing my craze for it here. This is the General Religious Discussions forum.


Just for a minute there I was puzzled - wondering if the tango fuzzywuzzy was some variation on the tango curlywurly but I wasn't sure there had ever been a tango curlywurly and being glaswegian I would have thought an irn bru curlywurly would be more to your taste but I don;t remember there ever being an irn bru flavoured curlywurly. But then it dawned on me that perhaps you meant the dance tango rather than fizzy drink tango ( though it could be either) and that fuzzywuzzy isn't a type of chocolate bar but actually someone you we responding to.

I'm now going to stop posting till tomorrow because the above made sense. I think my brain has been tangoed. :-3

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1302870 wrote: What would happen to a man whose religious belief system drove him to kill a child because he believed it was a witch, Ahso? If that man was tried for the child's murder by any criminal justice system in the Western world today then he would be required to undergo psychiatric assessment as part of his trial. I think you would agree that this is the case.

[...]

The supernatural belief system of African witch-hunters is, of course, just one amongst many which engender acts of cruelty and horror. For example, the supernatural belief system which holds sway in our culture - Christianity - also enjoined the torture and murder of child-witches a few centruries ago, but on a much more colossal scale than the African one.


You can't compare African "witches" with European "witches" because the people of Africa, among other regions of the world, have come to their own conclusions related to their own belief systems. To suggest it's because of christianity that Africans kill is ludicrous. Hypotheses on origins

Shamanic practices may originate as early as the paleolithic, predating all organized religions, and certainly as early as the Neolithic period. Shamanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Witch killing" has been going on for thousands of years, far before "western world" could be termed.

On that, any truthfully competent society would psychologically assess anyone that has been charged with murder lest they're too stupid to grasp the concept that more murders=bad.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1303075 wrote: Joking aside, the lady in Jesus camp. If she is insane is it her fault or god's will?
For the moment I will only say this about her: She is an obscene, predatory pig of cosmic proportions within whose endless fatty folds and rancid recesses are contained the lost hearts and minds of countless child victims.