Religious Beliefs: Divine Revelations or Mental Disorder?

You forgot the Tooth Fairy.

In matters of conversing with God in public, it's much safer to listen than to talk. ;)

I was raised in a religious household - specifically, Catholic - where I was taught that the wafer I consumed every Sunday was literally the flesh of a man long dead - not a SYMBOL of his flesh, mind you, but the thing itself - even though it tasted like cardboard.

No one can reasonably argue that if it weren't for the weight of the Catholic Church and an army of believers to back them up, anyone consuming a piece of bread while insisting that s/he was actually committing an act of cannabalism would be rightly considered insane.

And yet, it's NOT insane to believe things that everyone around you is telling you is real. It's why the kids in the illustration aren't crazy for believing in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus - they didn't come up with these ideas independently, but were told stories and were assured by authority figures all around them that the stories were true. It's not an insane behavior to trust those in positions of authority, particularly if everyone around you places the same trust in the same people.

So it's not the believers I'm upset with, but the religious leaders who must know on some level that they're peddling snake oil, and yet continue doing so - either for money, position, or simply because they can't stand losing face after so many years of shepherding a flock, all the way to Crazytown.

I can understand how to someone who doesn't hold the same beliefs as I do that it may seem crazy, but did you ever stop and think that some of your scientific theories are equally as crazy to us?

For example the big bang. This is going to be extremely generalized and non technical and probably have some wrong terminology because I'm tired. Anyway, you have all these molecules floating in space. You want me to believe that they just defied there natural state and rubbed together to make a bang and create life. That sounds crazy to me. No one bothers to explain why they rub together and what actually causes the big bang.

Evolution is another one I can't wrap my head around. You want me to believe that we evolve from monkey's without any huge mistakes. I mean technically the way time has passed we should have evolved again by now. So why haven't we? Also the body is way to complex. It's like a bunch of machines all synchronized to keep us alive and kicking. Saying we slowly evolved into what we are today is like saying cars build themselves.

My point is we aren't crazy. You aren't crazy. We don't have to be at each others throats either. In fact I have friends who are very anti religion. If you can accept the fact that we just see the world in two very different ways and don't shove your point of view down our throats most religious peoples (except extremists) will respect that and leave you alone. Believe me the religious aren't the only ones I've encountered with extremists. The anti-religious have extremists and it's about time you own up to it.

I think your just proving how subjective a mental illness is.

If enough (or specific) people think what you're doing is crazy - then you are mentally disturbed. If they think it's okay - then your sane.

You completely missed my point, GS. My point in sharing my view point in science with you was to show you how people like me view the theories you hold to be true. Some Christians do believe in those theories only their take is that God was the trigger and the guiding hand.
The more I learn of the history of science and the more I learn of different science theories. The more I learn of the brain and the human body the more the widely accepted theories seem weak to me. Just because evolution has been around for over one hundred doesn't mean it's correct. It's a theory which means their is a possibility that it is wrong. Which means I have the right to choose to put more stock in the theory of intelligent design despite it's criticisms.
Before you comment on that theory remember it took hundreds of years for the science community to accept that the sun was the center and not the earth. All I'm saying is humans as a whole are extremely close minded and listening to another point of view with an open mind instead of calling them crazy wouldn't hurt.
If you call every person crazy with a belief or opinion that makes you uncomfortable you're going to find the world very small.
As for my remaining anonymous it's my right. It's a way of protecting my privacy from over zealous commentors. A way of stopping someone from shoving their view point down my throat. They can't successfully do so when they don't know who I am. That is the one thing I cannot tolerate.

Question: "What are some flaws in the theory of evolution?"

Answer: Christians and non-Christians alike often question whether the theory of evolution is accurate. Those who express doubts about the theory are often labeled “unscientific” or “backwards” by some in the pro-evolution camp. At times, the popular perception of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In reality, there are quite a few scientific flaws in the theory that provide reasons to be skeptical. Granted, none of these questions necessarily disproves evolution, but they do show how the theory is less than settled.

There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, it’s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way.

Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons.

First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.

Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

The fossil record might seem to support punctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.

While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead.

Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.

The second flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.

Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.

Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God.

Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.

• If religious belief is evidence of schizophrenia, then whole world is mentally ill.

• Considering religious belief is the norm, we non-theists are abnormal.

• Theory I: Religious clans that adhered to altruism fed and defended one another. Those clans whose members were not altruistic did not care for one another. Natural selection (secular Calvinism?) preferred those who belonged to altruistic clans and thus the genetic predisposition to believe in the supernatural and subsequent accountability was preserved and reinforced.

• Theory II: Early humans who grasped the finality of death were more likely to care for themselves and their loved ones to prolong life. These individuals would necessarily conceive of life after death to lighten the 'sting' of death. Natural selection preferred those who comprehended death and who concocted notions of after life. The inclination to religion was thereby genetically reinforced in humanity.

I think this just shows how relevant culture is to almost any discussion on mental illness. That's not surprised at all, and in fact, doesn't affect the veracity of any particular religious truth claim.

The author writes that whether a religious belief indicates mental illness depends if the belief is held in common with in a community of believers.

Is there a community of scientists who believes this about religious belief? If not, it may be an indication of a crackpot theory. It may be that the received wisdom is incorrect. A theory that depends on consensus for validity must always have been the consensus if this criterion is correct. And that would tend to exclude virtually all theories, since at some point in the history of every theory there could not have been a consensus--unless some theories are built-in to the human mind from conception. Even that exception would exclude most theories.

Likewise for religious belief. So much the worse for mental illness if all religions began as mental illnesses, but gradually became psychologically normative as more patients become mentally ill with the belief. Ordinarily the spread of mental illness in a community is a cause for concern. How could religious belief be regarded as a mental illness otherwise? We might as well tell the Center for DIsease control that an individual case of anthrax is a health problem, but an epidemic is nothing to worry about.

The key is to realize that your belief is just that a belief. A person who holds a particular belief and realizes that it is merely a belief is much more likely to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. As Viktor Frankl put it:

“Being tolerant does not mean that I share another one’s belief. But it does mean that I acknowledge another one’s right to believe, and obey, his own conscience.”

Fanaticism rears its ugly head when the believer “knows” beyond any doubt that his belief is the only truth and any disagreement is “of the devil”. Once the dissenters are demonized they are no longer human beings and any atrocity committed against ’’the devil” is acceptable.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

I think some of the beliefs of science are just as "crazy" as some of the religious beliefs that all too often are perceived as a representation of mental illness. If you look at what our so-called "science" has supposedly revealed to the human population, you will come running to the other side in hopes of finding something more concrete that you can relate to.

Some of our most unusual theories in science have stemmed from potentially unstable scientists. Many of Darwin's theories are questionable and even the unfortunately popular psychoanalyst S. Freud.

Essentially, I think this blog post/article can be looked at from both sides of the spectrum-science and religion. In fact, Saad's theory can represent many aspects of life and many theories, not just religion. The very idea that the earth "appeared" out of nowhere and that humans evolved from various mutations and changes over time could be seen as the result of a mental disorder. Why shouldn't it?

Food for thought!

I think some of the beliefs of science are just as "crazy" as some of the religious beliefs that all too often are perceived as a representation of mental illness. If you look at what our so-called "science" has supposedly revealed to the human population, you will come running to the other side in hopes of finding something more concrete that you can relate to.

Some of our most unusual theories in science have stemmed from potentially unstable scientists. Many of Darwin's theories are questionable and even the unfortunately popular psychoanalyst S. Freud.

Essentially, I think this blog post/article can be looked at from both sides of the spectrum-science and religion. In fact, Saad's theory can represent many aspects of life and many theories, not just religion. The very idea that the earth "appeared" out of nowhere and that humans evolved from various mutations and changes over time could be seen as the result of a mental disorder. Why shouldn't it?

Food for thought!

For those of us with beliefs outside of mainstream religion, 'mental disorder' gets tossed around with reckless abandon. It seems to be ok for many religions to have visions, receive answers during prayer, and believe they can feel a benevolent force that protects and guides them. If you get into fringe religions or spiritual belief systems, those exact same terms will get you a prescription for antipsychotic drugs.

I think a lot of it has to do with mainstream understanding. Most people in Christianity don't have direct communication with God, so those types of experiences become labeled as aberrant behavior. Our modern minds then look for a label to put on things, and then start thinking of ways to 'fix' the person so they can be like the rest of us.

The only reason I think the 'mental disorder' label is used even more in fringe beliefs is because there is no socially acceptable norm, and they are so poorly understood by outsiders that a medical people would have no idea what is normal within those beliefs or not.

This isn't a complaint, just an observation from someone in a little different position than most. I hope everyone's faith fulfills their spiritual needs as much as mine does for me.

For me, the real issue is not whether religious beliefs are truth or not but whether there is a God/Higher Power operating in the world and with each of us in a personal relational way. Religion is about human's view of God and the agreements members of a particular religion make about God's truth. Because it is created by humans, every religion is an imperfect representation of the Truth. Nevertheless, there is a Truth larger than any of us even though modern day science can not quantify its existence. Both religion AND science are merely "pointers" to the truth. They are not THE Truth. Further, neither religion nor science is my God. Nevertheless, I can still value religion AND science and take the wisdom from each to grow in my intractably incomplete understanding of God/THE Truth and live a loving, peaceful, joy-filled life.

Thank you Dr. Saad for your argument. I would like to propose another way to look at this issue but first I would like to point out a flaw in your own. Please forgive me.

I find in the end that some Atheists use the same arguments as the irrationally religious to back up their arguments. This is more or less a "you can't prove me wrong" or "there's room for doubt" and "therefore my position must be correct." I'll give an example from the work of Dr. Persinger whom you noted in your article. For those unfamiliar with the work of Persinger, he induces spiritual images in the human brain--I believe through electromagnetic stimulation. Commenting on this research, one Atheist blogger--whom I felt seemed very polite, balanced, and honest--noted that the fact that we could induce the experience of eating burnt toast does not mean that burnt toast does not exist. We can say a lot about how the mind perceives it's surroundings, but when we talk about the input, the raw data, things really become more complicated, don't they?

Perhaps the true definition of mental health should be the acceptance of that which corresponds to reality. Of course, we don't always like what is real, it may not fit into our reconing of the world, but my tastes have little to do with the existence of objects external to myself, yes? Their perception, again is another issue, and it is a good issue to discuss, but I am proposing we talk about the external objects.

So, let me provide you with an example. Eucharistic miracles are--all things considered--not too uncommon in the Catholic Church. That is, during the Consecration of the host (the wafer of bread) it forms into human tissue and the wine solidifies into human blood. I'm not talking about stories--I'm talking about real samples kept in Cathedrals around the world. The specimine from Lanciano in Italy appears to be incorruptible. That case is from the year 700 and the specimine never decayed. The most recent case of this I think was in Venezuela in 1991.

The position of the Church in cases of legitimate miracles (these are always investigated and studied scientifically) is that the object is to be preserved and revered. (No, people do not receive the Eucharist on a day like this).

Now, do I undertand how this happens? No, I don't. Scientists have studied these cases, have confirmed that specimens come from the heart tissue of a man--I believe in the case of Venezuela they noted that the heart tissue indicated that it came from a man who was torured. The blood type is always the same, AB, just like it is in the Shroud of Turin. But these are real objects that we can touch, submit to scientific tests and evaluate.

If what is scientific is what is measurable then even if we don't understand the "how" then the existence of such Eucharistic miracles is nonetheless very scientific.

So, let me saw what I am driving at again. If mental health corresponds to perceivable scientific reality, even if that reality is beyond our understanding ought we not to accept it? If mental illness is the willed ignorance of what is really there, then who really is crazy?

You've managed to assume that God is not real, that no legitimate force beyond ourselves is in touch with humanity. Is that really a proper assumption? It seems like a fairly big assumption to me. I think there are very legitimate reasons to believe in a God, and if God really is real, it would be crazy not to believe in Him.

Thank you for your time. I hope all responses to this will be civil (I will not respond no matter the leanings). I appreciate this dialogue. I am myself, a graduate student in psychology. One among the many reasons I desire to enter the field of Clinical work is that I fear the spiritual sense of clients is often belittled in therapy, and that many clients are afraid to voice what may be totally natural experiences, healthy experiences for fear of being labled "unstable" by an Atheist activist. I believe I am not an irrational person, in my experience however, there is a very large difference between Sanctity and Schizophrenia.

Dr. Saad, I couldn't help but notice something about your comments. The first one, in reply to anonymous's "science is crazy too" reply seemed to miss the point that he/she was making completely about how relative the word "crazy" is from any perspective, and jumped straight into an ad hominem about the commenter's intelligence. The second to last comment that your replied to, you didn't even bother to give a response about the subject matter, but only a few words about the commenter's civil tone in response to a very detailed and in-depth discussion. If you really do uphold science (and the related values of truth, rationality, and observation) as you claim you do, then shouldn't you be equally as willing to listen as you are to prescribe? Just a thought from your spiritual, atheist friend.

'Lest some reader misinterpret my position, let me be clear: I am not suggesting that religious believers are "crazy" or that they suffer from mental illness.'

This statement of denial directly contradicts what is written above it, where religious belief is equated with mental illness -

'...a belief that would otherwise be considered a sign of mental illness is perfectly "logical" when it applies to one's religion.'