Does religion make one more susceptible to paranoia?

[GeoffP]

A many-posted ex-moderator of long standing at the forum recently posted this on the forum

You didn't answer me. Are they planning to take down the mosque to rebuild the temple?

I didn't think they could be that dumb, but this crackdown in Bilin and Jerusalem and the simulataneous announcement of the Hurva restoration, not to mention the butt of Yisrael Betenyu, makes anything possible. They are getting ready for something. Even George Mitchell has cancelled his visit. So what is going on?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2502007&postcount=24

in regard to the recent restoration of the Hurva synagogue on the Temple Mount. The act of the restoration itself seems to have spurred up a great deal of Islamic sentiment, specifically - in fact, some of the protesting hearkens right back to the kind of sentiments floating around before the last century, when the protests were that the Synagogue shouldn't be allowed to have windows facing the Al Aqsa mosque. (Well, maybe Al Aqsa. It actually could have been any mosque, I guess. I forget although it seems the likely candidate.)

Some of this reaction - which in any other instance one would just call "anti-Semitism" - seems to be focused on the strange idea that "the Jews are planning to destroy al Aqsa", which in any other instance one would just rightly call "paranoid delusion", since the notion is laughable in the extreme.
The same poster, however, as a possible example of this paranoia, seems to have more than a passing interest in the idea, and alludes to the notion that 'everybody in the Islamic world is talking about this'.

You don't see too many atheists running about in a panic about landmarks being taken down. It may be a foregone conclusion, but does theism make one susceptible to such bouts of paranoia? In this example, one can certainly see that the misbegotten idea is incredibly dangerous. Is theism generally more dangerous for that same general reason? Or are there specific cases - like this one - which could be avoided given reasonable education and introspection? Or is such paranoia inherent to the human condition at the same rates in theists and non-theists?

 

[spidergoat]

Perhaps, if they invest these idols/icons of their religion with such importance. Physical objects are easily broken. It seems sacreligious to me.

 

[GeoffP]

I see what you mean. Still, you might erect an 'idol of the mind': questioning some memes is and has been punished with death here and there in the record, or even with the banning from internet forums.

I suppose I'm arguing that it's an issue of extremity rather than physicality.

 

[spidergoat]

They also offer an ideology based on the struggle between two forces, good and evil, which are personified. So, anything that seems to threaten the hegemony of your religion (other religions for instance) is seen not just as another point of view, but as an enemy of cosmic significance. So, it does encourage extremism.

 

[lightgigantic]

A many-posted ex-moderator of long standing at the forum recently posted this on the forum



in regard to the recent restoration of the Hurva synagogue on the Temple Mount. The act of the restoration itself seems to have spurred up a great deal of Islamic sentiment, specifically - in fact, some of the protesting hearkens right back to the kind of sentiments floating around before the last century, when the protests were that the Synagogue shouldn't be allowed to have windows facing the Al Aqsa mosque. (Well, maybe Al Aqsa. It actually could have been any mosque, I guess. I forget although it seems the likely candidate.)

Some of this reaction - which in any other instance one would just call "anti-Semitism" - seems to be focused on the strange idea that "the Jews are planning to destroy al Aqsa", which in any other instance one would just rightly call "paranoid delusion", since the notion is laughable in the extreme.
The same poster, however, as a possible example of this paranoia, seems to have more than a passing interest in the idea, and alludes to the notion that 'everybody in the Islamic world is talking about this'.

You don't see too many atheists running about in a panic about landmarks being taken down. It may be a foregone conclusion, but does theism make one susceptible to such bouts of paranoia? In this example, one can certainly see that the misbegotten idea is incredibly dangerous. Is theism generally more dangerous for that same general reason? Or are there specific cases - like this one - which could be avoided given reasonable education and introspection? Or is such paranoia inherent to the human condition at the same rates in theists and non-theists?

paranoia, or indeed any emotional state, is a consequence of values - not objects (although objects certainly do muster values).

If you're trying to say that atheists somehow stand outside of this phenomena, its hard to explain why they partake in such things as bus advertising campaigns ... what to speak of expressing outrage at the censorship of such endeavours.

IOW my point is that its the very nature of existence to ascribe value to form. Any conflict of interest over resources, real estate, land marks, assets or even the image of such things ultimately has values at the core, and its not the objects themselves, per se.

 

[GeoffP]

Hmm. Interesting both. I'll need a bit to think about this later; trying to write some stuff that's going very roughly.

 

[Doreen]

You don't see too many atheists running about in a panic about landmarks being taken down.

really? You think only theists would go apeshit if Boston decided to rip down Fenway Park? (and they get a new stadium so it's not the loss of access to sporting events)

I actually think your example, with SAM, fits politically involved people more than religious people. Notice how each party tends to view the intentions and plans of the other President. I can't prove that atheists rise above the partisan paranoia (if it really is paranoia, oooooh), but I would need to see some heavy data.

I also think that any oppressed group is much more likely to seem paranoid to other groups. Unfortunately in the Middle East you have currently oppressed people the enemy of historically oppressed people who are in turned threatened and sometimes killed by the first group. Hence a positive feedback loop.

But if you look at oppressed groups, in the US for example, to me the main factor is the long term power relationships and not the religious component. If power has been abusive for a long time, then it will not take much for people to 'see' these patterns forming again, be they present or not.

Outsiders often assume they would be less paranoid if they were in the same situation.

 

[GeoffP]

You make some good points: oppression may well make Palestinian movements more reactionary. I think they lose credibility thereby - at least on this issue, although clearly not on the imposition of Israeli housing into East Jerusalem - by the strange freak-out. Then again, you could also argue, were you so inclined, that this is the same meme that was around in the 1800'

I still can't help but feel that religion can act as a reactive force to a greater extent than politics. Maybe religion is more entrenched into the psyches of its recipients? Then again, how could we possibly measure it? Anyone have any ideas? Theists and atheists alike, bitte.