duality and schizophrenia

euphrosene

Delusions of Divinity?
Registered Senior Member
I thought I'd better stick this in 'Religion' because it mentions God but really it is about subjective realities. There again, judging from the views presented here, maybe it's the right one after all;)



"If you talk to God, you are praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia." Thomas Szasz (US psychiatrist)
 
Its not clear why god could not talk to someone - of course being a psychiatrist, and also a stauch anti-monotheist , its understandable how Mr Szasz could be judging monotheism by its worst stereotype (people suffering from schizophrenia) to reinforce his stereotypes

Would we lay as a condition for understanding genetics that equal creedence be given to schizophrenics who talk about about genetics?
 
With the obvious diversity and what often amounts to complete contradiction that exists between the world's religions, both past and present, its obvious that, at the very least, most of the adherents are delusional. All of them clearly cannot be right.

Since none have demonstrated themselves to be more correct than any other, it's very probable that none of them are. If there *is* a correct religion or deity, it is just as likely as not that it hasn't revealed itself and its religion not even known.

The conclusion is, therefore, that humanity has settled on religion to satisfy its own innate need to believe in the supernatural and apply magical thought to the world and universe around us.

In short, most of humanity suffers from delusions. Not being delusions that are exclusively deleterious, the genetic component that causes these delusions hasn't been selected against and still exhibits itself in H. sapiens.

Thus, we have proponents of various forms of this delusion that are convinced that their delusions are genuine "phenomena" and, in modernity, spam internet message boards with their "truth;" broadcast televangelistic sideshows; host faith healings and seances; and hold services for congregations whom they've sold on their delusions.

The delusions are different, resulting in different, even contradictory, cults that follow them.

I say, if you talk to god your deluded; if god answers your more deluded.
 
There's also a variety of medical paradigms available - chemotherapy, surgery, massage, oral medication, accupunture (and they all claim that they "work" too)- for one who is bereft of the knowledge how to determine their success (ie the health of the patient) it is understandable why an outsider would see disparity and thus launch off in to a series of speculations ("Hey this guy is using tablets, this guy is going to place you on a table and stab you with a scalpel and this guy is going to rub your back, and this guy is going to expose you to radiation - and they all claim they are going to make you healthy .... I'm out of here!!!")
 
Last edited:
Its not clear why god could not talk to someone - of course being a psychiatrist, and also a stauch anti-monotheist , its understandable how Mr Szasz could be judging monotheism by its worst stereotype (people suffering from schizophrenia) to reinforce his stereotypes

Would we lay as a condition for understanding genetics that equal creedence be given to schizophrenics who talk about about genetics?

Yes Szasz was apparently an atheist, who 'couldn't stop talking about God'.

However, I am not a fan of the idea of God talking back... which is why I like this quote so much.

Although I feel/believe I have a personal relationship with what I call the Big E (Wakan Tanka), I feel that many atheists do not buy into the idea of an intelligent source possibly because of the emotive images of gods and goddeses.

It's an interesting idea sometimes when you feel your life taking unusual turns (gods on Mount Olympus playing human chess sort of thing).... but I think it is paradoxically both simple and complex.
 
With the obvious diversity and what often amounts to complete contradiction that exists between the world's religions, both past and present, its obvious that, at the very least, most of the adherents are delusional. All of them clearly cannot be right.

Since none have demonstrated themselves to be more correct than any other, it's very probable that none of them are. If there *is* a correct religion or deity, it is just as likely as not that it hasn't revealed itself and its religion not even known.

The conclusion is, therefore, that humanity has settled on religion to satisfy its own innate need to believe in the supernatural and apply magical thought to the world and universe around us.

In short, most of humanity suffers from delusions. Not being delusions that are exclusively deleterious, the genetic component that causes these delusions hasn't been selected against and still exhibits itself in H. sapiens.

Thus, we have proponents of various forms of this delusion that are convinced that their delusions are genuine "phenomena" and, in modernity, spam internet message boards with their "truth;" broadcast televangelistic sideshows; host faith healings and seances; and hold services for congregations whom they've sold on their delusions.

The delusions are different, resulting in different, even contradictory, cults that follow them.

I say, if you talk to god your deluded; if god answers your more deluded.

Hi there - I am quite happy to be delusional. It's even the name of my blog!

I am in the strange place of being able to see things exactly from your point of view, yet feeling an utter certainty in my own.

You see, I have always believed that my bit of God has a sense of humour, so I KNOW that what I believe and write about can sound totally illogical but it remains a great comfort to me, deluded or otherwise!
 
Yes Szasz was apparently an atheist, who 'couldn't stop talking about God'.

However, I am not a fan of the idea of God talking back... which is why I like this quote so much.

Although I feel/believe I have a personal relationship with what I call the Big E (Wakan Tanka), I feel that many atheists do not buy into the idea of an intelligent source possibly because of the emotive images of gods and goddeses.

It's an interesting idea sometimes when you feel your life taking unusual turns (gods on Mount Olympus playing human chess sort of thing).... but I think it is paradoxically both simple and complex.

It raises the question that if god is the possessor of all opulences and source of everything, how is it that we can possess a sense of self (and be delighted by such a possession) yet insist that god does not.

The type of theism that you are advocating finds its expression in pantheism and even buddhism, which out of all religions are the ones that atheists tend to find most attractive.

Can you guess why?
;)
 
It raises the question that if god is the possessor of all opulences and source of everything, how is it that we can possess a sense of self (and be delighted by such a possession) yet insist that god does not.

The type of theism that you are advocating finds its expression in pantheism and even buddhism, which out of all religions are the ones that atheists tend to find most attractive.

Can you guess why?
;)

I don't question the first part of this, but I am not a pantheist or buddhist. I just happen to like that name for God because it makes me smile.

If anything, my belief comes from deeply personal experience/s which I eventually gave a name to (entheism - God within)....

Then, as is the way with these things, you discover others had more or less the same experiences/views and also gave it a name. And so I now read of panentheism, coined by a philosopher aeons ago.

The explanation in Wikipedia sums some of it up quite nicely, although I am still trying to find words to explain the continuance of life elements.
 
I don't question the first part of this, but I am not a pantheist or buddhist. I just happen to like that name for God because it makes me smile.

If anything, my belief comes from deeply personal experience/s which I eventually gave a name to (entheism - God within)....

Then, as is the way with these things, you discover others had more or less the same experiences/views and also gave it a name. And so I now read of panentheism, coined by a philosopher aeons ago.

The explanation in Wikipedia sums some of it up quite nicely, although I am still trying to find words to explain the continuance of life elements.

Then its not clear what the superior nature of god would be since god would be shackled to the interior realm of living entities as they engage in all sorts of stupid things - from the information you give it is not clear what is the relationship between god and the living entity (what is god doing in there, appart from causing people to smile if they can name him?)
 
Then its not clear what the superior nature of god would be since god would be shackled to the interior realm of living entities as they engage in all sorts of stupid things - from the information you give it is not clear what is the relationship between god and the living entity (what is god doing in there, appart from causing people to smile if they can name him?)

Apologies for not replying to this sooner... possibly because I have not really understood the point you want me to answer.

As far as I am concerned, God is the Source - both impersonal (meaning the metaphysical principles like cause and effect) and also very personal (meaning the relationship I believe I have).

However, if you can be clearer, I would be happy to reply properly.

Rgds Euphrosene
 
Apologies for not replying to this sooner... possibly because I have not really understood the point you want me to answer.

As far as I am concerned, God is the Source - both impersonal (meaning the metaphysical principles like cause and effect) and also very personal (meaning the relationship I believe I have).

However, if you can be clearer, I would be happy to reply properly.

Rgds Euphrosene

There are many definitions and indications of god's nature (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient etc) - what would be the reason for god to exist within oneself (since its not uncommon for people to engage in variou s activties of ignorance - what does god do within oneself, apart from cringe everytime we are on the brink of doing something stupid or smile when we engage in auspicious activties) - in other words how does god exist as a controller (or do you advocate that the living entity is the controller and that it is god who is the facillitator) - you talk of relationship - what is that relationship?
 
There are many definitions and indications of god's nature (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient etc) - what would be the reason for god to exist within oneself (since its not uncommon for people to engage in variou s activties of ignorance - what does god do within oneself, apart from cringe everytime we are on the brink of doing something stupid or smile when we engage in auspicious activties) - in other words how does god exist as a controller (or do you advocate that the living entity is the controller and that it is god who is the facillitator) - you talk of relationship - what is that relationship?

I think the nature of God is probably 'impersonal'. Yet there is a sense of a 'personal' relationship which I really cannot put in a short soundbyte.

I am sure too you could not describe clearly and succinctly why you also believe. Maybe that is why it is called mysticism.
 
I think the nature of God is probably 'impersonal'. Yet there is a sense of a 'personal' relationship which I really cannot put in a short soundbyte.

I am sure too you could not describe clearly and succinctly why you also believe. Maybe that is why it is called mysticism.

I can give it a shot.

If you examine the sun you find it has three properties
  1. the sun planet (the source)
  2. the sun disc visible in the (a relative perception)
  3. sunlight (uniform and impersonal)

In the same way god has three forms
  1. Personal form ie the source (bhagavan)
  2. within the heart of all living entities, or within, as you decribe it (paramatma)
  3. the undifferentiaited expansions of his potency (brahman)

In other words the personal form of either god or the sun is the source of all the other manifested energies/perceptions, despite all these three qualities are nondifferent form each other (they cannot be seperated from each other) - this is the basic run down of the verse

SB 1.2.11: Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.
 
Back
Top