Mental Instability Diagnosis of Mohammed

[mouse]

thefountainhed

Too far often, people attribute what science cannot explain to nonsense. That is nonsense.

True. What science can not explain is, obviously, unknown. Given this uncertainty you can either choose to close the gap with a leap of faith or you can try to discover a framework which can make repeatable correct predictions, translating the uncertainty to an accepted degree of certainty.

Eeeek! Quarks, bla bla bal bla bla fucking blah. Big bang, blka blka bla bla.. all deductions. Noone has SHOWN their existence. Their existence is IMPLIED. We exist, therefore the believers IMPLY a cause. Simple. Cause and effect.Logic!

Obviously, given the fact that we are, something must have led to this fact. How we came to be is an entirely different question. We can not answer this directly with "Oh, must have been [insert your deity of choice here] then". That is not implied.

The existence and behaviour of electrons, e.g., is entirely a different matter. They are implied through models which hold up pretty well after continuous experimentation and testing. The whole computer industry is an example of that.

 

[thefountainhed]

True. What science can not explain is, obviously, unknown. Given this uncertainty you can either choose to close the gap with a leap of faith or you can try to discover a framework which can make repeatable correct predictions, translating the uncertainty to an accepted degree of certainty.
What is missed here is that the believers DO NOT feel this uncertainty, for they have their faith.

Obviously, given the fact that we are, something must have led to this fact. How we came to be is an entirely different question. We can not answer this directly with "Oh, must have been [insert your deity of choice here] then". That is not implied.
But of course it is implied. It implies multiple choices, one of which is the big bang-- which relies on observations on the universe made on Earth; the other also relies on other observations made on Earth to deduce a creator. One must not assert that the Big Bang implies there was not a creator, for it does not. All that the big bang asserts is simply what follows after this time(eeek) begun. Either way, they are both deductions from a human perspective and are not BOTH mutually exclusive. There are both theories.

The existence and behaviour of electrons, e.g., is entirely a different matter. They are implied through models which hold up pretty well after continuous experimentation and testing. The whole computer industry is an example of that.
And the model that we're created does not hold up? The behaviour of subatomic particles, I am not questioning. What I am asserting is that the existence of quarks, etc are implied from said model. That we were created can also be implied from a model of our universe if we use the idea of cause and effect. Also, please tell me how the whole computer industry is an example of theorization. The models used in the design of computers are based on the behaviour of electrical currents. Subsequent designs merely manipulate said behaviour.

 

[Cris]

Flores,

Nice Cris,
Your guage of mental instability must then point for stability to your own brain and instability for anyone else who thinks different than you.....Right?

The article was about Mohammed.

By my guage, you're dillusional in the most unfruitfull and unpractical ways...You are dillusional in thinking that you have the answer to a bright future as you profess in your signature block or in thinking that your hard wired grouted selfish brain offers any importunities for improvement. Perhaps you are as dillusional as Prophet Muhammed, but the only difference is that your dillusion is utterly useless.

The article was about Mohammed. Your comments do not appear relevant to the topic.

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

You assert that if the "Science" of neurotheology finds Muhammed delusion, this discredits Islam. This is false and belittling.

I’m not sure that it matters which branch of science is involved. The followers of Islam see Mohammed and Islam as inseparable. The entire religion is based on his visions and statements. These followers have deeply held convictions that his visions and statements reflect truth. If it was proved that his visions were not real then that necessarily castes doubt on all his actions. If he can be deluded in such an important aspect then he would be little more than a charlatan and it follows that all his statements would be questioned, i.e. the credibility of Islam would lose cohesion because it is so heavily intertwined with Mohammed himself.

I don’t see how you could seriously question what seems so obvious. And this has little to do with my beliefs whether for or against Islam.

1. Becuase you already assumed his mental incapacity.

My assumption is not relevant. If he is found to be delusional then Islam will suffer accordingly.

2. You are assuming science as the universal truth.

That is a strange statement. Science is currently and simply the best way we know for discovering truth. Can you demonstrate a better methodology?

Thus, your belief in science already clouds your mind and you cannot see that science is irrelevant and does not defraud his religion in any way.

I do not see how my belief in science affects the ability of science to show whether Mohammed was delusional or not. Whether fundamentalist followers believe the findings is of course doubtful, but I suspect a large number of rational Muslims who do have respect for the findings of science will inevitably have to come to terms with the paradox of the scientific revelation and their own faith, which would have to be questioned.

I suspect your statements here revolve around your own personal position of unshakable faith, no matter what evidence is presented, i.e. you are a fundamentalist. That you cannot see that such a proof would cause damage to Islam is fully consistent with the narrow-mindedness of the fundamentalist view, and that is not intended to be insulting in any way, just an objective observation.

To defraud said religion, you'd have to prove that his deity does not exist.

I do not see that this assertion can be true. The root basis of Islam is the visions of Mohammed, if they are proved to be false then the foundation of Islam would disappear, and likely the rest would collapse soon after. This seems to be very much a case where the proof or disproof of a deity would not be a key issue.

However., all you can do is say that there is no evidence that it/... does.

You seem to be making assumptions about what you think I might say. My position is that the concept of a god is an imaginative fantasy, and you cannot disprove that claim until you prove a god exists.

 

[thefountainhed]

Chris,

I’m not sure that it matters which branch of science is involved. The followers of Islam see Mohammed and Islam as inseparable. The entire religion is based on his visions and statements. These followers have deeply held convictions that his visions and statements reflect truth. If it was proved that his visions were not real then that necessarily castes doubt on all his actions. If he can be deluded in such an important aspect then he would be little more than a charlatan and it follows that all his statements would be questioned, i.e. the credibility of Islam would lose cohesion because it is so heavily intertwined with Mohammed himself.

Again, you miss what you surely have to see. If science determines, which I assure you it never will, that he was delusional, this would be irrelevant to the believing Muslim. This is the case simply because theirs is a belief system based on faith. That Mohammed asserted his revelations were divine is accepted on faith and choice. This belief has been berated for millennia by people like you, using man made descriptors and the like to contradict something that is by definition inapplicable. Again, to confirm through science that he was "delusional" merely means that his behaviour fits the description of a delusional man. Notice that the very nature of "revelations", which I am not ascribing truth to, implies a deviation from the norm. A behaviour that is not the norm implies an aberration-- which in this language, is synonymous with insanity. But the logic does not follow.To contradict his faith, you will have to challenge the supposed source of his revelations-- a God.

I don’t see how you could seriously question what seems so obvious.

Then you are not seeing from more than your perspective.

And this has little to do with my beliefs whether for or against Islam/

This is a blatant lie; it has everything to do with your belief on all faith based religious systems. Why do you think I started posting here anyway? Many of the supposed atheists on this forum, this includes you, are not objective and that annoys me.

My assumption is not relevant. If he is found to be delusional then Islam will suffer accordingly.

This is not a response to my assertion that you already assumed his delusion, but I will nevertheless respond. No, Islam will only suffer accordingly in your eyes-- but it is already suffering from your perspective, so what difference?

That is a strange statement. Science is currently and simply the best way we know for discovering truth. Can you demonstrate a better methodology?

Yes, subjective truth, religious truth. And again, you conjure value based arguments. A "best", "better" way implies subjectivity. The best truth for a person is necessarily that which serves the best interests of said individual.

I do not see how my belief in science affects the ability of science to show whether Mohammed was delusional or not.

The above statement is contradictory. If you did not hold the belief that science is the only truth, you will not without question, accept a judgment based on science that Mohammed was delusional.

Whether fundamentalist followers believe the findings is of course doubtful, but I suspect a large number of rational Muslims who do have respect for the findings of science will inevitably have to come to terms with the paradox of the scientific revelation and their own faith, which would have to be questioned.

I am sure there will be some who will not question the motives behind the "research” or the inconsistencies in trying to psychoanalyze a historical figure. In addition, those that place Science and their religious belief on the same level, and are willing to substitute scientific findings in place of their religious truths are not true believers in the first place.

I suspect your statements here revolve around your own personal position of unshakable faith, no matter what evidence is presented, i.e. you are a fundamentalist. That you cannot see that such a proof would cause damage to Islam is fully consistent with the narrow-mindedness of the fundamentalist view, and that is not intended to be insulting in any way, just an objective observation.

This is nonsense. I do not ascribe to any religious belief! Besides, you are merely describing the very same narrow mindedness that gives atheists a “bad name” and prompted me to post.

I do not see that this assertion can be true. The root basis of Islam is the visions of Mohammed, if they are proved to be false then the foundation of Islam would disappear, and likely the rest would collapse soon after. This seems to be very much a case where the proof or disproof of a deity would not be a key issue.

No, the root basis of Islam is the existence of a God. Islam holds as the truth, most of the bible. Muhammad says that the very same God of Gabriel came to him in his visions. He had to accept the existence of a God to have thought such revelation could have come from a God.

You seem to be making assumptions about what you think I might say. My position is that the concept of a god is an imaginative fantasy, and you cannot disprove that claim until you prove a god exists.

But this self serving circularity! The theist invented the notion of a God in the first place. The theist first held the position of a God and then attributed that position to a faith. If you want to challenge that belief, then the burden of proof is on you.

 

[okinrus]

Your not fountain from cprog are you?

I have to agree with you on this one. Impossible to prove that Muhammed is delusional, malicious, possessed or a true prophet without some pre-concieved view. The burden of prove is, however, on the muslim though. They have to ask themselves if their faith is beneficial, trueful and representive of their beliefs. But this has no bearing on what others want to believe.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Cris
Flores,

The article was about Mohammed.

Yet, mental conditions are human traits that must be guaged againest all other humans to understand what we are talking about. Currently mental assessment is a bull shit science with no theories and rather impirical. An empirical science to make sense requires the study of a Large or the entire humanity to get accurate assessment and datum of normality to guage conditions from.

The article intented to single out Muhammed as a mad man without offering a single description or definition of what is an average mental state, an intelligent mental state, and dived into an unstable mental state without discussing or defining a stable mental state. How can we understand what instability is, why we don't know the meaning of stable.

Originally posted by Cris
The article was about Mohammed. Your comments do not appear relevant to the topic.

I agree, the article was about disrespecting and bashing...My comments were not relevant to your intent for the topic.

 

[(Q)]

The article intented to single out Muhammed as a mad man without offering a single description or definition of what is an average mental state, an intelligent mental state, and dived into an unstable mental state without discussing or defining a stable mental state. How can we understand what instability is, why we don't know the meaning of stable.

Perhaps the author did not want to insult those already well informed of the subject matter, as you obviously are not.

Read a book - not the Quran.

 

[(Q)]

To contradict his faith, you will have to challenge the supposed source of his revelations-- a God.

Why is that? His god or his delusion did not speak to anyone but him. And although his source is highly suspect, it is secondary to his claims of faith. Mohammed is the one to be challenged, not his source, although it is possible he and his source are one and the same.

 

[mouse]

thefountainhed,

First of all, my excuses of going off topic but i can not resist.

What is missed here is that the believers DO NOT feel this uncertainty, for they have their faith.

That does not negate the fact that more than one approach exists to answer unresolved questions. You can chose which answer or line of reasoning you prefer and what trust or faith you put in your chosen answer.

one of which is the big bang-- which relies on observations on the universe made on Earth

Better yet, the big bang did not only conform to already existing observations, it predicted background radiation which was later found.

the other also relies on other observations made on Earth to deduce a creator. One must not assert that the Big Bang implies there was not a creator, for it does not.

Probably true, but i do not know for certain.

Either way, they are both deductions from a human perspective and are not BOTH mutually exclusive.

Fair enough.

There are both theories.

Although one is backed with experimental data, and the other is, as far as I can tell, not.

And the model that we're created does not hold up?

What model do you refer to? The model Islam presents us? Or just the principle of having a creator? For argument's sake, let us take the latter. There is no way of testing that model, is there? We have a universe, so you can assume that it was created. However, how do we go on from there? What predictions can we derive and test from it? The assumption remains without backing, which makes it for me hard to swallow. I do not deny the possibility that it could be true, though.

The behaviour of subatomic particles, I am not questioning. What I am asserting is that the existence of quarks, etc are implied from said model.

The model implies them, and more interesting, the experimental data is accordance with it. Although of course with subatomic particles you hardly probe them directly. You deduce them by reactions they cause, as you say: cause and effect. In these cases, however, the cause is well defined and controlled and delivers an effect which can be verified in other accelerators.

That we were created can also be implied from a model of our universe if we use the idea of cause and effect.

See above, how do we test your model? Other than the fact that we are, what does your model give us to work with?

Also, please tell me how the whole computer industry is an example of theorization. The models used in the design of computers are based on the behaviour of electrical currents. Subsequent designs merely manipulate said behaviour.

Ok, I will rephrase. The computer industry is an example of applying that which theories, regarding subatomic particles, explain and predict.

 

[thefountainhed]

Okinrus:

Your not fountain from cprog are you? [/quote[
Nope. You are the first to alert me of cprog.

The burden of prove is, however, on the muslim though. They have to ask themselves if their faith is beneficial, trueful and representive of their beliefs. But this has no bearing on what others want to believe.

I will answer this assertion in the same post when I respond to (Q).

(Q):

Why is that? His god or his delusion did not speak to anyone but him. And although his source is highly suspect, it is secondary to his claims of faith. Mohammed is the one to be challenged, not his source, although it is possible he and his source are one and the same

I will again alert you to restrain from value based argumets: "highly suspect". Now, to respond to your post....

Ok, maybe a scenario will do. Lets take individuals A and B. A holds that he believes in a supreme being who revealed to him, the nature of the universe. A claims that his assertion is proved by his belief that his visions were directly from said deity. A subsequently prods along and tries to convince those that will listen to his assertions, his belief. A however, maintain that, his assertions are based on belief. He cannot prove that his deity exists or that his belief is correct outside his faith. What A instead asserts is that, if you are able to accept in your heart, his belief system, you shall likewise sense his peace and accept his assertions on faith alone, for your disbelief shall vanish from accepting by faith alone, his assertions. Of course this is circular and self serving, but it is irrelevant for A only presents his belief in his deity within the confines of faith-- his context.

So, along comes B. B also has a belief system. B believes in empirical bla bla(to shorten the scenario, science). B maintains that for him to accept any assertion as the truth, it must be proven right WITHIN THE CONFINES of his belief system-- science. A implies that B's belief system by virtue of being based on different a "model", cannot ascertain or necessarily reach the same truth. Therefore, for B to understand A's truth, B must be willing to forgo his belief system. B of course refuses. HOWEVER, and this is really the important part of a LONG freaking scenario, B still maintains that A is wrong by virtue of lacking a conclusive proof WITHIN B's context. Now, again tell me, who holds the burden of proof? Why must A explain to B the basis of his belief system within B's context? That is relevant self serving circularity.

 

[thefountainhed]

Mouse:

That does not negate the fact that more than one approach exists to answer unresolved questions. You can chose which answer or line of reasoning you prefer and what trust or faith you put in your chosen answer.

Yes, more than one approach exists to answering questions-- this is the whole point. Unless one is able to argue within the context of his approach and outside it, one does not present the only approach.

Better yet, the big bang did not only conform to already existing observations, it predicted background radiation which was later found.

And it also excluded the expansion of the universe, which led to a modification of the big bang theory.

Probably true, but i do not know for certain.

No guessing needed, it is true.

Although one is backed with experimental data, and the other is, as far as I can tell, not.

I do not see how that is relevant unless one places higher import on experimental data.

What model do you refer to? The model Islam presents us? Or just the principle of having a creator?

Both.

For argument's sake, let us take the latter.

Fair enough.

There is no way of testing that model, is there? We have a universe, so you can assume that it was created. However, how do we go on from there? What predictions can we derive and test from it? The assumption remains without backing, which makes it for me hard to swallow.

You are viewing a model based on faith, not experimental data, but from the latter's point of view. You see, the religious model need not be tested, for by default, acceptance of the model implies its truth, and therefore its irrefutability. Of course it makes it hard for you to swallow, for you are viewing it from a different perspective.

I do not deny the possibility that it could be true, though.

There, you are one step ahead of Chris.

The model implies them, and more interesting, the experimental data is accordance with it. Although of course with subatomic particles you hardly probe them directly. You deduce them by reactions they cause, as you say: cause and effect. In these cases, however, the cause is well defined and controlled and delivers an effect which can be verified in other accelerators.

Good. But you are missing the most important thing: cause and effect when it comes to religion. Ok, lets view this from the viewpoint of science. I observe all "creations" that mankind can observe and realize than in 100% of the cases, there was a cause for that creation. Hence, I assert that unless proven wrong within the confines of science, everything must have a cause. This is science. There is a contradiction here, but you are missing it; and unless you find it, we shall move along. Anyway, back to my methodology: If I state that everything must have a cause and back that with empirical data, then I can conclude that by virtue of existing, we had to have a creator. You can only challenege this by presenting a cause without an effect. Thus, my hypothesis or theory holds up whenever an action is caused by a force or whatever.

See above, how do we test your model? Other than the fact that we are, what does your model give us to work with?

Look above and see.

Ok, I will rephrase. The computer industry is an example of applying that which theories, regarding subatomic particles, explain and predict.[/.quote]
Fair enough, but then again, so is religion.

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

Good. But you are missing the most important thing: cause and effect when it comes to religion. Ok, lets view this from the viewpoint of science. I observe all "creations" that mankind can observe and realize than in 100% of the cases, there was a cause for that creation.

That isn’t science, just poor observation. The term ‘creation’ implies a creator yet there is no evidence that anything has ever been created, at least nothing complex. If you look more carefully you will see that everything that exists is the result of an earlier developmental phase and in terms of anything complex a simpler state. Even computers evolved and are still evolving. What we really observe are state changes.

Hence, I assert that unless proven wrong within the confines of science, everything must have a cause.

That isn’t science. You could call it inductive reasoning but there are serious issues with that. The most obvious is that if everything must have a cause then that requires an impossible hierarchical infinite series of causes and effects.

If I state that everything must have a cause and back that with empirical data, then I can conclude that by virtue of existing, we had to have a creator.

So show the evidence that something complex has been created and did not evolve.

But your conclusion is invalid and answers nothing. You have simply replaced one question with another. You are claiming that everything has a cause, so finish the story and explain who caused the creator and who caused the creator of the creator, and the creator of the creator of the creator, etc, ad infinitum. The only exit is to claim there was a first cause but then that invalidates the claim that everything has a cause which means we can simply dispense with your entire irrational claim.

The only meaningful answer is that everything that exists has always existed and simply undergoes variations of state changes. Nothing is ever created or destroyed, but changes from one form into another, and that is fully consistent with the science of physics and is demonstrable. There is no need for a creator and no evidence to support that one could or should exist.

You can only challenge this by presenting a cause without an effect.

Easy – I flick the light switch but the bulb had already burnt out so there is no effect – darkness persists.

Thus, my hypothesis or theory holds up whenever an action is caused by a force or whatever.

These are just state changes.

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

I do not deny the possibility that it could be true, though.

There, you are one step ahead of Chris.

To rationally claim that something is possible means that one is able to demonstrate such a possibility, i.e. that a god could exist. To date not only has no one shown that a god exists but no one has been able to show the possibility that a god could exist. The claim that a god might be possible is like claiming that with two dice it is possible to throw a 13.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by (Q)
[BPerhaps the author did not want to insult those already well informed of the subject matter, as you obviously are not.

Read a book - not the Quran. [/B]

I see, so the author only wanted to insult Muhammed .....thank you for the clarification.

The author is not giving a complete picture of a mental illness and it's diagnosis, and thus if I was performing a peer review of his paper, I would deny him the publication on the basis of discriminatory opinion and information.

 

[Cris]

Flores,

I see, so the author only wanted to insult Muhammed .....thank you for the clarification.

From your reasoning we would have to conclude that when a doctor diagnoses someone with an ailment that they are insulting them.

The author is not giving a complete picture of a mental illness and it's diagnosis, and thus if I was performing a peer review of his paper, I would deny him the publication on the basis of discriminatory opinion and information.

The article is from the perspective of an expert. The assumption is that someone so qualified has the right to make such a diagnosis and that it would be considered accurate.

 

[(Q)]

A holds that he believes in a supreme being who revealed to him, the nature of the universe. A claims that his assertion is proved by his belief that his visions were directly from said deity. A subsequently prods along and tries to convince those that will listen to his assertions, his belief.

So what - this happens almost every day of the week on almost every street corner of almost every city in the world. I beg to see the difference between these people and Mohammed. Could you please enlighten us as to why one should follow Mohammed and not these others.

B also has a belief system. B believes in empirical bla bla(to shorten the scenario, science).

False assertion – Science is a system of observing and understanding reality and the way in which the universe works. This is hardly a belief system.

A implies that B's belief system by virtue of being based on different a "model", cannot ascertain or necessarily reach the same truth.

Of course not – Science addresses the physical, the existent, while religion grapples with the supernatural, the non-existent. How does one even relate to the other? You cannot draw comparisons here.

B must be willing to forgo his belief system. B of course refuses.

B doesn’t simply refuse because B knows science does not require religion or gods to explain anything. Gods tend to add more levels of complexity to already simple answers.

HOWEVER, and this is really the important part of a LONG freaking scenario, B still maintains that A is wrong by virtue of lacking a conclusive proof WITHIN B's context.

B does not necessarily consider A to be wrong – B simply ignores the claims made by A because there is no evidence to support A, as you say, it is a belief that deals with the supernatural and non-existent. I’m sure that B would be happy to give A’s claims a chance if A could provide something tangible based in reality.

In other words, B is quite happy in his pursuit to understand the universe and how things work without the need to try and understand something that does not exist or something that someone else heard in a vision.

Now, again tell me, who holds the burden of proof? Why must A explain to B the basis of his belief system within B's context? That is relevant self serving circularity.

Simple, A holds the burden of proof if A is to convince anyone of anything. Of course, A does not have to worry about that – A will find multitudes of gullible people who are willing to believe anything.

Now, you may consider this self-serving circularity, but you must first show me the difference between Mohammed and anyone else that has visions and hears revelations from gods? Why should anyone believe Mohammed and not the others?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by (Q)
the scenario, science).

Now, you may consider this self-serving circularity, but you must first show me the difference between Mohammed and anyone else that has visions and hears revelations from gods? Why should anyone believe Mohammed and not the others?
----------
M*W: Saul of Tarsus also had visions and revelations of Jesus when he fell off his horse on the road to Damascus. Was it an epileptic seisure, a bad case of neurotheology happening, or did he just hit his head on a rock when he fell?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by (Q)
Now, you may consider this self-serving circularity, but you must first show me the difference between Mohammed and anyone else that has visions and hears revelations from gods? [/B]

He talked of the expansion of the universe.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Cris
Flores,
The article is from the perspective of an expert. The assumption is that someone so qualified has the right to make such a diagnosis and that it would be considered accurate.

Let's take a look at your expert.

Born in Leuven, in the year 1959, Koenraad Elst grew up in the Catholic Community in Belgium. He was active for some years in what is known as the new Age movement, before studying at the famed Catholic University of Leuven (KUL).


I'm sure you regard the famed Catholic university and the activity in the new age very highly.

He graduated in Chinese Studies, Indo-Iranian Studies and Philosophy. He earned his doctorate magna cum laude with a dissertation on the politics of Hindu Revivalism.

What exactly does this have to do with Medicine and making a diagnosis of mental instability. The guy is only qualified to perform an exorcist and translate chinease. Politics of Hindu Revivalism?????What does that have to do with mental instability and Muhammed. Yeah....Hindus don't like the Muslim Pakistani, so I see where his limited knowledge of politics could apply to the Prophet.


He took courses in Indian philosophy at the Benares Hindu University (BHU), and interviewed many Indian leaders and thinkers during his stay in India between 1988 and 1992. He has published in Dutch about language policy issues, contemporary politics, history of science and Oriental philosophies; in English about the Ayodhya issue and about the general religio-political situation in India.


He is full of shit just like you. He is no expert in medecine and that makes you a LIAR......If I were you Cris, I would run to the sink, because your pants are catching fire.

If I were you, I would start digging material from a different trash. Your expert have been exposed.