The ethics of challenging the religious - given that they might be neurotic etc.

[greenberg]

It seems that most people who have become religious*as adults, have done so in a time of great personal harsdhip. Such as losing their job, going through a divorce, falling severely ill, losing of a loved one, committing a crime ... - something that the person experienced as great personal hardship.

Psychologically seen, the religiousness or spirituality that such people have developed, could in some cases be explained as a complex interaction of various defense and coping mechanisms. In other words, some people's religiousness or spirituality is not as genuine as they would like others to believe.

For example, a man who has committed a crime feels strong guilt over it. To pacify this guilt, he accepts Jesus as his personal savior and preaches the Gospel to others. While all along, the actual internal conflict that he feels over the committed crime remains unresolved.
However, someone with keen psychological insight could speak to such a man, make him aware of his denial and that his religiousness is actually fake. This could cause this man great distress, make him defend his religion even more fiercely; but it could also make him lash out in violence against self and others.

Considering that many people who have become religious as adults might have such and similar psychological motivations for their preaching of their religion and for defending it,
how ethical is it to challenge them, be it either psychologically, or religiously/philosophically?





* I am using the term "religious" in its broad sense, meaning anything from being a fanatic to occasionally opening the Bible.

 

[Turduckin]

Why do you want to challenge the religious? Is it an expression of some neurosis you suffer from?

 

[greenberg]

Why do you want to challenge the religious? Is it an expression of some neurosis you suffer from?

There is the possibility that what the religious claim is actually true.
Perhaps God exists and all those of us who do not believe in him will go to eternal hell - and I wouldn't want that. This is why I cannot simply dismiss the claims of the religious as if they were neurotic babble.

 

[greenberg]

No replies??

 

[spidergoat]

Some people lose their religion due to times of personal hardship. I think one should consider each person as an individual, each with their own motivations for pursuing a particular explanatory metaphor.

I could see where someone seems too sensitive or neurotic to discuss their religion or lack of it.

 

[greenberg]

I think one should consider each person as an individual, each with their own motivations for pursuing a particular explanatory metaphor.

Many religious people, on the other hand, act the opposite: They consider all people the same, supposedly to fit the same explanatory metaphor.

I could see where someone seems too sensitive or neurotic to discuss their religion or lack of it.

That too. But it seems to me that those most "neurotic" ones discuss their religion the most.
How many happy religious people discuss their religion here?

 

[Turduckin]

Originally Posted by spidergoat
I think one should consider each person as an individual, each with their own motivations for pursuing a particular explanatory metaphor.

Originally Posted by Greenberg
Many religious people, on the other hand, act the opposite: They consider all people the same, supposedly to fit the same explanatory metaphor.

I agree with Spidergoat.

I could see where someone seems too sensitive or neurotic to discuss their religion or lack of it.

Especially here, where accuracy and a fire-retardant suit are advisable.

That too. But it seems to me that those most "neurotic" ones discuss their religion the most.

I'll have to grant that point.

How many happy religious people discuss their religion here?

S.A.M seems happy to me:shrug:

I actually started to reply to the post, but the OP didn't seem well formed (an ethics question, a religous question, a psychology question). It was also out of sync with your first reply to me.

Since this is a public board, and none of us is in a position to make a clinical assessment regarding the mental state of the participants, I'm not sure how to respond, except by judicious use of the 'ignore' feature. Oh, and I'm pretty sure it's a bad idea to challenge an armed, psychotic sociopath whose been off the meds.

 

[Michael]

People become religious later in life for all sorts of reasons - most of the time this is probably stemming from what they were taught as a child. It's not too often a person raised Muslims (even just causally) will grow up to become Shinto or a Scientologist. The same goes for a person raised Shinto or Scientologist.
As for why do people become atheist? Well, it could easily be the same (a hardship) but also, if one is a monotheist, they already are atheist for millions of Gods and Alien Over Lords and etc.. and for some people they are able to make the mental leap of not believing in this one last one.

MII

I find many people who are not religious are still quite superstitious or have a strong affinity towards luck and lucky numbers and silly stuff like that. It really hardwired into the brain, cause .. effect ... question ..answer. I think that's why casinos do so well. Casinos are like the Mosques, Cathedrals etc... of the secular world.

Movement in bush
Must be a Tiger
Instantly Accept Line of Reasoning (no time to think or debate)
Run Like Hell
Live to reproduce
Was actually a Bunny Rabbit
Still Lived to Reproduce so passes these sets of genes that encode for this line of mental processing to future humanity.

Movement in bush
I wonder what that was?
Ponder question.
Find clear answer - Oh a Tiger
Turn to Run
Eaten

Movement in Sky
Would Run Like Hell but no where to Run
Must be one of the Gods
Accept line of reasoning
Still Lived to Reproduce so passes these sets of genes (and now memes) that encode for this line of mental processing to future humanity.

Also, there are lots of devout Muslims who convert to Xianity and some who even convert to Scientology - they become Just as devout only now are Xians or Scientologists. You can tell it's really part of their genetic makeup.

 

[Adstar]

Why do you want to challenge the religious? Is it an expression of some neurosis you suffer from?

Me thinks you have scratched the surface of many driven athiests in here.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[spidergoat]

We should never question the claims of the faithful, since it could hurt their feelings.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

If religion truly makes you happy then there is no reason to tell people that they are not religious and that they are repressing their problems. They may figure that out on their own or maybe they have moved on. My point is let people be happy unless they are infringing upon others ability to be happy.

 

[lightgigantic]

It seems that most people who have become religious*as adults, have done so in a time of great personal harsdhip. Such as losing their job, going through a divorce, falling severely ill, losing of a loved one, committing a crime ... - something that the person experienced as great personal hardship.

Psychologically seen, the religiousness or spirituality that such people have developed, could in some cases be explained as a complex interaction of various defense and coping mechanisms. In other words, some people's religiousness or spirituality is not as genuine as they would like others to believe.

For example, a man who has committed a crime feels strong guilt over it. To pacify this guilt, he accepts Jesus as his personal savior and preaches the Gospel to others. While all along, the actual internal conflict that he feels over the committed crime remains unresolved.
However, someone with keen psychological insight could speak to such a man, make him aware of his denial and that his religiousness is actually fake. This could cause this man great distress, make him defend his religion even more fiercely; but it could also make him lash out in violence against self and others.

Considering that many people who have become religious as adults might have such and similar psychological motivations for their preaching of their religion and for defending it,
how ethical is it to challenge them, be it either psychologically, or religiously/philosophically?





* I am using the term "religious" in its broad sense, meaning anything from being a fanatic to occasionally opening the Bible.

actually such persons who come to spiritual life via suffering are but one of four categories (italics/bold mine)

BG 7.16: O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me — the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

IOW they are but one of four categories of beginners . All four require piety as a foundation, however ... and the further you go up the ladder the greater one's chances of making a more steady commitment to spiritual life.

(for instance one searching for knowledge is better than the inquisitive, who is better than the seeker of wealth, who is better than the distressed ... simply because, as you so adroitly seem to perceive, the foundation can easily be mitigated by circumstance ... many people come to god after experiencing suffering and after getting some relief, gradually deteriorate into materialistic consciousness)

If such a person advocates that they are on the perfectional platform (ie transcendentally situated) ...

BG 18.54: One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me.

....there is certainly no harm in indicating how they are merely stabilized on an inferior level of practice. Perhaps further advancement could be indicated by introducing philosophical queries to prod them on (namely like do they think that the world exists primarily for their enjoyment or not) but as with all such attempts, it has to happen in the framework of personal relationship of trust and confidence.

If a person (any person) simply thinks you believe their beliefs to be worthy of contempt, they will reciprocate accordingly ("a person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still")
:shrug:

(as with many ethical issues, it boils down to individual circumstances of persons involved)

 

[greenberg]

I actually started to reply to the post, but the OP didn't seem well formed (an ethics question, a religous question, a psychology question).

Yes, in put in questions from several fields, this was deliberate.
I think most of the relevant questions concerning communication and life in general are interdisciplinary.

Since this is a public board, and none of us is in a position to make a clinical assessment regarding the mental state of the participants, I'm not sure how to respond, except by judicious use of the 'ignore' feature.

Of course, we cannot really know whether the person on the other end is suffering from some psychological disorder, or whether what they claim is The One And Only Truth, and then there is everything inbetween.

Given that they might be suffering from some psychological disorder, is it ethical to engage in deep discussions with them (because this might cause them great stress)?

Given that they might be right in their claims about The One And Only Truth, is it ethical to ignore them?


I think we have all come across people who seem deeply religious and who defend their religion fiercely; but where there is also reason to believe that their religiosity is not genuine.

Consider this scenario:

1. A person has done something they feel bad about.

2. The person desperately wants to feel good and worthy again.

3. The person turns to their own sense of ethics, or to other people, or to religions and philosophies to find a way to feel good and worthy again.

4. After some unsatisfactory search, they find Christianity, the Bible. There, they see a way to feel good and worthy again.

5. But in order to do so, they need to believe in God.

6. They try and they try to believe in God, and at first, it amounts to nothing, no sign from God. They think "Uh, so what ..."

7. They still feel pressured by the wrongdoing (1) that set them on this search. They want to feel good and worthy again.

8. They go back to seeking God. They read or are told that all it takes to believe in God or to know God is to simply want to do so, to be humble, pure and sincere.

9. They endure, they pray, they want to believe in God - but still, no sign or proof of God. The old wrongdoing burns them, and they want to feel good and worthy again. They want to think of themselves that they are a basically good person, they want to move on with their life. They want to think of themselves as humble, sincere and pure. They don't want to be liars.

10. They are facing the dilemma: They can either continue thinking themselves evil, insincere, worthless and remain stuck in life. Or they can declare they believe in God. - For if a person believes in God, this is proof that they have been humble, sincere and pure.

11. In time, the dilemma becomes more and more demanding, causing a lot of strain. The person is by now under great psychological stress, possibly also with intense physical symptoms. The person wants, more than ever, to feel good and worthy again. By now the only way to achieve this seems to be to believe in God - that is, to declare they believe in God, because they still have no sign or proof of God.

12. In a critical moment, the stress becomes too great, and the person resolves it by declaring they believe in God. They reinterpret their life experiences accordingly, so that they appear to be proof of God's existence.
They regain their sense of self-worth, and they begin to feel good and worthy again, they deem themselves humble, sincere and pure.

13. To maintain this state of well-being, they need to continue to pray, read the Bible and discuss their belief in God with other people, in order to stifle any doubt or suspicion they themselves might have.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1776028&postcount=206

Suppose that someone's religiosity has developed this way, as a complex mixture of defense and coping mechanisms.

Can the religious claims of such a person still be believed?

Is it ethical to challenge them and test them to see whether their religiosity isn't simply a complex mixture of defense and coping mechanisms?
E.g. is it ethical to ask them something like: Show me that your faith in Jesus is nothing but what you guilt-tripped yourself into believing because you couldn't handle the despair over having been abused as a child/having had an abortion/being an alcoholic/committing a crime/...!


But like I said above, given that they might be right in their claims about The One And Only Truth, is it ethical to ignore them because we suspect their religiosity might have other -disingenuous- sources and motivations?

It seems to me that the non-religious are in a double bind:
If they challenge the religious, they risk causing them great stress which might have unpredictable and harmful consequences (given that the non-religious do not wish to cause harm to anybody).
If they don't challenge the religius, they risk their own damnation.
If they don't challenge the religius and believe the claims of the religious blindly, they risk throwing away their own integrity.

(Granted, these double-bind situations typically apply only in Christianity where a person has nothing to go by but a book and the testimony of others.)

 

[greenberg]

We should never question the claims of the faithful, since it could hurt their feelings.

But the faithful can say and do whatever they want to?

 

[greenberg]

(as with many ethical issues, it boils down to individual circumstances of persons involved)

But at least as far as Christianity is concerned, what you are saying above is usually not the case.

But given that what Christianity claims about God might be true, what are we to do? Ignore all our experiences and blindly believe what Christians tell us?

 

[lightgigantic]

But at least as far as Christianity is concerned, what you are saying above is usually not the case.

actually I would argue that the information I provided was non-sectarian and holds as general knowledge for practically all sorts of religious endeavour

But given that what Christianity claims about God might be true, what are we to do? Ignore all our experiences and blindly believe what Christians tell us?

Behind all religious claims there is philosophy.

If a person wants to make claims without philosophy, why bother discussing philosophy with them (what to speak of believing them)?

 

[greenberg]

If a person wants to make claims without philosophy, why bother discussing philosophy with them (what to speak of believing them)?

At least as far as Christianity is concerned, in my experience, things are different.
It is as if it were part of the Christian doctrine that the claim of belief in God (and many other things) can be made without the support of philosophy.

And if it is true that God is a creator (and everything this implies) and that even a babe can know better than "learned men", then philosophy is redundant anyway.

What drives me to discuss these things is the fear that Christianity might be right, and that I might be making an irreversible mistake in not heeding their doctrine.

actually I would argue that the information I provided was non-sectarian and holds as general knowledge for practically all sorts of religious endeavour

What you provided seems common sense, yes.
But if you've ever discussed with Christians, you might have noticed that they do not care about such considerations.

I've actually been told by Christians that they do not care what I have been through or what I want; the Truth is one and plain for all to see, except for those who do not want to see it. - I mean, sure, they might be right, I cannot prove they are not.

 

[lightgigantic]

At least as far as Christianity is concerned, in my experience, things are different.
It is as if it were part of the Christian doctrine that the claim of belief in God (and many other things) can be made without the support of philosophy.

basically the only religions that are practically bereft of philosophy are animism.
Polytheism comes in as second

And if it is true that God is a creator (and everything this implies) and that even a babe can know better than "learned men", then philosophy is redundant anyway.

To be reunited with god (in full consciousness) doesn't require that one be a genius.
It simply requires that one has genuine love for him.
Its kind of like asking to what degree must a person be philosophical to love someone else (the answer being, to the degree that they have "issues" is the degree that they require to be philosophical - at least babes don't require any in depth training to appreciate a loving mother)

What drives me to discuss these things is the fear that Christianity might be right, and that I might be making an irreversible mistake in not heeding their doctrine.

sounds like you have philosophical issues

What you provided seems common sense, yes.
But if you've ever discussed with Christians, you might have noticed that they do not care about such considerations.

I have many experiences discussing these things (from lecture halls to door to door) with all sorts of people (including christians) in a variety of cultures and countries (well, at least five).
Regardless of their religious inclination, if a person is a little philosophical, they do tend to agree that these are in fact the four types of persons who come to spiritual life.
Of course discussing the nature of a transcendental (or perfected) position of spiritual practice might be a bit more tricky (since it is lodged in jargon), but I simply presented it as an example of what it means to be qualitatively perfectional.

BG 18.54: One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me.

basically it describes a person who's attitude to spiritual life (and other living entities) is unaffected by issues of material loss or gain

I've actually been told by Christians that they do not care what I have been through or what I want; the Truth is one and plain for all to see, except for those who do not want to see it. - I mean, sure, they might be right, I cannot prove they are not.

Its not clear how your bit in in italics relates to the rest of the paragraph
(in what ways would you expect/not expect your desires/experiences to be relevant to experiencing an absolute truth?)

 

[greenberg]

Its not clear how your bit in in italics relates to the rest of the paragraph
(in what ways would you expect/not expect your desires/experiences to be relevant to experiencing an absolute truth?

I said earlier - "Granted, these double-bind situations typically apply only in Christianity where a person has nothing to go by but a book and the testimony of others."

Christians typically do not care what a person has been through, what their experiences or desires are; they do not take into consideration that a person's experiences etc. might shape the way they see (or don't see) God.

Christians typically expect that everyone will know God in precisely the same way they, Christians, do - if someone does not speak of God and faith etc. the way Christians do, then one is not speaking of God and faith etc. at all.

They could be right, I cannot prove either way.


Or, to put it within a different discourse: From the perspective of a constructivist, the issue of belief in God looks vastly different than it looks from the perspective of a realist/objectivist.
Typically, someone maintaining a realist/objectivist outlook is inherently unable to view things the way a constructivist would, whereas a constructivist can do otherwise.

Christians are usually realists/objectivists.
Perhaps realism/objectivism is the one and only true and adequate theory of perception. I am too much of a constructivist to not question these things; I also do not see a way out of constructivism (or relativism), other than blind belief, in advance assuming to be true what I have only set out attempting to prove. Perhaps my constructivism is an act of God, who has messed with my mind, and as such my delusion is proof of God's existence ...
I don't know; and where I am, it does not seem like I could know.

 

[lightgigantic]

I said earlier - "Granted, these double-bind situations typically apply only in Christianity where a person has nothing to go by but a book and the testimony of others."

I think that over simplifies it
At the very least history is decorated with numerous christian saints and philosophers

Christians typically do not care what a person has been through, what their experiences or desires are; they do not take into consideration that a person's experiences etc. might shape the way they see (or don't see) God.

I would have thought that the direct relationship between religious experience and seeing god would be obvious.
In short though, there are some experiences/ desires that are valid and some that are not.
If it wasn't the case, it would be impossible to distinguish between an atheist and a theist, what to speak of an advanced practitioner and a novice

Christians typically expect that everyone will know God in precisely the same way they, Christians, do - if someone does not speak of God and faith etc. the way Christians do, then one is not speaking of God and faith etc. at all.

there's your philosophy

They could be right, I cannot prove either way.

behind every claim there is practice and behind every practice there is theory.
anything less is fanaticism

Or, to put it within a different discourse: From the perspective of a constructivist, the issue of belief in God looks vastly different than it looks from the perspective of a realist/objectivist.
Typically, someone maintaining a realist/objectivist outlook is inherently unable to view things the way a constructivist would, whereas a constructivist can do otherwise.

Christians are usually realists/objectivists.
Perhaps realism/objectivism is the one and only true and adequate theory of perception. I am too much of a constructivist to not question these things; I also do not see a way out of constructivism (or relativism), other than blind belief, in advance assuming to be true what I have only set out attempting to prove. Perhaps my constructivism is an act of God, who has messed with my mind, and as such my delusion is proof of God's existence ...
I don't know; and where I am, it does not seem like I could know.

Even a constructivist has at least one absolute value that they are accepting on faith - "everything is relative"

Not much different to "everything is relative to god"