Religious fervor or mental illness?

[siti]

I'll take some time out and look at it. Today I am swamped with posts. I'll try to make time tonight.

They're only short snippets just to give an idea - but there are quite few physicists looking at what might have come 'before' the Big Bang - if you're really interested Lee Smolin's cosmological natural selection, Neil Turok's ekpyrotic universe and Roger Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology are interesting to look at - these are obviously speculative ideas but potentially could yield observational experiments making them scientifically falsifiable in future. But we certainly do not know for sure that the universe began at the Big Bang - or even that it had a beginning at all.

 

[Grandliseur]

sure that the universe began at the Big Bang - or even that it had a beginning at all.

I think two highly admired personalities on this site told me otherwise, at least one did, maybe even 3.

My statement to the opposite had quite a serious opposition.

 

[siti]

I think two highly admired personalities on this site told me otherwise

I tend not to base my understanding of reality on the perceived admirability of personalities...but I can certainly assure you that nobody knows that the universe had a beginning...its just not possible to know this (at least at present).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

in your opinion

Gets tricky to respond if you don't reply to my post or add my name, since I didn't notice this.
Of course, it's a subjective view. But not all subjective views are the same.

My wife has a senior position in mental health, and comes across these type of situations almost literally on a daily basis. So she has had friends tell her God has spoken to them (nothing to do with work) then at work had people tell her that God has spoken to them. On the one hand she figures they are religious, on the other that they're having an auditory hallucination manifesting in hearing God.

Talking about decisions between religious belief and mental illness happens.
What is ridiculous is equating religion and mental illness.

Of those two points above, the first is factual, and the second is 'just' my opinion, but I'd argue it with anyone.

 

[Grandliseur]

Actually the idea that the BB marks the beginning of time is speculation, the actual existence of a 'singularity' is speculation (as I think you noted yourself earlier in the thread)...anyway, don't take my word for it, here a few real physicists and cosmologists doing what scientists really do most of the time - admitting that they don't know...and then trying to think of a way to find out...

Looked at the videos. The first two were the most interesting. The third one I think I have had better SciFi elsewhere.

 

[siti]

Looked at the videos. The first two were the most interesting. The third one I think I have had better SciFi elsewhere.

My God! That was a BBC Horizon clip - that can't possibly be wrong! And Smolin is the archetypal physics prof - dishevelled and untrimmed hair, thinning on top, bewhiskered, bespectacled...but actually I think his ideas are more sensible than his 'popular' (i.e. 'dumbed down' for public consumption) explanations...its all to do with trying to take account of quantum effects and gravity together - the task that eluded Einstein and his contemporaries - and if he is right then time is 'reborn' over and over again in a naturally evolving process of spawning space-time 'bubble universes' - although there is really only one universe and what we usually call 'our universe' or 'this universe' is just the part of it that we can 'see' (although we can't actually see all of it)...if you see what I mean...

Anyway, my point is not to defend any particular one of the speculative "pre-big bang" scenarios that have been suggested, but to demonstrate that many eminent and trusted physicists and cosmologists do not subscribe to the popular 'orthodoxy' that the Big Bang is when time began...

...none of which is anything to do with the topic of my OP - but I have no room to talk about drifting off topic so never mind!

 

[Lyndon]

Gets tricky to respond if you don't reply to my post or add my name, since I didn't notice this.
Of course, it's a subjective view. But not all subjective views are the same.

My wife has a senior position in mental health, and comes across these type of situations almost literally on a daily basis. So she has had friends tell her God has spoken to them (nothing to do with work) then at work had people tell her that God has spoken to them. On the one hand she figures they are religious, on the other that they're having an auditory hallucination manifesting in hearing God.

Talking about decisions between religious belief and mental illness happens.
What is ridiculous is equating religion and mental illness.

Of those two points above, the first is factual, and the second is 'just' my opinion, but I'd argue it with anyone.

\
Perhaps if you were reading the thread like the rest of us and not just popping in when someone replies to your own comment.........

 

[Grandliseur]

My God! That was a BBC Horizon clip - that can't possibly be wrong! And Smolin is the archetypal physics prof - dishevelled and untrimmed hair, thinning on top, bewhiskered, bespectacled...but actually I think his ideas are more sensible than his 'popular' (i.e. 'dumbed down' for public consumption) explanations..

Sitting here and laughing.

time is 'reborn' over and over again in a naturally evolving process of spawning space-time 'bubble universes'

That is a very old theory. I read about that decades ago. I forgot what it used to be called - this thing where the universe collapses back into itself and then is reborn again, and again. Was it not called: the Oscillating Universe Theory?!
Oscillating Universe Theory - Universe Today

It is funny and perhaps not something you are interested in, but the Bible tells us that the expansion shall continue until there is nothing left but dispersed dead stars. Even the end of earth is shown.

 

[Grandliseur]

They're only short snippets just to give an idea - but there are quite few physicists looking at what might have come 'before' the Big Bang - if you're really interested Lee Smolin's cosmological natural selection, Neil Turok's ekpyrotic universe and Roger Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology are interesting to look at - these are obviously speculative ideas but potentially could yield observational experiments making them scientifically falsifiable in future. But we certainly do not know for sure that the universe began at the Big Bang - or even that it had a beginning at all.

I remember another theory, the Steady State theory. I just found a page on all 3 or 4 theories as it may be:
Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory Explained (Infographic)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

\
Perhaps if you were reading the thread like the rest of us and not just popping in when someone replies to your own comment.........

Phht. Yep, it's my fault. Any thoughts about what I said, or are you content to post negative themed one liners not related to the OP?

 

[Ponder This]

All sensible comments - but is chasing the money changers out of the temple with a bull whip because of passionate opposition to what everyone else seemed to be OK with 'normal'? I reckon even the disciples must have been whispering to each other "Christ! What's he doing now" at that point. Suppose I took passionate exception to the pagan symbol of a Christmas tree being brought into the Church and go in with a chain saw to cut it up and throw it out just as the congregation is gathering for morning worship...what do you suppose the majority of the people in the Church would think about my mental health?

Good questions, but the point I made is that doing things that aren't 'normal' isn't enough to qualify. Mental illness means someone's health or well-being is compromised. There is a case to be made about Jesus' mental health (this was talked about in another thread somewhere). It is normal to experience religious fervor, so the test of normality indicates that religious fervor isn't a mental illness. But normality isn't a sufficient test! It doesn't matter if lots of people experience religious fervor regularly. Mental illness means someone's health or well-being is at stake. Normality can be something people are trying to achieve, but lack of normality isn't the same thing as illness.

5% to 28% of the population hears voices that others do not. So hearing voices may be 'normal', but the criteria for illness isn't just normality. For example, have you ever heard of chess boxing?

Would we say that chess boxing is not 'normal' and, therefore, engaging in chess boxing is a sign of mental illness? I think not!

 

[Muffled]

Discussions in another thread prompt me to post this. First, a link to a Scientific American article addressing the question: How Do You Distinguish between Religious Fervor and Mental Illness?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-between-religious-fervor-and-mental-illness/
I know I'm skating on thin ice with many even approaching this subject, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a deep relationship between what we would normally consider as mental illness and 'religious fervor'.

The author of the article concludes "we need more to help guide us through the difficult circumstances in which mental health care and religion collide."

I wonder what RF people think? Can we help Dr. Morris define the boundaries between religious fervor and mental illness?

I believe I do it by the Holy Spirit.

I do not believe it can be codified but some religious people believe that everything has to square with the Bible.

I am not aware of any other than circumstantial ie that religious people can have mental problems.

 

[Muffled]

This is trouble water we would be stepping into. But I see someone twisting this saying that all religious people are mentally ill, but who knows really. I'm not a license physician just a **** poet managing a eatery.

I believe at one time that was the official position of the Communist government of the Soviet Union.

 

[Muffled]

OK - to skate out out onto even thinner ice...

Didn't Jesus literally hear God? And Moses? And Muhammad? For example.

And please - don't get me wrong - I am not denigrating religious people - that's not the point of the thread. Are the alternate views of reality that arise from 'voices in the head', visions,...etc. any more or less valid than the more mundane views of reality that emerge from science and logic?

Why is it that if I "hear God" I am probably "mad" - but if I completely accept the second or third hand account of someone else who "heard God" and then got a lot of other people to believe he had heard God, I am just "religious"?

Where is the boundary between religious fervor and mental illness? Is it just a matter of when it becomes an obstacle to "normal functioning"? But who defines "normal functioning"?

I believe when a demon was bothering me by showing grotesque images when I closed my eyes at night, it could be considered a mental illness because it made sleeping difficult however unlike scientists who think everything comes from the brain I believe it was a spiritually derived problem that required a spiritual solution. For me it was given by the Holy Spirit to sing Nothing but the Blood of Jesus. The demon left and I was no longer bothered.

 

[siti]

It is normal to experience religious fervor, so the test of normality indicates that religious fervor isn't a mental illness. But normality isn't a sufficient test! It doesn't matter if lots of people experience religious fervor regularly. Mental illness means someone's health or well-being is at stake. Normality can be something people are trying to achieve, but lack of normality isn't the same thing as illness.

Right! A few people have made this point in different ways now and I think it makes sense to me - 'illness' is something that prevents or interferes with the 'healthy' functioning or 'well-being' of a person. So religious experiences - even of the most extraordinary kind - don't necessarily interfere with the overall well-being of a person. So we can't classify 'religious experiences' as 'mental illness' - I get that (it wasn't really what I was trying to get at anyway, but just to be clear). So let's take the 'illness' thing out and suggest that religious experiences are - at least in some measure - mental experiences. Can we agree to that?

 

[siti]

I believe when a demon was bothering me by showing grotesque images when I closed my eyes at night, it could be considered a mental illness because it made sleeping difficult however unlike scientists who think everything comes from the brain I believe it was a spiritually derived problem that required a spiritual solution. For me it was given by the Holy Spirit to sing Nothing but the Blood of Jesus. The demon left and I was no longer bothered.

Thanks for sharing. I have no intention of labeling people who have had a profound spiritual or religious experience 'mentally ill' - I don't believe that to be the case (at least not necessarily and not always). What I am trying to get at is the similarities in the mental aspects of religious experiences and other mental experiences that don't necessarily have a religious element or focus. You have brought in an important aspect - do these experiences really come from "out there" in the way you described - or are they purely 'mental' - arising as a result of particular responses of the brain to particular stimuli? What evidence is there that there is a genuine 'spiritual' connection with a 'greater reality' (God or spirits or demons...whatever)?

 

[Sunstone]

So far as I know, the vast majority of people who have had mystical experiences (and bother to speak about them) claim their experience or experiences were of great benefit to them. Indeed, I often enough have heard someone describe a mystical experience as the best thing that ever happened to someone, or words to that effect.

I am not so sure about people who have merely had religious experiences, as opposed to mystical. It could be the same, but it might not be. I personally don't know.

 

[Sunstone]

You have brought in an important aspect - do these experiences really come from "out there" in the way you described - or are they purely 'mental' - arising as a result of particular responses of the brain to particular stimuli? What evidence is there that there is a genuine 'spiritual' connection with a 'greater reality' (God or spirits or demons...whatever)?

I believe the question cannot be conclusively answered either one way or the other. It seems to me there are some things that will always be mysteries to us. There are strong epistemic reasons why that is so.


However, I'm old enough to know that humans, for whatever reason or reasons, hate uncertainty, and are extremely willing to fool themselves into believing that questions which have no answer are entirely answerable one way or the other. This intellectual weakness of ours is fascinating.

 

[siti]

I believe the question cannot be conclusively answered either one way or the other. It seems to me there are some things that will always be mysteries to us. There are strong epistemic reasons why that is so.

However, I'm old enough to know that humans, for whatever reason or reasons, hate uncertainty, and are extremely willing to fool themselves into believing that questions which have no answer are entirely answerable one way or the other. This intellectual weakness of ours is fascinating.

Right! (my God I seem to be agreeing with everyone lately - I fear I might be turning into an agreeable person - aaagh!) Anyway, metaphysical epistemicism granted, doesn't that still mean that the only sensible place to look for (at least partial) explanations as to what is happening to us when we have a profound religious experience is in the brain? Doesn't it still mean that the overlap between psychotic delusions and spiritual visions ought to be a fruitful area of research? And doesn't it still mean that whatever the correlations that might be discovered between someone's delusions of messianic grandeur and me persistently imagining myself to be the reincarnation of Genghis Khan - the religious can still claim divine inspiration as the origin of theirs and insanity for mine? So why is there so much opposition to the question being asked? (From the religious and the irreligious). Do you think it might be because there is a suspicion that there might turn out to be rather less epistemic vagueness in the boundary between mental aberration and spiritual insight than both sides hope there is?

 

[siti]

Sitting here and laughing.

That is a very old theory. I read about that decades ago. I forgot what it used to be called - this thing where the universe collapses back into itself and then is reborn again, and again. Was it not called: the Oscillating Universe Theory?!
Oscillating Universe Theory - Universe Today

It is funny and perhaps not something you are interested in, but the Bible tells us that the expansion shall continue until there is nothing left but dispersed dead stars. Even the end of earth is shown.

Yeah! OK - oscillating universe is not really the same thing as Smolin's - its not a Big Bounce thing its more of a kind of branching or budding 'multiverse' thing - though Smolin would not use 'multiverse' because its not the same as what most people mean by multiverse...anyway, its not the same thing and time is not really 'reborn' - I knew I shouldn't have used that phrase - it's fundamental (i.e. time is both real and eternal - God that's weird - but I believe that anyway apart from Smolin's whacky cosmological natural selection thingy - which might very well be right but isn't the reason I think his view of time is right)...

I am interested in what the Bible says although I sincerely doubt anything in it is genuinely authoritative regarding cosmology. I am not aware of any verse that specifically refers to the expansion of the universe - do please cite the scriptural reference(s).