Religious fervor or mental illness?

[oldbadger]

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.

A majority of the physicists, mathematicians and astronomers are in professional and mostly polite contention with regard to how the Universe might have been initiated.

And now the question begs, is our universe one of many?

I think that we're rather small, somehow.

 

[oldbadger]

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?!

Ah ha! The Big Bounce! ......... a lay term for the above, and nothing to do with any night-club scenarios!

It might be that there is enough dark-matter to effect an implosian of all, or maybe when all has expanded into an endless cold dark expanse universes will initiate from the many singularities that will be left?

When a giant start explodes, that is not just the initiation of the heaviest elements but the preparation for the birth of countless other solar systems, and so it may be with universes?

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.

....as I mentioned above but nothing will be dead. Not a single item of force or matter will have dissappeared.

 

[JustWondering]

The basic problem here in red is simple. Science tells us generally that our universe has a beginning. Unless, you have another scientific way of explaining things, your supposition is quite dead.

As to God and his being, his existence, the question is likewise having a simple answer. We go with what is revealed to us. Once we go around, each one of us, having no beliefs except our homemade personal ones, exchanges like this become meaningless and serve no purpose.

On the other side of the coin, you have the fact that you and I do exist at the moment. For this to be true, and not false, it is obvious that something has had to exist for all eternity. Since I believe that complex material things do not make themselves, but need ID, God's existence is irrefutable in my mindset. If in your mindset, houses, computers, cars, and whatnot make themselves, well, perhaps god does not need to exist to you. In which case we have established what each of us believes in and can now see that nothing can be done about that, so let's go have a coffee.

Siti beat me to it. No one knows how the universe came to be. If things can just exist, like gods, then universes can just exist. The argument that the universe NEEDS a creator because it is complex while the creator itself (who must be more complex then the universe he built) doesn't, simply doesn't make sense.

 

[Grandliseur]

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).

Universe and Earth and their future foretold:

Isaiah 51:6 6 “Raise YOUR eyes to the heavens themselves, and look at the earth beneath. For the very heavens must be dispersed in fragments just like smoke, and like a garment the earth itself will wear out, and its inhabitants themselves will die like a mere gnat. . . .​

Somewhat like a straight shot of whiskey, clear and direct.

 

[Grandliseur]

A majority of the physicists, mathematicians and astronomers are in professional and mostly polite contention with regard to how the Universe might have been initiated.

And now the question begs, is our universe one of many?

I think that we're rather small, somehow.

Some things are hard to know. I know from a Biblical standpoint that our universe is a secondary construct.
As to being small, I beg to differ. I don't think I can correctly understand the distances and numbers used to describe our universe. Since I live at most about 70 to 80 years, getting the perspective on billions of years, etc. is where I think my perspective fails in doing a proper job.

 

[Grandliseur]

Not a single item of force or matter will have dissappeared.

Scientists do have a theory for proton, neutron - disintegration (of matter). Of course, that is energy of one form becoming another form.

 

[Grandliseur]

The argument that the universe NEEDS a creator because it is complex while the creator itself (who must be more complex then the universe he built) doesn't, simply doesn't make sense.

It might not make sense to you, but it does to me. Just because a rock might have existed for all eternity does not make it capable of ID. Ergo . ..
So, we all have our own perspectives.

 

[siti]

Universe and Earth and their future foretold:

Isaiah 51:6 6 “Raise YOUR eyes to the heavens themselves, and look at the earth beneath. For the very heavens must be dispersed in fragments just like smoke, and like a garment the earth itself will wear out, and its inhabitants themselves will die like a mere gnat. . . .​

Somewhat like a straight shot of whiskey, clear and direct.

Ah! I see - so this verse...which is part of a passage that includes imagery like religious opponents being eaten by moths and dragons being wounded by the arm of God...is a literal scientific statement that could not possibly have been understood at all by anyone before the 1920s - much later if you insist that it is referring to the 'heat death' of the universe...

...we all have our own perspectives.

Right!

 

[Grandliseur]

Ah! I see - so this verse...which is part of a passage that includes imagery like religious opponents being eaten by moths and dragons being wounded by the arm of God...is a literal scientific statement that could not possibly have been understood at all by anyone before the 1920s - much later if you insist that it is referring to the 'heat death' of the universe...

Right!

Point me in the direction of moths and dragons. Didn't see any of those.
There are several specific statements about the earth and the universe in scripture.

Job 26:7 7 He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing;
Isaiah 40:21-22 . . .? 22 There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell,​

It is what would be expected from a Creator. You don't have to believe.

Are the heavens being stretched out, inflated?
Do we look like nothing more than insects when viewed from on high. When I see Google earth pictures, we can now zoom in to where I live and even see the cars parked there. But, we are indeed small when viewed from space.
Does the earth have a circle when seen in pictures from space?
Is the earth being held up on a turtle and elephants, or is it indeed seen to hang upon nothing? (without any deeper explanation of course)​

The Bible wasn't written to educate us scientifically, it is about how to obey God and obtain salvation. However, what it says about these things are true.

Again, I wasn't trying to convert you. Just telling you what it said about our universe, its inflation, and the eventual end of the earth and life on it.

 

[siti]

I wasn't trying to convert you. Just telling you what it said about our universe, its inflation, and the eventual end of the earth and life on it.

I know you're not trying to convert me - but I really don't think this verse is talking about the expansion and ultimate heat death of the universe - rather it is employing hyperbole, setting the transience of the Jews tormentors and captors against the permanence of the heavens and the earth which back then everyone knew were eternal and indestructible...suggesting the destruction of the indestructible was a literary device not a scientific statement of fact...that's my interpretation at any rate.

Point me in the direction of moths and dragons. Didn't see any of those.

The moths are in verse 8 and the dragon in verse 9 - Isaiah 51:6-9

 

[Grandliseur]

I know you're not trying to convert me - but I really don't think this verse is talking about the expansion and ultimate heat death of the universe - rather it is employing hyperbole, setting the transience of the Jews tormentors and captors against the permanence of the heavens and the earth which back then everyone knew were eternal and indestructible...suggesting the destruction of the indestructible was a literary device not a scientific statement of fact...that's my interpretation at any rate.

The moths are in verse 8 and the dragon in verse 9 - Isaiah 51:6-9

The various translations - truly the need to check several is important. In this common translation, the dragon is worm and in the context of the scripture, it is fairly easy to see what is meant:

8 For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool; but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation unto all generations.
Another one:
Isaiah 51:7-8 . . .. 8 For the moth will eat them up just as if a garment, and the clothes moth will eat them up just as if wool. But as for my righteousness, it will prove to be even to time indefinite, and my salvation to unnumbered generations.”
​

Not much place for a dragon here.
You may understand it as you like. I just pointed you to where it said what was discussed.

​

 

[siti]

Not much place for a dragon here.
You may understand it as you like. I just pointed you to where it said what was discussed.

Its at the end of v 9 - its either a "dragon" or a "sea monster" in most versions...its clearly symbolic though - as are the moths, worms etc. devouring the Israelite's enemies like garments and wool...anyway - miles off topic but you really should read the cited verses carefully...

...there's certainly value in the scriptural traditions but not if we read more into them than there really is

...figurative language taken literally has been a cause of serious error among Bible believers and continues to be so to this day - it even costs lives and that's the danger - now that does relate to the topic of the OP - beliefs based on fervently held but blatantly counterfactual scripture interpretations that cost lives - how is that not 'delusional', how is it not 'mental illness'?

 

[Grandliseur]

Its at the end of v 9 - its either a "dragon" or a "sea monster" in most versions...its clearly symbolic though - as are the moths, worms etc. devouring the Israelite's enemies like garments and wool...anyway - miles off topic but you really should read the cited verses carefully...

...there's certainly value in the scriptural traditions but not if we read more into them than there really is

...figurative language taken literally has been a cause of serious error among Bible believers and continues to be so to this day - it even costs lives and that's the danger - now that does relate to the topic of the OP - beliefs based on fervently held but blatantly counterfactual scripture interpretations that cost lives - how is that not 'delusional', how is it not 'mental illness'?

Well, I only directed you to the specific portions of what was the subject about the earth. I didn't read further on than that, it wasn't needed for that exchange.

Since you bring up verse nine, you should also realize that when such words, even, unicorn, or whatnot, are used, it is always necessary to go into the original languages and see what is truly meant. After all, the KJV translators didn't have the full dictionary meanings of the Hebrew Aramaic language at their fingertips.

In verse nine, we have Strong's:

Jewish Bible: Awaken, awaken, dress yourself with strength, O arm of the Lord, awaken, awaken like days of old, generations of yore; are you not the one that hewed Rahab and slew the sea monster? (Yeshayahu - Isaiah - Chapter 51)
Darby: 9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of Jehovah; awake, as in the days of old, as in the generations of passed ages. Is it not thou that hath hewn Rahab in pieces, and pierced the monster?
KJV: 9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon <08577> ?
08577:
8577 tanniyn tan-neen' or tanniym (Ezek. 29:3) tan-neem'; intensive from the same as 8565; a marine or land monster, i.e. sea-serpent or jackal:--dragon, sea-monster, serpent, whale. see HEBREW for 08565​

To me, this refers to the killing of the dinos, the large sea monsters of that era. But, I admit that what this monster actually might be is unknown. I think it of little import.
So, again, each can choose his own interpretation. I am happy with my conclusions. Just as with the scientific number of theories, I choose that which fits my paradigm while not minding the exchanging of ideas. Each to his own. In the end, what is important turns around (for me) my health, my daily needs. All this other stuff are mostly things that do not really affect me, fun, but that is about it.

​

 

[siti]

Well, I only directed you to the specific portions of what was the subject about the earth. I didn't read further on than that, it wasn't needed for that exchange.

Since you bring up verse nine, you should also realize that when such words, even, unicorn, or whatnot, are used, it is always necessary to go into the original languages and see what is truly meant. After all, the KJV translators didn't have the full dictionary meanings of the Hebrew Aramaic language at their fingertips.

In verse nine, we have Strong's:

Jewish Bible: Awaken, awaken, dress yourself with strength, O arm of the Lord, awaken, awaken like days of old, generations of yore; are you not the one that hewed Rahab and slew the sea monster? (Yeshayahu - Isaiah - Chapter 51)
Darby: 9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of Jehovah; awake, as in the days of old, as in the generations of passed ages. Is it not thou that hath hewn Rahab in pieces, and pierced the monster?
KJV: 9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon <08577> ?
08577:
8577 tanniyn tan-neen' or tanniym (Ezek. 29:3) tan-neem'; intensive from the same as 8565; a marine or land monster, i.e. sea-serpent or jackal:--dragon, sea-monster, serpent, whale. see HEBREW for 08565​

To me, this refers to the killing of the dinos, the large sea monsters of that era. But, I admit that what this monster actually might be is unknown. I think it of little import.
So, again, each can choose his own interpretation. I am happy with my conclusions. Just as with the scientific number of theories, I choose that which fits my paradigm while not minding the exchanging of ideas. Each to his own. In the end, what is important turns around (for me) my health, my daily needs. All this other stuff are mostly things that do not really affect me, fun, but that is about it.

​

Oh dear! 'Rahab' is the demon of the sea - especially the Red Sea - depicted in Hebrew folk lore as a dragon or sea monster - this portion of scripture is addressing the Israelites and encouraging them with the idea that their (then current) situation at the mercy of their Babylonian oppressors would be short-lived and although the Babylonian tyranny seemed like an insurmountable and unmovable obstacle as permanent as the earth and the stars, it was really no more permanent than moth-eaten garments and would, sooner rather than later, be overcome just as the dragon (the demon of the Red Sea) had been conquered when the Hebrews had escaped from Egyptian tyranny before...its folklore and figurative literature - and easily understandable if you really know anything about the ancient Israelites and the Bible. The writers of the Bible had no idea that dinosaurs had ever existed...let alone what might have become of them...but anyway, I think that's far enough off topic for me.

 

[oldbadger]

Scientists do have a theory for proton, neutron - disintegration (of matter). Of course, that is energy of one form becoming another form.

Indeed............. nothing truly destroyed, and nothing more truly created.

Some things are hard to know. I know from a Biblical standpoint that our universe is a secondary construct.
As to being small, I beg to differ. I don't think I can correctly understand the distances and numbers used to describe our universe. Since I live at most about 70 to 80 years, getting the perspective on billions of years, etc. is where I think my perspective fails in doing a proper job.

And yet................. that's tiny, by comparison with all.......

It's my belief that the real size, quantity and force of all is such as to transcend the understanding of any minds. This won't stop at the boundaries of our Universe.

 

[Ponder This]

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?

I think you have to define a measure if you are going to talk about a measure.
If we just take 'measure' out of it and 'religious' out of it, then I suppose we can discuss the mental aspect of any experience... but is that useful? Are you simply suggesting that all experiences have a mental aspect? So what?

 

[siti]

I think you have to define a measure if you are going to talk about a measure.
If we just take 'measure' out of it and 'religious' out of it, then I suppose we can discuss the mental aspect of any experience... but is that useful? Are you simply suggesting that all experiences have a mental aspect? So what?

So there might be commonalities and correlations between different kinds of experiences - normal sensory experiences, hallucinatory experiences, psychotic experiences, spiritual or religious experiences...that help us to better understand the nature of human experience and make better sense of religious experiences.

 

[Ponder This]

So there might be commonalities and correlations between different kinds of experiences - normal sensory experiences, hallucinatory experiences, psychotic experiences, spiritual or religious experiences...that help us to better understand the nature of human experience and make better sense of religious experiences.

Maybe? I'm not ruling it out. The ability to recite the Pentateuch by heart is a mental exercise, but what does that have to do with religion? Loose connections are loose. Maybe we'll name our children after Moses. So what? Now the child is automatically 'religious' because his name is Moses?

If people in the Bible heard voices, does that mean hearing voices is a religious experience now? Is every burning bush holy? Are we wrong to stop forest fires?

IIf we want to draw connections, then maybe we should be clear about what those connections really are.

 

[siti]

If we want to draw connections, then maybe we should be clear about what those connections really are.

I thought I was fairly clear - e.g. why is it if I hear the voice of Julius Caesar I am mad, but if I hear the voice of Jesus Christ I am having a spiritual experience? What is the difference? That was the original question and so far what most of the religious people who have commented have contributed is (to be honest) an apparently angry response surprisingly reminiscent of the symptoms of persecutory delusion. Its not what I wanted to see - but it is interesting data nonetheless.

 

[Ponder This]

I thought I was fairly clear - e.g. why is it if I hear the voice of Julius Caesar I am mad, but if I hear the voice of Jesus Christ I am having a spiritual experience? What is the difference? That was the original question and so far what most of the religious people who have commented have contributed is (to be honest) an apparently angry response surprisingly reminiscent of the symptoms of persecutory delusion. Its not what I wanted to see - but it is interesting data nonetheless.

Maybe I misunderstood the question. I thought you were asking about religious fervor vs mental illness.

First of all, hearing the voice of Julius Caesar doesn't necessarily mean a person is mentally ill and hearing the voice of Jesus Christ doesn't mean a person isn't mentally ill.

The difference in most people's minds is probably that Jesus is associated with the spirit while Julius Caesar is associated with the world (which is a somewhat metaphorical way of seeing things). In my mind, this is a bit like saying your child is religious because you named him Moses. Context is important. Is hearing the voice of J.C. disrupting your life? What exactly is J.C. telling you? How do you feel about it? Maybe hearing J.C. causes you to become religious or even religiously fervent.

Fundamentally, I don't see a big difference between hearing the voice of Julius Caesar vs hearing the voice of Jesus Christ. The significance of the personalities is personal rather than general. It's only religious because the context makes it religious. Not every burning bush is God speaking to you. In general, we put out forest fires but launch fireworks at moments of significance.

Maybe you are trying to emphasize cases like Ron from your linked article. If the professionals say he's mentally ill, then I venture to say that chances are he's mentally ill... regardless of how 'religious' Ron views the hallucinations that led him to kill a woman and child. He thinks it was God that told him to do it, but how do we know it wasn't the devil whispering in his ear?