Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

[Windwalker]

I think this is a very good analysis on what the difference is.

Thanks!

My concern, however, is that these subtle nuances could become completely lost on most people. Even if there's no government-sanctioned "witch-hunts" of people who hold certain types of beliefs associated with fundamentalists, I worry about a minimum effect of religious and spiritual people becoming socially ostracized because of their beliefs, regardless of whether they practice in safe, healthy ways or not.

I think what should be done is to educate people what the hell the difference between religious beliefs and fundamentalism are. People are already calling all of religion the same thing as what we see Pat Robertson doing. There is as much difference between Pat Robertson and the Dalai Lama as there is between a garden slug and a human being. But to the mainstream its all the same thing. They're both practicing "religion", and the only difference they see is that the Dalai Lama smiles a lot and is more pleasant. However, the reality is in how they think and believe. When I hear neo-atheists say we need to "get rid of religion", what they are doing is lumping everything together without distinctions. They see it as all the same thing, just infantile fantasizing and death denials - the lowest possible denominator there is.

So what I think would be beneficial is to recognize "good religion" and call fundamentalism what it actually is which is an illness and a disease of the mind. What we need to get rid of is not "religion" (as defined by fundamentalism), but fundamentalism itself. To call it what it is rips off the cloak it hides itself under and exposes its diseased body. It's not a healthy form of religion.

Consider that society already demonizes mental illnesses. "Psychopath" and "sociopath" are colloquially synonymous with "serial killer", even though the vast majority of people with antisocial personality disorder are not killers at all.

Honestly, I think socially acknowledging it as a disease is the first step. Right now, it's an untreated and sanctioned disease. It's truly predatory in nature, "wolves in sheep's clothing", as it were, given a pass because it hides itself as "religion". Expose it first, then educate people that we should try to both avoid the disease and help those who have been poisoned by it to get help! That people use these legitimate terms incorrectly is no reason to not acknowledge it for what it is. Raising public awareness to de-stigmatize those affected by the illness comes second.

There's still a stigma against getting therapy.

That may be true, but becoming less so. But getting therapy is better than not when you are ill! First acknowledging you have an illness is the first step. We need to pull the sheep's clothing off that wolf and call fundamentalism what is really is. Pat Robertson is not a healthy religious person. He has an illness. Fundamentalism is not a legitimate form of religion.

So while I think in theory it makes sense to call fundamentalism a mental illness, I don't think it's a good idea to use the term as a diagnosis in practice.

Well, the funny thing with these things in practices is they have to have a code for them in the book in order to bill insurance companies with. People in fact do need to go through therapy to recover from fundamentalism. It messes with their minds in damaging way. It's not just religion, but something pathological.

 

[fantome profane]

Then the vast majority of the world's population is mentally ill.

I actually agree with that. But the problem comes up when the mental illness makes someone a danger to themselves or others. If someone has a belief that tells them that they should kill homosexuals, or murder apostates, or burn witches then that person is dangerously insane. I don't care if someone beliefs in fairies or ghosts, I care if that belief makes them dangerous. And yes, it is a form or insanity and we need to recognize it as such.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think what should be done is to educate people what the hell the difference between religious beliefs and fundamentalism are.

People need to have the time and inclination, first, which most adults don't.

Sure, this can be made part of high school curriculum for the next generation, but the current state of public education is TERRIBLE at educating anybody about anything.

Education is nearly always the solution, but there's a problem: it seems we haven't the faintest idea of how to do that.

Honestly, I think socially acknowledging it as a disease is the first step. Right now, it's an untreated and sanctioned disease. It's truly predatory in nature, "wolves in sheep's clothing", as it were, given a pass because it hides itself as "religion". Expose it first, then educate people that we should try to both avoid the disease and help those who have been poisoned by it to get help! That people use these legitimate terms incorrectly is no reason to not acknowledge it for what it is. Raising public awareness to de-stigmatize those affected by the illness comes second.

That may be true, but becoming less so. But getting therapy is better than not when you are ill! First acknowledging you have an illness is the first step. We need to pull the sheep's clothing off that wolf and call fundamentalism what is really is. Pat Robertson is not a healthy religious person. He has an illness. Fundamentalism is not a legitimate form of religion.[/quote]

Right there. My brain focused squarely on that last sentence. While I understand what you're saying, and agree to an extent in context of your argument, trying to push for this kind of thing now is going to do more harm than good to the cause, because the media will twist and warp your words to make it look like you're saying things that you're not. The warped version, after all, makes a far better story and scandal.

Well, the funny thing with these things in practices is they have to have a code for them in the book in order to bill insurance companies with. People in fact do need to go through therapy to recover from fundamentalism. It messes with their minds in damaging way. It's not just religion, but something pathological.

That may be the case, but I honestly think you're going too far too fast. This solution might be good in the long-term, but the current state of our culture would never allow it. As such, our steps must be much more subtle, nudging the culture in a certain direction.

Something that this means is that we cannot count on living to see these come to fruition. We have to trust the younger generations.

 

[Augustus]

I actually agree with that. But the problem comes up when the mental illness makes someone a danger to themselves or others. If someone has a belief that tells them that they should kill homosexuals, or murder apostates, or burn witches then that person is dangerously insane. I don't care if someone beliefs in fairies or ghosts, I care if that belief makes them dangerous. And yes, it is a form or insanity and we need to recognize it as such.

I'm not so sure. Humans will often justify killing those who are seen as being a threat to themselves or their way of life. This is demonstrated throughout history.

Obviously, there exists situations in which this 'threat' to a way of life causes atrocities that are in no way related to the degree of 'threat'. I don't think these can be seen as illnesses though, just part of the 'normal' functioning of the human mind. An average person can very easily be drawn towards some pretty nasty beliefs. Again, history shows this to be true.

That doesn't mean we have to acquiesce to them, just that seeing them as 'illnesses' is not really the correct way to view them. Our 'normal' behaviour, encompasses many things we would prefer it not to. It is prudent to see it as such.

 

[Sapiens]

In your opinion, why might it be termed an illness, rather than simply reflecting the normal functioning of one part of humanity?

If it can be shown to be an "abnormal" functioning (say two standard deviations out) thus being the cause of the imagined fear, as opposed to a normal reaction to a real fear, it could be considered a disease even though at one time in human history it may have in fact been a successful evolutionary adaptation to have had a diversity of reaction and fear in the population.

Its a Womenś opinion

In your not so humble and sexist opinion.

 

[Demonslayer]

If someone has a belief that tells them that they should kill homosexuals, or murder apostates, or burn witches then that person is dangerously insane.

This.

 

[Jabar]

If it can be shown to be an "abnormal" functioning (say two standard deviations out) thus being the cause of the imagined fear, as opposed to a normal reaction to a real fear, it could be considered a disease even though at one time in human history it may have in fact been a successful evolutionary adaptation to have had a diversity of reaction and fear in the population.
In your not so humble and sexist opinion.

Haha, not so humble?

How is that not humble?

 

[Augustus]

If it can be shown to be an "abnormal" functioning (say two standard deviations out) thus being the cause of the imagined fear, as opposed to a normal reaction to a real fear, it could be considered a disease even though at one time in human history it may have in fact been a successful evolutionary adaptation to have had a diversity of reaction and fear in the population.

Would that not make it a disorder rather than a disease?

 

[Windwalker]

People need to have the time and inclination, first, which most adults don't.

Initially, yes. But there is what's known as "the tipping point", where once 10% of a population adopts a point of view it begins to spread and grow exponentially. As that happens it permeates culture through various means, just the way people talk, arts, media, advertising, and so forth - all the ways ideas spread without the person needing to actively sit down and study or research a thing. You and I are products of our cultures in these ways, adopting actually modes of thinking and ideas we have never even heard of. Sensitivity to others just ends up getting "born" into us this way.

Sure, this can be made part of high school curriculum for the next generation, but the current state of public education is TERRIBLE at educating anybody about anything.

As I said, ideas spread in many ways, not just the education system. How we believe, think, and talk, does in fact influence the world in ways we honestly cannot fathom. It starts with individuals. And those ideas too can be healthful, or poisonous such as fundamentalist ones.

"Fundamentalism is not a legitimate form of religion".

Right there. My brain focused squarely on that last sentence. While I understand what you're saying, and agree to an extent in context of your argument, trying to push for this kind of thing now is going to do more harm than good to the cause, because the media will twist and warp your words to make it look like you're saying things that you're not. The warped version, after all, makes a far better story and scandal.

While it's true many will get up in arms about that statement, and the media will milk it for what it's worth, it does in fact have the effect of getting the conversation started. It needs to be said. The cloak needs to be ripped off to see that what's hiding underneath of it is a hideous apparition full of death and disease. We need a Jesus to flip the money-changer's table over rattling the complicity of the religious world. In reality, most know it's not right, but someone needs to be the one to take the brunt of it calling them out on the floor. They serve as a champion for their own voices to weigh in against what they already know is a disease in religion.

That may be the case, but I honestly think you're going too far too fast. This solution might be good in the long-term, but the current state of our culture would never allow it. As such, our steps must be much more subtle, nudging the culture in a certain direction.

The way the progress moves is by getting the conversation started. A radical truth-proclaimer daring to unmask the sacred cows to show they are actually skunks and porcupines gets people talking about it. It raises awareness, and calling this sort of distortion of religion an illness, removing any form of legitimacy to it, is something people need to hear. Personally, I think there is an urgency to do so.

Something that this means is that we cannot count on living to see these come to fruition. We have to trust the younger generations.

As they say, change happens one funeral at a time. In reality though, I think it can happen a lot faster than that. I think the neo-atheist conversation has something to say, but it's missing the boat in its soly deconstructing religious mythology and tossing it to the side like a dead carcass to be laughed at. There is more to it than that, a lot more. It doesn't offer what is good and true in religion in its mad dash to find something to reject it.

 

[Sapiens]

Would that not make it a disorder rather than a disease?

"Disease" has a specific identifiable cause and symptoms whilst a "disorder" refers to an unwanted condition that's hard to say what could be wrong. If the cause pans out, the symptoms are clear, and the condition is unwanted ... you pays your money and takes your choice, cause either would work and the actual definition really only effects whether Obamacare will pay for your treatment in a FEMA reeducation camp.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Really? I have 2 names for you: Charles Manson and Jim Jones.

It's not dangerous due to who it might stop. Nor does it change the fact that mentally ill people...regardless of religious affiliation...require medical assistance.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Its a Womenś opinion

Salaam,
And?
Wassalaam

 

[Jabar]

Salaam,
And?
Wassalaam

It was a joke, haha.

Women and Men are equally respected in my opinion.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

It was a joke, haha.

Women and Men are equally respected in my opinion.

Salaam,

Aameen.
Please be careful with some of these jokes as they just reinforce the negative stereotypes that many people hold about Muslims.

Wassalaam

 

[Riverwolf]

While it's true many will get up in arms about that statement, and the media will milk it for what it's worth, it does in fact have the effect of getting the conversation started. It needs to be said. The cloak needs to be ripped off to see that what's hiding underneath of it is a hideous apparition full of death and disease. We need a Jesus to flip the money-changer's table over rattling the complicity of the religious world. In reality, most know it's not right, but someone needs to be the one to take the brunt of it calling them out on the floor. They serve as a champion for their own voices to weigh in against what they already know is a disease in religion.

The thing is, I think the conversation has already gotten started.

In many stories and media, the sorts of people you're referring as fundamentalists are frequently depicted as mad cult leaders. It seems this has been going on for quite some time.

I think my problem is that you're focusing solely on these elements within religions, even though you also acknowledge that the problem exists within certain non-religious and atheist groups, as well. I wonder if those Neo-atheists are exactly the ones who are the table-flipping Jesuses you speak of. If so, religions already are targets, and the focus needs to shift away from this phenomenon of behavior in religious contexts.

Because, come to think of it, it exists even well outside that context.

I'm sure you've seen how vocal, and even violent, some fans of certain media and celebrities can get, for instance.

This is why I think the term "fundamentalism" doesn't work; it's inherently limiting. However, "fanaticism" could work, since the word doesn't have just religious connotations.

 

[Marsh]

Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

Would this be a good thing, a bad thing, or a mixed bag? Why?

I did know one woman, I would call her a friend, who was deeply religious and who spent time, along with her boyfriend, in a psychiatric hospital. She told me she was released only because she was able to convince the doctors that she no longer heard God's voice. Her boyfriend gave up his religious enthusiasm because, as she said, he put his mental illness down to his single minded pursuit of God. Now, maybe, their religious devotion did not drive them into mental illness, maybe religious devotion was only a convenient gateway for the illness to express itself -- which opens the possibility that Saint Paul was himself suffering mental instability, and perhaps the revelation on the road to Damascus was all in his head.

 

[Marsh]

... I think the term "fundamentalism" doesn't work; it's inherently limiting. However, "fanaticism" could work, since the word doesn't have just religious connotations.

What is fundamentalism? I understand it to describe those folk who take the words in their Bible literally: hence, Christian fundamentalists. Now, the good folk of ISIS I would describe as fanatics, if not simply lunatics, and though they also take their holy books literally I would not call them fundamentalists, for do not most Muslims claim to take their holy books literally? The whole notion of whether or not religious fanaticism should be treated as a mental illness maybe has some bearing on the problem in the Middle East: kill or cure?

 

[Revoltingest]

The latter is symptomatic of fundamentalism. Here's a twist people often miss. People with the fundamentalist "disease" are attracted to systems of belief which fit with it. It's the same thing with people who suffer from schizophrenia finding certain forms of religious beliefs attractive to them. It mirrors the way they think. It's not the beliefs that make someone fundamentalists. They're minds are that way to begin with and are in fact not helped at all in these fundamentalist systems. They are kept ill within them.


I had equated fundamentalism with cancer, to which you responded, "I don't see religion & cancer as being even remotely similar." You replaced my word choice of fundamentalism with your word choice of religion. It sounded like you equated the two as one and same to me.


This is completely untrue. You clearly do not understand what I, or that article is talking about referring to fundamentalism then if you think it can be reduced down to holding a single belief. Religious fundamentalists all believe in God, but so does your average mainstream believer. But HOW those beliefs are held are radically different from each other. It is not the "single belief" that makes someone a fundamentalist. Not all atheists are fundamentalist in the same way not all believers are.


It's a lot more than that. It has to do with extreme black and white thinking, an incapacity for empathy, inability to take multiple perspectives, narcissistic focuses, and so forth. Fundamentalism is when something goes wrong developmentally and becomes a pathological pattern, crippling the person from otherwise healthy integration: psychologically, emotionally, socially, spiritually, and so forth. It closes the person off, isolates them, cripples them, and so forth. It does the opposite of helping them grow.

You're still claiming that a state of mind which doesn't necessarily interfere with a normal life is a psychiatric disorder.
So many people are fundamentalist that it seems merely another kind of normal.
So I don't buy it.
Using your line of thought, one could claim that anyone who is religious is mentally ill because they believe in things they cannot verify objectively.
Similarly, this just isn't of any value.

 

[morphesium]

Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

Would this be a good thing, a bad thing, or a mixed bag? Why?

Religious Fundamentalism is "absolute madness" but it shows how susceptible we are (as human beings) to this madness. Take a mythical book , bring up a child with some "suitable" religious instructions - thats it, and he or she will follow it for entire life without questioning. Thats what every religion is.

Since deeply religious parents can never think against their religion, I do believe that the government should pass laws to ensure that every religion should prove itself scientifically before imparting it to a child especially to check religious fundamentalism. They should keep camera and mic on madrassas and should be openly avaliable to every one. No other religion is more uncivilized and threatful to a nation (and humanity) as Islam is.

Should one give religious freedom to a religion which deny freedom to other religion?
Should one accept a religion which supports and glorifies religious extremism as the most pious state one can achieve and hence threatens all other religions?

What is the fate of people if religious fundamentalists are the supreme lawmakers? the supreme Judiciary? the law enforcers? - just pathetic, but that's true for some nations. There people are not supposed to ask a valid scientific question against their religion.

Religion (especially islam) is evil in disguise.
Yes, I would say Religioius Fundamentalism should be Treated as Mental Illness - an acquired Mental Illness.

 

[lovesong]

I am being specific to patterns of thought, yes. Certainly things such as patterns of violence, for instance are different than simply an act of violence in and of itself. What I see fundamentalism as is much more a thought pattern or mode of thinking, than simply a single belief.


Not quite. First, I didn't intend to convey I believe that fundamentalism leads to black and white thinking and intolerance. It's really black and white thinking which creates fundamentalism itself and makes it attractive to those who have that mode of thinking already. Fundamentalist systems of belief simply reinforce that pattern, not create it out of nothing. I think what best defines fundamentalism is that it keeps someone locked into bad patterns, rather than helping them to grow. It reinforces negative things which work against the individual.

As far as "passion", I hardly equate that with black and white thinking. I can be and am deeply passionate about the things I believe in, however I am also quite open and receptive to challenges. I grow though them. I consider myself a passionate explorer of ideas and understandings to expand myself with. The fundamentalist on the other hand is the exact opposite. They are closed into their beliefs, locked on them, and resist any and all challenges to them. They become irrational in defensive of their beliefs, as their beliefs are the very footing upon which they stand. It's all they have, and what you may mistake as "passion" in their "zeal" for their beliefs, I see as the opposite. I see their "passion" as sheer fear and terror on their part they may be wrong. I see it as desperation. They need to be right, and hence why everyone else with a different perspective than their own must be demonized or destroyed. There's a radical difference between the two. The former is healthy, the latter is not.


Again, there is a difference between being passionate about something one believes in, and being irrational and fanatical. The latter is a sickness, not healthy passion. It's like saying someone who has has OCD is just passionate. It's actually not passion at that point, but an illness. A healthy passion leads to one expanding one's self into others. An illness feeds upon itself and others. Fundamentalism is like vampirism. It feeds off others to feed itself. And it's like cancer in that it feeds off the host itself. It kills.


Again, I never, ever said a belief system is a mental illness. I said how someone holds those beliefs is. Fundamentalism takes otherwise healthy beliefs and turns them into poison, both for the person holding them and those around them. Nothing good comes from it. Therefore, it's an illness.

I see the same destructive zeal in feminist and environmentalist movements. They often believe that their ideas are so right that "everyone else with a different perspective than their own must be demonized or destroyed." These two groups also follow this point of your argument: "They are closed into their beliefs, locked on them, and resist any and all challenges to them." Both groups, when challenged, often stoop to the level of personal attacks and insisting that their opponent is a horrible evil person for daring to even suggest a different view. This is also seen a lot in politics. Many politicians would never be open to "grow" in their views, they are fixed in their ways. I do not think that being fixed in one's ways or feeling disgust for all opponents is a mental illness at all. This whole idea of growing as a person and being open to other ideas and ways of thinking is relatively new, and not being comfortable with change, or being so sure in your beliefs that they cannot be shook or swayed is not a disorder. And as far as wanting to eliminate opposing views or having strong negative feelings towards opponents, not liking certain groups of people because of their views and beliefs may make you a jerk, but it isn't a mental illness.