• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

Agondonter

Active Member
Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

Would this be a good thing, a bad thing, or a mixed bag? Why?
It's a two-edged sword. The article concludes with: "She notes correctly that "brainwashing" which embraces all the subtle and not-so-subtle ways "we make people think things that might not be good for them, that they might not otherwise have chosen to think," is a much more pervasive social phenomenon than we are willing to recognize. As social animals we are all victims of culturally induced brainwashing whose effectiveness correlates with our inability to think outside the box of our given acculturation." If the highlighted is true of religion, it is equally true of secularism.
 

allright

Active Member
For years people have been rescued from cults by friends and relatives and deprogramed back to normal. There are lots of documented cases of cult brainwashing out there. Look at what happened to Patty Hearst.

Right but they were deceived not mentally ill

And whose going to play God and decide which beliefs are right and wrong, our elected officials
in Washington who have an approval rating one point ahead of charles manson
 
Last edited:

Demonslayer

Well-Known Member
Religion (especially islam) is evil in disguise.

I would argue that Islam only seems worse in modern times because of theocracies. Allow a Christian theocracy in America for example and we'd see President Charles Worley passing laws that put gay people behind electric fences, Senator Steven L Anderson pushing legislature supporting the government putting gay people to death, (both currently pastors who actually said those things) and very likely modern science being replaced with creationism and Biblical teachings in public schools. That's just the start. We damn sure wouldn't have legal abortion or the freedom to display symbols of other religions.

It's secularism that fends off the mob rule mentality of religion. In modern Islamic theocracies there is nothing to stem the tide of madness, nothing to protect the people from extremism leaking into their laws, social systems and every day lives.

Thank God for secularism! :confused:
 

Demonslayer

Well-Known Member
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

This is a big question...do the mentally unstable seek extreme, fundamentalist style religion or does extreme, fundamentalist style religion make people mentally unstable?

I'm not sure it matters. By the time you get to the level of fundamentalism where you're standing on the street corner with "God hates F**gs" signs, there's a problem regardless of the origin of it.

I tend to think it's more unstable people are drawn to the more fundamentalist religious groups. If you hear a voice in your head, you can consider you have a problem or you can find a group of people who say it's A-OK that's just God chatting with you. On the other hand you can't discount the power of early indoctrination. There aren't so many Islamic terrorists just because there are so many naturally homicidal people being born in Islamic nations. Fundamentalist Islamic terrorist parents are intentionally raising their kids to also be fundamentalist terrorists.

To the question posed by this thread though, I'm still very reluctant to call any of this "mental illness." To me the folks that come closest to mentally ill aren't necessarily the ones out there doing harm to people, or spreading hateful messages or any of that. It's the ones who walk around 24/7 with a constant monologue to God, thinking God controls every last instant in everyone's lives...God made that kid stub his toe because he was being bad, God helped me find my car keys, God made it rain when we had a picnic planned because I didn't pray hard enough, etc. Seeing outside forces influencing or controlling the actions and events in our lives is actually a real sign of mental illness that they look for. It's unhealthy to walk around with this idea that we are all basically marionettes to some cosmic uber-puppeteer.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You're still claiming that a state of mind which doesn't necessarily interfere with a normal life is a psychiatric disorder.
I'm not entirely clear how my words which said, "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," can be construed as me saying it doesn't interfere with normal life? Please explain. In my view it certainly does interfere with normal life in very damaging ways. Ask those who are recovering from it. Ask them what it was doing to do them.

So many people are fundamentalist that it seems merely another kind of normal.
Anxiety is also on the rise in numbers in our society to where more and more people are being medicated for it. Should we call that normal because there are increasing numbers? What about having cancer? There's some pretty high statistics for that as well. But by all definitions it is considered a disease. So should fundamentalism be. It's not healthy.

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.
I don't think you have read my posts very carefully. I have been very clear saying that religious beliefs can in fact be very healthy for people. But something which is otherwise healthy can become diseased and become unhealthy. That's what fundamentalism is. It's a cancer which eats healthy cells. It's a disease.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The thing is, I think the conversation has already gotten started.
Considering the fact of this thread, I'd say what this person is proposing in calling fundamentalism a disease is very much part of that conversation getting started. We are discussing it out in the open, as we should. We need more people to call it what it really is, rather than assuming it's just some other legitimate form of religion. It's a disease and it harms those that it infects.

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.
I'm opposed to the disease of fundamentalism in whomever it infects, be it expressed in religion or any other system of belief. I've talked quite a lot about how simply switching the objects of belief from religious to secular ones does not get rid of the disease. It's not religion that's the problem. It's not atheism that's the problem. This is where I feel a lot of the neo-atheist voices I've heard are truly missing the boat. I hear them saying "get rid of religion", "religion is evil", and whatnot, whereas in reality that's like getting rid of the patient who has a cancerous growth rather than attacking the growth specifically. Neo-atheism certainly has it's fundamentalists too infecting its otherwise healthy conversation it has going on. All that's happening however is blaming the patient for being ill and suggesting they just die. That's hardly being helpful. That's being part of the problem itself.

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.
Words evolve constantly. When we start using fundamentalism to point to non-religious groups its meaning expands. If someone constantly used "fanaticism" in the context of religious beliefs, it too would take on the religious connotation as well. This is also why I think "religious belief" is a lot more than belief in the supernatural, and how it too should be used of atheism when held as "the truth" by individuals in the way belief in God is. I see religious belief as encompassing a lot more than simply belief in deities.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.
What you are saying is true in general. What these really are is just a matter of being developmentally immature. At a certain stage of growth these narcissistic behaviors are in fact part of normal development. Everyone grows through them in early childhood where they are initially incapable of taking on the perspective of the other, to empathize with them, seeing only their point of view as right and true. Then as they mature they become able to move out of themselves as center and take on the other's point of view, putting themselves in their seat and seeing through their eyes in a 2nd person perspective (a perspective of a perspective). Then as they continue to mature they move into 3rd person perspectives (a perspective of a perspective of a perspective), then 4th, 5th, 6th, and even higher perspectives beyond those in truly advanced cases. Most mature people however should be able to at the very least take a 2nd person perspective, if not 3rd or 4th person perspectives to be considered healthy adults.

So why then is fundamentalism a disease? Because rather than becoming a supportive structure which promotes healthy and normal growth through these stages of development (mentally, emotionally, spiritually), it turns in on itself, absolutizing its current perspective, it's own developmental stage and keeps people locked in itself through fear and threats. Anytime the body is constrained in this way, like wrapping bindings around a young developing foot for instance, it becomes diseased, twisted and distorted never becoming fully functional. It makes the foot, in this example, dysfunctional. Fundamentalism is a structure of thoughts and beliefs which systematically targets anything that might mean the individual may grow beyond the structure itself (which is normal in healthy stages of development), and puts itself as the thing in and of itself. This is what a cancer cell does. It takes over the body feeding itself, rather than supporting the individual's growth and health. It's like the scaffolding on a building which entombs the building itself and doesn't allow any new floors to be added. This is no longer a functional support structure, but a dysfunctional one. It doesn't serve development, it cripples it, overtaking the building itself.

When the body does not grow properly, it becomes diseased. Psychologically, a failure to integrate early stages of growth into higher one creates pathologies. Repression, sub-personalities, and so forth result, and it takes years of therapy to help the individual recover. Fundamentalism in fact does create a great deal of damage in individuals for this very reason. If it is imposed upon them they may end up spending years in recovery, trying to reclaim and rediscover what was taken from them, what was denied them in their development. I've been part of several groups which exist for the recovery of individuals from these systems, and it seriously is a form of systematic abuse. It should be called a disease, as people do suffer ill-effects from it and often need to go through some form of therapy as a result of it. This is not just another form of religious beliefs, but something dysfunctional and damaging.

A good healthy religion on the other hand likewise is a structure, but one which ideally helps the individual to grow through early to later more mature stages of growth. When it is functioning, it grows the person from narcissistic early stages, through the more mature, more inclusive stages, where the person even becomes compassion itself in the world, where they have moved from pure egocentric, to world-centric and even cosmo-centric self identification where they identify with, see as all life itself. Fundamentalism again, is when the structure fails to support development of the person as a whole, halting growth which leads to distortions and pathologies.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't think you have read my posts very carefully. I have been very clear saying that religious beliefs can in fact be very healthy for people. But something which is otherwise healthy can become diseased and become unhealthy. That's what fundamentalism is. It's a cancer which eats healthy cells. It's a disease.
Perhaps you haven't read my posts very carefully.
I'm objecting to the claim that fundamentalism is diseased & unhealthy.
This is far far too broad.
It simply doesn't adversely affect the lives of so many of them.
To brand them as "diseased" & "unhealthy" is not only unproductive, it will foment resistance & rancor.
It smacks of anti-theism.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Perhaps you haven't read my posts very carefully.
I'm objecting to the claim that fundamentalism is diseased & unhealthy.
This is far far too broad.
It simply doesn't adversely affect the lives of so many of them.
To brand them as "diseased" & "unhealthy" is not only unproductive, it will foment resistance & rancor.
It smacks of anti-theism.
What good comes from it? Explain. BTW, to say I'm fomenting anti-theism is absurd. I self-identify as a panentheist, which means that I believe in God as both wholly transcendent and wholly immanent.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
What good comes from it? Explain. BTW, to say I'm fomenting anti-theism is absurd. I self-identify as a panentheist, which means that I believe in God as both wholly transcendent and wholly immanent.
I see you claiming that all fundamentalists are diseased & unhealthy.
Anyone who is faithful to all their religious beliefs is this way?
Even the ones who suffer no dysfunction in their lives must endure these labels?
No....it still strikes me as demonization.

Note to my religious friends.....
You already know that I find your beliefs "loopy".
And I accept that you find mine the same.
We're good with that.
Opposing weltanschauungs are fun!
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You say that like anti-theism is necessarily a bad thing.
In this case, yes.
It is utterly wrong to treat people who function well in life (despite their loopy beliefs) as deranged.
To believe with great detail in things which aren't there is wrong in my eyes, but not necessarily unhealthy.
Even if this originates in a misunderstanding of psychiatry, & not hatred of religion, it will be
seen that way by those adversely affected. We don't need fearful fundies circling the wagons.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
In this case, yes.
It is utterly wrong to treat people who function well in life (despite their loopy beliefs) as deranged.
To believe with great detail in things which aren't there is wrong in my eyes, but not necessarily unhealthy.
Even if this originates in a misunderstanding of psychiatry, & not hatred of religion, it will be
seen that way by those adversely affected. We don't need fearful fundies circling the wagons.

I disagree that religious fundamentalism is a mental illness, but anti-theism in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, just like how anti-atheism in and of itself isn't a bad thing. They are only bad when they lead to demonization or harm of other people.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I disagree that religious fundamentalism is a mental illness, but anti-theism in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, just like how anti-atheism in and of itself isn't a bad thing. They are only bad when they lead to demonization or harm of other people.
Well, dang it!
I completely agree.
Is this a failing of yours or mine?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I see you claiming that all fundamentalists are diseased & unhealthy.
I am claiming fundamentalism, as a system, is unhealthy and diseased. Please read a further explanation of my views in post #87 from this morning. http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...s-a-mental-illness.187480/page-5#post-4757433

Anyone who is faithful to all their religious beliefs is this way?
I actually don't consider it as actual faith, but that's a different more in-depth discussion. Again, I think fundamentalism is an illegitimate form of religion which is pathological and leads to problems for people adopting them. Of course not everyone who is in the system is mentally ill. I was part of a fundamentalist group myself, but I can tell you it does in fact do a number on someone. I speak as a former insider.

Even the ones who suffer no dysfunction in their lives must endure these labels?
No....it still strikes me as demonization.
You haven't answered my question of how fundamentalism is good for people. I'm open to seeing something redeeming about it. What is that, exactly?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I am claiming fundamentalism, as a system, is unhealthy and diseased. Please read a further explanation of my views in post #87 from this morning. http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...s-a-mental-illness.187480/page-5#post-4757433


I actually don't consider it as actual faith, but that's a different more in-depth discussion. Again, I think fundamentalism is an illegitimate form of religion which is pathological and leads to problems for people adopting them. Of course not everyone who is in the system is mentally ill. I was part of a fundamentalist group myself, but I can tell you it does in fact do a number on someone. I speak as a former insider.


You haven't answered my question of how fundamentalism is good for people. I'm open to seeing something redeeming about it. What is that, exactly?
I don't claim that fundamentalism is good for people.
(I don't think that any religion is good for people....it's essentially neutral.)
I only dispute that it's a clinical mental illness.
 
Top