Sanity in numbers?

[Smoke]

Does it seem that untenable beliefs are more plausible and more respectable when they're held by large numbers of people? Consider the following, by Sam Harris:

It takes a certain kind of person to believe what no one else believes. To be ruled by ideas for which you have no evidence (and which therefore cannot be justified in conversation with other human beings) is generally a sign that something is seriously wrong with your mind. Clearly, there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that is is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are. ...

Jesus Christ -- who, as it turn out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavens -- can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to those beliefs would be considered mad? Rather, is there any doubt that he would be mad?
​

What do you think?

 

[Willamena]

What do you think?

Their myths are not insane at all, unless they are taken out of context, i.e. literally. I believe the majority of believers do not do that.

 

[Smoke]

Their myths are not insane at all, unless they are taken out of context, i.e. literally. I believe the majority of believers do not do that.

Do you believe the majority of Muslims don't believe the Qur'an was literally and verbally inspired by god, or that the majority of Christians don't believe Jesus was literally born of a virgin?

Not saying you're wrong, but many of the believers of my acquaintance take their myths as literally as possible. They wouldn't go so far as to say that the earth literally has four corners, but if it's possible to construe something in a literal fashion, that's what they tend to do -- and they tend to think that's what they ought to do.

 

[d.]

Does it seem that untenable beliefs are more plausible and more respectable when they're held by large numbers of people?

well, i think that what is considered 'sane' behaviour is more or less always based on a consensus opinion, so yes.

 

[d.]

unless they are taken out of context, i.e. literally.

what, regarding the context, makes you believe that the stories of, say, the virgin birth was not intended to be taken literally?

 

[James the Persian]

Does it seem that untenable beliefs are more plausible and more respectable when they're held by large numbers of people? Consider the following, by Sam Harris:

It takes a certain kind of person to believe what no one else believes. To be ruled by ideas for which you have no evidence (and which therefore cannot be justified in conversation with other human beings) is generally a sign that something is seriously wrong with your mind. Clearly, there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that is is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are. ...

Jesus Christ -- who, as it turn out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavens -- can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to those beliefs would be considered mad? Rather, is there any doubt that he would be mad?

​

What do you think?

Well, as the ex-psychologist I am, and one who had serious issues with the medical model of psychiatry from the get go, I think he has a point, it's just that it's not the point he thinks he's making (and, by the way, his magical view of the Eucharist is far from accurate as I'm sure you're aware). He believes, it appears, that he is showing religious belief to be madness by his comparison. However, given that he provides no evidence whatsoever to support the veracity or otherwise of a belief, he isn't showing that the belief is insane at all. What he is showing is that sanity and insanity are not defined, in the main by biology, pathogens and the like, but by society.

It is the concensus of society that labels certain beliefs or behaviours mad, therefore it should come as no surprise that the beliefs held by large numbers, even a majority, of a society are, by definition, not mad. You may disagree with them, you may find them irrational but they simply are not mental 'illness' unless society defines them as such. Look, for instance, at the historical development of the DSM used by American Psychiatry. It's all too apparent that many if not most of those developments are politically or societally motivated and have next to no basis in science.

James

 

[michel]

I don't believe in what anyone else believes in (as far as I know); if that makes me mad, so be it. But I'll be mad, and content.

 

[spacemonkey]

Does it seem that untenable beliefs are more plausible and more respectable when they're held by large numbers of people? Consider the following, by Sam Harris:

It takes a certain kind of person to believe what no one else believes. To be ruled by ideas for which you have no evidence (and which therefore cannot be justified in conversation with other human beings) is generally a sign that something is seriously wrong with your mind. Clearly, there is sanity in numbers.



​

What do you think?

Leaving out anything about religion, I'll agree with you on this point. It is definately the majority who decides what is sane or insane. I've often found myself wondering if things aren't the other way around, if people we label "insane" aren't really the only sane ones and the majority is nuts-o.

 

[Booko]

Look, for instance, at the historical development of the DSM used by American Psychiatry. It's all too apparent that many if not most of those developments are politically or societally motivated and have next to no basis in science.

Yes, I remember all too well being told by earnest men in white coats that the DSM proved PMS was all in my head.

I'm sure they knew that from personal experience too. :biglaugh:

 

[Booko]

Leaving out anything about religion, I'll agree with you on this point. It is definately the majority who decides what is sane or insane. I've often found myself wondering if things aren't the other way around, if people we label "insane" aren't really the only sane ones and the majority is nuts-o.

Oh, I've been told I'm not sane because I believe that world peace is not only possible, but inevitable.

And that causes me to wonder about what "sanity" really means, that someone would think warfare going on forever is...sane?

 

[Willamena]

Do you believe the majority of Muslims don't believe the Qur'an was literally and verbally inspired by god, or that the majority of Christians don't believe Jesus was literally born of a virgin?

The majority of Muslims or the majority of Christians is not the majority of believers.

Not saying you're wrong, but many of the believers of my acquaintance take their myths as literally as possible. They wouldn't go so far as to say that the earth literally has four corners, but if it's possible to construe something in a literal fashion, that's what they tend to do -- and they tend to think that's what they ought to do.

If you live in North America, that's entirely likely.

 

[michel]

Yes, I remember all too well being told by earnest men in white coats that the DSM proved PMS was all in my head.

I'm sure they knew that from personal experience too. :biglaugh:

Ditto; (not PMS of course), but I was told for years that my back pain was imaginary by a psychiatrist; unfortunately he had retired by the time they worked out I have osteoporosis!

 

[Willamena]

what, regarding the context, makes you believe that the stories of, say, the virgin birth was not intended to be taken literally?

Well, that would be the non-literal context of the story that makes me believe that.

The virgin birth is not about a woman giving birth to a child. It's about a spiritual child bringing itself into existence, figuratively speaking.

 

[Willamena]

I don't believe in what anyone else believes in (as far as I know); if that makes me mad, so be it. But I'll be mad, and content.

Frubals for that.

 

[Buttercup]

Does it seem that untenable beliefs are more plausible and more respectable when they're held by large numbers of people?

Yes, sometimes it does. And when someone tries to argue that Christianity, Islam or any other religion must be right because millions of people believe it, I tell them that's lousy argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon

 

[Revasser]

The majority of Muslims or the majority of Christians is not the majority of believers.

Considering that Islam and Christianity have a combined total of almost 3.5 billion adherents, it may not actually be that far fetched to that the majority of Christians and Muslims are, in fact, a majority of believers.

 

[Willamena]

Considering that Islam and Christianity have a combined total of almost 3.5 billion adherents, it may not actually be that far fetched to that the majority of Christians and Muslims are, in fact, a majority of believers.

Fine; and those statistics might be valid, but my point was that I made a comment about the majority of believers, not the majority of Muslims nor the majority of Christians.

 

[d.]

Well, that would be the non-literal context of the story that makes me believe that.

so this part of the NT was not written with the intention of being taken literally? i would much appreciate some examples from these pages that you feel suggests this.

The virgin birth is not about a woman giving birth to a child. It's about a spiritual child bringing itself into existence, figuratively speaking.

you seem very certain.

 

[Sunstone]

Science is certainly a collective activity. And I think the success of science shows that humans are most successful in discovering truth when they work together at it. So, in that sense, there might be sanity in numbers.

 

[Willamena]

so this part of the NT was not written with the intention of being taken literally? i would much appreciate some examples from these pages that you feel suggests this.

It's not about the intent, whatever that may have been --it's the fact that it contains valid mythic imagry that not only has been passed down (or "borrowed") from other religions, but is shared with neighbouring countries and religions in a common motif, that points to non-literal meanings.

Ugh, you're making me do a web search (I feel dirty now). Here are a few essays/lectures:

Richard Gilbert - "Mythology is more poetry than prose, and we live in a prosaic period. In this instance, the Nativity stories stand as a sublime portrait of the birth of a prophet of the human spirit. The lovely legends surrounding the birth of Jesus break through the matter- of-factness of our time and remind us there is more to life than fact."

Michael Hoffman - "Rigid, brittle, logical consistency is not the point. Poetic fudging is very common, in fact is a sign of more advanced mastery of the symbol-system language of mythic allegorization. Before long, the question arises, how far can you stretch the game before it shatters into nonsense?"

Joseph Sprague - "A theological myth as you know so well is not false presentation but a valid and quite persuasive literary device employed to point to ultimate truth that can only be insinuated symbolically and never depicted exhaustively... The theological myth of the virgin birth points to this wondrous mystery and ultimate truth."

And who knows, perhaps Bishop Joseph Sprague will become a champion of the non-literal interpretation from within the more constrictive Church environs: "My abiding fear is that a repeated failure to interpret Scripture and doctrine, metaphorically and symbolically in today’s Church, will continue to drive countless spiritually-searching and critically-thinking people away, not only form this Church but from the very Gospel for which their hearts yearn."

Dr. M. D. MaGee
EDIT: I linked the wrong article to the quote above. Fixed now.

you seem very certain.

As any opinion properly should be.