Religion is a form of psychosis

i completely agree. religion is something that is used as a comfort zone to explain the unexplainable at the moment. in a free society a person should be allow to participate in any ceremony that he or she sees fit. however, to introduce children to something i equate to brainwashing is inexcuseable. if a child is introduced to one religious system he/she should be exposed to all, as well as non-believer views, pagan views, satanic views, witchcraft etc. then if that child wishes to pursue a system all views have been presented and a choice can be made.

 

There is an unquestioned but vitally important premise that needs to be presented here. Simply stated, popular reality is defined by agreement. The majority decides, consciously or not, what will be accepted as real and then acts according to that agreed upon variety of "common sense."

Of course, there is an ultimate reality that exists regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

The majority is free to ignore this ultimate reality (and almost always does), at the majority's own expense. There have been many varieties of "popular reality" that have ignored this ultimate reality and ceased to exist. The "reality" of Egypt's Pharoahs, The Roman Empire, Medieval Europe, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and, eventually, America's Neo-Conservativism (As we'll see), all prove themselves to be incomplete, flawed, time-bound, unsustainable, passing.

So, what does this have to with the experience of the Shaman? Everything. For those societies in a creative relationship with some form of Shamanism (depending on whether the culture is more sensual, spiritual or intellectual, Shamanism may take form in the Arts, Religion, Philosophy, Academia, etc.), the Shaman serves as a connection to this ultimate reality. Depending on what the majority accepts as real, this connection may require the Shaman to leave common sense reality altogether.

Of course, the Shaman's real task is to find some cure for whatever is unhealthy in the common sense reality and then return to share it with the non-Shamans. Poets, Priests, Philosophers, Tzaddiks, Bodhisattvas, Artists, even Scientists and Inventors perform the task of the Shaman.

Even though it is ultimately far more healthy, the Shaman's break with popular reality may appear to be a form of psychosis to those with little or no knowledge outside of their common sense reality. It is a very positive form of "psychosis."

Of course, it is important to know that not all psychosis is Shamanism.

Peace and Love

 

Varuna:

How could an "ultimate" reality exist in an infinity?

Nothing is final.

 

What if the "ultimate" reality is the infinte reality?

 

It can't be. Infinity is not finite.

 

I hope you folks won't mind a self-styled Christian crashing your party, but I've been following the discussion on this thread and thought you could use some counterpoint. Going back to the points about religion being a form of psychosis or some other mental disorder, Freud, himself, developed that idea nicely in Civilization and Its Discontents and Psychopathology in Everyday Life but I think there are problems with it. It assumes that God and religion are delusions--which would seem to require proof, or at least strong evidence. Since nothing close to proof of the non-existence of God has ever been supplied, the assertion that belief in God is a delusion is unprovable--i.e., by your definition, a delusion. A major difference between a religious person and the schizophrenic who believes that Martians are sending messages thru his/her dentures is that many intelligent people, including scientists and other scholars, think the God hypothesis is plausible. To say that they are all just crazy seems like saying that people who disagree with our politics are crazy (I personally suspect that about Bush supporters, but I wouldn't want to go out on a limb and say it in public). It's an easy way to preserve our sense of superiority without paying much attention to the other guy's viewpoints. I'm not saying that the burden of proof is on atheists and agnostics to disprove the God hypothesis; I'm just saying that it's not unreasonable for some people to believe, just as it's not unreasonable for others to doubt.

I just finished reading atheist-physicist Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis, a fascinating book, and am still scratching my head about some of the arguments. For example, he quotes with approval Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek:"The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable." That seems at least as difficult to get one's mind around as the Trinity or the virgin birth. Freud, who was once considered El Supremo in psychology, has suffered reverses in the past few decades, so we might be cautious with the arm-chair psychoanalysis.

 

I don't think its reasonable to say, prove god doesn't exist. Its the same as asking me to disprove leprechauns, Athena, phoenixes, cyclopes, Lono and the thousands of other mystical, mythic, magical, religious, etc creatures, gods and things. I don't see any difference in them, people have at one time or other have believed they are real. Why should the Judeo-Christian view have any more creditablity then any of the other religions, past or present?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

What's finite about ultimate?

 

I agree,as i think I said in my post. But you have gone farther and said that anyone who believes in God is not simply wrong but delusional. Since many highly educated and apparently sane people even today believe in God, I think that's presumptuous on your part. Do you have credentials as a psychologist or psychiatrist? Alternative explanations of the universe, while plausible, are still highly speculative, but it's apparent atheists like Dawkins firmly believe in them. Are they insane or deluded? I don't think so, although they haven't convinced me yet. But yes, people who preach virgin births, walking on water, the Trinity, etc., bear the burden of proof when they try to persuade others of these extraordinary happenings.

 

I agree.

Belief does not prove the existence or non-existence of anything. Belief is not evidence.

Who has the authority to say what exists and what does not exist? An incomplete list of things that are quite real but do not provide any sensory evidence of their existence (and therefore, according to Atheism, cannot be believed to exist) would have to include: Abstract Thought, Inspiration, Relationship, Meaning, Unity, and, well . . . Atheism.

Does the existence of any of these things depend on one's belief about them?

The real question is: What does existence mean?

You give the impression that you do not accept either the Jewish or Christian view.

What do you believe the Jewish/Christian view actually is?

If you do not accept the existence of the Jewish/Christian view (or anything) for what it is, if you do not seek knowledge of what it is, on its own terms, for its own sake, then how do you even know what is actually being discussed?

Why do you believe you know what the Jewish/Christian view actually is?

With all respect to your experience, what if your information has nothing to do with the spiritual life of Jews and/or Christians?

You may be absolutely correct to stand by what you know, but what if the Rabbis and Mystics aren't talking only about what you know?

If you are going to make the extraordinary claim that Judaism and/or Christianity are "delusions" then you are required to provide extraordinary evidence for a complete, non-delusional reality and some practical way for others to connect to it.

Otherwise, you cannot expect anyone to believe you.

Peace and Love

 

Ultimate means last, final, what isn't finite about it?

 

How old is this kid? Do you really think that a child is able to make an informed choice among all the major world religions, satanism, paganism,etc.? And what happens in the meantime? Do we leave the kid at sea, rudderless, without beliefs and values? It seems to me that's real child abuse!

 

I don't think it is an extraordinary claim. I don't want people to believe me, I want them to think for themselves and try to be rational and logical about it and form their own opinions.

 

Belief in god is sad.

 

Fair enough. But please continue thinking, and, please, consider the simple idea there may be more to all of this than just what you have experienced.

People like Gandhi? Martin Luther King Jr.? The Dalai Lama? Alan Watts? Jiddu Krishnamurti? William Sloane Coffin? Abraham Joshua Heschel? Albert Einstein? Abraham Lincoln? Leonardo da Vinci? How long a list of independant thinkers do you need?

It is one thing to decide not to embrace an unknown, to decide not to seek meaning in an experience you haven't had, but to try to convince others that they should reject it because you don't see the point of it . . . that, itself, doesn't make any sense.

Peace and Love

 

Varuna:

It makes at least as much sense as trying to convince others to get religion because one imagines there may be a point to it.


But let's not deceive ourselves--- if there is a point to religion at all, it is definitely not 'god'.

 

If a person believes that a proposition has merit, it makes sense to me to share it with others and to try to persuade them. If a person believes that a belief system is harmful or unsupportable, it makes sense to me to do the same. What I find senseless and offensive is for one side to brand the other as fools, nutcases, or scoundrels just because they don't agree with the brander's position..

That's an overgeneralization, but if you mean religion performs lots of different functions for society and individual believers, I agree.

 

Why do you believe that?

Of course, you are free to learn from your own experiences and to believe whatever you find meaningful.

However, if you preach against others' experiences and beliefs, then how are your efforts any less a control problem than those of your "opponent"?

What are you talking about?

Peace and Love

 

Of course, I don't know everything. I do know what theistic thinkers are talking about, I just don't agree with their description of it. God isn't an unknown or a mystery, in most religions (such as in the bible) it is generally defined and given attributes and ascribed actions. How is it possible, for say the christian god to be true and every religion also be true also? Even if multiverses exist, and every religion was true in a seperate space/time dimension, there could be no one omnipotent all powerful god, it would, always less the whole.

“The religious idea of God cannot do full duty for the metaphysical infinity.”-Alan Watts

 

I'm talking about how god is a fantasy when it is not just a poor excuse.