91热爆

William:

I didn't choose the above words, but in my understanding
'a psychological condition' is not the same as a 'psychiatric condition'. Psychology is the study of the mind, and a psyche that is dominated by a religion is in a 'psychological condition'. A mind dominated by, say, 'atheism' could also be described a having a 'psychological condition'.

Brian- You're reaching. Backpeddling. Clutching at straws. William said "psychological" on line 4. Anyway, the point was clearly made that "religious values" should be thought of in the same way that Iris Robinson thinks of homosexuality. Isn't that the same thing?

I think the views of both Iris Robinson and Humani should be regarded as equally fundamentalist, equally unreasonable.

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of
love, and of "A SOUND MIND"

John you are dead right. The statement from the Humanists puts them in the same category as Iris' statement.

The humanists think they can come to the aid of one group within our society (gay people) by attacking another group (religious people). That doesn't work. I am a religious person who is appalled at what Iris said and I support gay rights.

You cannot get angry with Iris for saying gay people need psychological help and then say yourself that religious people need psychological help.

This statement from the humanists is extremely unhelpful. Worse, it risks removing attention from Iris Robinson and turning the debate into something else.

The public debate is about homophobia, not the future of humanism. The humanists have, yet again, made themselves look like they are missing the point.

Would Brian like to explain how religion is a psychological condition but its not a psychiatric condition?

Do humanists think religious people need psychological help to overcome our deep-seated psychological flaws?

I'm sort of wondering just what the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland is getting at here.

There have a right to their view of course, I for one wouldn't wish to deny them that.

But it's hard to avoid the thought that this comment is as much about the denial of religious rights as it is an assertion of equality of rights for all citizens.

"Dead weight", "It is this psychological condition that is damaging", "primitive belief", "We hope that the influence of religion...will become history."

All these comments seem to point to an anti religious bias, maybe I'm wrong.

Is this the future that I as a Christian have to look forward to in a pluralist (!) society.

Indeed maybe there are other sections of our society whom 'Humani' hope will become history.

Well said Peter. What are these humanists on?

Peter et al:

Again, you are jumping to the wrong conclusions. Where does the statement say that Humanists would deny the religious their rights?

A 'psychological condition' or 'state' is one where the mind is obsessed with a particular point of view. Thus Christians obsessed with the sins of gays would fall into that category. And some Christians certainly are. It is, in the end, a value judgment. And we are fully entitled to say it.

No humanist, Peter, would deny religious people their rights. We say in the statement that we believe in a pluralist society. That means that religious people are entitled to their rights but not to deny others their rights too (e.g. opposing gay adoption).

As humanists, of course we hope that the influence of religion wanes, as it has in other societies where gays have full rights by law. We are also perfectly entitled to describe religion as a 'dead weight' if we think it is.

Some christians don't like it all if it seems as if the gay 'slur' is thrown back at them, even when it isn't. We are allowing you your psychiatric health, if not your pyschological well-being.

Brian, try harder. My issue with your statement is different from peter's. I haven't suggested you are attacking rights, just that you are guilty of the same offence as Iris Robinson.

Brian-

You're reaching, again. You're centering your responses around trying to claim that there's nothing wrong with having a 'psychological condition', as though no part of this statement by Humani was a criticism of that nature against religion. The statement CLEARLY retorted by using Iris Robinson's views of homosexuals to say the same things about religion. Both are fundamentalist, both are childish, both are wrong.

And thanks to the commenter who said it: Humanism, once again, spectacularly shoots itself in the foot.

John:
You say that in Humani's statement "the point was made that 'religious values' should be thought of in the same way that Iris Robinson thinks of homosexuality. Isn't that the same thing?"

No, it isn't because Iris Robinson was suggesting that gayness is a clearly defined illness which requires psychiatric help, whereas humanists would say that religion, particularly in a place like Northern Ireland, is a psychological failing and an obstacle to the progress and well-being of the society. The 'cures' in this case are mental processes like reason, freedom of thought and scientific understanding.

Most critical comments on religion refer to it as a mental failing or weakness. In other words, it is a 'psychological condition', i.e. a state of mind. For Marx it was a mental drug. For Freud it was an illusion. For Dawkins it is a delusion. For Einstein it was a 'childish' belief. In a newly published letter written in 1954, he wrote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish鈥�.

Hi Brian,

You are quite correct, the statement does not say that "Humanists would deny the religious their rights." Those seven words do not appear in the statement. But surely you are not so literal as to expect people not to read for a sub-text.

What the statement clearly did was to draw a direct link between the statements of Iris Robinson and Humani鈥檚 view of religion, which are that, "Her verbal attack on the gay community *yet again shows* that religious values are a dead weight which permeates the psyche of some of our politicians in a way that is extremely damaging for all." That Brian is a direct and equally negative connection. It states clearly that religious views (only religious views?) damage society. You seem to blame religion for everything.

Discussions on homophobia, hate crime, sin, free speech, police investigations, and the denial and equality of rights and so on have all resulted directly from the comments made by Iris Robinson, and, as pointed out in the leader to this thread, the implication (of Humani's statement) is that it is religious people rather than others who need help.

Of course you are entitled (fully entitled even) to your point of view, I have already stated that, but IN CONTEXT please explain what the intention of Humani was in releasing the statement it did. Are you, for example "Christophobic"? Would you like to see the communication of christian beliefs restricted in the media for example, or in the health services, or in schools? Is that a denial of rights? Equality of rights has, among other things, been at the centre of this debate.

A positive statement regarding equality of rights could have been made without the need to demonize the religious point of view. Some might have called this a home run! Humani chose however, in a public statement, to make the link. A statement which I presume was thought through, and one in which I presume the words were carefully weighed. You ought therefore to explain what you mean, and equally important, you should explain what the intention of the writers was.

You want to see "primitive belief... become history". What about the primitives who hold those views?

So please explain, line by line, what the statement means, for I fear that the statement betrays a deeply held bias, dare I say intolerance. Frankly, I don't care what you think, but you should be clear about what you mean.

One more question. Dawkins did use the word delusion, however if I remember correctly he also used the word virus.

Do you believe that I, a christian believer, am diseased? (sick infected, abnormal, ill, unhealthy, contaminated...)

Peter:

I think some people here do not seem to know the difference between psychology and psychiatry.

Psychology is the study of people, all people, of how they think, how they feel, how they act.

Psychiatry, which is a branch of medicine, is the study of mental disorders.

Most humanists would not describe a christian belief as a mental disorder but as a psychological weakness which has both cognitive and emotive elements.

Cognitively, the weakness is a failure to apply reason, knowledge, independent thinking, scepticism, open-mindedness to the claims which religion makes.

Emotively, the weakness is a need to belong, to escape from the self to submit to external authority, fear of death, human arrogance etc. Indeed, a mixture of elements only some of which I have outlined.

Humanists, and I've said this before, ask for equality in education: that means that children should have access to different world views, not just a religious one. On Monday I shall be speaking at a primary school to P7 pupils about Humanism and i welcome the opportunity to explain to them as simply as I can what Humanism is.

The religious should have nothing to fear from Humanism as such. For, contrary to what seems to be implied here, a secular state is not a godless state. Secularists and humanists believe in freedom of opinion, and it would be anathema for us to compel others to agree with us. We do not seek to impose atheistic/humanist beliefs and values on society. Instead, we aim for a secular state in an open society.

A secular state is a neutral state. It is one which protects the rights of all its citizens to hold their own beliefs and religion, non-religious and anti-religious. It exists to uphold certain shared public values that are not specific to particular belief systems, but otherwise it acts as a kind of neutral referee and ensures a level playing field for these views and lifestances.

An open and pluralist society is one in which all these diverse opinions can find a hearing and in which different individuals and groups can all make their case for their own beliefs. This means that state funding, the media and education in particular must be fair and balanced and not favourable to or dominated by any specific ideology. Thus, for example, schools throughout the island should teach Humanism, Buddhism, Islam and other belief systems as well as Christianity.

Christians cannot morally object to such a programme. After all, they too believe in freedom of opinion, the autonomy of the individual and fairness in society.

The term 'psychological condition' seems to have stirred up some Christians. Perhaps you now have some idea of how a gay feels when he is told by a public servant that he needs psychiatric help.

Ultimately, of course, a religious belief is only a belief. And beliefs are our choices. We can change them if we are persuaded to do so or 'see the light'. Therefore they should be as subject to criticism as any other belief and should receive no special privileges.

Homosexuality may not be so easily changed. Indeed, as we know, some research suggests that gays are born, not made. If this is true, then it is all the more reason to avoid verbal attacks.

Brian- I don't begrudge you critical opinions of religion. But religious people are not childish; generalising religious people to imply that Robinson's ridiculous statements about homosexuality derive inherently from "religious values" is childish.

John:

Please try to keep it impersonal, please. "Religious people are not childish". Einstein said the belief was 'childish', not the people themselves. No one is 'childish' on the basis of one belief, however 'childish' it is.

As I say, I didn't write the statement myself, but homophobia does derive largely from 'religious values', at least in NI. If it doesn't, where else does it originate? What other philosophy/outlook in Northern Ireland is homophobic? Or has homophobia as part of its creed/ policies etc? I don't know of any, and would be interested to know about it.

Hi Brian,

Thank you for your reply in post 13.

The point about psychology/psychiatry does not bother me in any way, nor do you criticisms of religion.

Your explanation of Humanism and its relationship to religion does appear to be somewhat different in tone from the statement we are discussing on this thread. It certainly seems much more measured.

I'm glad too that you stay away from the concept of religion as a virus, Dawkins can't be right about everything!

Maybe a second public comment from Humani would help set everything in context.

Hi Peter:

The difference in tone may be accounted for by the fact that my post 13 was a response to your comment, whereas the statement we are discussing was a response to Iris Robinson's.

No, I don't think religious belief is a 'virus' but I do think it is a delusion.

BRIAN writes: "The term 'psychological condition' seems to have stirred up some Christians. Perhaps you now have some idea of how a gay feels when he is told by a public servant that he needs psychiatric help."

This is so insulting an patronising. I am a Christian and I am pro-gay. Brian, would you stop assuming that you know how all Christians think about Iris' comments? I think her comments are outrageous and indefensible. So is the statement from the Humanists.

Augustine:

Would you read what you quote:
"Some Christians means 'SOME', not all!

Augustine:

I would also like to stress what I have been saying all along. In the heading of this thread William refers to 'psychiatric help', yet in the body of his comment it becomes 'psychological help'. Now, there is a difference here, whereas William conflates the two. The first is a response to a definite illness, the second a response to what might be called mental problems (anxiety, stress, obsessions, fears).

No psychologist who treats psychological problems would assume that they were the products of 'illness'. In that sense, we would ALL be ill because we all have psychological problems of one kind or another. We would not be human if we didn't.

The Humani statement, which refers to a 'psychological' not a psychiatric, condition is therefore much kinder to Iris Robinson and homophobic Christians in general than she was (they are) to gays and lesbians.

Brian's position is coming to pieces. His psychological distinction is unscientific. Psychiatrists are actually involved in the treatment of the conditions he mentions (anxiety, stress, obsessions, fears). The simple trust is that the humanists made a mistake with their statement and Brian has been making an unsuccessful attempt to say the statement from reasonable claims that it places humanists in the same category as Iris Robinson.

It's quite simple Brian: you can't use an attack on one community (gay people) to formulate your own attack on another community (religious people).

Augustine:

You need to explain that statement.
As it stands, it is meaningless.

Who says what one can and cannot do? And is there not a difference between describing something as a disease requiring treatment and describing it as a delusion? You should feel relieved that a large proportion of the human race share this delusion, and have the law largely on their side, whereas gays have been largely an ostracised minority bullied, taunted, beaten and hanged for their condition.

Are you saying that humanists/atheists should not be allowed to criticise religion? And even if they were, that only certain believers have the right to determine the nature of the criticism?

Religious belief is a delusion (psychological condition) because it is based upon misguided notions of life and the universe.
You will not persuade me to think otherwise by telling me I can't say it.

Sorry mate, you'll have to live with it, just as humanists do every time they are misrepresented by some Christians.

Brian

Once again, isn't quoting Freud a little dated. And Dawkins has to use the virus analogy. Otherwise he cannot explain why so many self-aware, self-critical and highly educated individuals percieve "an imaginary friend".
I'm not merely mistaken - I really have had experiences of a Transcendent person. (Thats an unremarkable statement). So,in your view, I really must be delusional.
Could I hold mistaken beliefs about a Transcendent person? Sure. That's what Transcendence would imply. The cricket story was funny, but beside the point.
But the perception of a Transcendent person is persistent across time and across cultures. It is often life transforming, and becomes a foundational belief for many individuals. So for example, I can use it to explain order in the unverse, or the existence of morality, or even the reliability of Reason. It may even be the best explanation for these, and many other facts about the universe. It other words, it coheres with my other experiences of the world.
And when BHG make statements like the above, once again they show that they (but not you) are unwilling to engage with the evidence.

Graham Veale
Armagh

Augustine,

I can understand why you can see the similarity between the suggestions about Christianity and the attack on homosexuals, but really there is a difference.

This statement is not attack on the Christian community (although I have never heard of this community), as you suggest, but on Christian values. These values necessarily include homophobia and are chosen freely by some people due to their psychological disposition (whether you like the phrase or not). Homophobia and the murder of homosexuals are demanded in the Bible. If you do not agree with Bible comments you are a bad Christian- and it's a good thing too.

Humanists believe people choose these values because of their fears and insecurities: their psychological condition. The results are generally harmful to those who choose them and are harmful to society. We would not be humanists if we did not think so.
Religious values and homophobia go hand in hand. Religion invented homophobia. Religious countries are the ones with most homophobia, and are also the ones were the people have most fear and anxiety. These fears about all sorts of things manifest themselves in a wholly irrationally way that is encouraged by religion.

Although those who committed the assault that provoked Iris' comments may not have done it because they read it in the Bible, they may not have done it if our country did not consider intolerance a right and an essential part of what it is to be part of a community.

Humanists will continue to speak out against irrational beliefs whether or not it is accepted in any community. We will continue to protect those who, through no choice of their own, are made the victim of these beliefs.

Hi Graham:
I think the point about your experience is that it is not independently verifiable evidence.

To claim that an experience indicates an objective fact, there must exist objective and rational methods of demonstration. otherwise, we would have to grant the existence of every god that people have felt to exist, including rain gods, tree gods, war gods etc. Some religious cults, such as Heaven's Gate, have believed that god them all to commit suicide.

I hope, BTW, that I can use the word 'delusion' without being tied to either Freud or Dawkins. In psychology a delusion is an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary; or anything that deceives the mind with a false impression, a deception, a fixed false opinion or belief that cannot be shaken by reason. In my opinion, religious belief is such a delusion.

Graham:

I omitted to make the point that I wasn't quoting Freud, especially as he wrote about religion as an 'illusion', not 'delusion'. Dawkins uses the latter word.

We could say that an illusion is a false representation, whereas a delusion is a bit more - see above.
Or we could say that they mean the same thing.

Brian
So , from my point of view, should I consider Atheism to be a delusion? After all, I can cite evidence contrary to Atheism. You may not find that evidence compelling - but people are always disagreeing over evidence. I don't want to call you delusional.
The point isn't that everyone holds exactly the same beliefs about the Transcendent Personal Being (we'll call it a TPB). Like I said you would expect mistakes to be made. Beliefs about the TPB should be open to critical reflection.

But the widepread perception of some TPB or other lends weight to the claim that I am at least not imagining that I have encountered one.

Most people believe that good, evil, beauty and rationality are as real as electrons and the Sun. These beliefs are rooted in intuition. Now objective beauty (as opposed to beauty as a human social construct) is a philosophically defensible position(that need not entail Theism). So, if they match my intuitions, and can withstand rational scrutiny, I feel justified in believing in evil and beauty and goodness. My belief in God can be grounded in a similar manner.
By the way, I find it difficult to see how these fit into your world-view. Unless, of course, you are coming from the same school as Voltaire or John Toland, and hold to a vague Deism/Pantheism. Do you Humanist hold to a vaguely religious view of nature? Or is it all just down to atoms and molecules? The Toland/Voltaire school seems to be on stronger ground. Just curious to know where you are coming from.

Graham Veale

Brian ...

*1 Your statement is unhelpful in the current debate about Iris Robinson because it takes pressure off Robinson and changes the debate to a debate about religion, rather than a debate about homophobia. My gay friends have already told me they think the humanists have lost the plot with this statement. You are maybe not media savvy enough to see that your statement helps Iris by changing the conversation.

*2 Your statement is insulting to faith groups. If you disagree with their claim that God exists, fine - make your case. But attacking the pschological well-being of religious people, as you have done, is really tantamount to what Iris has done with homosexual people.

*3 You are backpeddling fast, and I can see why. Next time you want to defend gay people (and I encourage you to do that), please resist the chance to put the boot into religious people. More and more people of faith are, like me, pro-gay. Let's encourage that too!

*4 Humanists are marching on gay pride. I applaud you for doing that. I wish more christians would march too.

Hi Brian

Post 23. You say, "Who says what one can and cannot do?"

Isn't this discussion all about what people can and cannot do?

But yes, this is a difficulty for the humanist point of view. We have discussed it before, and you have spoken of The Golden Rule. Well what if I considered this rule to be tarnished? Indeed, on the basis of what you have said it really isn't a rule at all, it鈥檚 more like a reasonably golden suggestion. And to the people then who choose to ignore it, go their own way, and do as ever they please, without reference to you or me, there is nothing to say; and no one to say what one can or cannot do. Sorry, but it seems to me that you have left yourself with no reason to complain about anyone. I suggest then that I have more of an argument against statements of hate than you.

This is a point I have been raising with you all along. The simple version of the question is this. "Who says so?" Evidently no one.

Aren't we all free to hate then?

On another thread you have said, " 'Hate the sin and not the sinner', is often ascribed to Gandhi. Putting it like that is probably better, because it doesn't imply that we have to love the sinner, merely not hate him/her."

So we don't have to love? Virtue is merely the absence of malice? So we don't have to seek what is best for another, we need not be kind, patient, hopeful and trusting of others? We can choose to ignore? We need not love those hated by others?

Furthermore you are toying with the word psychology. As you point out yourself, we all have a psyche, and from it our sense of self; and as I have pointed out before, and now Graham does it too, along with this comes our understanding of beauty, love, hate, morality. Yet I am to believe that we are mere atoms, that these ideas, these values, which are deemed important on every page of this blog are mere extensions of our brain. Sorry Brian, but whatever the difficulties of christianity, this is a world view which simply falls apart.

Our values are constructs? There is no one to say what can or cannot be done? We ourselves are arrangements of atoms? And so we are left with tholing injustice, and an inability to make amends. We are left with the serial murderer laughing in our faces? Is there any hope of redemption? It all seems like Shawshank, but with no escape. We live, we die, we get lucky, is that it?

I'm sorry, I cannot believe that something came from nothing for no reason, that life came from non-life, that the personal came from the impersonal, reason from unreason, consciousness from unconsciousness, the moral from the amoral. You see, in the face of all this evidence, I'm sorry, I can't just can't conjure up enough faith to believe.

Indeed in the face of all this evidence the concept of Theism seems perfectly reasonable. The bible Brian, is not a book of "Once Upon a Time", it is a book of "In the Beginning" and it claims to know exactly who says so.

Maybe Humanists have shot themselves in the foot with this statement, but that to me would imply a degree of accuracy.

Well said, Peter. Brian has to answer some questions here, and he can't run away from them.

Brian, do you agree with Richard Dawkins that religious belief is a kind of mental illness?

Since you have questioned Iris Robinson's assertion that homosexuality is an illness on the basis that there is no scientific evidence to support her claim, let's hear your scientific evidence to support the claim that religious believers are suffering from a kind of mental illness?

I should make a correction. I have spoken about humanists shooting themselves in the foot with their statement.

In fact, the Belfast Humanist Group have put out a very different statement, which is included on another post on W+T, and that statement is excellent. I agree with every word of it and I applaud Les Reid for putting out a very thoughtful, sophisticated statement that keeps the focus of the pressure on Iris Robinson without losing the plot. If I were Les Reid, I would have a word with the Humani people and explain to them how to write public statements. Again, hats off to the Belfast Humanists for a superb statement.

My apologies also to the Belfast Humanist Group.

Graham:

There is nothing to stop you from describing atheism as a delusion if you wish. I disagree what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, and that includes the right of Iris Robinson.

Augustine:

You obviously think that the best form of defence is attack. But you are quite wrong. This is not a debate about homophobia alone. It is a debate about homophobia and religion. Iris Robinson based her homophobia on the Bible, remember? Or has that slipped your memory?

Other Christians on this blog have said that homosexuality is wrong. They will of course deny that they are homophobic and insist that the word 'abomination ' is a mistranslation etc etc,, but the fact of the matter is that few Christians have said that homosexuality is cool, man. The consensus seems to be that it is sinful because it is not a relationship between a man and a woman in marriage. Now this view derives from a reading of the Bible. In other words, it is based upon 'religious values'.

Read the other postings recently. The Catholic Church thinks homosexuality is a sin, the C of E bans gay bishops from its Lambeth conference and objects to a civil partnership conducted by a London rector. The blog is currently full of stories about homosexuality and the negative attitude of the Christian churches towards it.

Islam also tends to be homophobic, and of course in some Islamic countries such as Iran gays are publicly executed.

You have not yet named one secular party or organisation that has this negative attitude to gays (there may be some extreme right fringe groups, but that is it).

Iris Robinson is not alone. Ian Paisley Jnr made similar remarks a while ago, and her father laiunched a campaign to save Ulster from sodomy to prevent the decriminalisation of homosexual acts. Ken McGuinness said once derisively that he believed in homosexual sex 'at 95, with parental consent'. All these politicians are Christian, and derive their view on gays from their religion.

Therefore the Humani statement is quite right that homophobia derives from religious values. If it doesn't, then will somebody please tell me from whence it derives?

Tell me too that if we did not have some elements of direct rule and our local politicians had their way on these issues, the situation for gays in NI would be even worse.

Some Christians seem now to be jumping on a bandwagon to deflect the heat from themselves. We cannot defend our church's stance adequately, so let's another go at non-believers.

Let me tell you this, that as far as homophobia is concerned, the non-believers are only the messengers. We know where the guilt ultimately lies. And if that is strongly put, then it needs to be said.

Now come on, you Christians, absolve yourselves from homophobia in NI if you dare.

Brian where's your SCIENTIFIC evidence that religion is a mental illness?

If you don't have the evidence, perhaps you should rebuke Dawkins for an unscientific claim?

Brian McClinton . . . are you REALLY saying that there are NO humanist homophobes!??!?! All atheists are pro-gay?

Augustine:

How many times do you have to be told that I have NEVER described religion as a mental illness, and neither does the statement above. Got that?

Jovial PTL:

An interesting question. I cannot speak for all humanists, but I am sure that there are a few, though I imagine it is a residual religious prejudice which they haven't shaken off.

Certainly, if you look at the main humanist websites here, in the UK and throughout Europe, you will see strong support for gay equality. See, for example:


where there are articles on Belfast Pride, by Kevin McNicholl, Shelley Leggett and William Burns.

There is also a Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association in England, which is affiliated to the BHA.

Of course, humanists que humanists have little power to influence the law, whereas, especially in Ni, Christians have quite a lot of power, either through their churches, the main politicians and the media. Do you think Iris Robinson would have been half an hour to outline her homophobia in GB? Or that in GB the newspapers would be full of letters defending her? I doubt it very much.

On the contrary, if she had been the wife of the British Minister and an MP, she would almost certainly have had to resign, and he would have been expected to apologise on her behalf. But of course, this is NI where, unlike in GB, we have 'free speech' (that's a joke, by the way).

Brian, so you think Richard Dawkins is WRONG when he says religious belief is a kind of mental illness?

Or won't you answer that question!?

As an outsider watching this from a distance, frankly I think you're all crazy. You were crazy when you were killing each other over religion and now that that's settled, you've found a new reaon, sexual orientation. When that's settled in about 400 years you'll find another reason. I know why Ireland turned green...it's from lack of oxygen to the brain.

Jovial PTL:

I am not a spokesman for Richard Dawkins or anyone else, but the answer is YES! YES! YES!

Mark:

Careful now. It's a mad, mad, mad world. The USA has its fair share of crazies.

Hey Will why don't you interview Brian McClinton about why Dawkins is wrong to say religion is a mental illness!!!

Is religious belief a mental illness? Well religion is 'mental' in that it is a set of ideas and values someone has chosen for some reason.

Humanists also think this set of ideas and values is harmful to those who choose them and to those who suffer their effects eg homophobia, sectarianism etc etc.

I also think there is good evidence that these ideas are chosen as a manifestation of fears and insecurities. As Marx suggested, it is the hope in a hopeless world. Religious beliefs and the values that accompany them (like homophobia) are found in those most miserable, conflict weary and impoverished parts of the world.

This statement is saying clearly that these ideas are not the answer and only make things worse for those who practise them, and even worse for those who have to share a country dominated by these ideas.

So you could say it is a mental illness- just as you could any set of prejudices, but remember we did not call it that.

BTW- For some reason my previous post was sent to the moderator. I can't figure out why, but it is now available to be read.

Brian
I don't want to call atheism a delusion. A mistake, yes. But I don't want to provide anyone with excuses.
1) In your view, is Theism so totally irrational, and obviously false, that it needs a psychological explanation?
2) Do you agree that there is some evidence fot Theism, even though you may feel there are more rational explanations for the evidence?
3) Is the universe just "atoms and molecules", or is there some deeper significance?

Graham Veale

brian mcclinton

You are wrong. "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World." (4 Mads) I thought the movie was so funny, the first time I saw it in a theater I sat through it twice. But then I was only 14 years old. Once in awhile, I'll see it again. I still find it pretty funny, and wacky. It had a star studded cast. I'll bet most people alive today have never heard of even a few of them.

Graham:


Call atheism what you like.

1. Your statement is wrongly phrased. There are many possible explanations and they are not mutually exclusive. A sociologist will tend to give a sociological explanation, a historian will tend to give an historical explanation, and so on. So a psychological explanation is certainly part of a bigger picture. Durkheim, for example, explains religion in terms of solidarity and identification. Kevin above gives Marx's take. Both Feuerbach and Marx believed that religion is a projection of man.

2. I am not currently aware of any evidence for theism; no.

(3) No.

But you are avoiding MY question, which is: how would you absolve yourself from the homophobia in NI? Or would you accept that you are at least partly responsible since you believe homosexuality is wrong?

If by homophobia you mean hostility to homosexuals based on a distaste for homosexual acts, I don't think you can blame religion.
If you mean any hostility to homosexuality, then yes, religion mst acceot some of the blame, and take some of the responsibility. I wouldn't try to absolve myself. I've a duty to promote tolerance and patience. I'm sure I fail.
NO evidence? No order, no morality, no religious experiences? There is NOTHING about the universe that would even lead you to SUSPECT something personal lies behind it all?

Graham Veale
Armagh

Brian
My freetime is drying up, so I might not be abe to continue our discussion, but it has been very helpful. So thank you.
You seem to rely on an Enlightenment tradtion that can be traced back to Toland, Strauss, Paine, Blount, even Giodarno Bruno. Yet by reducing the universe to atoms and molecules you undercut that traditions faith in Reason. Natural Selection cannot fill the gap, since this would only guarantees humans bilological survival. Natural Selection would not be "interested" in Good, or Beauty, or Truth.
I wonder if you've read Anthony O'Hear's "Beyond Evolution". O'Hear is not a Christian, or certainly wasn't a Theist when he wrote this book. You may find his critique of Reductionism useful.

All the best
Graham Veale

Hi Graham:

Than you too.

Thanks also for admitting some responsibility for the homophobia in our society. Not too many Christians are prepared to do that.

I don't think anything personal lies behind the universe. But I am agnostic about how it came about or even whether it always existed.
Agnosticism and scepticism are, in my, good qualities. We shouldn't always want to have a definite opinion.

Although the universe is made up of physical, chemical and biological entities, we are more than that because we have evolved.

I shall look out for O'Hear's book.

By the way, in a letter in today's Irish Times, Canon Charles Kenny of Changing Attitudes, Ireland, writes: "We share the concern of Kevin Kerr of the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland (June 17th) and countless others at the disparaging comments about homosexual people made recently by Iris Robinson".

He does, however, think we are naive in assuming that religion will disappear. Ah, some day! Bliss will it be in that dawn to be alive (but it will be after my time).

Cheers,
Brian

Hi Kevin

You say

"Humanists believe people choose these values (i.e. religious) because of their fears and insecurities: their psychological condition."

and

"Is religious belief a mental illness? Well religion is 'mental' in that it is a set of ideas and values someone has chosen for some reason."

and

"I also think there is good evidence that these ideas are chosen as a manifestation of fears and insecurities. As Marx suggested, it is the hope in a hopeless world."


If you are going to be consistent here, in terms of values and the psyche, surely you have to say that ALL values, good and bad are a set of ideas which are chosen on the basis of a psychological (mental) condition and for some reason?

So what about you own ideas? On what are they based?

Hi Brian

Graham asked

"Is the universe just 'atoms and molecules', or is there some deeper significance?"

You said, "no"

A question. Was that 'No the universe is not just atoms and molecules', or was it, 'No there is no deeper significance.'?



On the question of absolution, all irrational fear of others, especially that which leads to hate is wrong.

Hi Peter:

Don't read into my remarks things that aren't there. I said that we humans are more than mere atoms and molecules because we have evolved. The significance to which you refer is our invention, our decision, our given meaning, not the universe's.

Homophobia is not just fear. It is fear and hatred of homosexuals AND homosexual behaviour. It can also be defined as a negative attitude to men and women who have partners of the same sex. You do have a negative attitude because you have said that sex should be between a man and a woman in marriage. In other words, you are telling homosexuals that what they do is wrong.

Let me ask this question again to anyone who can give me an answer? Tell me of one group or party in the modern world that has a negative attitude to homosexuality that is not a religious group.

There is one that I know of. The DUP to which Iris Robinson and Paisley Jnr and Senior belong seems to be homophobic, and that is because on 'sexual matters' its values and policies derive from a narrow concept of Christianity which is now almost unique in the western world.

Now, no doubt one or two will say that the rest of the world is wrong and that the DUP are the sole defenders of goodness and truth in an immoral and secular world, but if you want to believe that, then you do in my view have a psychological 'condition'.

Why is religion a mental disorder and atheism not? What is a mental disorder anyway? If it is the belief in something for which there is no evidence than it qualifies. If it is a life committed to actions based on a belief for which there is no evidence, then it qualifies. If it is the willingness to commit murder, go to war, and to risk everything of value to defend such a belief then it qualifies. On the other hand, failure to believe in something for which there is no evidence is not a mental disorder. It is the only sane and rational thing to do. Are believers in god irrational? IMO that is an unqualified yes. Are they crazy? Hmmm, many show clear signs of it. Is a child's fear of the dark a sign of mental disorder? Not necessarily, that seems perfectly normal to me. There is often a rational basis for it.

Hi Brian

If you could post your comment again that would be great. I was not the one who complained about it and I always find your thoughts interesting to read.

Hi Peter,

Re: your post 53.

I believe the situation here is getting pathetic. There appears to be certain poster/s who uses the complain button on views they disagree with and not understanding that just because a person disagrees with you does not necessarily mean that they are being "offensive". This is an adult board and if a person disagrees with me I would prefer them to challenge me and vice-versa.

I read Brian's post and found nowt wrong with it. As I said pathetic and these actions are destroying these boards.

Regards

DD

Hi DD

Maybe the complaint button has found a new function as a panic button!!

Hi Peter,

Very good!:-)

Come to think of it they(whoever they are) probably do see it as a panic button-oh dear I see ideas/thoughts that challenge my own, can't have that now can we!

Peter:

Graham's alternatives aren't the only ones. "Is the universe just 'atoms and molecules', or is there some deeper significance?" My answer (not very profound BTW) is that physically it is atoms and molecules, but it is we who give it significance, or at least give our lives meaning. We have evolved to do that. When we were slime, we didn't have the brains to invent meanings and significance. Through time, we have done this.
I have said before that there is no external meaning to life; it is only internal to ourselves.

The other aspect of my posting was to say that homophobia is not just fear of gays; it is also hostility to gays AND to homosexuality. It is a negative attitude to homosexuality. Look it up. I also asked the question: can anyone name any group or party which is homophobic that is not religious? (the DUP seems to be dominated by religious values on 'moral' issues).

Hi Brian

Thank you for reposting.

Firstly on the issue of homophobia. I had already checked out the meaning and the one I found was similar to your definition. In that regard I felt that my comment that "all irrational fear of others, especially that which leads to hate is wrong" covered both aspects.

In terms of group driven fear then, why do we need to focus on groups? There are many people who hold many diverse views who are not members of any group, they are merely individual members of society. Some of these people have phobias of all sorts of things and are not necessarily driven by the values of any group. All sorts of prejudices are expressed on a daily basis by all sorts of people; and while I agree that religion is one influence on society, there are others. To suggest then, as you seem to do, that the irreligious are directly influenced by the religious in matters of moral phobias you would have to establish a direct link between these antithetical sections of society. Furthermore even in relation to group exclusion, it is equally easy to argue that certain members of our society e.g. homosexuals are excluded simply because the 'in' crowd, whoever they are, need an 'out' crowd to affirm their own identities. This is true of racist attacks, sectarian attacks, gender attacks and so on and there are all sorts of reasons why exclusion takes place, not all of it associated with religion.

And so to atoms and molecules! You appear to be saying, yes we are only atoms and yes there is meaning to life but that meaning is constructed as a result of evolution rather than being derived externally.

I have many problems with this view, but the main one is this; even if we assume that something came from nothing for no reason, that something by its very nature must be physical and not personal. But this, surely, is a huge problem. How can the impersonal give rise to the personal? How can human beings have any more significance or recognise/construct any more significance than a raindrop? There is nothing in the formula other than impersonal plus time plus chance; and there is no reason why atoms should give rise to anything but more atoms, and even the assumption that atoms should do this at all is a big one.

I am also intrigued by your use of the word we, as in 'when we were slime'. Surely the slime was just slime?

Hi Peter,

Yes, it's true. I do have a psychological condition, just the rest of us that my own fears and insecurities have built. However the difference is that I am scared and insecure about living in a country that time forgot and I am trying to rationally do something about it.

Marcus,

Being religious does not make you crazy. I don't want to labour the point anymore but the Humani statement did not say that. What it does suggest is that irrational fear and therefore prejudices are backed up rather than challenged by religious values. I grant that once there was a time the great religions nurtured scientific enquiry, but it seems that ever since they came up with results they didn鈥檛 like they have done more to nurture ignorance.

Religion invented homophobia. I think that the cure to the homophobia is the end of religion. I would like to be proven wrong though.

Hi Kevin

The land that time forgot - indeed.

However in terms of morality, if all we are doing is constructing a set of values based on our our fears and insecurities, on our very personal experiences of the world around us, then I'm not really sure what the difference is.

Surely in the end all you can say is that you find one set of values to be more acceptable than another?

What then can we say the other?

Surely your argument renders you speechless?

Kevin McNicholl

First of all, I didn't say believing in religon means you are crazy. That would be too narrow an interpretation of what I meant. What I was saying is that believing in god means you are crazy with or without a religion. Does believing in the tooth fairy mean you are crazy? Once you are old enough to investigate and find out there is no reason to believe in the tooth fairy if you still belive it one then I think you are crazy. Crazier yet if you are ready to pray and practice rituals to the tooth fairy, and craziest of all if you are ready to die defending all believers in the tooth fairy. You have to understand that I view all religions the same way. For instance, if you are a Christian, I make no distinction between you and those you call primitives who worship their idols and perform ritual dances around a fire in the jungle. (Ever attend a Greek Orthodox wedding?)

I don't know that Chrisitanity ever nurtured scientific discovery. The Catholic Church went ape over Gallileo. They knew instinctively that science was a direct and mortal threat to their monopoly over truth. Even today you see wackos like McIntosh and Wilder-Smith making fools of themselves fighting a hopeless rear guard battle against spontaneous creation of life from inert organic (carbon based) matter and evolution. They don't want to accept that they came from slime. They'd prefer to think that they came from ashes and dust. I have no doubt that's where they're ultimately headed along with the rest of us.

Religion didn't invent homophobia. I grew up in a society that was racist, homophobic, and mysogynist. I never believed in religion or god. My attitudes had to evolve away from that as I was educated about the world. Lots of things disgust me in life. I don't like thinking about how animals are slaughtered but I hold no grudge against butchers or owners, operators, and workers in slaughterhouses. And I am predominantly a meat eater. I didn't need religion to tell me to be disgusted at the thought of homosexual acts. It is instinctive in me. So is my lifelong irrational strong physical attraction to women even though many of them I get to know and I'm most attracted to are personally repugnant to me. I can't help it, my brain is wired that way. I didn't choose it, it just happened. And I learned to accept that other people's brains are wired differently than mine. What they do voluntarily behind closed doors to each other is not my concern and is no threat to me. I do not believe they can convert people to their lifestyle, you are born heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual and there is nothing you can do about it. Accept it and move on. There are far more important things in life.

#60 Surely in the end all you can say is that you find one set of values to be more acceptable than another?
I will not be quoting kant, wittgenstein et al as I fall asleep after the first paragraph of such but just some personal observations.
With reference to moral values #60 there are no absolute values of right and wrong, the only criteria being what is most advantageous for a particular group. The 10 commandments were never universal precepts, they only applied within jewish society to promote the welfare and coherence of the group. Thou shalt not kill did not apply to any member of any other group who was in possession of something the jewish group wanted . thou shalt not commit adultery obviously did not apply to victorious warriors having it away with women of other tribes captured in battles. Homosexual behaviours may have been considered as deleterious to the agressive warlike mindset of the times(Although some of our more lauded generals may have been) . Dietary laws were also sensible precautions for a nomadic people wandering about in a hot climate. After all eating dodgy prawns would not be exactly sensible when in the absence of refrigeration and a decent flush toilet. . Pork can be host to some nasty parasites like trichinella and tapeworms and unless well cooked is best avoided. Cutting bits off intimate anatomy may aid bonding behaviour and makes recognition easier!(harder to duplicate than a funny handshake ) Coming to more recent times we find the same lack of absolutes. Eg in WWII, to defeat a tyrant who exterminated 6-10 million people we allied ourselves with a tyrant who exterminated 30-60 million people. In Iraq, Saddam may not have been the very model of a modern major general but he presided over an artificial slice of territory containing kurds,sunnis and shias carved out by the french and british in the 1920鈥檚 and may have been making the best of a bad job. Is the life of an ordinary iraqui better now having been shocked and awed, ethnically cleansed and suicide bombed. The Israelis may be wrong in their occupation of palestine but what else were they to do. When they were being exterminated britain and america closed the doors to emigration so they engineered their own salvation Those of us who live in democratic societies may be lucky to exist fairly well within a set of manmade agreed rules which hopefully cause the least harm to the greatest number( though i personally think that thou shalt not steal should apply to the large slice of my income the government takes and allocates to other projects) Those not so fortunate live their lives according to the dictates of whatever tyrant has the greatest number of tame thugs. Fundamentalists of whatever persuasion harking back to ancient texts and customs are not particularly helpful in the development of a society where all can live fairly freely and unfortunately fundamentalists quite often seem to have been predominant in the ranks of the afore mentioned tame thugs!!

Post 62

Thank you for that stirring message of hope and fairness.

Thank you too for the absolute statement that there are no absolutes.

I trust that you are never the victim of injustice or war, because whether or not people can be bothered to come to your rescue will be entirely dependent on their mood at any given time; or perhaps you鈥檒l get lucky and their desire to seek your well-being will coincide with circumstances advantageous to them.

And as for the development of a society 鈥渨here all can live fairly and freely鈥�, you might as well forget it cos remember there is no society, there is no fair, and whatever in the world is free?

#63 I trust that you are never the victim of injustice or war, because whether or not people can be bothered to come to your rescue will be entirely dependent on their mood at any given time; or perhaps you?ll get lucky and their desire to seek your well-being will coincide with circumstances advantageous to them.

exactly peter- you got it in one
this is perhaps why the people of zimbabwe are suffering at present. they've no oil (or diamonds) so bush or brown/blair have no spur to seek their well-being

Hi don,

Whatever it is that the fundamentalist thugs have done over the years, the christian message is one which calls us all to hope, justice and wholeness. It is called shalom.

It is a message which breaks into the prison camp and declares to the prisoners that the decisive battle has been fought, our enemies has been conquered and freedom is imminent.

Christians are simply people who have heard the news, and it is this news which makes all the difference.

Hi peter -sorry if my previous answer may have seemed a little abrupt and also for the fact that we seem to be getting away from the thead . I was of course talking of actions at a wider group level. On an individual level I of course beaver away working for the free, liberal, pluralist, caring society we all wish to see ( but my vote along with the 23 others for the green party never seems to make much difference)! I was merely trying to rattle the cages of some of the fundamentalists who uncritically read ancient texts and propose selected precepts therefrom as models for modern living.
PS the christian message dos鈥檔t seem to be all that simple. I listened to radio ulster this am about the goings on in a north belfast church being debated by a panel of christians. One( the pastor) with but a tenuous acquaintance with english grammar proclaimed that it is the work of god, another distinguished christian thought it probably was and another christian thought it could perhaps be the work of the devil masquerading as god!
Could you make it up?
Hope there arn鈥檛 too many typos ( passing acquaintance with tsypang skylls)

"Religion, opium for the people. To those suffering pain, humiliation, illness, and serfdom, it promised a reward in an afterlife. And now we are witnessing a transformation. A true opium for the people is a belief in nothingness after death -- the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders we are not going to be judged."

- Czeslaw Milosz

gveale 67, from your mouth to God's ears :-)