Could believing in creationism be considered a mental disorder?

[swansont]

It represents the end of inquiry as to ultimate origin, which is compatible with science since its concerned with "how" and the mechanics.

 

But "God did it" doesn't explain how nor does it address the mechanics.

 

Because agnostic makes the prediction that we will never know - that's faith, just like theism. Why assume something came from nothing? Wouldn't that be supernatural? Creationism is based on the supernatural too. Maybe both are mentally ill...

 

I think you've exlcuded the "weak agnostic" viewpoint here (which was my intent; sorry that it wasn't clearer). We don't know now, but could know in the future. Whey is an answer required? Why is "I don't know" an unacceptable alternative? That doesn't assume we came from nothing.

 

 

Because the deity is supernatural, and there is no explanation by natural law, by definition. Of course, the same can be said for the universe's supernatural infiniteness as well.

 

I'm just making the point that assuming the universe has no beginning is just as "supernatural" as assuming the universe was created by a deity. Neither is any more absurd than the other.

 

No mental illness. Just closed mindedness.

 

I don't see that this is any different than saying "it's magic." No need to be constrained by natural law. Since neither one is more or less absurd, you can't put one above the other. But that's not the general view; somehow "the masses" are generally content with a deity that requires no explanation but not with a universe that has had none (until recently getting a partial one). The question is why this is so. A big difference is that one path can be investigated, and the other can't.

[ParanoiA]

But "God did it" doesn't explain how nor does it address the mechanics.

 

Exactly. You must have misunderstood me. This is a good thing. Because "god did it" doesn't explain how, nor does it address the mechanics, there's no issue with science. There's still all of the inquiry.

 

Whey is an answer required? Why is "I don't know" an unacceptable alternative? That doesn't assume we came from nothing.

 

"I don't know" is an answer. If you can question the mental capacity of those who believe in a deity, then I can question the mental capacity of those who don't. "I don't know" is a refusal to accept the obvious - that unexplainable phenomena is responsible for the universe. That is essentially the same answer when you think about it, as we still have made no attempt to explain it, but rather recognized that the existance of space, time, life and etc is a supernatural experience.

 

(By the way, I can see a gaping hole in my argument there, but I'm not going to tell on myself...)

 

But that's not the general view; somehow "the masses" are generally content with a deity that requires no explanation but not with a universe that has had none (until recently getting a partial one).

 

Like I said, I really think "the masses" believe that the deity is the explanation. And perhaps they believe it follows that all else will be explained by it as well.

 

And all contrary fun aside, I do think it can be traced mentally. There are certain people susceptable to religion and its conveniently laid out checks and balances (like blind faith, no "testing" of power) to ensure its own evolution. I just don't think it's mentally ill.

 

And then consider Lucaspa's repeated point about people who believe they've encountered god. Sure you can find quacks in any group of people, but many of these are very intelligent people, mentally healthy in every respect, and have a story to tell of their moment of realization - however that played out. To assume mental illness in these folks is more than a little insulting.

[Realitycheck]

And then consider Lucaspa's repeated point about people who believe they've encountered god. Sure you can find quacks in any group of people, but many of these are very intelligent people, mentally healthy in every respect, and have a story to tell of their moment of realization - however that played out. To assume mental illness in these folks is more than a little insulting.

Once, I told myself out loud that I was going to follow in Moses' footsteps and retrieve new "commandments" to account for this new age. It just so happened that a week or two later, I had this dream, that included some meaningful symbolism about what was going on in my life at the time ... and then I woke up. I woke up to an electrical storm and this crazy idea went through my head when this lightning struck really loud right outside of my window at the exact same moment that I was thinking of something really meaningful to me at the time. So then I started asking questions in my head to "God", in multiple choice form, and he would always answer with a lightning strike on the answer that made the most sense, several times. There is a lot more pertinent information that makes it even more believable. I carried this around for several years till I found myself in the psych ward at the local hospital for a few days, till I insisted on seeing a judge, who let me out.

 

Nevertheless, this is just one case of so-called ayurveda, for lack of many other terms, such as "God experience". I guess what I am trying to say is, it's all just coincidence, astrology, unless someone convinces me otherwise. My mind is pretty well set on the fact that it means nothing, since I doubt they will ever abolish the death sentence (since we now have DNA evidence) and Katherine Toombs never seemed to welcome me into her arms fatefully (though someone's advice that she was a prostitute really colored the fate of that occurring).

 

And what do you know. It just started raining ... again. After a few weeks of not raining, yesterday, I finally washed my car after a few months of on again, off again raining before the dryspell.

 

Oh, and did I mention that this whole experience was very gripping and powerful?

[1veedo]

I am going to take that as you have no idea what I'm talking about. Alright' date=' forget notikarion or gematria; let's just look at the most basic encoded information. I don't know if any of you are Jewish, but as some of you may know, ancient hebrew was much different than hebrew today. The first, and biggest difference is that there were no vowels, and at the time of the Torah, there wasn't even vowel pointing yet. So in a word like YHVH, you have the meaning of the word itself, but you also have the meaning of each character mingled with that, so that each concept builds on or adds to the word. That is know as paronomasia and was fairly common in ancient writing.

 

There are numerous translations of the first line of genesis ranging from what you are familiar with to something like:[/quote']So what are you talking about? I'm just saying that even if you assume each day is periods of time that the actual order of the events in Genesis is out of place. How do birds come before land animals?

Most Jews believe in Science from my experience.

And this prove that most Biblical scholars think Genesis is metaphoric how? It doesn't matter what they think though, you can believe whatever you want, I'm just pointing out that you really have no justification that it's metaphoric other than your own personal faith.

There may be some who believe the literal reading, but they are not the majority.

You're equivocating here. Just because someone thinks the authors intended it to be literal doesn't mean you have to believe in the literal reading. Maybe in reality they don't. And beyond this we were talking about Biblical scholars here, not the masses. It may be that most Biblical scholars are also literalists.

As for the authors of genesis writing other books, I'm not sure where you got that information. Many of the stories in genesis were circulating for 1000 years before there were even Jews.

Yes I meant the person who actually wrote it down. What did you think I meant?

[Reaper]

In a lecture that I had some time ago in a philosophy class we actually had a discussion about the texts in the bible and its application to overall Christian Theology.

 

My philosophy professor discussed with the class about his experience and study of biblical texts, mostly New Testament texts, that were written circa 3rd century AD, and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The one thing I found interesting was that there is very little to no deviation between what is written in today's bible's and what was written in 3rd century AD bibles. The ancients, so I was told during this discussion, were very careful to preserve what was written and not deviate from what they were copying. There were many reasons for this, aside from the fear of death or incarceration.

 

From this information it is very clear that the texts were probably intended to be interpreted literally, so I don't see how they could be metaphorical, although there is speculation as to whether the Book of Revelation might have been (such as reference to the 7 headed beast, which corresponds to the 7 hills of Rome).

 

Sure, some parts of it does smack influence from Greco-Roman mythology and society and some of it from Persian mythology, but whatever the cultural influence I'm pretty certain it was intended to be taken literally.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Given that all other observations and experimental data contradiction most everything in the bible, I would say that believing the events, especially the act of creation, is very irrational in this day and age. I don't think it qualifies as mental disorder though, just either wishful thinking or cognitive dissonance. Ignorance could also be appropriate given specific circumstances, such as not being exposed to scientific data.

[Realitycheck]

This is kind of off-topic, but the best explanation I can come up with about the logical discrepancies in the New Testament is this. Jesus didn't write anything down. His disciples wrote their stories down much later in life, arguably from 30 to 70 years after the crucifixion. At the time of Jesus, there were people around who were competition for attention. Roman superhero types who were all about being total badasses. Within my perspective, nothing in the Bible is accurate unless it is scientifically possible, at the very minimum. In the Old Testament, you have lots of mythology, due to the lack of anything meaningful being written down in a timely manner. In the New Testament, you have old men who have told their story for many years, polished it, glorified it, and, of course, exaggerated it in order to beat down the competition eventually, and finally, wrote it down, after many naysayers would have died.

 

What is your take on these things that are scientifically unexplainable?

 

Of course, I am not disputing that touching words of encouragement can have a positive effect on an ailing person and I am not disputing that if you mix some sugar and yeast in the water on the sly, then you can get some awful tasting wine.

[Reaper]

This is kind of off-topic, but the best explanation I can come up with about the logical discrepancies in the New Testament is this. Jesus didn't write anything down. His disciples wrote their stories down much later in life, arguably from 30 to 70 years after the crucifixion.

 

Traditionally the authorship is attributed to the apostles. As to who actually wrote them that is unknown. Especially given the timespan in which they were written.

[foodchain]

It depends on what aspect. Religions, or many of them have codes of ethics to them, somewhat similar to an instruction manual really. I don’t know if I could per say put a label of mental illness on people that follow such for those reasons, though I don’t know how much a way of life developed even today really accounts for the reality of being human in the world. Such as comparing say a person who follows the ten commandants personally, then a person who wants to enforce the government to do such, the later I would call a whacko. Then again that’s basically somewhat of the point behind our governments foundation, freedom that is.

 

The idea of taking the bible word for word as truth. Well, science is pretty much in contrast with modern day theology in general over to what explains reality, from any real angle you look at it, so basically if you were to have a person that were education about the empirical realities of the world, and then that person ignored such to follow a belief as it were real, then I might tend to think that person a bit of a whacko really.

 

As to anything super natural, well, nothing can answer that question right now past an aspect of faith, personally as an agnostic I really only care to live for truth and none exists on that, any way you look at it to answer the question with a yes or a no is a motivated product of faith and or an assumption, but on that note I don’t think I would call a person whacko for simply falling to either side of an issue yet unresolved by empirical justice or proof on the issue.

 

Well that’s my two cents anyways on the issue.

[1veedo]

From this information it is very clear that the texts were probably intended to be interpreted literally, so I don't see how they could be metaphorical, although there is speculation as to whether the Book of Revelation might have been (such as reference to the 7 headed beast, which corresponds to the 7 hills of Rome).

Actually most Christians at the time viewed Rome as the evil empire or the "Beast". It's been a while sense I was acquainted with all the metaphors but anytime something is purple velvet/scarlet, usually a woman, it refers to Rome the city. Someone who is enticed by this woman is actually enticed by the greed of Rome (like the emperor). This isn't limited to Biblical texts either. There's this historical cultural depiction of a [dressed in purple] whore resting on the beast -- the whore being Rome and the beast being the Roman empire. Emperors and citizens worshiped this whore out of greed.

 

Jesus was supposed to come back and wage war in Armageddon (an actual place) to defeat the Roman army (the Beast) and lead Christians to victory (in the old testiment Jesus was actually supposed to be a general -- the Jews hatted Roman rule and waited for the day they could gain independence). Something like that anyway. I cant find what I'm talking about on google but I've read it in books and saw it on the History channel before. Babylon of the old testament becomes Rome of the new testament -- they're supposed to be allegorical together, both are evil. In one case in Revelations, Babylon is described as resting on 7 hills, just like Rome.

 

But as a metaphor Revelations is supposed to an actual prophesied event. Some people think this has already happened and others think all the professes are fulfilled except the second coming of Christ (and therefore we don't have to wait long for Jesus to come back).

 

It's interesting if you read the New Testament though how many of the metaphors are present. It's like a vision into the past of oppressed people of the Roman empire. Anybody who is unacquainted with this ancient culture really cant appreciated the Bible for what it is. The New Testament in fact isn't even supposed to be a description of a historical event as most Christians think. The authors (mark mathew luke and john) weren't witting what they believed to be actual history -- they were witting a gospel, with much hatred towards the Roman Empire.

[Reaper]

Actually most Christians at the time viewed Rome as the evil empire or the "Beast". It's been a while sense I was acquainted with all the metaphors but anytime something is purple velvet/scarlet, usually a woman, it refers to Rome the city. Someone who is enticed by this woman is actually enticed by the greed of Rome (like the emperor). This isn't limited to Biblical texts either. There's this historical cultural depiction of a [dressed in purple] whore resting on the beast -- the whore being Rome and the beast being the Roman empire. Emperors and citizens worshiped this whore out of greed.

 

Yeah, but that was pretty much my point. I was not disputing that. It wasn't until Constantine came to power that Christianity became the state religion.

 

Jesus was supposed to come back and wage war in Armageddon (an actual place) to defeat the Roman army (the Beast) and lead Christians to victory (in the old testiment Jesus was actually supposed to be a general -- the Jews hatted Roman rule and waited for the day they could gain independence). Something like that anyway. I cant find what I'm talking about on google but I've read it in books and saw it on the History channel before. Babylon of the old testament becomes Rome of the new testament -- they're supposed to be allegorical together, both are evil. In one case in Revelations, Babylon is described as resting on 7 hills, just like Rome.

 

I don't know about Babylon, but Rome did actually have 7 hills all of which are named, and it is referenced in mythology, historical accounts, politics, etc. Traditionally, it was believed that the city of Rome was founded on one of these 7 hills. The 7 headed beast is believed to allude to the 7 hills of Rome.

 

In one account, in some show on the History Channel, they did talk about the possibility of the Revelation as being a form of War Propaganda, and a way to protect those who had dissident thoughts.

 

 

But as a metaphor Revelations is supposed to an actual prophesied event. Some people think this has already happened and others think all the professes are fulfilled except the second coming of Christ (and therefore we don't have to wait long for Jesus to come back).

 

There are many differing interpretations of the Revelation, some of which include the possibility that it is supposed to be an actual event. It depends on what Christian Denomination, and their scholars, you refer to.

 

 

It's interesting if you read the New Testament though how many of the metaphors are present. It's like a vision into the past of oppressed people of the Roman empire. Anybody who is unacquainted with this ancient culture really cant appreciated the Bible for what it is. The New Testament in fact isn't even supposed to be a description of a historical event as most Christians think. The authors (mark mathew luke and john) weren't witting what they believed to be actual history -- they were witting a gospel, with much hatred towards the Roman Empire.

 

 

I do agree that there is some element of truth in the bible, but as to whether the events in the bible actually took place I'm a bit skeptical about. Up until recently, the bible (yes, both old and new testament) was believed to be a factual historical account of the Jews and of the world. You go back in time and it was widely believed that the events were factual. St. Augustine even used the Bible to calculate when the day of creation took place (He calculated it to be 4004 B.C.). The Bible was intended to be a factual account.

 

Even to this day most Christians believe that most of the stories in it did actually occur. If you don't believe me, go to any church, and they'll tell you that these events, ranging from Moses's Ten Commandments to the resurrection of Jesus, did actually occur as described in the Bible. This isn't restricted to the masses, many educated scholars and religious leaders also believe this. My parents, for example, are Roman Catholics and they believe that the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus was a factual account. And they are educated too, having graduated from college and have knowledge of other beliefs and religions.

 

The Bible was intended to do many things, such as act as a guide, or allude to the life and times of the people back when the stories took place. But it was also intended to be a factual account. Its similar to any other religious text, whether it is Christian, Hindu, Islam, etc. The Bible makes for a great read and you can certainly draw moral and historical lessons from it. Christian Theology draws heavily on the Bible, but it is not concerned with whether or not the accounts were true, but rather what it all means. Overall I don't believe the accounts in it were true or literally happened the way as described in the Bible. And I don't believe it was intended to be merely a metaphorical text.

 

~My two cents anyway.

[1veedo]

Yeah, but that was pretty much my point. I was not disputing that. It wasn't until Constantine came to power that Christianity became the state religion.

What so it's weird that someone quotes something you said and instead of debating it actually agrees with you? I was just expanding on what you said.

But it was also intended to be a factual account.

Yes, the old testament definitely but the new testament not so much. Early Christians didn't even believe in a historical Jesus. Christianity back then was a lot different than it is today. Of course this is true if you compare Christianity of the Middle Ages as well but a big difference is that now Christians believe there was a walking talking Jesus in Jerusalem. The original Christians believed in a Jesus but it was all metaphorical to what Paul was talking about -- the plains of existence or Logos, which was a belief common during that time period. According to Paul Jesus was crucified not on Earth, but in a higher realm of Logos. The writers of the Gospel believed in this Jesus of the Logos, not a Jesus that was Earthly.

[Reaper]

What so it's weird that someone quotes something you said and instead of debating it actually agrees with you? I was just expanding on what you said.

 

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Its just that most people use the word "actually" in the beginning of a sentence if they intend on making a correction and it sounded dismissive. A little social skill that you should keep in mind in the future . P.S. I recommend you should strive to become a climate scientist, you would do very well in that field in my opinion.

 

Yes, the old testament definitely but the new testament not so much. Early Christians didn't even believe in a historical Jesus. Christianity back then was a lot different than it is today. Of course this is true if you compare Christianity of the Middle Ages as well but a big difference is that now Christians believe there was a walking talking Jesus in Jerusalem. The original Christians believed in a Jesus but it was all metaphorical to what Paul was talking about -- the plains of existence or Logos, which was a belief common during that time period. According to Paul Jesus was crucified not on Earth, but in a higher realm of Logos. The writers of the Gospel believed in this Jesus of the Logos, not a Jesus that was Earthly.

 

True. I'm not sure if you ever watch the "God who wasn't There" but they explore the idea that Jesus could be completely fictional.

[Severian]

How do you define a 'mental disorder'? Is believing something to be true without evidence a 'mental disorder'? If so, then surely atheism is also a mental disorder.

 

For that matter, how does one define 'creationism'? How does one defined a 'day' before the existence of the Sun and Earth?

[1veedo]

How do you define a 'mental disorder'? Is believing something to be true without evidence a 'mental disorder'? If so, then surely atheism is also a mental disorder.

 

For that matter, how does one define 'creationism'? How does one defined a 'day' before the existence of the Sun and Earth?

I must admit, after reading this post I nearly deleted this site from my bookmarks.

[Phi for All]

For that matter, how does one define 'creationism'?

For our purposes here, creationism can be defined as the belief that God created all things in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago without the use of the evolutionary process. It is a dismissal of all gathered evidence on evolution in favor of instantaneous creation, even creation of the geological evidence that would seem to support an Earth age of around 5 billion years.

 

Any other religious or spiritual aspects do not fall under the purview of science or the topic of this thread.

[ydoaPs]

To believe something came from nothing is quite irrational isn't it? Where did the universe and life come from? The materials?

Ex-Nihilo is a religious dogma, it isn't science. IIRC, science has the second law of thermodynamics(energy/mass cannot be created or destroyed, only altered in form). Why does the universe need a beginning?

[Reaper]

I must admit' date=' after reading this post I nearly deleted this site from my bookmarks.

[/quote']

 

 

Now I see why they would remove religious/philosophy subforum. A shame really, because I find those very interesting subjects.

 

 

For our purposes here' date=' creationism can be defined as the belief that God created all things in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago without the use of the evolutionary process. It is a dismissal of all gathered evidence on evolution in favor of instantaneous creation, even creation of the geological evidence that would seem to support an Earth age of around 5 billion years.

 

Any other religious or spiritual aspects do not fall under the purview of science or the topic of this thread.

[/quote']

 

Yeah, but his point was that there are other definitions of creationism which could be brought up. Of course the one you described is the one most on this thread talk about.

 

But other ones include intelligent design, and does not necessarily have to involve a deity.

 

 

 

And geological studies indicate that the Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago..... but close enough.

 

 

 

 

How do you define a 'mental disorder'? Is believing something to be true without evidence a 'mental disorder'? If so, then surely atheism is also a mental disorder.

 

....How does one defined a 'day' before the existence of the Sun and Earth?

 

 

From my knowledge, what qualifies as someone having a mental disorder is someone who suffers from extreme distress (emotional or otherwise), abnormal cognitive functioning, or exhibits maladaptive/abnormal behavior.

 

So I agree with you there, I can't see why belief in creationism, even young Earth creationism, could be a mental disorder. I never considered it one though in this thread.

 

Ex-Nihilo is a religious dogma, it isn't science. IIRC, science has the second law of thermodynamics(energy/mass cannot be created or destroyed, only altered in form). Why does the universe need a beginning?

 

Well, no, the second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of an isolated system will increase overtime, meaning that all things will tend to go toward disorder. A process can only occur if it increases the entropy of the system.

 

Under this rationale alone, you are hard pressed to come up with how the universe couldn't have a beginning.

 

All of our data does indicate that it did have some sort of beginning i.e. the Big Bang.

[Phi for All]

Yeah, but his point was that there are other definitions of creationism which could be brought up. Of course the one you described is the one most on this thread talk about.

Science really shouldn't concern itself with any other definitions of creationism. If they involve a non-observable deity behind natural, physical processes then it's completely up to the individual to decide where faith begins and ends. It's only when religious interpretations completely ignore evidence gained using rigorous scientific method in favor of instantaneous creation that simply appears to be far older that science should be concerned. God is not denied by evolution, It is simply ignored.

But other ones include intelligent design, and does not necessarily have to involve a deity.

But intelligent design is, again, adding an unobservable element into an otherwise sound, natural and well-tested theory. It puts ID back into the realm of faith so science has nothing to say. ID further compounds the mistake by insisting it has created a controversy which must be taught alongside science in public schools.

And geological studies indicate that the Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago..... but close enough.

I rounded up to 5 billion as opposed to rounding down to 6000.

[1veedo]

All of our data does indicate that it did have some sort of beginning i.e. the Big Bang.

Of course this doesn't have to be the absolute beginning of the universe. The big bang is only the beginning of the current expansion of the [known]* universe.

 

*Depending on how you define universe.

[swansont]

Ex-Nihilo is a religious dogma, it isn't science. IIRC, science has the second law of thermodynamics(energy/mass cannot be created or destroyed, only altered in form). Why does the universe need a beginning?

 

That's the first law. The second law is entropy increasing in closed systems.

[ydoaPs]

Well, no, the second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of an isolated system will increase overtime, meaning that all things will tend to go toward disorder. A process can only occur if it increases the entropy of the system.

Oops, long day. I meant the first law.

 

Under this rationale alone, you are hard pressed to come up with how the universe couldn't have a beginning.

Why would the universe need a beginning?

 

All of our data does indicate that it did have some sort of beginning i.e. the Big Bang.

Er, not quite. Big Bang wasn't the beginning of anything; it was a rapid expansion. After all, SOMETHING banged

[

 

QUOTE=swansont;350633]That's the first law. The second law is entropy increasing in closed systems.

Yea, I felt so stupid. I realized that like an hour after I posted it. The idea still stands regardless of my temporary confusion of laws.

[ParanoiA]

Why does the universe need a beginning?

 

It doesn't. And likewise, why does the universe NOT need one?

 

We're all just asking elementary contrary questions about the universe. We can go all day with that - and it's fun too, some interesting ideas come out in discussions like that.

 

But, my point was, and still is, if you can make a case that someone has a mental disorder for believing in a deity's creative proverbial hand, then I don't see how believing in the universe "with no beginning", or other supernatural ideas are free from mental disorder either.

 

I believe the entire suggestion of mental disorder associated with creationism is intellectually dishonest anyway.

[Phi for All]

I believe the entire suggestion of mental disorder associated with creationism is intellectually dishonest anyway.

I concur. While I am completely opposed to creationism as has been outlined here, I think suggesting it's a mental disorder is misleadingly vivid and without merit. Just because you were raised and educated with bad information doesn't make you cognitively infirm.

[ParanoiA]

I concur. While I am completely opposed to creationism as has been outlined here, I think suggesting it's a mental disorder is misleadingly vivid and without merit. Just because you were raised and educated with bad information doesn't make you cognitively infirm.

 

No kidding. Not to mention the psychological suggestion of accepting creationism as dillusional in order to respond to the question of whether it's a disorder. I've never cared for that tactic.

[Realitycheck]

In case you missed it. I wasn't really inferring that they needed to be locked away, just that they were flawed.

 

What I was originally thinking of was this. If someone attaches their faith to something that is untrue, then whatever expected outcomes that are also attached to this faith automatically bottom out and the only thing they can rely upon is luck and ingenuity. This is where science triumphs.