Could believing in creationism be considered a mental disorder?

[KagakuOtaku]

Goodness, no! It's called religion. Haven't you heard of it, before? Or do you not actually know what creationism is? All Christians believe in creationism.

[ydoaPs]

All Christians believe in creationism.

 

Not true.

[Moontanman]

I've been told by a group of Christians that all real Christians are creationists, the rest are being deluded by the devil and his sciences....

[insane_alien]

I've been told by a group of Christians that all real Christians are creationists, the rest are being deluded by the devil and his sciences....

 

yeah, there are so many factions of christianity that there have been cases of christian extremists attacking other christian extremeists.

[DJBruce]

All Christians believe in creationism.

 

As Ydoaps stated so not true. I personally know that believing Christianity does not mean believing in creationism.

[Moontanman]

As Ydoaps stated so not true. I personally know that believing Christianity does not mean believing in creationism.

 

Then you must be one of those poor souls being mislead by the devil

[CharonY]

Heh, depends on the flavor of creationism. The catholic church acknowledges evolution and has a more indirect role for god. They are also in agreement with the age of the earth.

It is strange to see that the church is slightly more reasonable than their followers.

[ccdan]

well, creationism or any other religious beliefs, could be considered mental disorders if we were to apply certain definitions that are often used to describe various "mental disorders" but since most religious beliefs are socially acceptable, they aren't going to be regarded as mental illnesses as long as they don't go too far from the mainstream views (it's one thing to [wrongfully] believe that creationism is valid or that porn is harmful or that someone is possessed, and quite another to claim that god spoke to you and you are a reincarnation of jesus - the letter thing, being far less acceptable, might be considered a "mental illness" by some)

 

the trouble is, the vast majority of mental disorders are not disorders at all in any real sense... they're largely just labels to behaviors that are not wanted/liked... and there's a huge degree of subjectivity in psychiatry and many examples of double standards

[iNow]

the trouble is, the vast majority of mental disorders are not disorders at all in any real sense...

Except, no. That's not even close to true, and we have scores of neuroimaging studies available to support my point.

 

they're largely just labels to behaviors that are not wanted/liked..

.

Again, no. A baseline of normal is established by sanpling a representative cross section of the population, and from that abnormal is defined as a few standard deviations from that on a few key variables and measurements.

 

 

and there's a huge degree of subjectivity in psychiatry and many examples of double standards

Such as?

[ccdan]

Except, no. That's not even close to true, and we have scores of neuroimaging studies available to support my point.

There's not a single so called "mental illness" identifiable in any objective way, with neuroimaging or otherwise!

And the way the studies that involve neuroimaging are conducted, renders them scientifically invalid! Actually the mistake made by the so called psychiatrists and neurologists when they study the brains, is one of the biggest mistakes in science: correlation = causation ... and they actually make far more mistales... the fact that certain regions of the brain seem active during certain states of minds, doesn't prove that those states of mind are diseases... and that kind of argument can be used to consider virtually any type of behavior as a mental illness... for example, imagine that you land on an island run by pedophiles... they could take your kids, rape them, and in case that you protest, they could screen your brain to show that something is "wrong" with your protest, that you have regions of the brain activated, and that you are seriously deranged... moreover, another trick could be performed on you - one that is widely used by "psychiatrists" as just another "proof" for mental illnesses: they could drug you with antipsychotics to the point that you cannot protest any longer... and they can feed you those nasty drugs until you come to accept pedophilia as something normal... and then, they'll use all that as a proof that you were seriously ill... before being drugged you were ready to kill them for having sex with your kids, after being drugged you accept it as normal... and that's what happens with most mental patients nowadays that are "treated" against their will... the analogy might be a bit exaggerated, but the principles are the same...

 

Again, no. A baseline of normal is established by sanpling a representative cross section of the population, and from that abnormal is defined as a few standard deviations from that on a few key variables and measurements.

such a definition cannot have a scientific or medical value... for example, during galileo's life, the vast majority of people had strongly differing view from his, and his views were perceived as dangerous at that time... such a definition like yours would have made him a deviant, when actually most other people were unbelievably stupid!

 

Such as?

here are a few:

 

you beat you cat or dog - mentally ill (lack of compassion, etc.)

you go to kill people in iraq, aghanistan, etc. = sane

 

you sell your goods and gamble them - ill

give your goods to charity and become a monk - sane

 

drink much alcohol - ill

take many psychotropic drugs - on your way to (in)"sanity"

 

claim that you are jesus - ill

tell others that you had a spiritual encounter with god - sane

 

 

these are just a few examples, there are many more..

[DJBruce]

you sell your goods and gamble them - ill

give your goods to charity and become a monk - sane

 

This is not a valid comparison. The mental consideration is not that you sell you goods and gamble them. The mental illness comes from the fact that you are addicted to gambling. Also generally people do not just decide to become a monk out of the blue. It takes time to go through the process before one becomes a monk.

 

drink much alcohol - ill

take many psychotropic drugs - on your way to (in)"sanity"

 

Again not a valid comparison. One you drinks to much alcohol and exhibits alcoholism is mentally ill because they are addicted to a substance, which interferes with their everyday life. One who takes medication prescribed by a doctor to help maintain a healthy state of mind.

 

Also this comparison false because alcohol is in fact a psychotropic drug.

[ccdan]

This is not a valid comparison. The mental consideration is not that you sell you goods and gamble them. The mental illness comes from the fact that you are addicted to gambling.

I'm afraid that the supposed "mental consideration" is exactly the fact that you "sell your goods and gamble them" - a thing regarded as bad by many...

 

We all have preferences, hobbies, etc. and we all do repetitive things... some people for example spend a lot of money on different (often useless) hobbies for their almost entire lives... others prefer certain lifestyles, like traveling around the world... other prefer to eat many unhealthy or expensive things... but most of these things are "socially acceptable" even though they may cause periods of hardship, may provide not so good settings for rearing children and so on, may cause health problems and so on... but we don't use words like addiction for such things... on the other hand, when we see repetitive behavior that we don't like or don't understand or consider it dangerous/harmful, we tend to use words like addiction, obsession, fixation and so on...

 

Again not a valid comparison. One you drinks to much alcohol and exhibits alcoholism is mentally ill because they are addicted to a substance, which interferes with their everyday life. One who takes medication prescribed by a doctor to help maintain a healthy state of mind.

LOL, your argument really comical... aren't drugs "addictive" too? don't they interfere with your daily life? (not sure about the US, but in Europe you can't drive or operate machinery under the influence of psychotropic drugs, even if they're prescribed by a "doctor" ... there are also good chances that you'll lose your job if it requires attention - in the case of alcohol, you can drink when you're off duty )

 

Also this comparison false because alcohol is in fact a psychotropic drug.

on the contrary, the fact that alcohol is a psychotropic drug reinforces what I said... let's take an example: some people who have problems in certain social settings, drink alcohol to get rid of inhibitions... for the same problem, others go to psychiatrists that prescribe them benzodiazepines and related drugs (like valium, etc.) that have very similar effects to that of alcohol...

so...:

if you take one psychotropic drug (alcohol) repetitively (you're addicted) for a certain reason (to get rid of inhibition) so that you can "function" in certain situations, you're "mentally ill"

 

if you take another psychotropic drug that whose effect is very similar to the first (valium) repetitively (you're addicted) for the vary same reason (to get rid of inhibition) so that you can "function" in certain situations, you are "under treatment"

 

that's pretty ironical!

[random]

If Jesus were alive today and spoke with a psychiatrist about his beliefs and visions he would be diagnosed a schizophrenic. We have seen the human mind capable of extraordinary things, From the outrageous such as a monk who can cause his body to heat up and thus survive unclothed in minus 30 weather (temperature rise confirmed with medical science) to the idiot sauvant who has the ability to recall any phone number from a list in the millions. We have even seen martial arts masters break concrete with their bare hands and we have seen a psychic who can give intricate details about an individual only a spouse knew about.

 

Science is very good at explaining away how this is accomplished, coincidence often explains psychic ability, Science needs to accept that just because we can't prove it doesn't make it implausible, perhaps creationism and the big bang are both correct. The big bang was the method chosen by the creator When one lives in eternity a few hundred million years is a drop in the bucket.

 

Science also has a keen ability to ignore what it cannot explain, spontaneous remissions of chronic disease as a result of faith is commonly ignored. Perhaps the faith is a trigger mechanism that causes the body to self heal since science has accepted that a person can raise and lower autonomic responses at will and perform seemingly impossible feats why could it not be equally sound that an individual could raise or lower immune system responses. And then of course take it one step further and argue the creator made us this way.

 

There is still more we don't understand than current science knows and it is unprofessional and unscientific to dismiss idea's without testing for truth. The problem is current science does not yet have a method to test if creationism is possible or a control subject to test theories against.

 

It would be entirely plausible that an alien race far superior to ours stopped off on earth and started a few genetic experiments and created a few genetic hybrids we evolved from but who will accept that? Even though we are pretty much in agreement that extra terrestrial life exists, it would be mathematically impossible for it to not, Because WE cannot devise a way to travel such vast distances on limited fuel we claim it impossible. Well perhaps in 200 years we'll be living like the Jetson's in a star trek followers fantasy but until it happens it's impossible and the conveyor of such beliefs is crazy. Just push aside that our current science can clone and alter DNA structures and we could create our own unique life forms with modern science and carry on ........because it's impossible and unfounded.