Is religion a psychological problem?

It's only a problem if it's harming you in some way. For some people it's a problem, for others a benefit.

Delusional thinking is a problem, and there's a fine line between religious delusion and religious philosophy.

Would it not be better for mankind as a whole if we could know when we are being delusional?

I am not tring to put anyone or any religion down, I just seem to think that I am able to observe, 'that we are all delusional at times.
This seems to be one of the many stumbling blocks for progression in all aspects of life.

Is religion a psychological problem?



Why do you consider it a problem at all? You could have just asked if religion is psychological. Instead you added problem which means that you have already considered the answer to your question.

I asked because I do realise that I am not absolutly correct about what I am observing all the time.
I have been wrong many times before and it takes others to point out my misunderstandings to me.


What is your opinion about the matter or do you have the absolute correct answer to the question that is being asked?
Thanks Reasoning Self Logic

It sure would be nice to hear all of your point of views on this matter. If you are religious could you at least say that you do not want to partake in this discussion so that I have some idea of where you stand?

I will not respond or try to dig at your reply any futher if you respond in a manner that shows this question being offensive to you.
Thanks Reasoning Logic

Hmm... I'm stuck on "problem" vs. "normal". Since human "thinking" (in the broadest sense of the term) doesn't follow a rational/logical paradigm, or at least none has been discovered yet, what is the correct standard for "normal". Wouldn't it vary culture to culture?

Religion may not seem rational or logical, but neither does love. So we have to examine what sociopsychological "need" is fulfilled by religion, don't we?

I'd "need" to ponder that before taking it further...

rebecca

Religion is a psychological solution to fear of the void. Its benefits at the individual level are often outweighed by its divisive perniciousness at the societal level.

I worship nature and kindness at the twin altars of love and humanity. I celebrate the mass of the miracle of the senses every moment of every day. So far this has caused me no problems -only rapturous moments of extreme gratefulness for the miracles life affords.

Here's an example of one of my 'church' services:

Highway
by Gene Zeiger

Glow of ice on dark maples,
shape of blue fish in the clouds,
hum of tires, stutter of the car radio,
You know the highway is kindly,
the curve of it, your family at the end of it,
the lull of the wheels, the sudden view
of a small town dropped among trees
thin as eyelashes, and the buildings,
small, heaving chests with breaths
of smoke. And a sudden tenderness
fills you with the idea of people,
their wills and habits, the machinery
of their kindness, the way meals are served
with salt and a spoon.
And you think of them as birds
driven by the same wind, and such mercy
passes that it makes you weep for it
and soon you can't see the road
for the awful kindness of it, and the
idea of you, your name vanishes
leaving you alone and you must reclaim
it fast as you can in thought,
that dark bird circling over
the road until you are lost, or found
again in its wide wings lacing the blue
moving sky, the car now in motion
past the flash of sun again on an icy branch,
the self safely wrapped back inside its body,
which is your own, driving a car, yours.


Hell is the cruelty people inflict on each other, casually, without a second thought, in the absence of love.

Short Answer: It depends

Innately, I'd say "No". But there are many aspects of religion that, if/when applicable, could be representative of a psychological problem.

Thanks

Hi RL

Religion had its roots in psychology. But than every thing is psychology, isn't it. Everything that man does or do not do has something or other to do with psychology. I guess all voluntary thoughts and actions are psychological. Science is a psychological problem too.

I do think i may have understood your take on it, but am not sure how to approach it in a broad manner. If we can narrow it to some instances or situation for e.g Why do people believe in miracles, or why do people think Jesus rose again after death, or why do jihadist kill themselves while killing others? perhaps we can discuss their psychology. Definitely there are problems here.

I probably have the term "psychological" incorrect! when I define it I think of it as the psyche [mind] being logical, reasonable and rational, and when one's mind is not in that frame then they are having a psychological problem with their ability to think in terms of reason.
They have no logical reason for their minds to wonder outside of reality, unless we conclude that they need to do this to have some hope," of how they may wish for things to be, "different than what reality offers them.

When one is in this frame of mind one needs not to question anything as they already have the absolute answer. [ God will take care of every thing] There are other mental issues that can also make a person to think in this way.

I do realise that I very well may have this wrong but I do not even think that most of them would even take the time to think about why they think the way that they do.

Sorry to contradict that, but for a believer religion IS "reality". Logicality is merely a tool we use in limited situations. Consider this:

All men are mortal
Jesus was a man
So Jesus was mortal.

BUT

All divine beings are immortal
Jesus is divine
So Jesus is immortal.

Assuming this "logical contradiction" is close the central beliefs of some Christians can we argue they are being "irrational" ? Lest we jump to this conclusion we need to examine similar "contradictions" which appeared to manifest in atomic physics, such as the "wave" versus "particle" findings for electrons. This former "contradiction" has been "solved" by the introduction of a principle of complementarity which in terms of classical logic rejects "the law of the excluded middle".

We cannot appeal to "logic" as the central tenet of "rationality". We need to take into account "functionality" at all levels of description, from the physical to the social, in order to account for agreed "belief systems".

oh fresco, using platonic/socratic methodology in the same context as rationality; shame on you.

Thanks for your reply. I do have to say that I do not understand what you are saying.
You are talking over my head or you are talking bs. Could you try and use layman terms? I am a layman

You lost me here; Your quote; [Lest we jump to this conclusion we need to examine similar "contradictions" which appeared to manifest in atomic physics, such as the "wave" versus "particle" findings for electrons. This former "contradiction" has been "solved" by the introduction of a principle of complementarity which in terms of classical logic rejects "the law of the excluded middle".]
Thanks

I'm fighting bows and arrows with bows and arrows.

that is NOT an acceptable excuse, doing so elevates socratic/platonic methodolgy towards credibility and that, fresco, is shameful.

There was a historical dispute as to whether electrons were "particles" or whether they were "waves". These two theories predicted mutually exclusive results, yet both types of results were obtained. Those who looked for "waves" got them, as did those who looked for "particles". The "complementarity principle" resolved the issue by implying that the existence of "electrons" must be considered at a different level of "rationality" than had hitherto been conceived. Indeed, the current "picture" in micro-physics is dictated more by mathematical elegance and symmetry than by "logic".

Yes it does seem true that we can have to different things apear to be correct within science, but keep in mind that we are useing a scientific understanding when doing so.

Can you use any scientific understanding when I tell you that ra is god and that you just need to have faith that it is true?

Yoo could be right. I usually use "Azande witchcraft" to separate logicality from rationality, but discussing the entrails of ritually poisoned chickens gets a bit tedious.