Is religion a psychological problem?

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead Thank you for your reply I find it extremely intellectual!

I am greatful that you did bring info into the subject that I was not aware of.
I very well may be misunderstanding some of what you have shared as I am not able to grasp the full understanding of things the first time I read them. [as far as that goes I am sure that I never understand all things comepletely as they may be understud]!

I do see that the psycologist community defines things differently than I do! I need to learn how the psycologist community defines things so that I will seem more coherent when I am writing. My writing has enough incoherent in it all by itself. lol
When I defined my perception of a pyschological problem in my post to Jackofalltrades I defind it as psyche= mind and that logical= reasonable rationale.
I find that it is defined by the group now, even so I think that most all of us will agree that the group made some very illogical decisions 1,000 years ago when compared today standards.
I would like to think this is a + for modern society, do not get me wrong as I could probably find things that today society is doing negative as well.

I do think that a better definition could be found to the word [psychological] than what the community offers. I think that it is extremely important for society to advance and be aware of [okay] delusions for what they are.
Do not get me wrong as I do see a need for them, "I just think that there is a time when our minds should go there if we choose! "such as with death and so forth.
My question is [ Is it best for mankind to continue this day after day if they are not experiencing stress or pain]?
Should they be aware that they are thinking of things that can not be proven?
Is this the best way for mankind to advance in ethics?
I do realise that it seems natural but being that we are humans and are able to have a little more awareness of our minds than other animals, should the scientific community point out the way they see things and teach this in junior high school?
I would rather see ethics taught first but I do think this should be discussed along with it.

I do think that with minds like yours and others working hard together that we may be able to prove at least close to empirically if whether or not, "the notion that physically empirical things are better than non-physically empirical things is a truism in itself. An axiom upon which a moral code is built. It is an ethical morae that itself is not backed up with empirical proof.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

My question is [ Is it best for mankind to continue this day after day if they are not experiencing stress or pain]?
Should they be aware that they are thinking of things that can not be proven?
Is this the best way for mankind to advance in ethics?

I tend to be quite the materialist when it comes to explanations of ethics. Ethics like many other socially contextual things seem to follow suit with the socio-economic times. The econimics of science and other things have rendered much of the social need for religion obsolete. There remains the psychological need for some of the answers religion offers to be answered. The general ethical foundation of the world itself however seems to be founded upon the species biological need for being social. i.e Those in my group are extended most of the same priviliges I have. Who happens to be in a group tends to be more about economics. As the world gets smaller (information transfer and global economical colonization) more people are added into the group and extended privileges of "my group". When people are sectioned off somehow those priviledges are taken away. At least from my point of view.

The surface ethics, however have been steadily changing from religious base to an empirical base as the driving force behind the economy has become more scientific/industrial and less religious. So our current core ethics, tend to be the same ethics that humanity has always had, its just that the core in-group changes as the socio-economy changes. In fact I remember reading a femminist sociologist (can't remember the name or article) who argued that a great deal of current ethics stem good and bad from the dissemination of the Birth Control Pill.

3 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GD, Your thesis about groups generally speaking is spot on! However, many individuals do not follow that general rule of economic socialization when it comes to family and close friends.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

There were broad generalized strokes in my post of course

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

Here, you are on the money ! well said !!!

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

Your quote: [ As the world gets smaller (information transfer and global economical colonization) more people are added into the group and extended privileges of "my group". When people are sectioned off somehow those priviledges are taken away. At least from my point of view.

Do groups mean division? Do you think that we should try and get rid of all groups and become one? How far does your love, compassion and ethical radius extend? Do you indirectly take advantage of some of your loved ones?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Your quote: [ As the world gets smaller (information transfer and global economical colonization) more people are added into the group and extended privileges of "my group". When people are sectioned off somehow those priviledges are taken away. At least from my point of view.

Do groups mean division? Do you think that we should try and get rid of all groups and become one? How far does your love, compassion and ethical radius extend? Do you indirectly take advantage of some of your loved ones?

That seems like it would be somewhat a biological impossibility. it also seems like a sociological impossibility. look at it series of terraced circles with you at the very middle. You extend all possible priviledges to yourself (possible privildeges = priviliges that you think are appropriate and the rationalizations to extend some of them that you don't think appropriate). This isn't to say that you do not respect or abide by sociological norms and extend special privildges to certain classes of people, however by extending a special set of priviledges you are also separating yourself from the other. Anyway the further the group gets from ego the fewer priviledges extended, or rather the less important it is that basic priviledges are enforced. problems off the top of my head about making a single group of humanity.

1) it would interfere with any semblance of personal choice. Almost anything can be used as a dividing line between groups. It would eliminate religion. commerce, family choice, race (as a social concept), ethnicity, language diversity, dress, tradition, etc...

2) Identity is based on the other. Without a comparison no one would have a real identity. No one could belong to a family, a community, anything, because belonging would make a divider.

3) people cannot keep track of that many other people intimately enough to include them in a real group. It requires quite a bit of memory and desire just to keep track of my friend's birthdays. Of course I couldn't have a group of friends because I would naturally want to treat them better than the rest of humanity.

4) People form bonds primarily by means of the other. We cannot be us as bonded without them being them.

5) The universal structure of language has inclusive and exclusive built into every known language. I/we 1st person and you/they 2nd and 3rd. It seems to be a mere geographical or situational function.

6) Our closest animal relatives naturally form groups. Chimpanzees are in fact the only non-human animal that will form a group for the express purpose of killing another animal of the same species. They do this primarily on group lines.

7) Back to extending special priviledges. Govenments of groups, not even egalitarian ones can function without the extension of special privildges to certain people. This status imbalance automatically creates us/them lines even within a small hunter gather band, let alone a world government and the beaurocracy that would ensue. we would have to change the entire nature of man to do this.

Granted some of the examples bordered on ad absurdum, but given that there is an obscene amount of overlap in grouping we must draw a firm line at the ego having the same prividges enforced with equal efficacy to achieve a one world in-group.

2 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

reasoning logic wrote:

Your quote: [ As the world gets smaller (information transfer and global economical colonization) more people are added into the group and extended privileges of "my group". When people are sectioned off somehow those priviledges are taken away. At least from my point of view.

Do groups mean division? Do you think that we should try and get rid of all groups and become one? How far does your love, compassion and ethical radius extend? Do you indirectly take advantage of some of your loved ones?

That seems like it would be somewhat a biological impossibility. it also seems like a sociological impossibility. look at it series of terraced circles with you at the very middle. You extend all possible priviledges to yourself (possible privildeges = priviliges that you think are appropriate and the rationalizations to extend some of them that you don't think appropriate). This isn't to say that you do not respect or abide by sociological norms and extend special privildges to certain classes of people, however by extending a special set of priviledges you are also separating yourself from the other. Anyway the further the group gets from ego the fewer priviledges extended, or rather the less important it is that basic priviledges are enforced. problems off the top of my head about making a single group of humanity.

1) it would interfere with any semblance of personal choice. Almost anything can be used as a dividing line between groups. It would eliminate religion. commerce, family choice, race (as a social concept), ethnicity, language diversity, dress, tradition, etc...

2) Identity is based on the other. Without a comparison no one would have a real identity. No one could belong to a family, a community, anything, because belonging would make a divider.

3) people cannot keep track of that many other people intimately enough to include them in a real group. It requires quite a bit of memory and desire just to keep track of my friend's birthdays. Of course I couldn't have a group of friends because I would naturally want to treat them better than the rest of humanity.

4) People form bonds primarily by means of the other. We cannot be us as bonded without them being them.

5) The universal structure of language has inclusive and exclusive built into every known language. I/we 1st person and you/they 2nd and 3rd. It seems to be a mere geographical or situational function.

6) Our closest animal relatives naturally form groups. Chimpanzees are in fact the only non-human animal that will form a group for the express purpose of killing another animal of the same species. They do this primarily on group lines.

7) Back to extending special priviledges. Govenments of groups, not even egalitarian ones can function without the extension of special privildges to certain people. This status imbalance automatically creates us/them lines even within a small hunter gather band, let alone a world government and the beaurocracy that would ensue. we would have to change the entire nature of man to do this.

Granted some of the examples bordered on ad absurdum, but given that there is an obscene amount of overlap in grouping we must draw a firm line at the ego having the same prividges enforced with equal efficacy to achieve a one world in-group.

When you say this, you speak as if if you seem to know the possibilities of humans! your qoute: [That seems like it would be somewhat a biological impossibility. it also seems like a sociological impossibility.

I am not sure that I would set a limit on what human beings are capable of accomplishing when the use of reason and logic are used instead of the traditions of man.

We have no idea of what we are able to accomplish or do we?

Maybe I have way to much hope for mine and your descendents than what is realistic?

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

"Love your neighbor as you love yourself" is part of a moral code many people have inherited. Your neighbor can be anybody. In your imagination, the stranger has your face. You have become the other.

We can't be homogenous socially. I don't think we're homogenous individually. The ego is a focus for a diverse psyche. That's why you can invest yourself in so many different roles in life. A state works the same way. It's a reservoir of diverse capabilities. It's heirarchy is required to martial those abilities. The state is the same thing as an ego.

From a certain point of view, you do love your neighbor as you love yourself.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

I wonder if you are talking about mirror neurons? "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" is part of a moral code many people have inherited. Your neighbor can be anybody. In your imagination, the stranger has your face. You have become the other.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

what's that?

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Neuroscience! You speak as if you may understand how the brain works to a degree!

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

That sentence is attributed to Jesus. It was part of his simplification of the Mosaic Law. Maybe Jesus had more of a science background than we think. Or not.

I think every society has it's holy-people. They stand apart and so have a vantage point on the group. So the group turns to them for answers. Religion isn't gone. It just changed.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

It seems that jesus was the most ethical that I have found but keep in mind that I have not studied all religions. It was this part of your quote that led me to my last comment.
Your quote:[Your neighbor can be anybody. In your imagination, the stranger has your face. You have become the other

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Study Buddha.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

From my studies it seems that christianity may have come from budha, But I can not say for sure.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Christianity came from Judaism. Judaism came from mythology.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You may be correct as I am not an absolutist, I can say that I have over a thousand hours in the studies of religions and this only gives me more questions. I could go on for thousands of hours about them.
It seems that the more that I know the more that I have to be wrong about.
RSL

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

You may be correct as I am not an absolutist, I can say that I have over a thousand hours in the studies of religions and this only gives me more questions. I could go on for thousands of hours about them.
It seems that the more that I know the more that I have to be wrong about.
RSL

sometimes there is too much info

where else does religion come from but from the psychology of the imagination ?

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

From my studies it seems that christianity may have come from budha, But I can not say for sure.

It's possible that Buddhist influence was present. Christianity is a fusion of the ethical outlooks of several distinct cultures.

Christianity was born out of a social crisis. At the core was the same ideas we've been talking about... how the individual engages the rest of his kind. To be an individual one must be separate. Events can unfold which produce pressure to let go of that separation and become one with the group. The Israelite perspective involved an intense protection of the group identity. When the aforementioned pressure to assimilate appeared, a psychic conflict developed which produced Christianity as a resolution.

My two cents worth on this topic goes on and on too. Very Happy

1 Reply

Is religion a psychological problem?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know