Religious Extremism

[woolley]

What about a jihadi? Could med school stretch to that or is it just the beeb and the Guardian?

[wrighty]

Nearly 25 years since I did psychiatry at med school. Don't think Jihadis were really thought about much then.

[j2bad]

The only get out clause in a mental health assessment that differentiates practising religion from a delusional or even a psychotic illness is cultural acceptability. The example we were given in med school was the belief and practice of voodoo. For a peasant in Haiti it's OK, if a middle aged bank manager from Milton Keynes does the same he's displaying signs of psychiatric illness.

 

There is not much different between Voodoo and the stuff Living Hope preach, what does that mean for a senior bank manager from Onchan?

[ballaughbiker]

 

 

The only get out clause in a mental health assessment that differentiates practising religion from a delusional or even a psychotic illness is cultural acceptability.

That's quite a powerful concept as cultural acceptability seems to be on the steep decline. Mostly.

[llap]

The only get out clause in a mental health assessment that differentiates practising religion from a delusional or even a psychotic illness is cultural acceptability. The example we were given in med school was the belief and practice of voodoo. For a peasant in Haiti it's OK, if a middle aged bank manager from Milton Keynes does the same he's displaying signs of psychiatric illness.

The field of psychiatry is mostly pseudoscience so this doesn't tell us much.

[Chinahand]

... while religious dogma tells us what?

[llap]

The same. Not much. Atheistic dogma doesn't tell us anything either.

 

Truth be told, human beings don't know shit. We may be smart compared to other animals on this planet but when it comes to perception or ability to comprehend the universe around us, we're still little better than single called life forms.

[pongo]

What about a jihadi? Could med school stretch to that or is it just the beeb and the Guardian?

 

With the proviso that I clearly don't actually know what I am talking about here - it nevertheless seems not unreasonable to me to start to think about religious terrorism as a manifestation of something like a psychopathic mental illness. Whether or not that works within a medical interpretation. Which would presumably be fairly subjective anyhow - see Wrighty's post previously. Ultimately we can call it anything we want to. It's only words. And maybe it can be seen as ticking lots of the boxes.

 

Redefining terrorism in general as a manifestation of mental illness might even help undermine its attraction as a career choice. I read an article in probably in Wired recently about the way in which IS uses the 'social media'. It's a world of world of people who see themselves as heroes and rebels. Trying to redefine that can surely do no harm. Sick in the head is generally considered a negative.

 

Granted what I am suggesting harks back to the Soviets slightly. But hey.

Edited August 4, 2016 by pongo

[ballaughbiker]

llap If by atheistic dogma you mean someone 100% sure of their position then follow the arrow back to post 215.

 

However I do, to some degree, agree with "Truth be told, human beings don't know shit" in the whole scheme of things. What a true scientist however does not then do is come to some conclusion or story based purely on belief and hope. They do however try to continually increase that knowledge based on provable evidence. That isn't any form of dogma but rejecting that stance seems very dogmatic.

[llap]

llap If by atheistic dogma you mean someone 100% sure of their position then follow the arrow back to post 215.

 

However I do, to some degree, agree with "Truth be told, human beings don't know shit" in the whole scheme of things. What a true scientist however does not then do is come to some conclusion or story based purely on belief and hope. They do however try to continually increase that knowledge based on provable evidence. That isn't any form of dogma but rejecting that stance seems very dogmatic.

 

Sorry, but your "true scientist" fits into the no true scotsman fallacy. Does such a person exist? Studies in the quack field of psychiatry would suggest otherwise. The idea that science is all based on provable evidence is laughable I'm afraid. I know the difference between theory and theory, but a lot of science is speculative and pretty much speculation based on speculation that has become "fact" purely because it has entered into orthodoxy. Science is just as tarnished by human opinion and intrigue as any of the humanities.

[the stinking enigma]

and in some cases pushed with the same zeal by those whose livelihoods depend on it

[ballaughbiker]

Not so (edit : in answer to llap). Science of all sorts is continually open to scrutiny from all others including scientists. Science does not start with a theory and then look for evidence to support it but the other way around and that process is continuous and open to continual modification and evolution as we know more. Religious belief on the other hand resists all attempts to stifle question and modification. Dogma at its finest.

 

Sure, science aint perfect but it has progressed us considerably since the industrial revolution. Religious dogma seems to have been less beneficial.

 

 

PS use of the description true < just about anything> exposes the writer to accusation of that specified logical fallacy. I should not have handed that to you on a plate.

Edited August 5, 2016 by ballaughbiker

[ballaughbiker]

 

 

and in some cases pushed with the same zeal by those whose livelihoods depend on it

True just like the dodgy data that was manipulated in the MMR / single vaccine scandal. However it was rooted out and discredited by processes described in #237.

 

The livelihoods of those profiting from simple belief that cannot be questioned seems far far worse.

[the stinking enigma]

Not so. Science of all sorts is continually open to scrutiny from all others including scientists. Science does not start with a theory and then look for evidence to support it but the other way around and that process is continuous and open to continual modification and evolution as we know more. Religious belief on the other had resists all attempts to stifle question and modification. Dogma at its finest.

 

Sure, science aint perfect but it has progressed us considerably since the industrial revolution. Religious dogma seems to have been less beneficial.

 

 

PS use of the description true < just about anything> exposes the writer to accusation of that specified logical fallacy. I should not have handed that to you on a plate.

no need to worry, was way over my head

[woolley]

 

What about a jihadi? Could med school stretch to that or is it just the beeb and the Guardian?

 

With the proviso that I clearly don't actually know what I am talking about here - it nevertheless seems not unreasonable to me to start to think about religious terrorism as a manifestation of something like a psychopathic mental illness. Whether or not that works within a medical interpretation. Which would presumably be fairly subjective anyhow - see Wrighty's post previously. Ultimately we can call it anything we want to. It's only words. And maybe it can be seen as ticking lots of the boxes.

 

Redefining terrorism in general as a manifestation of mental illness might even help undermine its attraction as a career choice. I read an article in probably in Wired recently about the way in which IS uses the 'social media'. It's a world of world of people who see themselves as heroes and rebels. Trying to redefine that can surely do no harm. Sick in the head is generally considered a negative.

 

Granted what I am suggesting harks back to the Soviets slightly. But hey.

 

Anything would be preferable to facing the reality that we have imported, and continue to import and nurture, a murderous ideology whose stated aim is the destruction of Western civilisation. That is too hard to comprehend and very inconvenient for the conventional wisdom, so let's make something up instead that makes it seem more mundane.