CAN SCIENCE SHOW US THAT THE TAKING OF RELIGION SERIOUSLY BY A BELIEVER IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPAIRMENT?
Whether religious faith or the God assumption are psychological impairments or disorders is important. But even if they are not, even in some cases, they are still impairing your power to do science.
There is nothing sacred about the way nature delivers the body. A trans person might see their experience and surgery as sacred but this risks empowering those who will ruin their rights. They will reason that, "If everything is sacred nothing is sacred! So some trans affirmation if not all goes too far." That will always be in the back of their minds. This is not just about trans but about body autonomy in all its forms such as abortion rights. The scientist influenced by religion will let fear of the "sacred" hinder their work. It can even ruin their integrity. Scientists have always been expected by religion to keep out of studies it does not like.
Science has found that the ingredients for life are out there. They are on some of the other planets and on their moons. Nobody really supposes that this means the ingredients need the divine to organise them or to make an input to put life in them. The Bible speaks of the breath of God making a fully constructed body, Adam's, alive. Just like an apple will fall from a tree without an agent making it happen so the building blocks of life can come together and result in a living creature. Science and God being complimentary is a lie.
Going through the science motions is not science. A religious scientist can make discoveries but that shows the science in a sense does itself.
We all have misperceptions and impairments in our heads and in the way we see things. Religion could be another example of that.
Whether the person just needs a gentle correction or to go for months to a psychologist, they must be helped. A gentle correction is as much therapy as the latter.
Some try to make out that if religionists are disturbed in the mind then scientists are too. Such arguments are based on supposing that bias and a gripping need to believe can be psychological difficulties.
The fact that we know we should ask if faith in God, if praying, if following a religion is truly healthy shows that something is telling us they might not be. We know a disturbance in the mind when we come across one.
Delusions can range from mild ones to very extreme ones.
We worry that they might lead to the person harming themselves accidentally or becoming too vulnerable for they are not in line with reality enough. Lies and errors and untruths automatically lead to an uncertainty you can do without. An error in maths means the rest of your very long equation is misleading. The person needs to be helped to focus on evidence in order to overcome their delusions.
The anthropologist Jonathan Marks in Why I Am Not a
Scientist: Anthropology and Modern Knowledge (University of California, 2009)
tells us that that scientists often see what they want to see. Their methods and
peer reviews are a lot less objective and fair than people think. Even the
amount of the funding money available can affect what the scientist concludes
from his experiments.
The proper view is that though science can be biased
and unfair it is still the best method we have for getting at the truth. At
least in principle, science extols being open-minded and looking at what is
there. If science is faulty then religion is worse. Choose the lesser curse.
Christians use such statements to show that science
does not give certainty. But they only weaken their own religion by doing so.
Atheists say that Christians are too sure of
themselves when nobody should be that sure. Christians reply that this argument
undermines atheists too when they are very sure of themselves. Suppose they are
right. We can then say yes it does undermine such atheists. But it undermines
Christians more. Choose the lesser evil! Atheists resist the temptation to
believe in a God that adores them. Christians do not. So the Christians should
not be so sure of their beliefs being true when they are that biased. Plus if
atheists are right, then they may know it. In that case, they are not
undermining themselves by saying Christians can't be that sure their faith is
true!
Also, Christians assert that if an atheist says
nobody can be sure how can the atheist know that nobody can be sure? Perhaps
there are people out there who are sure that their beliefs are correct.
Christians say that there is
evidence for the resurrection and that if we only believe things because we want
to and not because of the evidence that does not mean there is no evidence for
the resurrection (page 19, The Infidel Delusion). True. But it does mean we
never believe because of the evidence even if we use it. Christians then would
be lying bigots for saying they have an honest and justified belief in the
resurrection. Even if there is evidence for the resurrection, there might as
well be none for all the good it does Christians.
Scientists believe that we are hardwired to filter
out counterevidence. Suppose all our beliefs are more biased than what we think.
It follows then that we should only believe what we need to get by on in this
world. Eg, that doctors may cure you, that food keeps you alive, what we are
told about maths and geography is correct etc. To start getting religious is
going too far. The further you go the more bigoted you are in danger of
becoming.
If nature is thrown together and is so
wonderful by luck then this hardwiring is to be expected. My
bias will be corrected by somebody else for we are not all biased in
the same way. That is fine. But to argue that a reliable
God would do this to you and yet he grounds science, for he made all
things, will backfire. It is science to examine the apple that
fell and why it fell when you know there is nobody there to tamper
or lie. If you think a creator could be playing tricks then
your motivation to study and research will be ruined.
Christians say that many scientists believe that people by nature only believe what they want to believe. Christians view themselves as an exception. They contradict their claim that human nature is biased and unfair with belief and then they contradict this by denying that they are among such people. This is a clear example of delusion and it is rather a strong one though it may not lead to dramatic and worrying behaviours.
We notice the following.
Being informed about what the religion teaches and following it indicates that delusion is at work.
And what if the religion disregards truth and evidence? It wants to be deluded then. It wants many to be deluded.
If Christianity is not fully mentally well this will only apply to those who are giving a higher level of commitment than is appropriate for a man-made creation.
We conclude that a diagnosis of delusion may be reachable in many individual cases.
