Self Delusion: The bastion of sanity

[Mangel]

Why are we humans prone to self delusion?

I think the answer is simple: We are genetically predispositioned to self delusion to avoid outright despair.
Let me site a case that I think illustrates the point.
A woman was crying on tv, telling the camera how her house had been bombed by the US and all her family was dead(Iraq). She kept saying though, each second sentence, stuff like: ‘Praise Allah.’ and ‘Why has Allah allowed this to happen?’ and ‘Allah will give me vengeance.’
Now…imagine if she didn’t believe in Allah. Imagine, amidst her grief and rage, that she realised she was completely impotent, that the justice she sought was unlikely to eventuate on those directly or indirectly responsible, and she was…how do I put this…’completely stuffed.’
The one thing that she had left, to give her life meaning, was the one thing that couldn’t get taken away from her - her belief in a divine being(and hence, divine justice). Now, magnify this a few billion-fold across the planet, and I think that explains most of religion. Right?

So, from that perspective, would it be ethical to prove to such people, who have pretty much nothing going for them, that there is no god?
(sortof example: ‘Oh, that faith healer you’ve given your life savings to…he’s a con-man and here’s the proof.’)

Well…is it?

[UrsulaV]

So, from that perspective, would it be ethical to prove to such people, who have pretty much nothing going for them, that there is no god?

Unfortunately, a lot of people also use religion in order to bomb the hell out've people. Some days it seems like everybody with an explosive thinks they're on a mission from God.

I think religion's like a drug, opiate of the masses as 'twere. For some people, it has great results, and helps them in their particular despair. But for some other people, (a minority, sure) it makes them psychotic and violence-prone and justifies every nasty thing that they ever wanted to do.

A drug that had such nasty and horrible side-effects would be either pulled off the market, and the company sued into extinction, or at the very least, it would be hedged about severely with warning labels and doctors would get charts with all the contraindications. "Do not prescribe religion for unemployed young males in socioeconomically disadvantaged companies. Do not prescribe religion if patient is suffering megalomania or xenophobia. Monitor patient's intake of religion carefully. Overdose is to be avoided."

So I think the ethical question is basically the same as any other drug with potentially horrible side-effects. Send it off to the FDA!

[PatKelley]

RELEGIN
(humanist pontificate HCL)

RELEGIN is a unique hope-promoting agent that is indicated to improve hopefulness in patients with excessive sadness (ES) associated with poverty, depression/oppression syndrome (DOS), or no work social disorder (NWSD).

In DOS, RELEGIN is indicated as an adjunct to standard treatment(s) for the underlying obstruction.

Side effects may include:
Social: Fanatacism and paying too much attention to others business. Stratification. Wealth concentration. Obsequiousness, and trouble sleeping.
Political: Theocracy has been reported in 5% of users in population, with the side effects spilling over to others with whom they come into contact.
Emotional: Delusion, paranoia, depression, hostility, anxiety and hallucination have all been reported as adverse events; use caution and beware not to overdose. Overuse of RELEGIN has been shown to cause a psychological dependancy leading to catatonia and suggestible personality, and in some cases to death (Jim Jones et al).

Consult with a friend prior to starting any brand of RELEGIN.

[.13.]

So, from that perspective, would it be ethical to prove to such people, who have pretty much nothing going for them, that there is no god?
(sortof example: ‘Oh, that faith healer you’ve given your life savings to…he’s a con-man and here’s the proof.’)

Well…is it?

They would be better off seeking help from other sources. That woman from your post could for example rely on her friends and neighbours. And seek psychological help for her trauma. She could also demand justice in earthly courts. Though there are no guarantees of success. But then again are there any guarantees of divine justice either? She shouldn't rebuild her life based on a delusion.

And for the faith healer example: It would be unethical not to prove that. Even if the victim couldn't get back his life savings atleast he could be encouraged to seek proper medical help. And that could save his life. Or atleast improve the quality of life for the time he has left.

A question for you: Would you consider it unethical to cure the delutions of the mentally ill?

[UrsulaV]

RELEGIN
(humanist pontificate HCL)

RELEGIN is a unique hope-promoting agent that is indicated to improve hopefulness in patients with excessive sadness (ES) associated with poverty, depression/oppression syndrome (DOS), or no work social disorder (NWSD).

In DOS, RELEGIN is indicated as an adjunct to standard treatment(s) for the underlying obstruction.

Side effects may include:
Social: Fanatacism and paying too much attention to others business. Stratification. Wealth concentration. Obsequiousness, and trouble sleeping.
Political: Theocracy has been reported in 5% of users in population, with the side effects spilling over to others with whom they come into contact.
Emotional: Delusion, paranoia, depression, hostility, anxiety and hallucination have all been reported as adverse events; use caution and beware not to overdose. Overuse of RELEGIN has been shown to cause a psychological dependancy leading to catatonia and suggestible personality, and in some cases to death (Jim Jones et al).

Consult with a friend prior to starting any brand of RELEGIN.

I anticipate the commercials with great glee!

Hmm, if they follow the usual sort of drug commercials, we'll see two beautiful people biking or running through a field of flowers for no apparent reason...

[Mangel]

They would be better off seeking help from other sources. That woman from your post could for example rely on her friends and neighbours. And seek psychological help for her trauma. She could also demand justice in earthly courts. Though there are no guarantees of success. But then again are there any guarantees of divine justice either? She shouldn't rebuild her life based on a delusion.

The problem with all those alternatives is that they are likely to fail. When you've had pretty much everything you care about taken away, a person needs drastic measures to cope, such as a severe delusion of divine retribution. I think, essentially, as far as coping measures go, strong religious fervour seems to be a good one - at least under such drastic circumstances.

And for the faith healer example: It would be unethical not to prove that. Even if the victim couldn't get back his life savings atleast he could be encouraged to seek proper medical help. And that could save his life. Or atleast improve the quality of life for the time he has left.

I think, if we are going to talk about ethics, we'd have to define what our priorities are. If the person is happy and content as they are, but will be emotionally crushed with the truth, is it right to brandish the truth like a club?

A question for you: Would you consider it unethical to cure the delutions of the mentally ill?

I shouldn't think so, but I would hate to generalise. One assumes the individual would be better served knowing the truth, but there would be exceptions to this.

[.13.]

The problem with all those alternatives is that they are likely to fail.

Based on what? I would think that tangible help from your friends/neighbours/relatives or professional phsycological help would be much more constructive than delusions.


When you've had pretty much everything you care about taken away, a person needs drastic measures to cope, such as a severe delusion of divine retribution. I think, essentially, as far as coping measures go, strong religious fervour seems to be a good one - at least under such drastic circumstances.


I'm not very familiar with phsycology I admit that. But isn't severe delusion a sign of not coping? Delusions may be comforting as a shortterm "solution" (first few days maybe) but you can't really rebuild your life on them.


I think, if we are going to talk about ethics, we'd have to define what our priorities are. If the person is happy and content as they are, but will be emotionally crushed with the truth, is it right to brandish the truth like a club?


Are you saying it is better to die delusional than to seek medical help? Better than increasing the quality of one's remainin life and spending more time with friends and family? Modern medicine might even cure the disease.

Also that person might want to start legal action against the "healer". Possibly putting him out of busines so others might not get fooled by him. That might perhaps save some more lives.


I shouldn't think so, but I would hate to generalise. One assumes the individual would be better served knowing the truth, but there would be exceptions to this.


I believe one would have a better life living in the reality and trying to make most of it. Ofcourse there can be exceptions to everything but focusing on them isn't very productive. But in principle we seem to agree. Now my question is: Do you give religious delusions some special meaning that it would be unethical to cure those?

[Mangel]

Delusions may be comforting as a shortterm "solution" (first few days maybe) but you can't really rebuild your life on them.

I disagree %100, and we have a world full of statistics to examine. Religion is a delusion and has a lifelong stranglehold on billions of people.

Based on what? I would think that tangible help from your friends/neighbours/relatives or professional phsycological help would be much more constructive than delusions.

Keep in mind that some people have no support structures/asset base/friends/relatives. Professional phsychological help would be completely out of the question for a significant portion of the world population. There are plenty of very poor people.

But in principle we seem to agree. Now my question is: Do you give religious delusions some special meaning that it would be unethical to cure those?

But ultimately no, religion is not a 'special' delusion, but it seems to be a convenient one.

Could it be, maybe, that in some form, religion is a good thing, despite it being a lie. So, before we go around curing people we need to consider why they decided to believe the lie in the first place. Most of the time fundamentalism is associated with poverty. I mean...if my life was going nowhere, and I was dirt poor, maybe I'd want to fantasise about heaven and burning heretics as well. All evidence seems to point to it being a natural coping mechanism with life - a mind's natural response, given the right circumstances.
Under that light, it would seem unethical to take away such a potent coping mechanism.
I suppose a question might be, if we created a time machine, would you seek out Jesus, the first buddha, Muhammed, John Smith, etc, and show the modern world exactly what they were? The effects would be far reaching...

[.13.]

I disagree %100, and we have a world full of statistics to examine. Religion is a delusion and has a lifelong stranglehold on billions of people.

Yes but I'd assume most of them are pretty practical about their religion. Slight delusions are usually pretty harmles (Though they may escalate). But building your life on a delusion is something completely different. And it is my opinion that it is very harmfull to do that.


Keep in mind that some people have no support structures/asset base/friends/relatives. Professional phsychological help would be completely out of the question for a significant portion of the world population. There are plenty of very poor people.

But my point was that when they are available they are preferable over delusions. Would you agree with that?

I'd think poor people have neighbours or friends. We could try to argue every special case there is but that would be pointles. I agree that people without any help might likely end up delusional. Now the question is what to do if/when help becomes available. If we would be ready to prevent those delusions, why shouldn't we try to treat them if help arrives too late?


But ultimately no, religion is not a 'special' delusion, but it seems to be a convenient one.

I don't think it's more or less convenient than any other delusion. And convenience is not a good reason to leave someone untreated.


Could it be, maybe, that in some form, religion is a good thing, despite it being a lie. So, before we go around curing people we need to consider why they decided to believe the lie in the first place. Most of the time fundamentalism is associated with poverty. I mean...if my life was going nowhere, and I was dirt poor, maybe I'd want to fantasise about heaven and burning heretics as well. All evidence seems to point to it being a natural coping mechanism with life - a mind's natural response, given the right circumstances.
Under that light, it would seem unethical to take away such a potent coping mechanism.

I view fundamentalism as an extreme religious delusion. And that has a great likelihood to cause harm for other people. When dealing with delusions we must also consider its effects on others (Like burning heretics in your example.). Not just the deluted person alone.

That's why even mild delusions should be treated. It seems delusions are "infectuous". Non-religious people become religious when religious people convert them. Would you consider it more or less ethical to expose others for the effects of the delusion than helping the deluted person back to reality?

If your life was going no where which would be more constructive: Trying to do something about it? Or sitting on your ass in delution? I agree that fantasies are great and important. But you are heading into trouble when you start believing they are real.

Could you give sources for the evidence you spoke of? As I said I don't know much about phsycology. But isn't delusion a sign that you are actually not coping with reality?


I suppose a question might be, if we created a time machine, would you seek out Jesus, the first buddha, Muhammed, John Smith, etc, and show the modern world exactly what they were? The effects would be far reaching...

I agree. But I also think those effects would be beneficiall (Wheter the divine nature of those persons was proved or disproved.). Why should we put our faith in some magical place that we have no evidence of, when we could try to make the best of what we really have?

[Mangel]

Yes but I'd assume most of them are pretty practical about their religion. Slight delusions are usually pretty harmles (Though they may escalate). But building your life on a delusion is something completely different. And it is my opinion that it is very harmfull to do that.

Well, the people you describe who 'build there life on a delusion' would surely describe anyone who spends a significant portion of their week in prayer, going to mass, worrying about heaven and hell, handing out 'save your soul' pamphlets, etc. Let's face it, a LOT of people spend a LOT of time on religion. These people are indeed living their life this way.

But my point was that when they are available they are preferable over delusions. Would you agree with that?

Absolutely. But my point is that they are not available. As in, sure, even poor people have neighbours(and I'm talking about the have-nots here), but sane, willing-to-help, non-delusional neighbours? That is a whole different story. If your house has been bombed in Iraq, are you really likely to get advice that doesn't have some reference to Allah?

I'd think poor people have neighbours or friends. We could try to argue every special case there is but that would be pointles. I agree that people without any help might likely end up delusional. Now the question is what to do if/when help becomes available. If we would be ready to prevent those delusions, why shouldn't we try to treat them if help arrives too late?

In an ideal world, sure, we'd get good help from birth. But the facts speak for themselves - alchoholism, neglect, fundamentalist propoganda, exposure to drugs, etc, this ain't nivana we're living in. People look for answers to their problems and often this has to come from the inside - hence self delusion, or an open mind to suggestion. People are all too willing to create this ideal fantasy world which trivialises the problems in their own life - 'oh look, I'll get fifty virgins in the afterlife if I fight the heretics'

I view fundamentalism as an extreme religious delusion. And that has a great likelihood to cause harm for other people. When dealing with delusions we must also consider its effects on others (Like burning heretics in your example.). Not just the deluted person alone.

True.

That's why even mild delusions should be treated. It seems delusions are "infectuous". Non-religious people become religious when religious people convert them. Would you consider it more or less ethical to expose others for the effects of the delusion than helping the deluted person back to reality?

Obviously, in an ideal world, we'd want everyone to cope without delusion. But are we in an ideal world? No, no we aren't.

If your life was going no where which would be more constructive: Trying to do something about it? Or sitting on your ass in delution? I agree that fantasies are great and important. But you are heading into trouble when you start believing they are real.

It is about practical reality. If I'm dirt poor, and have a 0.01% chance of bettering myself and achieving the happy successful future that I see others are getting who were born with wealth, I can either strive to achieve that future, or I can create a delusion to make it not matter. Now, which is the better odds for happiness? Seriously, which is the better choice? The 0.01% chance? The sub-conscious quickly works out what to do here.

Could you give sources for the evidence you spoke of? As I said I don't know much about phsycology. But isn't delusion a sign that you are actually not coping with reality?

By evidence I was referring to the physical state the world is in, which I suppose is then capable of subjective analysis. Consider the strength that religion has had in history, and in the present. It has been a powerful force to reckon with at any point in history your care to look at. So, examining this evidence, one can argue that religion must have at least some sort of positive influence, otherwise we all wouldn't have taken it on so much.

I agree. But I also think those effects would be beneficiall (Wheter the divine nature of those persons was proved or disproved.). Why should we put our faith in some magical place that we have no evidence of, when we could try to make the best of what we really have?

Ideally, of course, we want people rational. But humans are flawed. Easy answers help people to cope. And from there springs religion. Who are we to take away a simple easy answer that makes life worth living?

[.13.]

Well, the people you describe who 'build there life on a delusion' would surely describe anyone who spends a significant portion of their week in prayer, going to mass, worrying about heaven and hell, handing out 'save your soul' pamphlets, etc. Let's face it, a LOT of people spend a LOT of time on religion. These people are indeed living their life this way.

In this paragraph I think you hit the nail dead on. "worrying about heaven and hell". Now if you are worried because of your delusion I don't see any problems in curing you. And what I meant with building your life on delusion is that really make that delusion dictate your life. Not just your sundays and some prayer. When you let your delusion to dictate that you can't have medical treatment it's pretty serious. It's their delusion though. I know it's a tricky thing. On the other hand we shouldn't force medical treatment on anyone. But we should also try to help them out. But when the children of those people has to follow that delusion without a choice then I think we should intervene. Also they might convert others to that faith so atleast something should be done.

I admit, I don't have all the answers.


It is about practical reality. If I'm dirt poor, and have a 0.01% chance of bettering myself and achieving the happy successful future that I see others are getting who were born with wealth, I can either strive to achieve that future, or I can create a delusion to make it not matter. Now, which is the better odds for happiness? Seriously, which is the better choice? The 0.01% chance? The sub-conscious quickly works out what to do here.

But delusions have their limits. With delusions your situation is more likely to get worse than without them. You might get some short term comfort from your delusions but on the long run you probably suffer more because of them. I know that help might not be available for everyone. But if you don't even try your odds for getting it are pretty small. Untill you become a threat to the society and then the help might no be what you'd like.


By evidence I was referring to the physical state the world is in, which I suppose is then capable of subjective analysis. Consider the strength that religion has had in history, and in the present. It has been a powerful force to reckon with at any point in history your care to look at. So, examining this evidence, one can argue that religion must have at least some sort of positive influence, otherwise we all wouldn't have taken it on so much.

We seem to agree on many things. Like it is better to be rational and get earthly help if it's available. But here I disagree.

When a religion survives it doesn't necessarily mean it has any positive influence. Like you said "It has been a powerful force to reckon with at any point in history your care to look at.". So is there a necessity for positive influence? Or would you agree that the power would have been enough?


Ideally, of course, we want people rational. But humans are flawed. Easy answers help people to cope. And from there springs religion. Who are we to take away a simple easy answer that makes life worth living?

I think you have misunderstood me a bit. I don't mean to cure the delusional by just thrashing their delusions and leave them alone then. And that wouldn't even be enough. Curing someone of their delusions will take time and a lot of help. And reality would become the reason what makes life worth living (Besides even the delusional kill themselves.). And that can be achieved with proper help. I know we don't have the resources to help everyone. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help those we can.